1952-05-26

Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege: it has been said the light that shines farthest shines brightest at home. We have heard a good deal about taking care of the home front. On Wednesday of this week there is to be a big game when the press gallery expects to put it all over the house. The game is to be a benefit for the sake of the page boy who broke his leg on Thursday evening. The privilege is that those who do not attend the game can contribute. It would be worth any man's while also to see the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the mound doing his stuff, the Speaker swinging at it, and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) trying to stop everything.



REDISTRIBUTION


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My point of privilege is based on citation 198 of Beauchesne's third edition:
Scandalous charges or imputations directed against members of a select committee are equivalent to libellous charges brought against the house itself.
In Saturday's issue of the Winnipeg Free Press there appears a story with respect to constituency changes in Manitoba. I read this sentence:
In drawing the redistribution map the Manitoba chairman said he and his fellow members had worked "on a scientific basis".
The chairman referred to is the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau). My point of privilege is that as one of the alleged fellow members of that committee I had nothing whatever to do with the drawing of the map. It was presented to the committee by the chairman. The same newspaper publishes two maps, one of the province as a whole, one of the city of Winnipeg, and says that they are the proposals of the provincial subcommittee.
As a member of that subcommittee I protest against this affront. They are only the proposals of the chairman himself.
Mr J. A. Ross (Souris): Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege, I wish also to refer to these constituency changes in Manitoba, without repeating what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. He read the sentence which says that in drawing the redistribution map the Manitoba chairman said he and his fellow members had worked "on a scientific basis". I was a member of that subcommittee for Manitoba. The article also points out that this map is the proposal of the provincial subcommittee on federal redistribution. My matter of privilege is this. At our second subcommittee meeting we were handed a map by the chairman. There were only three of us present, the chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself. We were told that this map was final and would be presented to the committee. I had nothing whatever to do with the drawing of this map, and I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had either. We are not parties to the proposal which will be presented to the general committee, so that this article from that point of view is absolutely untrue.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, several days ago, questions were asked about the recent meetings of the international wheat council held in London. The eighth session of the council, which was opened on April 17 to consider an extension of the international wheat agreement, adjourned on May 9.
At the conclusion of the meetings, a short statement was issued by the chairman of the council summarizing the proceedings which should, I think, be placed on the record. I quote:
The council has carried out a review of the provisions of the agreement and has decided that certain changes in the agreement would be desirable.

Wheat-International Agreement
On the major question of price, the council concluded that fuller examination was required of some of the factors affecting the maximum and minimum prices to be incorporated in an extended agreement. The council wished to examine further, among other things, whether at stated intervals there should be an automatic variation of maximum and minimum prices based on some index which would reflect changes in the general price level.
The council decided to set up a continuing committee to investigate this question of flexibility and other matters which require to be further explored beiore the council can reach conclusions upon them. This committee will report to the next regular bi-annual session of the council which will begin on the 1st July next.
Under a provision of the present agreement, the council is under obligation to communicate to the exporting and importing countries, not later than the 31st July, 1952, its recommendations regarding the extension of the agreement beyond the 31st July, 1953, when the present agreement expires. It will therefore be for the council during its regular session in July to make recommendations on this subject. These are expected to be of an interim character and the council's detailed recommendations on amendments to the agreement, including those on maximum and minimum prices, will be for decision when the council resumes its eighth session late in 1952.
That is the end of the official statement by the council. May I add a word or two about the attitude taken by Canada at the meetings:
The Canadian delegation went to London prepared to negotiate a renewal of the agreement. For that purpose, the government appointed five advisers from the principal producer organizations in the prairie provinces to be available for consultations on the spot.
With the unanimous agreement of all the advisers, the Canadian delegation took the position that a substantial increase in prices was justified in a renewed agreement and made proposals along that line. The United States and Australia, the two other principal exporters, also put forward proposals for a substantially higher range of prices.
It soon appeared that there was a wide gap between the respective views of the exporting countries, on the one hand, and those of the importing countries, on the other hand, as to the level of the price range for a renewed agreement. This disparity in views was not altogether surprising considering that a renewed agreement would not come into effect until August, 1953, some fifteen months hence.
At the meeting just concluded, no country-indicated that it was not prepared to continue the agreement. It was agreed, as the official statement indicates, that full-scale negotiations should be resumed at a later date, towards the end of the present calendar year, when all parties will have a clearer impression of the conditions which will prevail at the time that a renewed agreement would come into operation.
May I say in conclusion that the government is particularly grateful for the assistance


given by the advisers from the farm organizations who, I am glad to say, gave complete support at all times to the views and proposals put forward by the Canadian delegation at the conference.



USE OF CANADIAN TROOPS AT KOJE ISLAND PRISONER-OF-WAR CAMP

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement in regard to reports that Canadian troops have been moved to Koje island, in Korea, to participate in the guarding of communist prisoners of war on that island.
On the afternoon of Thursday, May 22, the chief of the general staff received a telegram from the officer commanding, 25th Canadian infantry brigade, Korea, to the effect that he had received an order from the first (commonwealth) division issued in accordance with a request from the United Nations command to post a company from the brigade to guard duty at the prisoner-of-war camp on Koje island, and that he was accordingly assigning a company from the Royal Canadian Regiment for this duty.
On receipt of this message an inquiry regarding the order was immediately made in Washington. The inquiry confirmed that the order had been given, and that orders had also been given for the posting of units from certain other national forces under the United Nations command to similar duty. It also appeared that the movement of the Canadian troops in question was under way.
The government feels that it is essential that the Canadian policy in respect of the breaking up of the Canadian brigade for miscellaneous duties in Korea should be made clear. A note has accordingly been presented to the state department in Washington.
The following is the text of this note:
The Canadian government recognizes the importance of re-establishing and maintaining effective control over communist prisoners of war captured in Korean operations. The Canadian government also recognizes that custody of prisoners of war is a military responsibility which should be performed in accordance with military requirements.
It has, however, been a long established policy of the Canadian government that Canadian forces dispatched abroad for military operations should remain under Canadian command and control and that, except in the event of a military emergency which does not permit of time for consultation, no part of these forces should be detached therefrom except after consultation and with the agreement of the Canadian government.
The Canadian government therefore views with concern the dispatch of a company of the 25th infantry brigade to Koje island without prior consultation with the Canadian government, and hopes that it may be possible to re-unite this

company with the rest of the Canadian brigade as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Canadian forces concerned will, of course, carry out loyally the orders of the unified command with respect to participation in guarding prisoners of war on Koje island. The Canadian government also wishes to be reassured that, if it is proposed in the future to detach any Canadian forces from Canadian command and control for military or other duties, this will be done only after consultation and with the consent of the Canadian government, except in the event of a military emergency which does not permit of time for such consultation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question arising out of the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs? In view of the part Canadians are playing in connection with the custody of prisoners of war, whether for a temporary or a prolonged period, will Canada have a voice in other matters with reference to prisoners of war, particularly in relation to the truce talks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not wish at this time to add anything to the note I have just read. However, in regard to consultation, I should point out that there are regular meetings in Washington in which Canadian representatives, as well as the representatives of other countries with forces in Korea, participate. In those meetings we are kept generally informed as to the progress or lack of progress of the truce and other negotiations in Korea; and included in those negotiations of course is the question of prisoners of war.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is, we are informed but not necessarily consulted.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 262, to incorporate Equitable Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Cannon.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Leo Kendall.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Tom Barnard Clayton Gould.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Helene Laura Solomon Wiseberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Joan Borland White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 267, for the relief of John Laurence McDonough.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of Jean Wiseman Schwartz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Judith Sorel Riven Gainsbury.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Agnes Bertha Baugh Guimont.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Genevieve Flora Agatha Brown Smith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Marcelle Alice Beliveau Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Marcel Despa-iis.-Mr. Winkler.
Questions
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Joseph Wilfrid Ernest Senecal.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat, oats, barley, flax, were diverted to mills in western Canada in the crop year 1950-51?
2.	What was the rate and the amount of the diversion charge?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	As the diverting of wheat, oats and barley to mills and other processors in western Canada is a matter of negotiation, arrangement and settlement between elevator companies and the mills, processors, etc. concerned, the record of such diversions and diversion charges paid are not the subject of accounting by the Canadian wheat board.
2.	As pointed out in answer No. 1, diversion charges are a matter of negotiation between the handling companies and the western mills, processors, etc. concerned. In 1950-51 the diversion charges agreed upon between the 'handling companies and the mills, processors, etc. were as follows:
Wheat-2 cents per bushel on grades No.
1	hard, Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 northern, Nos. 1,
2	and 3 C. W. Garnet, No. 1 Alberta Red Winter, Nos. 2 and 3 Alberta Winter, Nos. 1, 2 and 3 C. W. Amber Durum, C. W. White Spring, and 2J cents per bushel on all other grades; with an additional 1 cent per bushel on wheat grading tough No. 4 northern, and an additional J cent per bushel on all other grades of tough wheat, in accordance with arrangements between the companies and the mills.
Oats-3 cents per bushel on all grades in accordance with arrangements between the companies and the mills, and exclusive of quality premiums.
Barley-3 cents per bushel on all grades in accordance with arrangements between the companies and the mills, and exclusive of quality premiums.
Flax-As the Canadian wheat board does not handle flaxseed, it has no knowledge of diversion charges applicable to flaxseed.
For reasons stated in answer No. 1, the board has no knowledge of the total diversion charges paid.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	Have any instructions been given for the drawing of plans for a new Canadian National station at Windsor, Ontario?

Questions
2.	If so, have any such plans been drawn or prepared for a new station at Windsor, Ontario?
3.	If not, is it the intention of using any plans already prepared for any other location in the erection of a Canadian National station at Windsor, Ontario?
4.	Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to build a new station at Windsor, Ontario? If so, when?


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	General layout plans have been completed.
3.	No.
4.	Faced with the necessity of making large capital expenditures in a period when key materials and labour are in short supply, the Canadian National Railways have been following the policy of giving precedence to projects designed to achieve economies and improve the efficiency of operation. The desirability of replacing the old station at Windsor will not be lost sight of in future planning of capital expenditures.



H.M.C.S. &quot;MAGNIFICENT&quot;

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What expenditures have been made on (a) damage repairs; (b) modernization, improvements or alterations of all kinds to H.M.C.S. Magnificent, during the year 1951 and to date in 1952?
2.	In what shipyards were such repairs and alterations made?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1 and 2.
January 1, 1951, to May 15, 1952. (a) $1,705.00 for damage repairs carried out by Saint John Drydock, Saint John, N.B. (b) $65,289.00 for improvements etc., carried out by Halifax Shipyards Limited and H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, N.S.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Green:: 1.	How many Canadian soldiers convicted in Korea by court martial have appealed?
2.	How long was each such soldier held in custody before trial?
3.	What was the result of the appeal in each case?
4.	How much time elapsed in each case between the conviction and the delivery of minutes of the court martial to the accused?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: A. Tried under the Militia Act and the Army Act for offences committed but not disposed of, prior to coming into force of the disciplinary parts of the National Defence Act on September 1, 1951:
1.	Four.
2.	149, 158, 152 and 113 days.

3.	(a) One appeal against the legality of the finding was allowed.
(b)	One appeal against the severity of the sentence was allowed and the sentence reduced to fifteen years imprisonment and discharge with ignominy.
(c)	Two are pending hearing by the court martial appeal board.
4.	132, 141, 142 and 244 days.
B. Tried under the National Defence Act:
1.	Two.
2.	84 and 37 days.
3.	Both are pending hearing by the court martial appeal board.
4.	47 and 57 days.



EQUIPMENT FOR NATO-CHECKING ON ARRIVAL

Mr. Pearkes:: How were the arms, stores and equipment which were sent from Canada to NATO checked and accounted for on arrival in Europe?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: Canadian army personnel in conjunction with the shipping agents check by means of ordnance issue vouchers all equipment and stores as they are loaded on the vessel.
Ocean bills of lading are prepared by the shipping agent of company concerned.
One copy each of the ordnance issue vouchers and the ocean bills of lading are retained by the captain of the ship.
One copy of the ordnance issue vouchers and the ocean bills of lading are forwarded to the official representative of the recipient country.
One copy of the ocean bills of lading is retained by army headquarters as a receipt for the equipment and stores shipped.
The recipient country is financially responsible for the movement of the equipment and stores overseas and therefore responsible for its checking and accounting on arrival in Europe.



GRAIN HANDLED BY ELEVATOR COMPANIES

Mr. Fair:: How many bushels of wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax were handled by the elevator companies operating in the prairie provinces or operating terminal elevators, during the crop year 1950-51?


Mr. Mcllraith:: (a) Primary marketings at country elevators, 1950-51:
Wheat	 363,272,769 bushels
Oats	
101,123,641	"Barley	
82,769,107	"Rye	
7,398,918	"Flax	
3,034,544	"
(b) Grain receipts at public, semi-public, private terminal and mill elevators, 1950-51 crop year:
Wheat	 307,491,638 bushels
Oats	
84,253,723	"Barley	
72,820,146	"Rye	
7,819,814	"Flax	
3,930,082	"
Questions



INTERNATIONAL SALMON FISHERIES COMMISSION


Mr. Fulford:: What is the total of travelling expenses and living allowances paid each Canadian member of the international salmon fisheries commission since 1937?


Mr. MacNaught:: Fiscal year	Name
1937-1938	W. A. Found 	
1938-1939	W. A. Found 	
1939-1940	Nil
1940-1941	Nil
1941-1942	T. Reid 	
1942-1943	T. Reid 	
1943-1944	T. Reid 	
1944-1945	T. Reid 	
1945-1946	T. Reid 	
1946-1947	T. Reid 	
1947-1948	T. Reid 	
1948-1949	T. Reid 	
Olof Hanson 	1949-1950	T. Reid 	
Olof Hanson 	1950-1951	T. Reid 	
Olof Hanson 	1951-1952	T. Reid 	
Olof Hanson 	Travelling	Living	expenses	allowances	Total339.60	339.60123.30	123.3075.00	75.0060.00	60.00135.00	135.0042.60	157.50	200.10277.50	277.50180.00	180.0011.00	150.00	161.005.04	200.00	299.31	425.00 400.00	929.3539.20	175.00	614.2074.00	600.00	468.90	750.00	1,892.9010.70	275.00	43.20	350.00	678.901,456.85	4,210.00	5,666.85
Note-(a) The late A. L. Hager, a member of the commission from 1937 to 1948, submitted no accounts for travelling and living expenses incurred in connection with his commission responsibilities.
(b) Expenses of Mr. A. J. Whitmore (1939-	) have been charged to departmental votes
and it is not possible to segregate items chargeable to the department and to the commission.



RATING OF CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Is the civil service commission still continuing to rate civil service employees?
2.	Have rating boards been appointed by any of the departments of government?
3.	If so, which departments have appointed such rating boards, by whom are the appointments made, and what are the names?
4.	Have these rating boards the power to make recommendations for promotion?


Mr. Bradley:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, in cases of promotion.
3.	All departments, when promotion is involved. The members of such boards are usually named by the deputy minister of the
department concerned. Some two to three thousand of these boards are set up each year, depending on the number of promotions.
4.	Yes. Such recommendations are forwarded by the department concerned for the consideration of the civil service commission.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING COMMITTEE


Mr. Poulioi:: 1.	On what dates did the sessional committee on railways and shipping sit during the last five years?
2.	On what dates was the French translation of each one of the reports available?
He said: This question was answered personally.
Question withdrawn.

Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


Mr. Wright:: 1.	In how many cases have refunds been paid by purchasers of (a) hogs; (b) beef; (c) other farm products, as a result of underpayments on such products under the present floor price legislation?
2.	In how many cases have complaints been received of underpayments?
3.	What publicity is the government giving to the fact that such refunds may be obtained on application where such underpayments can be proved?



DAMAGE TO P.F.R.A. DAMS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Argue:: 1.	What is the name, and the estimated damage to each P.F.R.A. dam in Saskatchewan caused by the spring run-off?
2.	What progress is being made in the repairs to each dam?
3.	When is it expected that such repairs will be completed?



PENSIONS FOR BLIND PERSONS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many persons, by provinces, are in receipt of pensions under the provisions of the Blind Persons Act?
2.	What is the average monthly payment, by provinces, being made under the provisions of the Blind Persons Act?
3.	Are any persons 70 years of age, or over, in receipt of pensions under the provisions of the Blind Persons Act? If so, how many, by provinces?
4.	How many blind persons are in receipt of pensions under the provisions of the Old Age Security Act?
5.	How many persons in receipt of pensions for blindness under the provisions of the former Old Age Pensions Act, as at December 31, 1951, have been transferred to pensions under the provisions of the Old Age Security Act?
6.	Are any benefits or provisions accorded by federal legislation to blind persons under 70 years of age, other than the means test pension, under the provisions of the Blind Persons Act?
7.	Are any benefits or provisions accorded by federal legislation to blind persons 70 years of age or over, other than the $40 pension under the provisions of the Old Age Security Act?



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many persons, by provinces, are in receipt of pensions under the provisions of the Old Age Assistance Act?
2.	What is the average monthly payment, by provinces, being made under the provisions of the Old Age Assistance Act?



DAMAGE TO IRRIGATION WORKS, FARM LAND AND PROPERTY BELOW P.F.R.A. DAMS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Argue:: 1. What was the estimated damage to irrigation works, farm land, along the water course below each P.F.R.A. dam that was damaged by the spring run-off?
[Mr. Pouliot.l
2. What was the estimated damage to property in (a) Swift Current; (b) Eastend; (c) any other Saskatchewan towns along the water course below each P.F.R.A. dam that was damaged by the spring run-off?



HOG PRICES

Mr. Argue:: 1.	Were hog prices supported in 1951 by the government being prepared to purchase Wiltshire sides?
2.	If so, at what price was the government prepared to buy Wiltshire sides, basis Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Calgary and Vancouver?
3.	What floor price for dressed carcasses should such a floor price have established at the same marketing points?
4.	On what basis are hog prices presently being supported?
5.	What is the present support price for Wiltshire sides at Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Calgary and Vancouver?
6.	What price for the dressed hog carcasses should such a floor price establish at the same marketing points?
7.	What is the present floor price, if any, at the above points, for hogs grading extra heavy and No. 1 and No. 2 sows?
8.	In what form, or by what method, will the government purchase hogs going into the above grades?



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES IN SYDNEY, N. S.

Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: On
April 30 a question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) was answered in part by the Department of Public Works, but the answer was incomplete. May I suggest that the record be amended to have this question stand as an order for return, which I now table.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of any and all letters, telegrams, minutes or memoranda exchanged to date, between the Minister of National Defence or the government and Mr. G. S. Currie or the firm of McDonald. Currie and Company, dealing in any way with the investigation by the said Mr. Currie into the irregularities at Petawawa, and any other similar material dealing with or referring to the scope, manner and time of conducting the said investigation, additional to those tabled in the house as sessional paper No. 80A, but not including any initial or interim report except insofar as there may be specific discussion therein of the scope, manner and time of conducting the said investigation.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Pouliol:: For a copy of the by-laws passed by the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway

Company in virtue of chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927.
-as amended.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to point out to the hon. member that there are no existing by-laws of the Canadian National Railways which were passed by virtue of chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927. There were by-laws passed many years ago having to do with the appointment of an executive committee of the board of directors during the presidency of Sir Henry Thornton, but those have long since been cancelled. If the hon. member wants those by-laws they are available; otherwise there would be no return under this order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would be grateful to the minister if he would let me have them for a start.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: the following resolution:
That, whereas section four of the Emergency Powers Act, being chapter five of the statutes of 1951 (first session), provides that sections one to three of that act expire on the thirty-first day of May, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, provided that if at any time while they are in force addresses are presented to the governor general by the Senate and House of Commons, respectively, praying that they should be continued in force for a further period, not exceeding one year from the time at which they would otherwise expire, and the governor in council so orders, they shall continue in force for that further period.
And whereas it is desirable to continue the said sections in force up to and including the thirtieth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-three.
The following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Vincent Massey, Member of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Governor General, and Commander-inChief of Canada:
May it please Your Excellency:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, respectfully approach Your Excellency praying that sections one to three of the Emergency Powers Act be continued in force up to and including the thirtieth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-three.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to have parliament consider whether or not the special responsibility put upon the government to deal with possible emergencies which might arise because of the threatening world situation should be continued beyond the initial period provided for in the Emergency Powers Act, being chapter 5 of the statutes of 1951. The
Emergency Powers Act preamble of chapter 5 of the statutes of 1951 contains the following recitals:
Whereas an international emergency exists that threatens the security of Canada;
And whereas it is essential that emergency powers be conferred to enable measures to be taken as urgently required from time to time to carry out adequate defence preparations, to regulate the economy of Canada to meet the needs of defence and to stabilize the economy and to safeguard it from disruption that may result from defence preparation in Canada or from emergency measures taken in other countries, in order that defence preparations may not be impeded;
And whereas it is preferable that the necessary emergency powers be exercised under special authority from parliament rather than that the War Measures Act be brought into force so long as present efforts to avert war are continuing and, moreover, it is not desirable that the wide powers conferred by that act to interfere with the fundamental liberties of the individual should now be brought into operation:
Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
The powers which it was made the responsibility of the government to exercise if and when necessary were expressed in section 2, subsections 1 and 2, which I think we should have on the record at this time. Section 2, subsection 1, is in the following terms:
2. (I) The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it is hereby declared that the powers of the governor in council shall extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:
(a)	control and suppression of maps, plans and photographs;
(b)	control of communications and means of communication;
(c)	control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada; and the movements of vessels;
(d)	transportation by land, air or water and the control of the transport of persons and things;
(e)	trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture; and
(f)	imposition and recovery, in connection with any scheme of control, of fees or charges payable to the Receiver General of Canada or into any fund or account established by order or regulation for the purposes of the scheme of control.
Subsection 2 qualified these powers in the following way:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained therein, the powers conferred on the governor in council by subsection one do not include power to make orders or regulations in relation to
(a)	arrest, except as incidental to proceedings under section three; detention, exclusion or deportation of any person;
(b)	censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings; or
(c)	expenditure of moneys otherwise than in accordance with an appropriation by parliament except expenditure of moneys from any fund or

Emergency Powers Act
account established by order or regulation in connection with a scheme of control for the purposes of that scheme of control.
Subsection 4 of the same section provided that any order or regulation made under the act would be tabled within five days from the date thereof if parliament was then in session, or within five days from the opening of parliament if it were not in session at the time. Subsection 5 provided that any order might be annulled by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons within forty days from the tabling thereof. It will be remembered that an undertaking was given by the government that if there was any desire to propose such a motion an opportunity would be provided for its being dealt with expeditiously. Section 4 of the act provided that it would expire on the 31st of May but might be extended for a further period of not more than twelve months on resolution of the two houses of parliament. The resolution you have just read, Mr. Speaker, provides parliament with an opportunity to determine whether or not it should be so extended.
When the act was passed I think most members will recall that some were inclined to look upon it as a provision whereby the government was taking from parliament the right to exercise powers which normally belonged to parliament. In reality the purpose was to increase the responsibility of the government, subject to the control of parliament, to meet such emergencies as it might suddenly become necessary to deal with in order to preserve the peace, order and good government of the country in the then threatening international situation. It was not that the government wanted greater powers. It was passed because it was deemed to be a wise precaution to make it the responsibility of the government to act quickly if and when prompt action might be necessary, and to be able to take such action without proclaiming the more sweeping War Measures Act unless it became absolutely necessary to put that act into operation.
Fortunately for the people of Canada as well as for the government, since the Emergency Powers Act came into force it has not been necessary to have recourse to its provisions very often. In all, nineteen orders have been made under it. Five of these orders have to do with the great lakes seamen's security regulations. They are P.C. 1439 of March 22, 1951, P.C. 2101 of April 26, 1951, P.C. 2847 of June 4, 1951, P.C. 3855 of July 24, 1951, and P.C. 2306 of May 2, 1952. All these orders of course have the same aim and purpose. The reason why there have been five is that modifications have been made from time to time as experience showed that the existing order might

cause some inconveniences in the trade which were not really necessary from the point of view of the security purposes envisaged by the regulations.
The Department of Labour and the Department of Transport have been in constant touch with ship owners operating on the great lakes and with the labour unions representing the men working the ships. These interested parties have from time to time recommended modifications. These have been considered by our security officials, and in many instances it has been felt that the representations could be recommended for modifications without imperilling the purpose for which the regulations were made.
As to the other fourteen orders, three have to do with the establishment of priorities control and the appointment of controllers. The orders are P.C. 2399 of May 16, 1951, P.C. 2621 of May 24, 1951, and P.C. 5645 of October 22, 1951. The first one created the order with respect to controls. The other two had to do with the appointment of officials to exercise the powers directed to be exercised by the regulations.
Then there were two orders, P.C. 4535 and P.C. 4558 of August 29, 1951, having to do with transport control and the appointment of a transport controller. It will be remembered that was done to facilitate the distribution of the required freight cars throughout the prairie provinces in order to move more expeditiously the grain that was destined for export.
There was also P.C. 1234 of March 3, 1952, made to control the export and import of cattle and meat products to and from the United States consequent upon the embargo resulting from United States laws when it was ascertained that foot-and-mouth disease had broken out in Canada. This order could probably have been made solely under the Export and Import Permits Act, but reference was made as well to the Emergency Powers Act so as to make it perfectly sure that the validity of the order could not be successfully challenged.
Then there was a security order, P.C. 3486 of July 4, 1951, which was exempted from publication for the reasons which I explained in the house on October 24 last in answer to a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowlesh Interested members may find this explanation with respect to that order in Hansard on page 342.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the only one that was exempted from publication?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: That is the only one that was exempted from publication. I had a

word with the leaders of the various groups in the house in order to explain the general purpose of the order and the reasons why it was desirable that it should not be published. There was one other order made, P.C. 3484, of August 8, 1951, concerning the operation by agencies of the United States government and the United States defence forces of radio stations in Canada in connection with our joint arrangements for effective protection of the North American continent.
Another one of very small importance but which it was found very convenient to be able to make was P.C. 6598 of December 6, 1951, exempting from customs duties personal gifts of a value not exceeding $25 from members of the Canadian forces serving abroad and addressed to relatives or friends in Canada.
Those orders are still in force, and with the exception of the one dealing with the exportation and importation of livestock and meats, depend for their validity upon the Emergency Powers Act. That one might probably be sustained under the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act.
There were five other orders which were passed under the Emergency Powers Act to put into effect at once provisions that it was intended to have enacted in a permanent form by legislation at the first convenient opportunity. They are as follows: P.C. 2932 of June 7, 1951, extending the provisions of the Defence Services Pension Act to members of the regular forces granted temporary commissions; and P.C. 3417 of July 4, 1951, concerning the disposition of offences committed prior to the coming into force of the code of service discipline. Both these orders have since been replaced by legislation included in the statute adopted under the title of the Canadian Forces Act, 1951. On July 31, 1951, there was an order made, P.C. 3415, concerning the agricultural products board which has since been established in legislative form by the Agricultural Products Board Act. On April 4, 1951, there was an order made, P.C. 1608, which it was hoped to replace by legislation before this time. It was to substitute other metals for nickel, because of the scarcity of nickel, in the Canadian five-cent piece. That is being covered by a proposal included in a bill to be introduced at this session concerning the currency and exchange fund acts.
On September 26, 1951, P.C. 5122 was made operative postponing the weigh-over of grain required by the Canada Grain Act. That was intended to be covered by legislation and there is a section to that effect in the Canada Grain Act amendment now before parliament.
Emergency Powers Act
Those are the nineteen orders that were made under these emergency powers. Hon. members will recognize the fact that no one of them has been challenged as improper by any member of parliament; and I think this list shows how fortunate we have been during that period in not having to deal with any more serious or troublesome emergencies than those to which the orders refer. It also shows how careful the government has been not to exercise the power to do anything not urgently required for the peace, order and good government of the country.
That has been a fortunate situation since the statute came into force, but the factual international situation set out in the preamble to this statute is much the same today as it was when that statute was adopted. When we are appropriating billions of dollars to meet the dangers of that international situation, we are doing it not because we expect to have our forces engaged in actual warfare but as a deterrent and so that they might be ready should the deterring purpose not be realized. We have thought that, while we are doing that, it is desirable that there be ready for use, if required, some extraordinary powers, though we sincerely hope that they may not have to be used. However, that is a matter for the houses of parliament to decide. It means placing continuing additional responsibility on the government.
I feel it is the government's duty to recommend to parliament that the provisions of this act be continued in existence for a further period of twelve months, giving all the same undertakings that were given when it was originally enacted as to making opportunity for bringing to a decision any resolution or vote designed to set aside any regulation that might be made. Under the present international situation I think it would be taking undesirably some risk in not having an instrument capable of being used expeditiously if conditions developed that required it to be used.
I trust that the experience of the last fourteen months-it is fourteen months now since the act was passed-will satisfy the uneasiness any hon. member might have felt at the possible danger of its being in the power of the government to discharge responsibility to meet an emergent situation rapidly. I can assure hon. members that there is no desire by the government to have extraordinary powers; but we feel that we would not be fulfilling our duties if, as the government, we did not recommend to parliament the desirability of having those extraordinary powers in reserve at a time when we still feel that the international situation requires the appropriating of these large sums of money to build

Emergency Powers Act up defence forces to meet what might arise, although we sincerely hope-and I think with some confidence after these many months- that it will not arise. I therefore recommend for the serious consideration of hon. members the question as to whether or not these powers should remain available for another period of twelve months.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in support of the motion the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has laid before the house the general provisions of the act itself and has indicated his own belief that the wording of the motion is one which should be accepted by hon. members of this house. The words of the motion which really raise a question for the consideration of all hon. members are as follows:
... it is desirable to continue the said sections in force up to and including the thirtieth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-three.
The question before this house, Mr. Speaker, is whether it is appropriate for the representatives of the people, who were sent here to do the business of the people, to delegate their authority to the government, no matter what assurances the government may give as to its intentions to employ the terms of that act. This is not something that can be disposed of simply by a statement that the act has been in force for a year, and that it has only been used on eighteen occasions to pass laws by way of order in council. I submit that what should be considered by hon. members on both sides of the house is what the effect of this act is, and whether under any conditions which now exist the members are justified in delegating to the executive practically all of their responsibilities, subject only to the restraint that the government may exercise in employing the powers given by such an act.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said in effect, and I do not quote his exact words, that the purpose of this resolution is to determine whether the government should have the emergency powers to deal with situations which might arise in this uncertain world in which we are now living. I believe the question which should be determined by the members is a much more fundamental question than that. The Prime Minister has said that the government has no desire to possess extraordinary powers. He has given the assurance that it is not the intention of the government to employ these powers in any manner that would derogate from the authority of parliament. He has pointed out also that there are provisions for the tabling of orders in council, and that assurance has been given that if it were


desired to present a substantive motion for the purpose of having the house consider any order in council the government would be ready to expedite the hearing of that motion.
I am not questioning the desire of the Prime Minister to interpret what might be in his mind in regard to the employment of an act of this kind. I can only repeat that it is the duty of every one of us to examine this act and say to ourselves, is the power conferred by this act a power which should be conferred upon any government in a time of general peace? Is this an act which should be passed by a parliament which is still able to maintain ordinary contact with those people whom it represents? Is this an act that should be passed at a time when there is no dislocation in our communications, and no threat of any dislocation in our communications? Is it an act which should be passed at a time when we realize that no matter what grave threats may impend, and no matter how very real the struggle may be for those who are now engaged in Korea, the life of our people is one which has the general appearance of peace? Those are the questions which should be in our minds. It is no answer to say, as some hon. members are inclined to say, that they have complete confidence in the government.
The question is whether this is an act which should be passed, no matter what government may be in power. It is that test which should be applied to any legislation which receives the approval of this house. The Prime Minister has spoken of the fact that the government has been careful not to employ the powers of this act too frequently or too extensively. I would point out that a number of the powers which have been exercised are powers which could have been exercised quite conveniently in another way. It seems to me that the very fact that some of those things have been done demonstrates how readily any government falls into the habit of a more convenient procedure which does not call for debate in the House of Commons.
As has been explained, several of the orders in council relate to the great lakes seamen's security regulations. As I understand it, the effect of these regulations was largely designed to provide a method by which communist activities amongst great lakes seamen might be dealt with. They were designed to provide a method for screening those who might have communist sympathies. At this point no one in the house will forget the number of occasions upon which I have sought amendments to the Criminal Code, so that in the form of clear and definitive law there might be a provision which would make it possible to deal with communists here in

Canada. I do not believe that communist activities, which are designed and intended to undermine the strength of the state at a time when we are spending so much money and putting forward so much human effort to prevent communist aggression, should be permitted in this country. I have made it clear on every occasion that I have raised this subject that I do not think there should be arbitrary action in regard to communists. I believe in the rule of law. I believe we should define the offence. Unless the government is able to define the offence, then it should not be passing orders in council which relate to that offence which they say they cannot define, if there is some offence which can be described as communist activity or a specific activity of that nature, then it is either definable or it is not. If it is definable, the offence should be clearly stated in the Criminal Code. If it is not definable, then it should not be the subject of arbitrary provisions adopted behind closed doors.
I find that there was an order in council passed to deal with the five-cent piece. This was not a case where the famous quotation could be used, "not a five-cent piece". This was one case where the five-cent piece was regarded as being of sufficient importance for the government to deal with it, and thev dealt with it by this order in council under the act because it was convenient to deal with it in that way. The question arises as to why this was not dealt with by an amendment to the Currency Act. The date indicates the reason this government conveniently dealt with it in that way. That order was passed on April 4, 1951. The house was sitting at that time. An amendment to the Currency Act could very conveniently have been introduced in this house and the members of parliament could have dealt with it in the ordinary way.
Then also there was an order passed on March 3, dealing with the importation of cattle and animal feed into Canada from the United States. True, it may have been convenient to pass this by order in council, but again may I point out that the house was sitting. Just a few days before we had been asked to deal expeditiously with a measure which was related to this subject. It was an act to provide compensation for those whose animals were destroyed as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The house by unanimous consent set aside other business and proceeded to deal with this measure. It would have been quite as easy to have dealt with that measure in the house. If it had been dealt with, it probably would have been suggested that this subject be given more consideration than was given to it at the time. It might have been suggested that the use of
Emergency Powers Act this measure, which looked a little like retaliation, was not exactly the way to gain the good will of our friends in the United States at a time when we had every reason to seek their good will to solve some of our unfortunate difficulties.
As one goes through these orders in council one finds that most of them do deal with matters that could very much better have been dealt with by amendments to existing legislation. In fact, it would seem that every one of them, except the one which provided for secrecy, in regard to certain orders in council, could best have been passed in that way. When I say except that order I do not mean that that order could not have been placed before the house. I think that is the very kind of order that should have called for an act of this parliament. If any order in council is not going to be published, is not going to be communicated to the members of parliament or to the public, then most assuredly the circumstances under which that power is to be exercised by the government should be stated in the clearest terms, and only in the most express wording should this parliament confer such extraordinary powers upon this or any other government.
Having dealt with the kind of orders in council that were passed, may I point out that when the Prime Minister speaks of the protection that is available by virtue of the fact that the orders in council, except those cloaked with secrecy, and the special order I have mentioned, should be tabled in this house, and that the government would entertain a motion to discharge any of those orders if such a motion were presented, the possibility of such a motion offers very little real opportunity to deal with this question. I can think of very few cases where the government would not immediately say: This is a challenge to the government; this must be dealt with as a want of confidence motion. And it would be a want of confidence motion; it would be a motion which declared that the house did not have confidence that the government had properly exercised its authority. The history of the voting of hon. members during the life of the present parliament is not such as to suggest that, from the practical as opposed to the theoretical point of view, the opportunities provided by the possibility of such a motion have any real value to hon. members.
True, we learn about these orders in council in due course. True, the orders in council, except the one providing for secrecy, do not appear to have dealt with subjects of major importance, unless perhaps in so far as the order in council in regard to the importation of animals and feed products from the United

Emergency Powers Act States may be regarded as important. But I think we should examine the attitude of this government in regard to orders in council generally before dismissing too lightly the possibility that anything might occur in regard to which there would not be general approval in this house.
Even if under this act up to this point there may not be substantial grounds for objection, I would like to point out the attitude of this government in regard to the exercise of some of its powers by order in council. It will be recalled by all hon. members that at the time the question was raised about the possibility of General Kurt Meyer's release during the session of this house last fall, the government dismissed in rather peremptory manner any suggestion that there might be concern that General Kurt Meyer, who had been whisked so surprisingly away from Canada back to his homeland, might in fact be released at any time by the Canadian government without this house knowing about it.
Now, while this was done under another act, I must confess that I for one found a great deal more importance attached to the fact that the order in council had been passed which released Wilhelm Ossenbach than I did to the actual fact that this man had been released, because at the very time that we were raising the question about the possibility of Kurt Meyer's being released, another German prisoner, who had been sentenced to fifteen years in prison in connection with the shooting of a Canadian prisoner of war, had been released by order in council as of October 3 last. That order in council was not tabled until November. By that time Wilhelm Ossenbach had been at large for more than a month. There may have been reasons why this was done, but the question does arise as to exactly what the difference in principle would be in the case of Wilhelm Ossenbach and in the case of Kurt Meyer, except that Kurt Meyer had been brought over to Canada. The only reason that Kurt Meyer happened to be brought to Canada was that he had been found guilty and sentenced to death. It was because of the commutation of the sentence that he was brought back to Canada under rather unusual circumstances. Then, as hon. members will recall, he left Canada under equally unusual circumstances, and the next we heard of him was that he was in the bosom of his family back in Germany. By the time that hon. members knew anything about it, it was so much a matter that had already been done that the possibility of undoing it was indeed very remote.

Then again, to refer to something that hon. members seem to think has been mentioned so often that we do not want to hear about it again, may I refer to something that does need to be cleared up, and that has not yet been cleared up, but which again illustrates the manner in which the government does employ its powers by order in council. I refer to the fact that this government by order in council, under an act other than the one now before us, saw fit to permit communists to man and operate ships, and to continue to man and operate ships, under the Canadian flag. The company to which that privilege was granted was a Canadian company incorporated for the one purpose of giving Canadian identity to those who hold nominal ownership of the ships built in Canada for the Ming Sung company. That Canadian corporate ownership was provided because the head office of the company was in communist China, where it still operates.
It has been said that it was not desirable to withdraw the right to Canadian registry of these ships under the control of a communist company operating in waters where they might well be carrying contraband that would be used against Canadian armed men. The explanation given was that an attempt was being made to recover the money which had been advanced very generously by the Canadian government to make these ships available for the Ming Sung company. So far as we know, those ships, now entirely under communist control, are still flying the Canadian flag. So far as we have been informed, this government has not yet seen fit to restore the dignity of the Canadian flag in those waters by taking the very simple steps available to it of repudiating and rescinding this most unusual favour accorded to a company operating in that area.
I mention these orders in council because what happened in those two cases-and a number of other illustrations could be given to show what has occurred in other respects- do not suggest that the House of Commons should be too ready or too willing to extend blanket powers to this government on the basis of its actual record in dealing with public business by orders in council in some other cases.
I hope hon. members will consider this matter from the point of view of the atmosphere in which the measure was presented originally and the atmosphere in which we are considering the resolution now before the house. At the time the measure was originally presented conditions were very different from what they are today. As I recall it, the United Nations forces had just liberated Seoul

after a very threatening communist sweep, through Korea. Enemy resistance along the 38th parallel was building up. There was every reason to believe that a great offensive against our forces was under way. The whole atmosphere was entirely different from what it is today.
At that time we did oppose the adoption of these wide and unrestrained powers. At that time we did point out the danger of dealing with the subject in this way rather than by giving specific powers in certain specific fields. We did raise those objections, however, remembering what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) had said at that time when setting out the reasons why it was important to have such a measure adopted. On February 1 last year, as reported at page 29 of Hansard, the Prime Minister indicated that a bill of this kind would be introduced. These are his words as they appear in Hansard of that date:
We will seek, by the legislation forecast in the speech from the throne, to secure powers additional to those the governor in council already has. By proclaiming the War Measures Act on the ground of apprehended war we could have all those powers, but we prefer to leave it to parliament to say whether there is a sufficient emergency to justify a departure from regular constitutional procedure and the regular constitutional distribution of powers between the federal and provincial authorities.
The Prime Minister clearly indicated something about which I have expressed concern on a number of occasions. He expressed concern about departure from regular constitutional procedure and the regular constitutional distribution of powers between federal and provincial authorities. From the Prime Minister's own words there can be no doubt whatever that the measure now before us does depart from the normal constitutional distribution of power between the federal and provincial authorities, and that it does constitute a departure from regular constitutional procedure.
In saying that, there is of course the -reservation that it constitutes a departure *only to the extent that the government may *exercise the powers conferred upon it. Nevertheless, in the words of the Prime Minister himself, it is perfectly clear that this measure does give to the government powers to disregard the constitutional division of responsibility and authority between federal and provincial governments as laid down originally in the British North America Act.
There were other reasons given for the -introduction of the measure. As reported at
Emergency Powers Act page 185 of Hansard for February 8, 1951, the Minister of Defence Production said this:
In closing, I would like to say a few words about price control. The speech from the throne indicates the intention of the government to introduce a bill which will, if approved, confer upon the executive powers to impose price controls and other related controls for the purpose of maintaining economic stability.
These broad powers are being introduced to the end that the government will be in a position to take whatever action appears to be necessary from time to time.
Introduction of this legislation does not mean that the present intention is to impose over-all price and wage controls, although there is always the possibility that events will develop in such a way that general price and wage ceilings are appropriate and workable.
While it is true that the Minister of Defence Production indicated that it was not then the intention to introduce price controls, he clearly stated that one of the purposes of the introduction of this measure was so that they might be in a position to take such further steps by way of controls as would become necessary under the emergency.
Since that time events have taken a course which rightly or wrongly the government has interpreted as justifying the removal of certain controls which they did introduce. As an example, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) announced that the credit restrictions were being removed it was with the assurance that there had been such a return to normal conditions that he was justified in following that course. Moreover, at the time that other restrictions were removed the same explanation was given. The whole attitude of this government has been that in recent months there has been an improvement in the situation which makes it possible to relax controls. That being so, there certainly is not the pressure for the almost unrestrained powers that there was at that time.
I would place before members of this house principles which it seems to me are challenged by this legislation to an extent that did not seem necessary elsewhere under the very uncertain conditions then existing. I wish to emphasize the dangers that are inherent in legislation of this nature, dangers which have been examined by the most competent constitutional authorities and which have also been indicated by responsible writers in the press of this country as well as certain members of parliament on both sides of the house.
Most hon. members have read a book written some years ago which I think bears careful rereading today. I refer to "The New Despotism" by the late Lord Hewart of Bury. In that famous book he examined the danger of legislation by order in council as distinguished from laws passed by the

Emergency Powers Act representatives of the people. He pointed out that with the change that had taken place over the years certain administrative laws had become necessary to deal with the fast-moving and increasingly complex society in which we now live. He then made this further significant comment, and I quote from page 21 of that book:
"With us," as Professor Dicey says, "every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen. The reports abound with cases in which officials have been brought before the courts, and made, in their personal capacity, liable to punishment, or to the payment of damages, for acts done in their official character but in excess of their lawful authority. A colonial governor, a secretary of state, a military officer, and all subordinates, though carrying out the commands of their official superiors, are as responsible for any act which the law does not authorize as is any private and unofficial person."
It may well be said by someone who is mentally at this moment justifying the introduction of this, "But are you aware that this act is an act which was passed by parliament and that what Lord Hewart was referring to at that point was the responsibility of everyone from the Prime Minister down to be answerable under the law?" My point is that the protection of the citizen described by Lord Hewart in those words is denied by the adoption of laws of this kind. It is only when clearly stated laws exist that the citizen has any protection against the Prime Minister or officials or others who may do things that may be contrary to his best interests. If we believe in the rule of law as opposed to the rule of dictate then we must be concerned with any measure which removes from the citizen those rights against anyone in authority which were so clearly described by Lord Hewart as being the very foundation of our free democracy.
I go on to further quotations from Lord Hewart where he deals with the dangers of legislation of this kind. He pointed out in his book that in Great Britain there had been those who justified the extension of administrative law by comparing the administrative law in Great Britain with the droit admini-stratif of France. But Lord Hewart went on to point out that the administrative law of France was something entirely different. He pointed out that under the different system which accepted that kind of law as a matter of tradition, nevertheless they had placed safeguards over the employment of laws of that kind which were not provided in Great Britain or any other corresponding parliamentary jurisdiction where administrative law was adopted.
He pointed out that the administrative law of France was placed under a tribunal of

the highest standing which reviewed those laws from time to time impartially and without any relation to the political complexion of those who had passed the law. Then he went on to say that in so far as these laws were concerned it was not enough to find out who were the individuals who were passing the law and then feel some measure of confidence that the men then responsible would not abuse them. He pointed out that laws that are passed should be regarded from the impersonal point of view. They should be examined as laws that might be administered by any government, and at no time should anyone seek to hide the dangers of administrative law by virtue of the fact that the men then exercising that power might be men who commanded general confidence.
The interesting thing, however, is that when Lord Hewart wrote about this subject some years ago he was merely dealing with administrative laws passed under acts which most clearly set out the subject matter that would be dealt with by the government. Having regard to the strength of his language in condemning administrative laws which supplant the rights of parliament, one can only guess that even Lord Hewart of Bury, with a tradition of carefully chosen words, would have written in a most explosive manner about an act which places practically all powers in the hands of the government subject only to their own idea as to the reservations that they might make upon the exercise of their powers.
Nor has it been only at Westminster that those charged with responsibility have warned of these dangers. In this house the present member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has discussed this matter on different occasions. I find that he discussed it on one occasion on March 21, 1946, as found at page 169 of Hansard. The hon. member for Quebec South, who I believe is the dean of the House of Commons, and who has demonstrated a deep and profound knowledge of the constitutional background of our proceedings, was dealing with this very subject of administrative law and emergency powers which confer sweeping authority of that kind. He pointed out that in his opinion neither the then prime minister nor the then minister of justice would in himself be likely to seriously abuse powers that might be conferred in that way. Since the hon. member for Quebec Soutk h*s so often spoken on behalf of what he believes to be the real principles of the Liberal party, may I recall what he said on that occasion after stating very clearly that he did not think that the prime minister of that time or the minister of justice of that time, who is now the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), would

himself contemplate any abuses. In spite of that statement of his own conviction this is what he said, as found at page 171 of Hansard:
But may I point out that neither of these men has any guarantee of immortality. Neither is there any guarantee in our political life that the political wheel of fortune may not some day turn. And the numbers brought up on that political wheel of fortune may not always be the numbers of men in whom this country has the same faith and confidence as it has in the men who are now at the helm of affairs.
Then he went on to outline the dangers inherent in legislation of this kind, dangers that could not be dismissed by expressing confidence in the individuals who would be charged with the responsibility of administering legislation of this nature that might be adopted. Then he used these words, to be found at page 172 of Hansard for March 21, 1946:
We have fought a victorious war after four years. We have talked glibly of the new order which was to follow it, and it almost appears to me as though we the victors had taken on the manners and customs of the vanquished.
These words were not spoken by any member on this side of the house. They were spoken by one who had been a member of the government during the years of the war. He was referring only to the employment of similar powers, but at a time when stronger arguments for the employment of such powers could have been put forward he said that it almost seemed to him as though we the victors were taking on the manners and the customs of the vanquished. Moreover, the same member for Quebec South had this to say in an article published in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 22, 1948:
When it is made clear that special extraordinary powers are absolutely necessary in order to deal with certain contingencies, let parliament delegate these powers, but only to the minister who shall be specifically mentioned in the legislation, and who shall be answerable to parliament for the exercise thereof. Moreover, the special authority conferred should be for specific purposes and the objects clearly stated in the legislation. The authority itself should be limited in extent to that which is required for the specific purposes-no omnibus clauses with a little more for good measure "in ease they were needed." Finally, this authority granted to the minister should be limited as to time and the law itself reenacted at each session of parliament if the contingency continues to exist.
May I point out that this hon. member, who was a member of the government and served in a very responsible post during the war years, touches two vital points with regard to the adoption of any legislation of this kind now or on any other occasion. First, it should only confer powers upon a specific minister in relation to a specific subject. Second, that power should be clearly defined, the objects for which the legislation is presented should be clearly stated, and the circumstances under which the minister can
Emergency Powers Act employ such power with the support of the government should be described in the clearest and most limited terms.
I submit that the hon. member for Quebec South has stated a proposition that should receive the support of every hon. member in the house. Nor has the argument been confined to members in the house. I want to quote some of the things that have been said by others outside the house because I regard the principle now under consideration as one of fundamental importance, and one which perhaps did not receive as complete and vigorous attention as it deserved last year. Actually, in the hands of those who were prepared to abuse such power, this bill could mean the end of parliament itself, nothing less. It could provide someone with the opportunity to repeat the famous speech of Cromwell when he wound up the parliament of Britain. There is no use saying that no hon. member in the house would think of doing that.
Hon. members of this house have seen some strange things done. They have seen some remarkable examples of government reluctance to produce information, and they have seen some rather remarkable orders in council passed under other legislation. But whether or not there were a single example that should put this house on guard when they are asked to extend this power at this time, may I remind the members of this house that not only have we the arguments and the advice of a man like Lord Hewart of Bury, not only have we the advice of a man Who has served as a member of this House of Commons and who has the longest experience in parliamentary procedure of any member now in this house, but we also have the expression of opinion of responsible individuals and members of the press outside.
At a time when this matter was under consideration last year Toronto Saturday Night, for instance, had this to say in regard to this very act which was passed then at a time when there was a much greater atmosphere of emergency and urgency than is apparent in any action of the government at this time. I quote from what appeared on March 20, 1951 in Saturday Night:
It is good that Canadians should wish their government to have all the powers it needs to ensure our making a fair contribution to the western alliance. But it is disquieting that the public should appear so little concerned about the ultimate right of parliament to have knowledge of, to enquire into, to criticize, and if necessary, to overrule any use that the government may make of these extraordinary powers.
Then after further discussion of this measure in an objective manner the Toronto Saturday Night has this to say:
Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Garson and the ether legal talent on the government side have shown an

Emergency Powers Act
alarming failure to realize that the consciousness of their own good intentions is not an adequate safeguard for the liberties of the people of Canada.
Then in the Calgary Herald of March 1, 1951, I find this statement:
We are not suggesting that the present government in Ottawa has any intention of using these emergency powers in the same way.
It was referring there to the way in which the German Reichstag took over emergency powers after it had been elected under a democratic procedure. The Calgary Herald continues:
But the democratic process, and still more the freedoms which that process enshrines, is a more delicate plant than we generally realize; and freedoms once surrendered are singularly hard to win back.
Then after further discussion of this subject it goes on:
But the chief criticism of the emergency powers bill is that it is altogether too general. It pretends to be specific while in fact it is nothing of the kind. It seems to us that if the government wants emergency powers in certain fields, then the necessary legislation ought to define those fields with absolute precision, the government ought to state in writing exactly what powers it proposes to use and how it proposes to use them, and if the government needs wider powers later on, then it should have to come back to parliament and get them by due process.
Mr. Speaker, in terms that are clear and understandable, the Calgary Herald was saying exactly the same thing as was said by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power).
Then there was another paper which was discussing this subject at the same time. I quote from the Montreal Gazette of March 5, 1951:
An emergency is a proper time for wide powers in the hands of the government. But it is also a proper time for wide powers in the hands of the courts. The present bill at Ottawa has the dangerous feature of establishing power at the expense of the courts.
The time when our liberties must be defended seems a poor time in which to undermine their essential guarantees.
Mr. Speaker, those were statements by responsible publications of different points of view and from different parts of Canada. Then I perhaps might properly quote the words used in a discussion which took place at the annual meeting of the advisory council of the National Liberal Federation of Canada in Ottawa on Tuesday, February 27, of last year. At that time Professor J. A. Corry, who is professor of political science at Queen's university, was discussing this very subject, and I quote briefly from what he had to say:
The discretionary powers exercised by our government nowadays in time of peace are wide enough to cause concern. The practical certainty of


cold war, if not actual shooting war, for an indefinite period means a still further substantial increase in the powers of the dominion government. What is our answer to Abraham Lincoln's question: Is a government which is strong enough to deal with serious crises not also going to be too strong for the liberties of its citizens?
Then Professor Corry went on to say much the same as has been said by some of the others to whom I have referred, to the effect that confidence in individuals is not in itself enough. He went on to say this:
If, as seems likely, we are to have a considerable measure of order in council government again, we should also be considering seriously the establishment of one or more committees of parliament to examine, not the substance and policy of the orders in council but the effect that the powers and procedures contained in them will have on individual rights and freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, it was quite clear that Professor Corry was suggesting exactly what Lord Hewart of Bury was pointing out earlier, namely that to the extent that administrative law must be exercised, it must also be brought under some measure of control, such as does not now exist; some measure of supervision by parliament before the event, not after; some measure of control which will make it possible for parliament to express its opinion before the government has taken its decision in a manner that would make any challenge of that decision an expression of want of confidence.
Mr. Speaker, I have put forward arguments made in this house, in the press and even at a meeting of the National Liberal Federation last year, in order to lay the foundation for the suggestion that the government itself might well consider at this time the abandoning of this legislation and the statement that it will deal with these matters by such legislation as may be required from time to time. If, as the Prime Minister says, the need is not very apparent for legislation of this kind immediately, and it has not been necessary for the government to use it very much, that is all the more reason why we should return to normal procedure;-and it is the Prime Minister who indicated that this is not the normal constitutional procedure

 all the more reason why we should return to the proper division of authority between the dominion and provincial governments, at a time that our whole federal constitution is under strain; all the more reason that we should return to the principles upon which this country became one nation in 1867.
I have put forward arguments which in no way can be disposed of as being arguments from this side of the house which might conceivably be put forward with some idea of embarrassing the government, as is so

often suggested whenever we make an argument which is not entirely in accord with the view expressed by the government itself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has referred to the act, but let no one be in any doubt that this act does confer almost unlimited powers upon the government of Canada, not upon an individual group of men who, no matter how much we may wish them long lives and happiness are, in the words of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), not gifted with immortality. We are dealing with the law as an abstract question. We are dealing with an act which confers upon the government certain powers, and which in no place says it is this Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), this Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) or this Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), even if all the confidence expressed in them by members on the other side were fully justified and were shared more generally throughout the house than may sometimes be apparent.
Let us see exactly what this act does permit the government to do. It permits it to do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations as the governor in council may, by reason of the existing international emergency, deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it is hereby declared that the powers of the governor in council shall extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated; then that section of the act sets out the following:
(a)	control and suppression of maps, plans and photographs;
(b)	control of communications and means of communication;
(c)	control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels;
(d)	transportation by land, air or water and the control of the transport of persons and things;
(e)	trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture; and
(f)	imposition and recovery, in connection with any scheme of control, of fees or charges payable to the Receiver General of Canada or into any fund or account established by order or regulation for the purposes of the scheme of control.
Where is there any specific definition such as was requested by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), such as asked for by Lord Hewart of Bury, the great exponent of common law and parliamentary procedure? Where is there the specific provision asked for before the National Liberal Federation last year? Where is the specific provision asked for by leading writers in the press of this country? There 55704-162
Emergency Powers Act is none. Neither is there any specific definition of powers, nor is there any suggestion as to which minister shall exercise these powers.
It is true that there is some suggestion of restraint in subsection 2 of section 2 where it says:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained therein, the powers conferred on the governor in council by subsection one do not include power to make orders or regulations in relation to
(a)	arrest, except as incidental to proceedings under section three, detention, exclusion or deportation of any person;
(b)	censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings; or
(c)	expenditure of moneys otherwise than in accordance with an appropriation by parliament except expenditure of moneys from any fund or account established by order or regulation in connection with a scheme of control for the purposes of that scheme of control.
Never was a reservation with more illusory protection put before this or any other house with a similar measure of authority and responsibility than the one now before us. It does seem that last year, very conscious of the grave situation with which we were confronted and the uncertainty as to how that grave situation was to be met-an uncertainty which may not be greater today, although the general situation is quite as grave and perhaps more grave-there may have been some tendency not to examine these things in the way they should now be examined when, with all the dangers, at least we have found some pattern of continuing action through the long period of emergency which lies ahead.
When this act says there shall be no provisions in regard to arrest except as incidental to proceedings under section 3, then we refer to section 3 and find that by order in council the government may prescribe penalties by way of fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. This section is wide open in regard to determining what those powers shall be, and that is a very illusory protection. Section 3 does deal with seizure, detention, and forfeiture of goods by order in council, so the protection afforded in that section is not very satisfactory.
Then mention is made of censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings. There might be some protection there, except for the fact that this government has such control over newsprint today that if it saw fit-again I am dealing with the government of Canada and not the individual-under its present powers it could very effectively deal with any newspaper.


Mr. Garson:: May I ask the hon. member if he means by his last statement that the government could exercise censorship over

Emergency Powers Act what a newspaper publishes by means of its control over newsprint?


George Alexander Drew: I am suggesting that the government of Canada-as I have pointed out before, not the present Minister of Justice, no matter what measure of confidence may or may not rest in him-under its present powers could exercise a very real censorship over the press by the allocation of newsprint. Do not let the Minister of Justice or anyone else in this house be so naive as to suggest that allocation is not a very powerful weapon at the present time, whether it be of newsprint or anything else.
Then we have paragraph (c) of subsection 2, which deals with the expenditure of moneys otherwise than in accordance with appropriation by parliament, except the expenditure of moneys from some fund set up under this order in council. I cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, that this government would find it very difficult to conceive of a plan for some fund, if they really wanted to set up something outside of any ordinary appropriation, which would give them the financial resources they needed, even if they felt themselves under restraint, which I have not seen particularly noticeable in some of the items that have come up by way of supplementary estimates.
Whatever the reservations are, they are contained in these very limited terms. Otherwise wide open powers are given. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that these powers do abridge the constitution, that these powers do change the plan of responsibility and authority in existence as between the dominion and the provincial governments under the British North America Act. Last year we pointed out that, with full recognition of all the dangers that exist, we opposed the bill on the ground that no argument had been presented which justified this immense delegation of power, especially in a time that the government still prefers to describe as a period of general peace. I am not quarrelling with the government in the use of that expression, but if the government is going to employ that expression then let it act in accordance with the expression it chooses to use. If we are to conduct ourselves as far as possible as though we were going to live reasonably normal lives over a long period of years, under the pressures of the international situation which now exist, most certainly we should try to carry on our system of government and our parliamentary, procedures in a manner which continues the traditional practices that have been built up over the centuries.
Whatever may have been said at that time last year, this house should not renew this act

Emergency Powers Act type of production that cannot be taken over by the government, if it sees fit to do so.
Do not dismiss that by saying that this government would not exercise such powers. There were those in other countries who supported laws of a similar nature and who today have lost all freedom as a result of the expressed belief that the governments of those countries would not abuse the power conferred upon them.
No, there would be no doubt here about the power of the government to seize any industry or to take over any operation. Under this no question would arise in connection with the nationalization of trucking, the nationalization of shipping or the nationalization of railways, if the government wanted to do it. Of course that is the qualification. But it is there in express terms-
Transportation by land, air or water, and the control of the transport of persons and things-
-by land, sea or air.
I do not know where there are such wide powers today in any country that still calls itself a democracy.


Mr. Croll:: It has been there for seven years.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, this act is much less explicit than the act passed in a time of war and which it replaces. Even in a time of war the government felt there was some necessity to give some appearance of defining powers and specifying subjects to an extent that does not appear in this measure at all. And may I say to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) that I am not suggesting for one moment that these powers were wisely conferred at that time, except under the impact of war itself; not merely because of the necessity of fighting the war but because of the impact of the events of war upon the daily lives of our people. That is one of the reasons such emergency powers as were introduced here, and were continued with some reservations, were accepted. People recognized that there were great limitations upon the daily activities of our people. No one will question those limitations, which are not now imposed upon the people, and which the government has wisely or unwisely refused most emphatically even to consider, though in some cases there were some who thought this might have been done with advantage to the people of Canada.
In that respect I would point out that one of the chief reasons given for the introduction of the measure last year was the possibility that the government might be called upon to exercise price control. The government now makes it clear that it has no intention of

doing so, so that argument has lost its validity, and is disposed of as a reason for the continuance of the measure, even if it ever represented a sound argument.
This discussion might well remind us that there was a very interesting point raised in the argument presented before the supreme court of the United States. I cannot help feeling that there was historic significance in the fact that counsel arguing the case there against the exercise of such powers as were exercised by the President of the United States cited section 39 of Magna Carta, which reads as follows:
No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed, nor will we go upon or send upon him, save by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
Section 39 of Magna Carta is one of those great sections in the charter of our freedom signed at Runnymede in 1215. And there are two more provisions in that section which I submit should be in the minds of hon. members at this time when they consider delegating their responsibility in this manner to the government, without any defining restraint. There is the provision, first of all, that no freeman shall be disseized without the decision of his peers, and that no man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized, except by the law of the land.
The act before us, in the powers it confers, denies the right assured by Magna Carta. It is not an answer to say, "Oh, no; this government would not exercise them." This government is creating those powers; this government is creating a precedent which others will find extremely convenient if at some distant time in the future there should be those in power who would believe in a much greater exercise of authority by the state than this government has demonstrated, great though its belief in its own omniscience and its own power has been.


David Arnold Croll: Do you not trust yourself?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I do not sit opposite each other for the first time. For that reason I take in good spirit the interjection he has made, and I would remind him that this is not the first legislative chamber in which he has heard me express the same views.


Mr. Sinnott:: It sounds like it, though.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I accord to the hon. member for Spadina considerable knowledge of the law. I hope he will impart some of that knowledge to one hon. member opposite, when he has the freedom to do so.
I do not think this is a strictly academic subject. I think it is time for hon. members to be as careful about the provisions of

Magna Carta as are some of our friends in the United States; to assert our belief in those principles, and to assert our belief that, except under the most express terms and the most explicit safeguards, there shall be no departure from that historic section of Magna Carta.
Ever since those days that fundamental principle has always been observed. It has been challenged, it has been denied, but in turn the people have overridden that denial. It was the denial of that right that brought a king of England to the block. It was the denial of that right that lost another king his throne. It was the denial of that right that lost to the British crown the provinces which constitute what is now the United States. It was the denial of that right that over and over again has challenged the great legal brains in this house as well as elsewhere. It was the possibility of the denial of that right that challenged one of the best parliamentary brains in this house, and I am referring to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power).
I submit that without questioning the good faith but simply examining this as a matter of principle, the issue is clear and it goes to the root of democracy itself. Where law ends, tyranny begins. When it will begin, no one can tell. Others in other lands were very sure it would never begin, but today they have no right to raise their voices and point out that when they supported arbitrary laws of this nature they relied upon the government never to exercise its power.
The protection of our people must depend upon the rule of law provided by the people's representatives. The law itself must ever be a declaration of the people's representatives in parliament. If there is to be a real democracy in this or any other country then the laws must be made by those elected to make them and not by the executive sitting behind closed doors under a delegation of powers such as is contained in this act.
If our parliamentary system is to survive through the vicissitudes of the years ahead, then our laws must be the expression of the will of the community as approved by the elected representatives of the whole community. Our people have the right to know what the law is at any given time; and before they are bound by laws they should have concurred in the adoption of those laws through their own decisions in parliament before the laws were passed, not after they had been passed and were in effect.
The rule of law is the rule of freedom. Men have the right to know to what extent their representatives have said they must obey certain injunctions. Even then there may still be doubt; as we all know, competent
Emergency Powers Act lawyers often give conflicting advice on different points of view. We have just recently seen a case where the Supreme Court of Canada held a different view from that of the privy council, although of course the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) believes that we should not in any way rely upon the privy council. Without in any way questioning the confidence he has expressed, this indicates that very competent judges, let alone very competent lawyers, may hold diametrically opposed views as to the effect of orders in council. But what should be remembered is that the privy council, in which the Minister of Justice has now imposed his ultimate confidence, has said that orders in council, no matter how loosely drawn by a government, if they conform-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Has my hon. friend seen the recent judgment of the privy council? If he has not, how can he state what they have said?


George Alexander Drew: The ordinary systems of communication are available to people other than the Minister of Justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask another question?


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Justice will be free to reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the leader of the opposition does not resume his seat he indicates that he is not giving consent.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend does not want to-


George Alexander Drew: All right, ask your question and then sit down.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Has my hon. friend seen in any of the means of communication any statement that the orders in council were loosely drawn?


George Alexander Drew: The orders in council were so loosely drawn that there was never any question about it from the beginning. That was one of the points upon which the whole argument rested at various stages throughout the long proceedings. I may assert without any question that they were extremely loosely drawn and that was what presented the difficulty from the very beginning. Nevertheless the privy council has now made it perfectly clear that if any parliament is to delegate wide powers, then those wide powers can be exercised in a manner which the courts will be most reluctant to limit in any way. With that judgment of the privy council we are much less safe in passing these sweeping powers than we were while we still had the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. I might have preferred the judgment of the Supreme Court of

Emergency Powers Act Canada; the Minister of Justice prefers the privy council. The Minister of Justice has that judgment, but that judgment is a warning to every one of us that we should be careful as to what powers we confer upon this government. The previous judgment did suggest that there might be some restraint exercised by the court.
The Minister of Justice may well emphasize to us the expression known as the glorious uncertainty of the law. He exemplifies it. Nevertheless there is a difference between that glorious uncertainty of the law which is common to all legal proceedings- that is what I have sought to emphasize; it is not only the Minister of Justice, but I pointed out the glorious uncertainty as between the Supreme Court of Canada and the privy council-and the certainty that no one is going to know what the law is until it finally emerges some time much later from the star chamber where it has been adopted by the government. That kind of law passed into disrepute centuries ago and it should be disposed of by this house at this time.
There can be no security if laws are uncertain and if people do not know in advance what the views of justice really are going to be. Strong arguments were presented against this bill when it was introduced. I should like to refer to what was said a year ago because I want to leave no doubt as to our position in regard to this act, and to show that it has been consistent in regard to the principle which is in issue. I should like to quote from page 952 of Hansard of March 6, 1951, where in regard to this very measure I am reported as saying:
To the statement that I have just made the Prime Minister can answer that this bill will terminate next year.
I went on to discuss how bills of this kind have a habit of being repeated, of being renewed and of becoming embedded in our ordinary practices and procedures. Then I went on to say:
The Prime Minister may also say: This is in the hands of parliament. In answer I would say that we have not seen too much evidence, during this session or preceding ones, that there is that measure of independent expression of opinion by the large number of supporters of the government in this house which would suggest to those who are concerned about the trend we now see that we might hope that within this house there would be a vote which would place any effective restraint upon a government which commanded a majority of that kind. Unless we return to established and tested principles of parliamentary democracy we may in fact at this hour be in the twilight of freedom here in Canada, no matter how much we believe in freedom itself. We Canadians can pay the penalty of surrender just as other people have paid the penalty of surrender of those principles which protected the freedom in which they believed.

I repeat these words but with a greater sense of urgency today, because none of the arguments that could have been presented at that time can properly be put forward now in support of this measure. Assuming the utmost good will in the mind of the government, the fact remains that it is the duty of every one of us to consider what could happen if men of evil intention had the opportunity to exercise the powers conferred by such an act. That is the only test which can properly be applied to legislation of this kind. Freedom has disappeared so often in recent years When that test was not applied. Examining only what could be done and not what any of us might suggest would be done by this particular government, I do not see how anyone can deny that a full and unlimited exercise of the powers contained in this act could become the death warrant of democracy in Canada.
At a time when we are seeking to preserve the spirit, the form, the living body and the traditions of democracy, I most earnestly urge the government to withdraw this resolution. It can withdraw it in the same way that it has on other occasions when other measures have been presented and the government became convinced that it was not desirable to proceed. That does not mean it cannot deal with any cases which it thinks should be dealt with. It is only necessary for the government to examine what was done during the past year under this act and anything that conceivably could be required during the coming year, and then introduce simple amendments to existing legislation which will permit them to deal with the matter under clearly defined and limited terms.
May I also say that, if circumstances should arise short of war which call for wider powers, we have seen that this parliament can meet within a few days and pass whatever laws are necessary. In the event that the most unhappy possibility of war should become a reality the government need not be concerned because it has the powers already.
I hope these arguments will not be brushed aside with the suggestion that this government would never consider doing anything so improper as the possibilities that might be presented. I only ask the government to examine with care the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), by an expert on constitutional law who spoke before the National Liberal Federation in Ottawa, by Lord Hew-art of Bury whom I am sure the lawyers of this house respect, and by others outside of the house, as well as the great lawyers

and jurists of Canada; and without taking any argument from the opposition I think they would come to the conclusion that the delegation of power of this kind is extremely unwise.
Members of the house who are lawyers remember well that in a democracy we only exercise on behalf of the people the powers delegated to us by the people themselves. Every lawyer in the house remembers that ancient Latin maxim, delegatus non potest delegare. We only have power delegated to us by the people of Canada, and it is not our right to delegate to the executive meeting behind closed doors the business of the people of Canada which has been entrusted to us under our free democratic processes. Therefore in these times, which the government is finding sufficiently normal to deal with so many things in what they regard as a normal manner, may I urge that they return to normal. May I recall what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself said. He made it clear that this legislation departs from the normal constitutional procedure of the House of Commons. He made it clear that this legislation destroys the constitutional balances between the dominion and provincial governments. I am only asking, with respect, that all members on both sides of the house give due consideration to the importance of asserting their belief in the Canadian constitution at this great testing time for democracy throughout the whole world.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the Emergency Powers Act was before parliament in the first session of 1951 we in this group supported it. We did so because we recognized the existence of an emergency and because we felt that, in addition to steps that might have to be taken to meet that emergency from a defence point of view, there were also steps that might have to be taken from an economic point of view. Indeed, we argued very strongly at that time that the Canadian people were suffering because of rising prices and a lowering of their real standards of living. We argued that the institution of a system of price controls and subsidies, where necessary, was required. We supported the Emergency Powers Act in the realization that it would make possible the institution of such controls, and we urged the government as strongly as we could to take advantage of the right which parliament was conferring on them in order to protect the interests of the Canadian people.
In our view a state of emergency still exists. In fact we are not sure that it has lessened from what it was a year ago. The
Emergency Powers Act state of military activity in Korea may be different from what it was then, but the situation is as explosive as ever not only there and throughout the Far East, but in other parts of the world. For example, we in this group are concerned over what is being done this very day with respect to the taking of a step which in our view divides Germany into two armed camps. What may flow from that step is a matter of conjecture which it is not too pleasant to contemplate, but I mention it at this time merely to indicate that in our view the world situation is still one of emergency.
The economic situation is likewise still one of emergency so far as our people at home are concerned. The government has boasted over the fact that the cost of living index may have dropped a fraction of a point, but the plain fact of the matter is that the cost of living is still beyond the reach of the workers and farmers of this country who are producing the nation's wealth in terms of a gross national product in excess of anything that we have known in our history. And yet our people are suffering because they cannot afford to buy the goods they produce. That to us is a ridiculous situation, and in our view it is still important that certain direct economic controls should be instituted.
We firmly believe that man was not made for economic orders but that economic orders are supposed to be made for man. We do not believe in submitting our people to the suffering that comes from the play and the control of blind economic forces. We believe it is consistent with, and is a part of, the whole principle of democracy that our people should control not just a limited sphere of the things that concern us but should control completely that which concerns our people perhaps most of all, namely economic affairs. We believe that to leave these things to blind economic forces is to accept economic anarchy.
Because this measure which the government asks to be continued for another year not only would make it possible for the government to deal, within certain limitations, with emergencies of a defence nature but also with the economic emergencies that our people are facing in this country, we take the same view we took when the same bill was before the house in 1951. We shall support the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the continuation of this act for a period of another twelve months.
Had it not been for the very long speech to which we have just listened-and hon. members are, I am sure, glad to know that the rules of the house prevent me from speaking at the same length-

Emergency Powers Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is good to get approval once in a while. As I was about to say, had it not been for that speech, based1 largely on argument by the use of extravagant language, it might not have been necessary for me to say much more than I have already said. But because the arguments against this measure by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) have been based largely on what he described as principles of parliamentary democracy, for those of us who believe in parliamentary democracy as firmly as do we in this group it becomes necessary to answer some of the arguments which the leader of the opposition has put forward.
May I say, as I have already implied, that we take second place to none in our concern for the supremacy of parliament over the government. We take second place to none in our opposition to the abuse by the government of the power to do certain things by order in council. We take second place to none in our opposition to the way the government sometimes uses its majority in this house to ride roughshod over views which opposition members feel express the wishes of the Canadian people.


Mr. MacDougall:: Those are harsh words.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, they are harsh words. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) will probably hear more harsh words from us before the session closes. If he would like to know what those harsh words may be about, may I say that he already knows.
When we assert our concern for parliamentary democracy and when at the same time we accept the fact that we are in a state of emergency, does it not become necessary for us to find some sort of balance, to find some way to make our parliamentary way of doing things fit the needs of the emergency in which we find ourselves? It was because this legislation, when it was brought down a year ago, was an attempt to find that balance that we are prepared to accept its continuance for another year.
May I point out that the legislation which was brought down a year ago did not pass this house in the exact form in which it was first presented. Proposals were made on the floor of the house and some suggestions came from members of the Progressive Conservative group, some from our group and some from others. Some of those suggestions were accepted by the government and written into the statute. Their purpose was to ensure in so far as we could do so, the control of

parliament over the government in its use of the powers conferred upon the government by this statute.
At this point I might perhaps deal with one of the most important elements of protection which we won from the government on that occasion. We won it both in the form of an amendment to one of the subsections; and in the form of a clear-cut undertaking which the Prime Minister gave to this house. In his opening remarks today the Prime Minister said that he repeated all of the undertakings that were given last year. It is for that reason I want to put on the record one of the undertakings which the Prime Minister gave last year; and I take it that what he said this afternoon is a confirmation of this particular undertaking. When this bill was before the house last year we were concerned as to how effective would be the provision in what is now section 2, subsection 5, for the annulment of any orders, passed under the act, which parliament might wish to have rescinded.
I may say that when the government put that section in the bill it was an innovation. It was a provision that we did not have in the War Measures Act or in the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act and that sort of legislation we had after the war. Here, for the first time in Canadian legislation, we had the counterpart of something which has been in existence at Westminster, namely a provision that the Senate and the House of Commons could, by resolution, annul or rescind any of the orders passed under this act. The way of doing that was indicated in the act. Nevertheless, despite the assurance given to us because of the fact that there was in the act that provision for annulling any of these orders, some of us were concerned as to whether it would be effective and whether we would have an actual chance, on the floor of parliament, to do anything about it.
This matter was discussed on March 1, 1951, as recorded at pages 828 and 829 of Hansard; and I am going to take the liberty of reading most of a column because I believe this undertaking which the Prime Minister gave on that occasion should be on the record again now in the context of his having said today that he again gives the same undertaking. I quote from Hansard, at the pages already indicated:


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister indicated that some consideration had been given by the government concerning the possibility of writing into the statute a provision so as to make it clear that any member of the house or Senate could propose such a motion for annulling an order passed under this

act. Now, assurance was given by the Prime Minister earlier today that the government would facilitate any motion, if one were made. I wonder if the Prime Minister would care to tell us how he pictures such a course would be pursued, if it should happen. I realize it is hypothetical, and I realize the government is going to mind its p's and q's, and try not to bring in anything which parliament would want to annul. I do believe it would be helpful if he would tell us how he thinks this would work in actual practice if an instance should arise.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there were a notice or a
motion on the order paper it would be proper to suggest, at the end of the day preceding the expiry of the forty-eight hours, that the house should consider immediately after routine proceedings, the motion on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No matter where that motion
might be on the order paper?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No matter where it might be
on the order paper, that it would be convenient to consider that after the routine proceedings on the day on which it would mature.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister would favour
that course being followed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would favour that course,
and I would ask those over whom I had any influence to agree to that course being followed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the Prime Minister does not mind our appearing to try to get an undertaking out of him on this point. But it is very important, and a definite undertaking would be appreciated.
Then the Prime Minister gave this final, definite undertaking which dealt with the point about which I was concerned, namely the difficulty of getting unanimous consent for consideration of a private member's motion. Here are his words:


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there were not unanimous
consent to that procedure being followed, if there were objections to that procedure, I would give an undertaking to put a notice on the order paper as a government notice that such a resolution be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.
It was on the basis of that undertaking that we accepted this measure last year as being one that gave parliament a clear-cut and definite way of annulling any order passed under this act, if parliament felt that such should be done. I submit that for that undertaking to be repeated today, as the Prime Minister has done, is to cope with this situation in the best possible way.
Not only does the act provide for annulment of regulations or orders that may be passed by the government, but it does impose very definite limitations on the fields in which orders can be passed. Likewise, the act was limited last year in that it was to expire as of May 31 this year, subject to the possibility of it being continued for only one more year. The motion we now have before us takes advantage of that provision, but there is no provision anywhere in the act for it being continued any further after the end of May, 1953. Thus there are very definite limitations in this legislation, and I suggest that to speak of this as going 55704-1G3
Emergency Powers Act back to star chamber methods, as surrendering the rights of parliament and all the rest of it, is indeed using extravagant language.
Perhaps the strongest point the leader of the opposition makes is that he does not like merely to have the opportunity to pass upon laws after they have been given effect by the governor in council. I agree that I do not like that having to be done, even under ordinary legislation. But if we are going to admit it is an emergency situation, we have to give some responsibility to the government. May I point out that there are other measures, namely the taxation changes which take place, year by year, which become effective before parliament has the right to pass upon them. Parliament, however, still has the right to negate those changes if it wishes to do so. We still have the right under this act to negate, annul or rescind any of these regulations which the government might introduce. As I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a line of argument that I did not expect to use at all in my remarks today, but speaking on behalf of a group which is deeply concerned over parliamentary procedure as well as over parliamentary democracy and the rights of the members of this house to represent the people, it did seem necessary to deal with some of these arguments that the leader of the opposition has put forward.
The leader of the opposition is concerned about the rule of law. He came back to that phrase time and time again. I do not see the relevance of the argument. We are not saying to the government that it can pass any kind of laws it wants. We are giving the government certain limited powers, and we spell out those powers. We make it clear also that they can be effective for only a limited period of time. We require that any regulations or orders passed under this act shall be given publicity, and shall be tabled in parliament within a certain period of time. It seems to me that, all told, not too bad a job is being done in dealing with the problem of an emergency situation.
If we want the government to accept its responsibility to deal with the emergency situation on the defence side, if we in this group in particular want the government to deal with economic problems that face our people and want, as we do, the institution of price controls and the payment of subsidies to help our people cope with the cost of living, we have no alternative but to confer upon that government some means by which they can carry out the things we ask them to do.

Emergency Powers Act
We have had today, as we have had so often, the argument about the British North America Act and the whole question of the division of jurisdiction between the federal government and the provincial governments. I shall not take time to go into that at length. We still feel as a former colleague of ours, the late Frank Jaenicke, used to point out so well, that there was real validity in the judgment of the privy council in the Canada Temperance Act case. I refer to the judgment in which their lordships said that any question, which by its inherent nature was tied in with the welfare of the whole of Canada, was a subject upon which the parliament of Canada could legislate. We have in mind as well the decisions that have been made by the courts to the effect that when parliament in its wisdom declares a state of emergency, it is not for the courts to look behind that declaration. We believe there is a state of emergency. The leader of the opposition believes that. He tried to say it was less severe than it was a year ago, yet at one time during his remarks he said it was as grave as a year ago or perhaps even more grave.
Because of these constitutional arguments I have put forward, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we are quite within our rights, as a federal parliament, in passing legislation of this kind. I go further and suggest it is not merely a question of whether or not we are within our rights. Indeed, as a federal parliament we have certain responsibilities to the people of Canada. Our responsibility to them at this time of international crisis, and at this time of economic crisis in our own country, is to set up the machinery to enable the govem-ment-which at all times is responsible to this parliament and we will always hold them to that responsibility-to deal with this crisis.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks before six o'clock I think I made it clear that we were not impressed by the arguments used by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in opposing the motion now before the house.
We of this group supported this legislation a year ago, and we feel it is desirable that it should be continued for another year. Nevertheless we wish to make it clear that we are not satisfied with the record of the government in its use of the powers conferred by this legislation. Our complaint against the government is not that they have used


these powers too freely but that they have not used them for the purposes to which many people in this country hoped they would be put when this legislation was brought into parliament a year ago.
The people of Canada have not suffered from abuses under the Emergency Powers Act. The people of Canada have suffered because of the failure of the government to use these powers to control prices and protect the living standards of the Canadian people. In supporting the continuance of this legislation we do so in the hope that the government will reconsider the whole question of its attitude toward prices, and toward economic controls. The people of this country still believe it is their right to expect from the government protection of their living standards, particularly when it is because of a time of crisis, and when it is to a large extent because of defence spending that we are experiencing inflation as we are at the present time. So, Mr. Speaker, we give our support to this legislation; we turn aside the arguments against it, as I sought to do in my remarks before six o'clock, but we call upon the government to make better use of this legislation in the interests of the people of Canada during the twelve months that lie ahead than has been the case during the twelve months that have just gone by.
When the Prime-Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke this afternoon he gave an account of the government's stewardship under this legislation. He is to be commended for having told us the whole story of the number of orders passed under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act; but I thought as he gave that list, particularly when he recounted the last five to which he referred, that it must have been apparent to him that to a certain extent this legislation had been used as a matter of convenience. Indeed, the last five which the Prime Minister discussed were hardly measures that could be described as matters of emergency. He admitted it was simply a case of using this legislation to deal with these matters until such time as there could be appropriate legislation.
It is our contention that in giving these powers to the government parliament is not simply giving the government a convenient way of dealing with ordinary matters; parliament is giving the government power to deal with extraordinary matters. The extraordinary situation, both on the defence front and in terms of economic matters here at home, is the reason for legislation of this kind. We support the legislation, but we call upon the government to make use of it in the interests of the Canadian people.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved:: That, whereas section five of the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act, chapter three of the statutes of 1950 (second session), provides that that act shall expire on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-two; provided that, if the governor in council so orders, it shall expire on an earlier day designated by him; and provided further that if, at any time while that act is in force, addresses are presented to the Governor General by the Senate and House of Commons, respectively, praying that that act be continued in force for a further period, and the governor in council so orders, that act shall continue in force for that further period.
And whereas it is considered desirable to continue the said act in force until the thirty-first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-four.
The following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Kight Honourable Vincent Massey, Member of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Governor General, and Commander in Chief of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, respectfully approach Your Excellency, praying that the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act be continued in force until the thirty-first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-four.
He said: On May 5 I informed the house that an order in council had been passed effective May 6, revoking the regulations under the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act. I also stated that the government would during the present session invite both houses of parliament to present addresses to the Governor General praying that the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act be continued for a further period.
The act was passed by parliament in September, 1950, and authorized the governor in council to make regulations concerning the control of consumer credit. At that time inflationary pressures were building up rapidly all over the world, and were a cause for serious concern to all of us in this house. There had been a very rapid expansion of consumer credit during 1950. Further expansion of this type of consumer buying would have added to these upward pressures on prices.
The first consumer credit regulations under the authority of the act were passed by order in council October 25, 1950, and became effective November 1, 1950. Under these regulations a down payment of 33J per cent was required for motor vehicles and 20 per cent for other consumer goods. The minimum down payment and monthly payment were 55704-163i
Consumer Credit Act
each $5, and the maximum period of payment 18 months. In the early part of 1951 the effects of inflation upon the price level became much more pronounced and in March the regulations were sharply stiffened by raising the down payment to 50 per cent for motor vehicles and 33J per cent for other consumer goods, by raising both the minimum down payment and monthly payment to $10, and by reducing the maximum period of payment to 12 months. In January of this year the regulations were relaxed by extending the maximum period of payment to 18 months, and finally the regulations were revoked effective May 6 when it was felt that the need for them had passed.
There is no way of measuring the exact effect of consumer credit control over this period. But the statistics show that cash sales of durable goods expanded more rapidly during the first few months of 1951 than did instalment sales, a reversal of the situation in 1950 when the consumer credit regulations were not in force. There can be very little doubt that combined with the government's other anti-inflationary measures they were of considerable importance in first limiting and then levelling off the upward spiral of prices. Perhaps the best evidence of their effectiveness lies in the volume of requests we received for their removal or relaxation.
At present the direct limitation of consumer credit seems not to be necessary. Preliminary indications are that the total of consumer credit outstanding as at March 31 of this year was less than a year ago in spite of higher average prices and incomes. Nevertheless we must remind ourselves that the economy is still subject to some very heavy demand and that we have not yet reached the peak of our defence program. The international situation is still uncertain, and we must be in a position to deal promptly with unexpected events. While the probabilities are against a renewal of inflationary forces as powerful as those which beset us in late 1950 and early 1951, we cannot ignore the possibility. Defence expenditure is still increasing, projected capital investment for the current year is above last year's level and incomes are high and rising. It would not take much to upset the balance. If such a situation should1 develop we should not hesitate to reintroduce credit controls, but the effectiveness of any such measures depends upon their prompt application.
The consumer credit act, as originally passed by parliament, was given a two-year term of life, with a proviso that it could be extended for a further period of life on the presentation

Consumer Credit Act
of addresses from this house and from the Senate. The government recommends that the act be extended for a further period of two years, that is until July 31, 1954. This date coincides approximately with the time set for the achievement of our present defence program, and therefore covers the logical period during which the government should have these special powers.
It is with these considerations in mind that I move the address for the extension of the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act for a further period of two years. I think there is a good chance that we shall not need to use the authority which such an extension of the act would grant. I hope that this will be the case not only because such restraints are naturally irksome to both buyers and sellers, but because the necessity of again resorting to such restraint would mean that the general relative stability which now prevails had been seriously disturbed. But the possibility that control of consumer credit may again become necessary in the course of the next two years cannot be ignored, and if the necessity arises the measures to be taken will be more effective and can be less drastic if they can be applied quickly.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we have here a resolution proposing that a measure passed in the autumn of 1950 known as the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act be extended for two years. I draw attention immediately to the fact that it is proposed1 that this be extended for two years, whereas the Prime Minister's resolution moved this afternoon was for an extension of one year only. I shall revert to that, because it seems to me it is very difficult to make an argument for two years in this case, as against one year in the other. I shall suggest in an amendment that the term be reduced to one year.
I should like now to make a few general observations about the act itself. We remember very well the situation in the autumn of 1950, when we came back for a short session. We remember that at that time the war news from Korea was very bad, and that the defence spending spurt which had taken place during the summer had produced an inflationary situation, which the minister has described, and which in fact led to the initiation of the measure passed in the autumn of 1950.
At that time, as I think the minister himself more or less conceded in his following budget speech of April, 1951, the regulations had very little by way of teeth in them. Actually they had done little or nothing to improve the situation by the time of the budget speech in 1951.

Indeed, it was worse than that, because the whole action of the government during the autumn and winter of 1950-51 was to stimulate rather than to curb spending. As a matter of fact we all remember the spending splurge that took place at that time which, to some extent, was due to the fact that the government had created a feeling that there were likely to be shortages, without really having taken any worth-while steps to curb spending. And so we had that tremendous splurge.
Then we came along to the first session of 1951, when the situation was getting rapidly out of hand. We had1 then the interesting speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in which he told us so vividly and so frankly that the situation really, in a sense, had got largely out of hand. As he described it, the people who were in the business of selling goods had got themselves, in his words, "all set", and he thought at that time very little could be done about it.
Well, very little was done about it until the situation got bad. As we know, it went on for many months. And then with, I think, some assistance from this measure, which was tightened up and given more teeth in the spring of 1951, the situation has for the moment steadied. The minister has given us a picture of that. At the same time he feels he should be armed with this weapon, in case it is necessary to use it again.
I shall not take much of the time of the house to recall the unfortunate situation that developed. We had in the autumn of 1950, just after the Korean debacle, a situation where too little was done. Then in the spring of 1951 we had the minister's drastic taxation measures, which we all remember very well. My own guess, and I think it is more than a guess, is that the improvement in the military situation which took place in Korea immediately after the adjournment of the session in the autumn of 1950, eased the minds of the ministry-perhaps particularly the mind of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-so that, as I say, little was done during the winter. In fact what was done was actually inimical to the situation.
Then in the spring of 1951 we had the taxes, which have been so fully discussed- taxes which bore so heavily on certain of the industries, including the motor car industry and others. At the same time heavier taxes were introduced, stronger teeth were put into the instalment buying provisions. So the two things went along together until we had this very, very unsatisfactory situation during the last year, which the minister has striven to cure by backing away from his consumer controls, and removing them until

we are given to understand, at any rate it is common gossip, that deferred depreciation will also go by the boards.
My feeling about this is that it is a device which has been badly used. At the same time, with the possibility of heavy buying and further inflation I dislike to go the length of opposing it entirely. I content myself therefore, at the moment, with moving that the two-year period be reduced to one year. There is no reason whatever why the period should be two years. If we give an extra year we can take stock of the situation when the twelve months have expired just as we intend to do in connection with the Emergency Powers Act. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton):
That the word "fifty-three" be substituted for the word "fifty-four" where the latter appears in the resolution.
In other words, that the extension of the act be for one year and not for two.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, let me say at once that I have not the slightest objection to making it for one year rather than for two years. The reason two years was suggested was that two years was provided for in the original act. If anyone would rather have it one year, the government has not the slightest objection.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.
Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before Your Honour leaves the chair I should like to say a few words about a matter which is of interest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I am glad he is in the house at the present time so I can direct my remarks to him, and I hope get his attention. The question I have in mind is that of the five-day week. I think I overheard the minister utter those words even before I got them out, so no doubt he realized what was coming.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am a mind reader at times.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the house knows this is a matter of considerable interest to the civil service and other workers in this country, and has been discussed a good deal of late. As hon. members know, with regard to the
Public Service-Five-day week civil service the matter of the five-day week has been presented to the government in various ways and various answers have been given on different occasions. Recently the indication has been that the Minister of Finance is prepared to meet representatives of the civil service at an early date to discuss this matter. In the meantime a number of statements have been made which suggest that the minister's mind is somewhat made up already. My purpose in taking advantage of this opportunity to speak on a grievance is to express the hope that when the minister meets the representatives of the civil service he will meet them with an open mind.
The fact of the matter is that quite a number of people employed by the government now have a five-day week. Therefore in asking for a five-day week for the civil service we are not making a request for something brand new. I think the minister realizes from what I have just said that I am speaking about employees of other emanations of the crown and agencies of the government apart from the civil service. As I say, there are a number of employees in that category who are on the five-day week.
This is shown by sessional paper 180 which was tabled in the House of Commons on April 21, 1952, having been brought down in response to some questions of mine which were passed as an order for return on November 28, 1951. This sessional paper indicates the following employees in the following organizations as being on the five-day week, and it shows the number in each case:
Bank of Canada	 1,186
Canadian Arsenals Ltd	 3'27l
' Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	 L300
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation l'<)44
Defence Construction Ltd	 26
Eldorado Mining & Refining Ltd	 228
Industrial Development Bank	 95
Polymer Corporation, Ltd	 2,100
This sessional paper also indicates that employees of Canadian National Railways, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, Canadian wheat board and Trans-Canada Air Lines are also on the five-day week although the return does not give the number of employees in these cases. I believe the same holds true for employees of the national research council and of the defence research board.
Another interesting return was tabled on Wednesday, May 21, 1952, being sessional paper 113C. This was brought down in answer to questions asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who inquired specifically as to whether the five-day week was in effect in any department of government, any crown corporation or government agency and, if so, what departments, corporations or agencies.

Public Service-Five-day week
The sessional paper is rather bulky, being made up of some 33 pages, but as one goes through it he finds that in addition to government employees outside of the civil service, to whom I have already referred, who are now enjoying the five-day week, there are quite a number of civil servants as such who are also enjoying the five-day week. In particular it appears from this return that practically all civil servants in the Toronto district are now on the five-day week. I need not take up the time of the house to go through this return page by page, but it includes answers from the civil service commission and from quite a number of departments which indicate that practically all the civil servants in the city of Toronto are on' the five-day week, and that there are some civil servants in special situations in other parts of the country who are likewise on that work period.
I understand that representations have been made to the government by civil servants in other precise localities. For example, civil servants in Windsor have asked that they be put on the five-day week in the same way as civil servants in Toronto. In other words we are not breaking new ground in making this request. We are not asking for an innovation. The five-day week is already in effect in a good many instances. In addition to the fact that there are such groups of people who are on the five-day week the year round, there are other departments of the government whose civil servants have enjoyed the five-day week during certain periods of the year, particularly in the summer on certain occasions. Despite all these facts which indicate some progress toward the five-day week, the government maintains an attitude of resistance toward representations that it should be extended and made really general in the civil service. The return from which I was quoting a few moments ago, sessional paper No. 180 of April 21, 1952, in addition to giving the factual information asked for also dealt with my fifth and sixth questions which were as follows:
5.	What consideration has been given to such representations?
6.	What progress is being made by the government in getting ready for the five-day week for all civil servants and all government employees?
The answers to these two questions were incorporated in one answer which is as follows:
The treasury board and its staff, the civil service commission and the national joint council of the public service have studied the developments and proposals relating to the five-day week in the light of other considerations bearing upon the possible adoption of it as a general policy. The five-day week has been adopted in certain units of the public service where it would promote efficiency and could be introduced without reduction in hours of work or service to the public and without increasing staff. In view of the need to economize in labour

and expenditure, and to secure maximum national productivity at this time of abnormal requirements arising from the defence program, the government has not, however, considered it desirable to adopt the five-day week for the civil service as a whole.
The government of course was not surprised when the publication of that answer was greeted with some disappointment by civil servants generally. In fact their representatives spoke rather strongly about the attitude of the government, particularly in view of the fact that not long before that sessional paper was tabled the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) had said in the house in answer to a question of mine that the matter was being studied, that representations would be considered, and that it would not be necessary for all the different civil service organizations to make separate representations.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that included in these critical comments made by various civil service representatives were those which appeared in the May issue of one of their publications, the Canadian Civil Servant. There is a paragraph on page 7 which reads as follows:
Indicating an unwavering determination to see the institution of the short work week throughout the civil service he claimed-
The "he" refers to Fred Knowles.
-that its inauguration would result in a higher level of productivity, efficiency and morale than now exists.
It is that sort of approach that I plead with the Minister of Finance to consider. In my view you cannot look at the question of the five-day week simply as a matter of ordinary cold mathematics. It is not a correct analysis of the situation to assume that if you cut down from five and a half days to five or from six days to five it automatically is going to mean a loss in productivity or a commensurate increase all across the board in other personnel. Beyond doubt there will be some cases where, in order to maintain public service six or seven days a week if necessary, additional people will have to be employed; but it seems to me there is no question but that in a large area of the government service there could be a reduction in the total number of days of work or total number of hours of work per week without lessening of production.
Indeed, you might even get an increase in production arising from a higher level of productivity, efficiency and morale than now exists. My plea to the Minister of Finance is that when he meets the representatives of the civil servants to discuss this matter he meet them with an open mind and consider

just such points as were made in the statement by Fred Knowles, to which I have just referred. As the minister knows, other representatives of civil servants have made similar statements.
I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that in addition to such progress as is being made in the government service in terms of the five-day week, it is becoming fairly general in Canada as a whole. On December 3, 1951 certain questions of mine regarding the five-day week were answered in Hansard at page 1510. My questions were these:
1.	Has the government any statistics as to the number of (a) industrial workers: (b) office workers now on (i) a five-day week; (ii) a five and a half day week; (iii) a six-day week?
2.	If so, what are the number of each of the above groups of workers who are working for each of the periods indicated above?
The answer given by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour is in the form of a table which I shall not endeavour to place upon Hansard again, but when the minister is getting ready to meet the civil servants I would ask him to look at the table on page 1510 of Hansard for December 3, 1951. I may say that I was pleasantly surprised myself, when these figures were given by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, to discover the extent to which the five-day week is now the rule among industrial and office workers in Canada generally. I find from the table that in terms of plant workers there are 510,000 whose work week is more than five days, be it five and a half days, six days or whatever it may be, but there are 537,000 who are already on the five-day week. In terms of office workers, there are 81,000 who are on a work week of more than five days compared with 107,000 on the five-day week. In other words, the majority of both industrial and office workers are already on the five-day week. Incidentally, I asked specifically later on whether these figures included bank employees, quite a number of whom have since gone on the five-day week because of enabling legislation passed by parliament. I was informed that these figures did not include bank employees. In other words the situation is actually better than is indicated by the figures I have given.
The whole idea in advocating the five-day week is that with the increased productivity of our modern economy it is axiomatic that a share of that increased productivity should be passed on to those who produce the nation's wealth. You do that in various ways. You do it by the scale of wages, by the prices that you pay for farm products. You do it by social security and in various other ways. You also do it by reducing
Public Service-Five-day week the number of hours or days per week that people have to work, thus making it possible for people to enjoy a little more of the life that they are working to make possible. It is good to know that this trend is developing in Canada generally; but in my view there is still a long way to go, and I certainly feel that the federal government should give a stronger lead in this respect with regard to its own civil servants.
I want to say in passing that the federal government should also consider its own labour legislation with respect to the five-day week as it affects employees generally. For example, we have in this country the position that employees of Canadan Pacific hotels in some cases enjoy a shorter work week than do employees of Canadian National hotels. The reason is that, by a decision of the privy council, employees of the Canadian National hotels are regarded as coming under federal labour jurisdiction whereas employees	of	Canadian	Pacific	hotels	areregarded	as	coming	under	provinciallabour jurisdiction. In some of the provinces there are work-week laws that give to employees	of	Canadian	Pacific	hotels	theprotection	of	a shorter	work	week,	but
employees of Canadian National hotels are denied that protection because there is no such work-week limitation in federal legislation.
That is just in passing, Mr. Speaker, to point out that those of us who are concerned about the work week of our people are concerned about it on all fronts. My particular purpose in raising the matter at this time is to express the hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and his officials who will go into this matter will consider it from all angles. Let them consider the extent to which government employees outside the civil service already have a five-day week. Let them face the fact that in Toronto, for example, civil servants already have the five-day week.


Mr. Fleming:: As do city of Toronto employees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming) reminds me that the employees of the city of Toronto have the five-day week. That is true in some other cities in Canada as well. They would be covered in the figures with respect to office workers and others which I quoted from page 1510 of Hansard of December 3, 1951. If he will consider all those aspects of the situation and the arguments the civil servants themselves have put forward, I am sure he will agree with me that this is a subject which he should not approach with a closed mind, but rather that he should meet these people in,

Public Service-Five-day week good faith and listen sympathetically to their representations. He knows-tout I repeat it-that they have my support and the support of those of us in this group. I earnestly hope that something will come out of the discussions which are scheduled for the near future between the minister and the civil servants with respect to this important question of the five-day week.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, if the five-day week were granted, then the proposal would toe made that we must have a four-day week. It seems to me that we have lost sight of an important point with regard to the civil servants here in the great capital city of our nation. I am not one who would say whether they should have a five-day week, a six-day week or a seven-day week; but I would say that each hour they spend in their work should be spent profitably, happily and with enthusiasm, working for this great country.
Coming as I do from a far removed part of our nation, when I come to Ottawa I wonder that people live in such a circumscribed area. I find in the city of Ottawa today the same limits that were set when I was here as a boy forty years ago. I wonder whether, here in the city of Ottawa, there is not some kind of influence that is holding the limits of the city within narrow bounds with the hope of extracting from the civil servants the ultimate in rental for premises occupied. It is unfortunate that I should say this, but I know people in the civil service who are enjoying very small incomes and pay more for a suite than I could afford to pay, even with my income. They are limited to apartment houses, duplexes and so forth. They pay $100 and $125 a month for a suite whereas out in the Cariboo country we should be glad to have $10 a month for similar premises.
I have a suggestion which I am going to give the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). He is one of the younger members in this house, with a bright future before him, and in his heart he must have hope for the welfare of this nation. Ottawa is the brains of Canada. Within the boundaries of Ottawa, this capital, are the people who administer the affairs of Canada. Is it not therefore desirable that these civil servants should be given every opportunity to live full, happy and wholesome lives? I suggest that the Minister of Finance should start tonight to plot out a city for the future, a great subdivision that will extend from the Ottawa river right over to Prescott-it could be extended by degrees from time to time-in order to allow these people to get out of the heart of these purlieus and into the beautiful

countryside of Ontario; to get an acre or half an acre of land, with water laid down, sewers, hydro and paved streets. A man earning $150 a month could then go out 20 miles from this town and there live a good life, raise his family, and give them the advantages of school and church and other opportunities.
We live here in the midst of plenty. In fact I am reminded of the story of the man in the boat who was seeking fresh water and who said: Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink. He was told: Drop your bucket on the other side and you will find there is lots of water.
We are here in the centre of eastern Ontario, with all this land in this productive valley of the Ottawa and the Rideau. No part of the world is more productive and more beautiful than this part of the country contiguous to Ottawa. Yet our stupid people allow a few real estate agents to confine the boundaries of the town within narrow limits. We should have a great highway from here to Prescott; it should be a four-lane highway. We should lay out subdivisions on either side of it where there would really be an opportunity to make homes for all our civil servants. No matter how small their incomes might be, they would share with us the free air, the good food, and good water and all the amenities of life to which every Canadian is entitled.
Motion agreed to and the, house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT 311. Departmental administration, $1,118,455.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 527. Departmental administration, $2,217,425.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act to provide for a number of administrative changes under the act; inter alia to give power to the Canadian farm loan board to borrow money from the minister to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund on such terms and conditions as the governor in council approves for the purposes of the board; to permit first mortgage loans up to 60 per centum of the appraised value of the security and up to a

maximum of $10,000; to provide for the appointment, duties and remuneration (out of the revenues of the board) of an advisory board to be known as the Canadian farm loan advisory board; to provide with respect to short term loans secured by second mortgage that they may be made for the same purpose as first mortgage loans and up to one-third of the amount of a first mortgage loan; and to provide further for aggregate maximum loans secured by first and second mortgages up to $12,000 and up to 70 per centum of valuation where chattel security is taken or 65 per centum where it is not taken.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the
minister going to say anything at this stage? I appreciate the fact that these are more or less changes in detail, yet they are important changes and there seems to be a pattern at work. Will the minister make a statement, perhaps reviewing the operation of the act and stating what general principles, if any, are behind these rather important changes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I proposed to make a brief statement, but I thought it might be made in the committee and then the members could ask questions as to the detailed administration of the board, if there is no objection to that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is no objection to that.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This resolution seeks authority to introduce a bill to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act in order to bring the act more up to date, and make it a more flexible and efficient instrument for financing the mortgage requirements of Canadian farmers. The act was originally passed in 1927 and has not been amended since 1935. Conditions have altered substantially since that time, and it is desirable to make certain changes to enable the board to fulfil more effectively its function of providing mortgage credit for Canadian agriculture.
The most important amendments are designed to enlarge the board's field of operations by increasing the aggregate amount of loans which may be made to any one borrower on a first mortgage, and on a first and second mortgage together, by enabling the board to lend on a more generous scale in relation to the value of the security, and by adding to the purposes for which second mortgage loans may be made. At present the board cannot loan more than $5,000 on a first mortgage and $6,000 on a first and second mortgage together to any one borrower. The new bill will increase these limits to $10,000 and $12,000 respectively, that is $10,000 on the first mortgage to any one borrower or $12,000 on first and second mortgage combined to any one borrower. The reasons for this proposed amendment will be obvious. If lending
Canadian Farm Loan Act limits of $5,000 or $6,000 were reasonably sound in 1927 and 1934, the development of Canadian agriculture since that time, the rise in the value of farm land and in the cost of farm equipment and so on should make the proposed new limits not inappropriate.
The present act also limits a first mortgage loan to 50 per cent of the actual value of the land and buildings to be mortgaged, buildings being considered only to the extent to which they add to the actual value of the land as farm land. If a summer cottage is built on the farm, therefore, it is not eligible so far as valuation is concerned for lending purposes. Furthermore the act limits the aggregate of first and second mortgage loans to be made to any one borrower to two-thirds of the appraised value of land and buildings in provinces where chattel security may be taken, and to 60 per cent of the said value in provinces where chattel security cannot be taken. In the new bill authority is sought to increase the limit of a first mortgage loan to 60 per cent of the value of the security, and the limit of first and second mortgage taken together to 70 per cent of the value of the security in those provinces where chattel security may be taken, and to 65 per cent in those provinces where no chattel security can be taken. I think it will be generally agreed that the board has had a sound lending record, and this record has only been possible because it has not been unduly generous in the amount of credit it has extended or unwise in the selection of its risks. I do not think we wish the board to make unsound loans and become a burden on the general body of taxpayers, but I hope it will be agreed that the lending limits in relation to the board's appraised value of properties can now be raised, as the bill provides, without assuming an undue measure of risk.
The other way in which the scope of the board's operations is being enlarged is by extending the purposes for which second mortgage loans may be made. At present they cannot be used to purchase land, but I see no reason for this restriction and experience has shown that it can be safely removed, and wisely so in the general interest.
There are two other proposed amendments to which I may call special attention at this time. One provides for the establishment of a national advisory board to consider from time to time, discuss with the board and make recommendations to the board concerning the lending policies of the board, the principles underlying the valuation of farm property and the conditions affecting or that may affect lending policy on outstanding or future loans. At present there is provision

Canadian Farm Loan Act in the act for the setting up of local advisory boards, but this provision has not appeared to be practicable and has not been implemented. I hope the new provision may serve a useful purpose.
The second provision to which I shall call attention is one relating to the audit of the accounts of the board. At present this audit is in the hands of a private firm. Under the new bill which this resolution seeks authority to introduce, it is proposed to have the Auditor General of Canada act as the board's auditor. This change is, of course, in line with the general principles of our new Financial Administration Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister give us a few figures showing the size of the operation and the results to date?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. I have in my hand the report of the Canadian farm loan board which is tabled each year in the house, and I believe the one for this year has been tabled. I do not suppose the hon. member wants me to give all the details here, but some of the figures are rather interesting. This covers operations to the end of March, 1952, since the inception of the act. The number of loans totals 35,992; amount of loans disbursed, $72,538,000; number of loans presently outstanding, 16,497; amount of loans presently outstanding, $28,168,000. Those figures I am giving are for first mortgage loans. The amount of interest arrears totals $63,700, and the percentage of interest arrears to principal outstanding is -226 per cent.
In so far as second mortgage loans are concerned, the number of loans totals 12,139-again since the inception of the act -the amount of loans disbursed, $6,882,000; the number of loans outstanding at present, 2,815; amount of loans outstanding, $1,234,000; amount of interest arrears, $11,700; and the percentage of those interest arrears to principal outstanding is -948 per cent. The balance sheet of the board, as shown in the annual report which has been tabled, gives other details as to the cash on hand and that sort of thing. Speaking generally, the operations of the board have been very satisfactory. The provision in the balance sheet for possible losses is $1,744,017.19.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Built up how?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Built up as a result of profits which have been accumulated over the years; earnings.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the minister says "profit" he means surplus over the cost of borrowing the money and lending it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: One other
question. Are the figures which the minister gave as to arrears subject to any qualification of any kind? What I mean is, have there been any foreclosures? Does that tell the whole story?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Over the years there have been foreclosures and sales. At present the number of properties on hand is nine, with a book value of $10,420. There are 208 agreements of sale outstanding with the amount due under these agreements of sale $240,600. This would represent, of course, properties taken over and subsequently resold. The interest arrears on those properties amount to only $2,850. I think it is safe to say that the board is in a very sound position at the present time.


George Matheson Murray: Has the board not operated almost without loss? There has been no loss since this plan has been put under way?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think the record is quite as good as that. I think the losses have been very small.


George Matheson Murray: The attitude of the board ought to be a little more generous; and there ought to be provision for a little loss. I do not suggest that we should encourage great losses or extravagances, but I would suggest to the minister that he should keep that in mind. I know the man who set this thing in motion. He was a former premier of British Columbia, Hon. John MacLean, a very able man. He came from Prince Edward Island. He was a very thrifty man, and very close in all his dealings. He set this thing going on a sound basis. Up in our end of the country, north of the Peace river, very few loans have been made because of the unwillingness of the board to take any chances whatsoever. You should relax your program so as to permit a farmer to borrow money to clear land, to clear off scrub, and so on. The attitude should be a little more generous. The government of Canada can afford to take a little loss on a tremendously useful program such as this.
Another thing I hear from many people is that they will not accept the loans because they have to sign so many papers. They have to give their age and the age of their wives, when they were married', and all about this, that and the other thing. They have to give

their fingerprints. So many papers have to be filled out that they feel it is not worthwhile, so the loans are limited to very good risks, to people who are very objective, and so on. This thing is fine; it is helping the banks out, and in some places it is taking the place of banks, but it should be widened a bit to take in the newer areas where people are taking chances every day. They should really have the benefit of this fine financial set-up.


Robert Fair: The record of the small losses suffered by the Canadian farm loan board must be accepted as another testimonial of the honesty of the farmers of Canada. If anything can be done to lower the interest rate it should be done without further delay. There are methods iby which that interest rate could be lowered, and I believe our producers should be given the full benefit of those methods.


Mrs. Fairclough:: I am not just sure that I understood exactly about the arrears of interest. Did I understand that was all on active mortgages now, or is there some portion of it which had accrued on mortgages on properties which have changed hands.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All the figures I have given are interest accrued on first and second mortgage loans outstanding, and the last figure I gave is interest on agreements of sale, which represent the sale of foreclosed; properties. When a property is realized on, the loss, if any, is charged against the reserve for losses. If the property is sold and realizes a profit, then of course that profit is credited to the same account; and the item I gave of $240,600 as representing balances due on agreements of sale would represent the balances due on the sale of property which had been foreclosed, and on that item the amount of interest arrears is $2,850.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That amount is included in the $63,700?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; that is a separate item. The amount of $63,700 is the arrears on the first mortgages, $11,700 on the second mortgages, $2,850 on agreements of sale, or a total of close to $80,000 on the three items.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has the minister available the borrowing and lending rates, the rates at which 'the board borrowed, and at which it lent over the years? What is the present rate?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The present rate? I think I have it here. I wonder whether my hon. friend would let that stand. I will give it to him when we are in committee on the bill itself. I should have it, but I have not.
Tariff Board Act


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Is the minister familiar with the set-up in the maritime provinces and Newfoundland? I understand there is no agent of the board in Newfoundland, and anyone who wants a loan has to make application to the Halifax office. That entails considerable delay. Now that these loans are to be made more liberal I wonder whether consideration could be given to setting up an office in Newfoundland?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should be very glad to bring my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of the management of the board.. I imagine that up to the present time the volume of business offering in Newfoundland has not been considered sufficiently great to justify the overhead which would be involved in establishing a separate office; but I shall be glad to see that the situation is looked, into.


Mr. Quelch:: Has all the capital provided been private capital?


Douglas Charles Abbott: All the capital that has been provided has been put up by the government.


Victor Quelch: No private capital?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No private capital, no.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has the business of the board been steadily on the upgrade, or has the minister got any sort of rough figures over the years, not year by year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I have here the year by year increase, but the increase has been steady, although not unduly rapid, perhaps owing to the, shall I say, sound lending policies of the board.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 275, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TARIFF BOARD ACT


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Tariff Board Act to provide that there shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund an annual salary of twelve thousand dollars to the vice-chairman of the board and an annual salary of eleven thousand dollars to the other member of the board.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

Canada Elections Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, as the terms of this resolution indicate, the primary purpose of the bill founded on this resolution is to increase the annual salary of the vice-chairman of the board to $12,000 and the annual salary of the other member to $11,000. In addition there is a provision that a section in the act relating to investigation under the Combines Investigation Act, which is now covered under that act, is to be repealed; and the section with respect to the secretary of the board is to be repealed, and his salary established in the usual way.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What are
the salaries now paid?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is $10,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: To these two?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, they are each $10,000. The vice-chairman is to be paid $12,000, the other member $11,000; and the salary of the chairman, which is now $15,000, is not to be changed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the salary of the secretary?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe it is either $5,000 or

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 276, to amend the Tariff Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Frederick Gordon Bradley: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Elections Act to provide that the chief electoral officer may be paid a salary of not less than eight nor more than twelve thousand dollars per annum to be fixed by order of the governor in council.


Mr. Graydon:: This is a good night to talk about elections.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Especially salaries.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this resolution relating to the salary of the chief electoral officer. I wish at the outset to say that the present incumbent of the office, like his father before him whom most of us knew, enjoys the fullest confidence of all members of the house. I

am sure nothing we might say regarding his salary will be regarded by anyone as detracting in any way from what I have just said. Indeed, there is no question that, in the light of his responsibilities and the way he discharges them, any proposal for a reasonable increase in his salary would meet with the approval of members of the house.
However I am somewhat surprised at the way in which this resolution reads, particularly in view of the rather warm discussion we had in the house last year regarding the salaries of the civil service commissioners. The Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) who introduced the resolution and bill on that occasion will recall that, prior to last year, the salaries of the civil service commissioners were fixed by statute, although for a number of years they had a supplement by means of items in the estimates.
We had asked on a number of occasions, in keeping with the recommendation by the Auditor General, that that practice should be discontinued, and that the entire amount of the salaries paid to the civil service commissioners should be provided in the statute itself. To our amazement, when the amending legislation came in it took away from parliament altogether the fixing of the salaries of the civil service commissioners and placed that matter in the hands of the governor in council. We protested strongly against that course of action. I still think we were right in our contention that the salaries of the civil service commissioners should be fixed by parliament rather than by the governor in council.
We pointed out at that time that in our opinion there were certain officials who must always be recognized as officials not of the government but of parliament. We included in that category not only the civil service commissioners but the Auditor General and the chief electoral officer. Indeed in our opposition to the proposal to make the salaries of the civil service commissioners subject to decision by the governor in council we gave as examples of a better way to do it the fact that the salaries of the Auditor General and the chief electoral officer were fixed by statute.
Despite the argument we put up at that time against changing that way of doing things, and despite considerable editorial support from newspapers in respect of the stand we took, we now find the government changing the basis with respect to the salary of the chief electoral officer. As a matter of fact we have now neither one method nor the other, but rather a hybrid. It used to be that this salary, like that of the Auditor General and of the civil service commissioners, was fixed by statute. In respect of the civil

service commissioners the salaries are no longer fixed by statute, but rather by the governor in council. In the present instance we have a proposal to fix lower and upper limits, leaving it to the governor in council to determine what the salary of the chief electoral officer will be, within those limits. I am not sure whether this is better or worse than the other arrangement; but, on balance, I think it is worse.
Our concern about the whole matter is that these people, who are servants of parliament in a particular way, and not servants of the government, should not have their salaries or anything related to their work handled in such a way as to make them feel that it is the government they must regard as their employer, and that it is the government to whom they must go to obtain increases in salaries.
I deeply regret that the government has taken this course of action with respect to people in this position. I regret it because of the nature of the position itself; I regret it because of the person of the present incumbent, and I do not think this change should be made.
Another feature about the change that puzzles me is that the resolution proposes that the salary shall not be less than $8,000 or more than $12,000 per year. If my information is correct the present salary is $10,000, and I am puzzled as to why we find here this sliding scale with provision for a salary lower than that now received by the present incumbent. That being so, the chief electoral officer just does not know what can happen. He might get an increase from the government but, on the other hand, the government might decide to decrease his salary. I insist that this is not fair. In my view the chief electoral officer should continue to enjoy in all respects and in every way the status he has enjoyed across the years, as a servant of parliament rather than of the government.
I shall be interested in any explanation the Secretary of State may give for this change, either in committee or at any other stage. However, I do feel that this is the wrong way to go about it; and I regret very much that the government has paid so little heed to what we on this side of the house thought was a pretty strong and effective argument put forward last year. At that time if the measure which had been brought before the house had been changed, the prestige of the government might have been damaged. On the other hand, I remember the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) agreeing to a change when persuaded by the house that he had made a wrong move.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And tonight.
Canada Elections Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tonight the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Abbott) accepted a suggestion from the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) with respect to a measure we had before us a while ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are making history.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whatever may have been the motives that kept the government from acceding to our request last year it does not appear to be wise on their part to make this change in the way of dealing with this matter.
I say quite categorically that in my view the responsibilities that devolve upon the chief electoral officer and the splendid job that person is doing merit a larger salary than the $10,000 he is now getting. In no sense should my remarks be interpreted as being in opposition to an increase in salary for this gentleman. As a matter of fact it cannot be said that the resolution provides for an increase in his salary; it provides for a possible increase or for a possible decrease, whereas we favour an increase.
Parliament should have the right to indicate what the salary of this person will be. The resolution we adopted just a moment ago dealt with the salaries of people who are not as much servants of parliament as are the Auditor General and the chief electoral officer; yet in the case of members of the tariff board it was felt by the government that the way to deal with their salaries was to fix the amount in the statute. I am wholly in support of the salary being more commensurate with the responsibilities of the chief electoral officer. I regret that the government has decided to do it on this basis, rather than by fixing a definite amount in the statute.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this resolution changes the present law in two respects. One is to displace the fixed salary provided by the statute and to substitute a floor and ceiling, the floor being lower than the present statutory salary and the ceiling being higher. The other change is to remove from parliament the responsibility for establishing the salary and to vest that responsibility and power in the governor in council.
I do not think anyone in this house is going to argue that parliament should set the salary of every public official, but there certainly are some outstanding oases where parliament and not the governor in council should set the salary. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, that applies eminently to the Auditor General. He is an official of parliament, and parliament should establish his salary. There should be no power left in the governor

Canada Elections Act
in council in respect of the amount of salary to be received by an official like the Auditor General who must enjoy complete independence of the government.
The same thing can be said about the official whose salary is under debate at this moment, namely the chief electoral officer. Independence in the administration of the duties of his office is just as important in my submission as independence in the administration of the duties of the Auditor General. Why this office should be singled out now as one in which the governor in council should claim the right to fix the salary is something I cannot follow.
This resolution does not propose to create a new office. We are not dealing with a situation where there has been no history. Here we have an official whose independence of the government has been guaranteed by the fact that his salary is fixed by parliament in a statute. The government can take nothing from him. Why change? That is the big question: Why should a change be made now? It would be quite possible within the limits proposed in the present resolution for the governor in council to apply pressure upon the salary hopes of *the official holding this high office.
It seems to me entirely unsound to propose that any measure be adopted which will qualify or modify in any degree the independence of the chief electoral officer. Let us compare this proposal with what was involved ini the resolution which has just been disposed of by the house. In that case the house decided that the present provisions of the Tariff Board Act by which the salaries of the vice-chairman and the third member of the board are fixed shall continue. No member of this house I am sure is going to suggest that the independence of the chief electoral officer is one whit less important than the independence of the vice-chairman and the third member of the tariff board.
I submit that what is involved here is inherently wrong. If the government is convinced that there should be an increase in the salary of the chief electoral officer I am sure the house will be glad to consider such a proposal on its merits, and consider it sympathetically, but to make an occasion of that kind the pretext for removing from parliament the right to guarantee the independence of the chief electoral officer from all government influence seems to me to be a very different matter, and a move which the government ought not to make.
It seems to me also this measure uses what may be considered the occasion of a proper increase in the salary of the chief electoral

officer as an excuse or pretext for establishing, in lieu of parliamentary authority, governmental authority to establish that salary. That would be a retrograde step. I hope the government will withdraw this resolution. If there is occasion for increasing the salary of the chief electoral officer let us proceed to do it by a proper amendment to the act, not by this move which I submit is inherently wrong and unsound.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a rather difficult resolution to discuss at this time. Not having been taken into the government's confidence I d!o not know just what the government is doing. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Elections Act to provide that the chief electoral officer may be paid a salary of not less than eight nor more than twelve thousand dollars per annum to be fixed by order of the governor in council.
That to me is a rather intriguing thing in some ways and a rather mysterious thing in other ways. Perhaps the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), who is sponsoring the resolution, will give us the actual reasons for bringing it in at this time.
It has been stated' here this evening that the officer under discussion is now receiving $10,000 by statute. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to see that salary reduced1. I appreciate the good work that has been done by our chief electoral officer as well as the good work done by his father who was his predecessor in office. I believe in economy in government, but I believe also in paying a good salary for good work performed.
As I said before, it is very difficult to speak on the resolution when, one does not know the reasons for its being on the order paper in its present form.. Nevertheless I am compelled to support it. I do not want to see the salary of the chief electoral officer reduced. We want competent administration in that office, and I believe the present incumbent has given service that has been satisfactory to all.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Speaker-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister will want to let the hon. member for Greenwood speak before he does.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to what has been said so far and I regret the moderation of the speakers who have preceded me because it seems to me that this is a most astounding performance. We may get reasons which will make it look different, but I confess

they will have to be very good ones. First of all, let me associate myself with what has been said about the chief electoral officer personally. He is a worthy son following a worthy father. However, if this action is to be taken I see no reason in the world why we may not next have a measure saying that the salary of the Auditor General is going to be fixed by the government. I do not think we could feel secure from something like that happening if we tamely submit and allow this measure to go through.
This general question came up last year, but it was not in such an extreme form. With the great importance of the duties of the chief electoral officer and the desirability of his being independent, is anyone going to stand up and say seriously that a man whose salary is fixed by the government is really independent? Will anyone have the effrontery to stand up in the house and say that? I do not believe they will. What is happening is that we are tampering with the independence of the chief electoral officer. Let us face what we are doing. It is hard to be indignant about the matter when we look at the gentlemen opposite and they ask us to believe-and of course we more or less do believe-that there is not an evil thought in their minds.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We know better.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) quoted the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) this afternoon to the effect that we have no guarantee of the immortality of the delightful gentlemen who sit opposite us. There have been countries and cases where people with positions corresponding to the chief electoral officer have been tampered with. The Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) may have such divine eloquence that he will be able to persuade us tonight that we are all wrong, but if he does not I hope there will be men in the house who will fight this thing tooth and nail because, like the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I think it is wrong.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I too am opposed to the motion, not on the ground that I do not favour an increase in salary from $10,000 to $12,000, if necessary, for the chief electoral officer, but because I think the resolution should call for an increase from $10,000 to $12,000 to be fixed by statute. From what experience I have had I feel that the chief electoral officer is doing a very excellent job, as his father did before him, but this resolution is an apparent arrogant attempt on the part of the government to control the chief electoral officer. If there is one officer in this
Canada Elections Act
country who should be independent it is the chief electoral officer. I am quite confident that the people of the country will not favour the government putting the chief electoral officer under their thumb so his salary may be increased or reduced at the whim of the government. It is on that basis that I oppose the resolution.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to say a word or two in opposition to the proposal. Like previous speakers I have nothing but the very highest regard for the chief electoral officer, as I had for his predecessor.


An hon. Member:: For the record.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, it is for the record, and I do not boast about the years I have been here without ever making a speech in the house. I am quite sincere in what I say, and it is for the record if the hon. member wants to put it that way. As I said, I had great respect for his predecessor in that office, his father, but I think the principle that the government may increase or decrease the salary of the chief electoral officer is quite unbecoming in a democratic state. As was pointed out, the next thing the government may want to do is seek authority to increase or decrease at will the salary of the Auditor General and others holding offices of an independent nature who are responsible to parliament rather than to the government. On that basis I am very much opposed to the resolution in its present form.


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


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Speaker, before the debate goes any further perhaps I had better dissipate the misapprehensions under which a good many members of the house appear to labour. There is no intention on the part of the government to do anything which would in any way place the chief electoral officer under their authority except in a proper and legal manner. There is no intention whatever to endeavour to use any duress upon him or any inducement to commit those offences of which hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house seem to be in deep dread. As a matter of fact we are not changing the law in that respect at all. At the present time the act reads as follows:
The chief electoral officer shall rank as and have all the powers of a deputy head of a department, communicate with the governor in council through the Secretary of State of Canada, devote lumself exclusively to the performance of the duties of his office and be paid a salary of not less than eight nor more than ten thousand dollars per annum to be fixed by order of the governor in council...
All we are proposing to do is to change the word "ten" to "twelve".

Canada Elections Act
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the Secretary of State say whether any consideration has been given to fixing the amount of the salary in the statute rather than leaving it to be fixed at the discretion of the governor in council, which has created the misapprehension which the hon. gentleman has himself said probably existed on that side of the house as well as on this side. It seems to me it would go a long way toward assuring the independence of the chief electoral officer if his salary were fixed by parliament so it could only be altered by parliament, rather than leaving it this way. I am not saying it has ever been arbitrarily changed in the past because I do not know, but it certainly seems to me that it could be, in accordance with the terms of the resolution and the terms of the present act which the Secretary of State has just read. If the intention is to increase the salary to $12,000, which I would now gather is the purpose for which the resolution is introduced, what is the objection to making it $12,000 in the statute instead of leaving it as a fluctuating amount to be determined by the governor in council?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: May I suggest the old principle: evil to him who evil thinks. So far as I and my colleagues on this side of the house are concerned, we have no desire whatever to raise any fears in the minds of hon. gentlemen on the other side. We are perfectly content to fix the salary at $12,000 a year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the statute?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the statute?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Good. We need some more by-elections.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no change in the principle of the act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do I understand exactly how this will read? The Secretary of State has just made a statement. I greatly appreciate the gesture which is being made, if I understand it correctly. What he said, however, does not in the least alter the merits of this situation. Do I understand that this resolution will now read:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Elections Act to provide that the chief electoral officer may be paid a salary of $12,000.
Is that what I am to understand? In other words, am I to understand that parliament is fixing his salary at $12,000?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: If the hon. gentlemen on the other side are content to take my word for

it, and if the resolution might be allowed to pass as it is, I will undertake that the statute will contain a provision that the salary of the chief electoral officer will be $12,000 a year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I might say a word on that matter. The principle has been that there is a range for the chief electoral officer as amended by the section. It may well be that a new electoral officer who is appointed might not have the experience, the qualifications and so on of the present one. I think it is desirable even in this office in certain respects to have a range. That is the reason that principle was maintained. I think it might have been logical to substitute "ten" for "eight" and "twelve" for "ten"; but I think it is desirable to maintain that principle, which no doubt was put in the act for good reason. There is, however, nothing fundamental about the thing. If we want to introduce the rigidity of "twelve" into the act, certainly the government has no objection. The amendment is brought in to pay the present electoral officer $12,000. That is the purpose of the amendment. I think we might leave it until the bill is brought down.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Bradley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 277, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the first time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: the first reading of the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there is just one small point that I wish to mention. I am not in any sense endeavouring to question the undertaking which the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) gave, but if the bill is read for the first time I imagine we shall be reading it in the form in which the Secretary of State has indicated.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Any amendment would be
made in committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would be the proposal to amend it in committee?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. That is where you have to amend it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That might be simpler.
Motion agreed to and bill read the' first time.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of Bill No. 209, to amend the Customs Tariff.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, this measure has come before us somewhat unexpectedly. Will the minister recall to our minds just the general nature of the items that are covered? My recollection is that the amendment has to do chiefly with plastics.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. There is really not much I can add to what I said in my budget speech, which I realize was given a month or two ago. There are really three things here. One is to implement certain reports of the tariff board as to tariff changes; one is to incorporate in the tariff schedules themselves certain changes which have been in effect for some time by order in council; and the third covers proposals for improvement in wording and classification to remove anomalies and to keep the items in line with recent developments, but without changes in substance so far as the tariff items are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Schedule A amended.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder whether the
minister would indicate to us to what extent representations have been made since the proposals with respect to changes in the customs tariff were announced by him in his budget speech. One can assume that some representations must have been made once the proposals became known to the public. Will the minister be good enough to indicate the nature and extent of any representations by persons who might be affected by those changes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The principal representations I think have been in connection with the glass tariff. One main representation was that the change, whereby the drawback provision was removed, the tariff reduced to 20 per cent from 25 per cent and a 5 per cent tariff put on plate glass from most-favourednation countries, would prove injurious to the manufacturers of laminated glass since that glass is not made in Canada and the materials for it have to be imported from outside. At the present time none of those materials come from the United Kingdom whence they would come in free, but come from the United States. It was suggested that this change might cause some injury to the laminated glass manufacturing industry here. Laminated glass is used in the manufacture of automobile windshields.
Customs Tariff
After looking into the situation I decided to recommend that the duty of 5 per cent be suspended for one year. Then we will see. If at that time the imports are mainly from the United Kingdom, the suspended rate may be reimposed. I think that matter was satisfactorily taken care of.
Then there were some representations that the lowering of duty on window glass would be injurious to domestic manufacturers; but after considering these representations I arrived at the conclusions that the injury was more imaginary than real.
In the plastics field we have had some representations that the reductions in certain categories of duties would prove embarrassing to the manufacturers of certain types of plastics. However, after considering the report of the tariff board with the chairman of the board, the commissioner of tariffs and others, I have come to the conclusion that those fears are probably unfounded. In any case we shall continue to watch the situation. This is an extremely complicated field. The tariff board made an exhaustive investigation extending over some time, as the committee is aware. I would be reluctant at this time to vary the findings of the board. We shall see how it works out over the next year or two. If it is found that further changes are needed, they can be introduced.
I think those are the main representations, speaking generally. I have had no other serious representations as to the proposed tariff changes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I know that all members of the committee have a great deal of confidence in the chairman of the tariff board. I do not think there is a more responsible or more devoted public servant anywhere than Mr. Hector McKinnon. I am wondering what the position will be in the light of what the minister has just now said about re-examining the situation in the light of the effects of the proposed changes in the tariff. Will there be any complications in the way of restoring the present provisions, or in other words of neutralizing the proposed changes? For instance, will there be any complications as a result of our international agreements if it should be found that the effects of the changes now proposed are not as happy as the minister indicates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We shall watch the situation fairly closely. The principal complaint I have received about the plastics schedule is as the result of an import reduction in the type of plastics known as phenol plastics for making laminated board, bakelite and that sort of thing. I have concluded, as I say, that those fears are not too well founded, but we shall

Customs Tariff
have to see. This recommendation represents the considered view of the tariff board. As the committee knows, the board has recommended some reductions and some increases, and the reason is that this is a very complex field. Technical processes have been changing over the last ten or fifteen years since the tariff schedules were written with respect to it.
I do not know whether any hon. members have seen the editorial in the most recent issue of the magazine Canadian Plastics. I do not want to take the time of the committee to read the whole of the editorial, but perhaps I shall read one paragraph from it. It says:
We have had a chance to read the copy of the report of the tariff hoard re the plastics industry, and in the opinion of your editor, it is perhaps one of the most credible documents ever compiled on any industry, by any board, at any time.
I shall leave out the next paragraph which refers to the members of the board, and then the article continues:
It is impossible for any board on tariff matters to recommend a course which will not cause a "backbite" from certain individuals who might be adversely affected. Undoubtedly, this report will have its hecklers.
Albeit . . . but when the report is read, digested, analyzed and finally comprehended in its full intent . . . there will be few ... if any at all . . . who will refute the fact that the board was interested only in fostering the most healthy national development of the plastics industry in all its phases.
That is in general terms, but it does give some indication of the appreciation of the report and recommendations which have been made by the board.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister deal with the other point I raised, as to the possibility of our hands being tied by our present international agreements should it be found that the effects of the present changes are not as expected.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not fully appreciate the import of the hon. member's question. We can go back to where we were before the introduction of this measure. Nothing we do in this measure will tie our hands so far as reverting to our former position is concerned. I think that answers what the hon. member had in mind.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister say a word about the situation which exists as between the United States administrative officials, who are actually carrying out the tariff measures, and those in charge of government policy? We have been told from time to time that it is very difficult to get the administrative people to carry out the intention indicated by the government. We are often told that, by delays running into weeks or even months, they impose what is

in effect something much more effective than a tariff. Can the minister indicate the situation in that regard?
While I am on my feet I should like to ask him to deal with this in his answer. There are a good many indications that United States business is becoming more tariff-minded than it has been for years. For a good many years, at any rate, we have been happily freer than we were before from tariff considerations, but I understand there is now evidence of a considerable return on the part of business to the authorities who have these matters in hand, asking for tariff assistance. Perhaps the minister would deal with this question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On the first point, I assume the hon. member is referring to the United States customs administrative practice, and not to our own. I have never heard any serious-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry I did not make it clear. I referred to the United States.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Over the years there has been a good deal of difficulty arising out of what might be described as the rather rigid restrictive administrative practice under the United States customs legislation. For some time there has been before congress a customs simplification bill which, I am told, is making good headway. There is a better than reasonable prospect that it will be adopted in the very near future. When it is we have reason to believe that this practice, which the hon. member has indicated amounts to almost a concealed discretionary tariff, will be improved.
As to the other question, the committee may have seen that on one or two recent occasions when making speeches in the United States-although the member for Eglinton does not like me to do it-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It's all right at the right time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -when making speeches in the United States to groups of businessmen there I have expressed some apprehension about what I conceived to be a certain resurgence of protectionist sentiment in the United States. I do not believe for a moment that it represents the majority opinion in the United States, but such things as the rider that was attached to the defence bill putting a quantitative restriction on cheese imports, the increasing number of applications to the tariff board for increases in tariffs and that sort of thing, indicate that the protectionist sections of the United States are once again attempting to get increases in tariffs. I do not believe they

will succeed. I took occasion, under the circumstances to which I have referred, both in Washington and the mid-west, to issue a friendly warning against what I believed would be the unfortunate consequences if such a policy were followed. Further than that I do not think I should go at the moment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the situation in regard to cheese?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is a measure before the United States congress, sponsored by the administration of course, to repeal that provision. There is a reasonable chance that it will be successful.


George Matheson Murray: May I suggest to the committee that the lower the tariff imposed upon glass and these similar products, the better it will be for the people of Canada. The poultry industry is a great user of glass, and out in the west glass is very essential in home building. The use of these newer windows, the idea of letting the sunlight into the homes, calls for more and more glass. I suggest that the minister consider lowering the tariff on glass to the very lowest limit so the people of Canada can get large supplies from those people who can produce glass very cheaply. It means a great deal to the health of Canada, and I shall point out to the minister also that in the time of Henry VIII there was a tax on window panes-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did he live in a glass house?


George Matheson Murray: If I did I would not throw rocks, like the hon. member. There was a tax on window panes, and we smile at that and think it is ridiculous; yet in 1952 our friend is seriously advocating the idea of putting a huge tax on any glass window that goes into a house in western Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the minister or the Minister of National Revenue what the up to the minute news is on dumping. I know the Minister of National Revenue made a statement a short time ago, and it read all right in Hansard but I do not think it convinced the boys back home. I ask the minister if he feels he is on top of some of the devious means which are used by means of intermediary companies, and by means of, shall we say, rather fictitious sales or not typical sales in the United States, to get goods in here at an entirely unrealistic rate and thereby create a situation which is very hard on our own businessmen?


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Chairman, I believe I made a statement earlier in the house which
Customs Tariff
still holds good. So far as the investigations which have been made by the Department of National Revenue are concerned, there is no dumping in this country within the meaning of the act. If goods are sold in -the country of origin at a fair market value and they come into this country, then that is the invoice on which customs duty and sales tax are charged.
Prior to the war we had in the Department of National Revenue investigators or appraisers who made it a point to look into the imports which came into this country from foreign countries, and they were able to give us a fair appraisal of what was the fair market value in the country of export. Recently in the department, as far as one commodity is concerned, textiles, we have had the services of an up-to-date appraiser in that particular line of goods, and we have made arrangements for the appointment of four or five others, who will give appraisals of the cost of the goods in the country of export.
I do not feel that more needs to be said at this time. Perhaps that answers the hon. member's question as to what constitutes dumping.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want the minister to think I am being critical, because I know this is a very difficult job; but when he says there is no dumping I think he is a little optimistic, though of course he goes on and says no dumping within the meaning of the act. I know the sense in which he says that, but again let me say that there are a lot of people who find that what is actually going on is unsatisfactory; and it is unsatisfactory for one of two reasons: Either they are able by legal devices to legally get around the act, which there is considerable reason to believe is happening in certain cases; or it may be that the minister's investigations as to fair prices in foreign countries, however well intentioned and however sincerely made, are not adequate.
I should like to have a little more information as to just how these investigations are made. For example, I am told that a company in the United States that wishes to get rid of a surplus product will adopt ingenious methods of making sales, genuine enough sales, at prices which are artificially lower, for a certain area in the United States, an area broad enough, so it is suggested to me, to satisfy an investigation made by our department. Therefore the argument is that company A, a large company which wants to dump its products, will sell in a certain area in the United States at a lower price. They will then provide evidence whereby they will

Customs Tariff
satisfy the minister's agents that the price which is being quoted in that area is a fair price; but in fact, if you look at the essence of the transaction, as represented to me, it is not a fair price, because they are selling at an artificially low price in a comparatively small area in order to establish a low price.
Will the minister say a little more as to the method of investigation? How many sales does it need to establish a price? How widespread do these sales have to be? Would two sales in one American state, for example, establish a price; because I understand these special prices are quoted in fairly large areas, let us say a whole state. Perhaps a large state will be treated in that way. Will the minister say something on that?


James Joseph McCann: As far as the investigations made by our auditors in exporting countries are concerned, I might say that they are very thorough, considering the staff we have; and we have had no objections on the part of manufacturers or exporters to Canada, particularly in the United States, to giving us all the information which we require. That inquiry is made over the territory in which the particular line of trade is carried on. For instance, if it is in the textile industry, the hon. gentleman probably knows that the chief points at which textiles are made in the United States are upon the eastern seaboard and down in the northern central states; at least, that is where most of the exports come to Canada from.
The investigation is widespread in all the mills in those particular districts. We do not take as the price at which these goods are invoiced the price for any one particular sale. We take it over a series of sales over a certain period of time. That period may not be specific, but it is over a length of time. For instance, in the textile industry there are certain things that affect it. For instance, there are climatic conditions, differences in style and all that. Manufacturers of women's summer dresses in the United States probably have them ready for the trade by January 1 for people who can afford to buy them and want to go to Florida or California. They sell those dresses to their own trade perhaps two or three months later. Naturally they can be bought earlier. These same styles, as the hon. member for Hamilton West would know, across the line are probably in vogue in Canada somewhat later on in the season. All these things have to be taken into consideration in the establishment of what is known as a fair market value; and a fair market value is a value at which these goods are sold in the country of origin under comparable conditions and to the same type of people in the trade.

What I mean is, you get the retail price and you get the jobber's price, and you get the manufacturer's price. If a jobber in the United States is selling to a jobber in Canada, then it would be the jobber's price that would govern. If somebody goes over there and brings back half a dozen dresses, then it is the retail price that governs the invoice. I want to repeat that after thorough investigation of the invoices of different types of commodities that come into this country we have not been able to find evidence of dumping.
Just recently an order was passed having to do with what is known as fixing the value. That has to do with furs, particularly muskrat and rabbit skins, that come into this country from Russia. We have hesitancy in fixing the values of that country because we do not do an awful lot of trade with them and they are not members of the GATT. Under that agreement it is the most-favourednation tariff that works, and a country like Russia would come under the general tariff.
I do not know that there is any further explanation I can give, except to restate that we have augmented our appraisers, and in the department we engage the services of people who are expert in the particular line of business. For instance, the people who put valuations on textiles are textile-trained people.


Mr. Lennard:: They were not a few years ago.


James Joseph McCann: I am talking about now.


Frank Exton Lennard: You had a hardware merchant on that.


James Joseph McCann: Probably it is the government of from 1930 to 1935 that the hon. member has reference to.


Frank Exton Lennard: No, it was not.


James Joseph McCann: That does not obtain at the present time.


Frank Exton Lennard: It did in 1940.


James Joseph McCann: Our textile appraisers are versed in the textile business. The people who make the appraisals on machinery that comes in here know the machine business, and so on along the line; so we are in a position, with the experience of these people and with the information we get now from the exporters in the country of origin, to determine what are fair market values for imports.
As I said in the remarks I made in the budget debate last year, there were attempts at dumping into the country; but by raising the invoice price and collecting the tariff on that, and the sales tax on top of that, we

took in over $1,500,000 in tariff alone on goods that were shipped into Canada in which there was an attempt to dump. But dumping into Canada has not been carried out successfully.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister began to say a word about the situation when we are dealing with countries behind the iron curtain, but he did not discuss the matter in detail. I should like to know more about how we arrive at prices, for example, in Czechoslovakia and other countries. How does the department arrive at a fair market value?


James Joseph McCann: I will admit we have difficulty in getting information from countries behind the iron curtain. At the present time negotiations are under way between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and representatives of Czechoslovakia to see if they would admit our officers into their country to find out the costs of their manufactured articles.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the minister says he has had difficulty does he mean he does not get the information?


James Joseph McCann: That is right. I said we have difficulties; but I wish my hon. friend would not try to misconstrue my words. If he would just listen-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just asked a question. The minister need not be so touchy.


James Joseph McCann: I am not touchy at all. I am the least touchy of anyone here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph McCann: Laugh, if you like; it is just like water off a duck's back so far as I am concerned. But I said we were making attempts to do it and I admitted immediately that we have not been successful. But that does not deter us from continuing in our efforts to achieve the objective we would like to attain.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That being so, I submit the fair market value prevalent in Canada should be the determining factor, if we have any difficulty whatsoever in procuring evidence as to the fair market value in the country of origin.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall section 1 carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, we have not yet had an answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was an assertion, not a question.


James Joseph McCann: It is spelled out in the statute. It is the fair market value in the country of origin.
Customs Tariff


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have had occasion to say it before, but I shall say again that Mr. Fielding introduced in 1909, 1910 or 1911 provisions in the tariff respecting dumping, and those have been the bible of Canadian manufacturers since that time. The provision is that the dumping duty shall be the difference between the fair market value in the country of origin at the time of export and the price at which it is invoiced. That is the statute. I think it would be found in the manufacturing side of the industry that there would not be too many people interested in tampering with that statute.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister say something as to the program now before the tariff board? There is a broad situation being reviewed, and I think it might be of interest if we were told about it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have made one or two references to the tariff board, but offhand I do not recall just what they were. Of course the tariff board is continually occupied with its statutory responsibility of hearing appeals from importers or others who feel that the tariff is not properly interpreted, or some other question appealed to the tariff board from a decision by the Department of National Revenue.
The tariff board has cleaned up these matters. The committee will recall that in my budget I recommended a small increase in shot and grit, for the reasons there stated. I thought I should consider the matter further before acting upon it. That is shot and grit used in the manufacture of castings.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There will be less Grit after tonight.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was wondering whether my hon. friend would wish to make one of his witticisms.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As we look at the international trade situation, would the minister state whether there is any likelihood of further trade conferences, or if we have caught our breath since the last one. What is the situation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no immediate prospect of any further conferences, such as those at Geneva, Torquay and Annecy. The field appears to have been pretty well exhausted for the time being. In view of the fact that this is a presidential election year in the United States, and for other reasons, I doubt whether there is any immediate prospect of any further general conferences of that kind.
As my hon. friend will recall, the agreements run until the end of 1953. Of course the whole situation will have to be examined prior to that time.
2596	HOUSE OF
Dominion Succession Duty Act


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.
Bill read the third time and passed.



DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of Bill No. 208, to amend the Dominion Succession Duty Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the
minister propose to say anything now, or in committee?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is very little I can say on the motion for second reading. As I indicated in my budget speech there are no major questions of substance in this bill. The principal provisions, as will be seen, are to correct drafting inaccuracies and anomalies which have been shown up as a result of the experience of the last few years.
As I said in my budget speech I am hoping, if time permits, that it will be possible to do a major job of revision on the Dominion Succession Duty Act, now that we have had experience with it for a few years. However, it was not possible to do it this year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second; time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister give us a brief history as to the yield of the tax.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall try to get that information in a moment. I do not have it readily available. It will be noted that section 1 is purely a drafting amendment. We are simply substituting "Income Tax Act" for "Income War Tax Act", which was in the original bill. We are merely taking advantage of having opened up the act to correct that. My colleague the Minister of National Revenue has the revenue statistics with him and will be able to give that information.


James Joseph McCann: The collections for succession duties in 1951, the last year for which we have statistics, were $33,599,089.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has the
minister figures for any previous years?
[Mr. Abbott.)


James Joseph McCann: In 1950 they were $29,919,000; 1949, $25 million; 1948, $30 million; 1947, $23-5 million.


Mr. Herridge:: Last session the Dominion Elections Act was retitled "Canada Elections Act." Why was one act treated in that way when this act is still left as "Dominion Succession Duty Act"? Can the minister tell the house what is the government's policy in that respect.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am grateful to the hon. member for calling the matter to my attention. I think it would be quite proper to change the title of this act. The general policy has been that where an act is opened up and the descriptive word is "dominion", that word is changed to "Canada". It was simply an oversight on my part that that was not done in this case. Perhaps we can take care of that next year when we are dealing with the general revision.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Further to the remarks I made during the debate on the budget, may I say that I have been very interested in what this bill might provide. I recognize the difficulties under which the minister is labouring in presenting these amendments and I appreciate also that an over-all revision of the act is imminent. Nevertheless I want to take advantage of this opportunity to urge upon the minister once more that when the major revision is under consideration he give attention to the incidence of double taxation which has occurred in the past in connection with such cases as I mentioned before. I shall not go into them again, but inasmuch as the revision of the act is under consideration and plans are being made to that end I hope this matter will be taken under consideration and not overlooked in the general revision.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should indicate that consideration was given to this. My parliamentary assistant told me that my hon. friend had raised this question. The present provisions of the law covering the taxation of pensions have been developed after a great deal of consideration. We have had a number of representations along the lines of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Hamilton West. They have been studied, but it is considered- that the present law is a fair and workable arrangement for handling a very complicated part of any tax system.
When a widow is in receipt of a pension she is regarded as receiving the right to income which may be valued having regard to the terms of the pension and her life expectancy. It is considered fair that such value be part of the estate for succession duty

purposes because an equivalent value of property to provide a similar income for the widow would be liable for succession duties. When the widow receives income, whether from a pension or in any other form, she is subject to income tax in the same way as any other taxpayer. However, that point will be further considered when the act is under general revision.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is only the fact that with the application of the succession duty to the value of the pension the net income to the widow is reduced in the first instance. Then when income tax is applied on subsequent income from the estate, whether it be from a pension or from other property, there is a type of double taxation which I would urge the minister to study very carefully when the act is being amended.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister if in connection with the revision of the act consideration is being given to the present so-called "notch" provision, and whether the government will consider applying an exemption of $50,000 instead of simply exempting estates under $50,000. I do not think I need to enlarge any further on the subject. It has been discussed here before.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am aware of the situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are many complications as a result of this present provision. I shall not enlarge on it, but I do hope the matter will be given serious consideration.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think every aspect of the act will be considered.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Marriage consideration.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has the minister considered whether the community property law in Quebec as between husband and wife may have any effect on this section?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think the community law provisions would enter into this section. This is a loophole section. We had a decision in the province of Quebec which interpreted the section of the act as it now stands in a way it was felt parliament never intended it to be. As the explanatory note points out, this amendment together with the amendment to section 8, which is carried out by section 4 of the bill, we believe will make it quite clear that property transferred or agreed to be transferred in consideration of marriage will be exempt from succession duty only if such transfers or settlements were actually executed or fulfilled more than three years before the death of the deceased.
Dominion Succession Duty Act
The general rule is that such transfers must be effected within a certain time limit if they are to escape the provisions of the act. This amendment is to make clear what it was thought had been made clear in the original act, but which the courts held had not been made clear. I do not think the community rights in the province of Quebec will be affected in any way.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the relative situation in the various provinces? Are there different provisions for different areas?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The general rule is that a conveyance, whether as a result of a marriage contract or a gift or anything else, must have been made more than three years prior to the decease in order to not be included for succession duty purposes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that a general provision?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the general provision which applies to all transfers throughout Canada. If they are to avoid the application of death duties they must be made a certain period of time prior to the decease. Transfers within that period of time are by law deemed to be made in contemplation of death.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Where gift tax already paid.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: In this section, and also in section 7, there is no mention of a time element. Will the minister say whether it is intended to go back over any number of years to reclaim a duty which might be imposed in excess of a gift tax which had been levied at the time the gift was made?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that if anything which is subject to gift tax is also subject to succession duty, then there is no limit as to time. The only change made in this particular subsection, as my hon. friend appreciates, is to add the words "the Income Tax Act".


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Of course that is true, but does it not seem unfair that there should be no time element on gifts of that nature?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a purely relieving measure. In other words there is never a double tax. If the gift tax has been paid and succession duty becomes payable with respect to the same property, then the gift tax is offset against the succession duty to the extent that it should be.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The gift might have been ten or twenty years ago.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may be, but so much the better for the taxpayer. He gets the benefit.

Dominion Succession Duty Act


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In that event is the gift valued at its valuation at time of gift or is it valued at the valuation at time of death?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Offhand I do not know what gift made twenty years ago would be subject to succession duty-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Real estate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -because the Succession Duty Act did not come into force, so far as the federal government is concerned, until 1942, and of course any gifts made prior to that time are not affected in any way.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There might be a great difference in the valuation of a gift within that time, particularly if the gift was real estate or securities.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But the valuation for succession duty purposes would be made at the date of death, and if the gift had been made ten years before-	,


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It does not seem right. Suppose the deceased made a gift of a house valued in 1942 at $5,000. Any house valued at $5,000 in 1942 is worth almost three times as much today. Do you mean to say that, although the gift tax was paid on the $5,000, at the time of decease the estate would have to pay succession duties on $15,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: On the facts as my hon. friend has put them, there could be no succession duty whatever payable today on gifts made in 1942. lit is now 1952. Unless there was some reservation of interest I would say there could be no succession duties.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The gift would have been made more than three years ago.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would have been made more than three years ago.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is no mention here of the three year limit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Thait is in another section.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is covered.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Allowable deductions.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister enlarge on the change proposed to be made by this section? The note indicates that the amendment provides for deduction from the dominion duty to the extent of all the duty imposed by a province or provinces or one-half of the dominion duty, whichever is the lesser, in respect of all property which has been subjected to duty by both the dominion and a province or provinces. I suspect that the gist of the change is in those concluding words. Would the minister enlarge on that,


particularly in the case of a gift made four years prior to death where it is not included in the estate for purposes of dominion succession duty because it was made more than three years before the date of death, but would be included in the estate for provincial succession duty purposes because it was made within the five year period before death?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There would be no credit in that case, no double tax.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a question of double tax. It is a question of whether the dominion allows as a deduction one-half of the amount paid. I take it in that case the dominion would not allow one-half the amount paid but only one-half the provincial tax on that portion of the estate which would be taxable under the Dominion Succession Duty Act.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Fair market value.
Mr. Dickey:: Would the minister explain the effect of this section so as to indicate what the situation would be in the case of a private company, the owner of the company not having taken advantage for a period of two or three years of section 95A of the Income Tax Act, having accumulated undistributed profits in the company, and then dying? Would the effect of this amendment be to have the successor pay the succession duties on the undistributed profits, a part of which would eventually be paid over in the form of income tax by the company or by the successor?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In reply to my hon. friend's question, that is one of the reasons section 95A was introduced. It was realized in the case of certain private companies, where earnings had been allowed to accumulate and had not been distributed or reinvested in the business, that upon the death of the shareholder the value of the shares would include capital in the company and the accumulated profits. In order to get those profits out they would of course, when distributed as dividends, be subject to income tax. It was for that reason section 95A was enacted. This amendment is to spell out in our act, as I know it is spelled out in the Ontario act, the provision that under such circumstances no account shall be taken of a possible liability for income tax when profits are distributed. For obvious reasons I think that could not be taken into account because the amount of income tax which would be payable would depend upon the bracket in which the individual shareholder happened to be, what other income he had, and so on. Therefore there is a means now available in the law to enable people

in that position to protect themselves against excessive liability for both succession duties and income tax.
In answer to my hon. friend's question, it is and always has been the law that the fair market value must include whatever is in the assets of a company at the time of death and that no account shall be taken of any potential income tax liability.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Why was this clause necessary? Were there certain circumstances under which the income tax payable was deducted twice?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There was a case in one of the provinces, I believe British Columbia, where it was held that might be the result of our law as enacted at the present time. This section is putting into our law what I know is in the Ontario law.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of Bill No. 207, to amend the Excise Act, 1934.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1-"Spirits."
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister give us an expert opinion as to just what the effect of this change of wording is?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not an expert in the material which is included in this section; but I think the explanatory note indicates clearly the purpose of the section. It is as follows:
The purpose of this amendment is to require that the provisions of the Excise Act in respect to alcohol shall be applicable to all spirits produced whether by the ordinary process of distillation or other means.
I am informed that, as is indicated in the explanatory note, this definition has been contained in the schedule for some years and is now being merely transferred to the definition section of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Offences for sale of spirits unlawfully' manufactured, etc.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I have one question on clause 6, under subsection 3 of section 169. This 55704-164
Excise Act
is the subsection which applies to the forfeiture of vehicles in which are found spirits which are sold or offered for sale and which have not been lawfully manufactured or lawfully imported and so on. I should like to ask the minister whether any consideration is being given to some review of the provisions of the act generally in regard to the forfeiture of vehicles. I think there must be a good many cases in which the innocent owner of a vehicle has been grossly imposed upon by someone who has taken advantage of him for the purpose of obtaining transportation for goods of this kind. The same thing applies to tobacco which has been unlawfully manufactured or unlawfully imported.
The sections of the act at present are extremely severe, it seems to me, with respect to forfeiture in these cases. As long as there are such sections on the statute books I presume the officials concerned are not going to have a free hand in these matters; they are going to feel obliged to proceed with severity as long as the terms of the statute themselves are severe. I should like to ask the minister whether consideration is being given or study is being applied to the provisions of the act generally with reference to the forfeiture of vehicles. I am satisfied that there are innocent owners of vehicles who are imposed upon by people who are found to be carrying goods unlawfully imported or unlawfully manufactured.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend appreciates, this seqtion relates only to spirits which are taken from bonded premises and which are sold.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I appreciate that. My question was with respect to subsection 3 of section 169, and to forfeiture generally.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is probably thinking of the fellow who innocently carries in his car a few cigarettes that have been brought in from outside Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the passenger in his car has cigarettes in his bag of which the innocent owner of the car is not aware. There are cases where innocent owners of vehicles are imposed upon by their passengers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that the number of innocent victims of that kind is comparatively small and that such cases are rare; and that in any case where it is established that they are innocent, the minister takes steps by proper remission to release the car.
I am told that no consideration has been given to relaxing the provisions of the law with respect to seizures. In view of the assertions that have been made in the

Excise Act
House of Commons as to the increase in smuggling in certain products, I think it would be unwise at this time to relax the provisions of the law which provide enforcement officers with a reasonable opportunity of enforcing the law.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps you will have to find a better means of dealing with the problem.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: With the consent of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I should like to revert to section 5 for a moment in order to ask the minister this question. What is the significance of the reference to the Unfair Competition Act, and what is the necessity for reserving this discretion with regard to the form and wording?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no change in this section except for the words "and the Food and Drugs Act".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I realize
that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question, but I will see what information I can get from my officials. I am told the purpose of the amendment is to inform the people who are in the business of packaging and so on that there are these three acts to be considered.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: While I
appreciate that it is not a change in the act, will the minister indicate what is the practical need for the reservation of a discretion in the minister as to form and wording? Does that in fact take place?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told it is meant to ensure that no false and misleading statements are made on the label which is put on these products.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Penalty.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Before we pass clause 7, Mr. Chairman, I want a chance to look at it. This is of assistance to the ordinary private citizen, apparently. Is the minister coming to his rescue and trying to-


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is homebrew. The former definition did not cover the man who made beer out of extracts or other synthetic products.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Apparently if you press this wording strongly, a man cannot make beer for himself alone. It has to be for himself and his family. Would that be the interpretation of the wording?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that he can make application to the collector and get permission to make beer for his own consumption, but he must not get into the commercial field. I have never tried it myself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of Bill No. 206, to amend the Excise Tax Act. .


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Furs.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to welcome a bill that makes reduction in taxes. I should like to ask the minister a question on this bill in general, with reference to the 1952 increases applied under the Excise Tax Act.


Douglas Charles Abbott: 1951.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I refer to the increases in rates from 15 per cent to 25 per cent. Are all those increases with respect to all commodities to which they applied now removed by this bill?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct, they are all reduced from 25 per cent to 15 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The other part of my question is with respect to taxes which last year were introduced at the rate of 15 per cent on the commodities then designated. Is that 15 per cent tax now removed with respect to all the commodities on which it was applied by the 1951 amendment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


George Matheson Murray: I believe the minister made some comment earlier in the evening regarding Russian furs which are a menace to our northern trappers. I understand they reach the Canadian market, and I wonder if this section would not be of assistance in that respect?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was with respect to custom duties on Russian furs. My colleague the Minister of National Revenue indicated that with respect to those importations fixed valuations were being applied for customs duties purposes.


Mr. McLure:: Is this 15 per cent tax on raw furs or processed furs?


Douglas Charles Abbott: On processed furs.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I want to know who places the market value on them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that usually the value taken is the invoice of the purchaser to the dresser and dyer, but if the officers of the Department of National Revenue have reason to believe that is not the fair value they may put an appraised value on them.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The reason I mention this is that I have an invoice which was made out just before this amendment, and it shows that a lady purchased a silver fox skin for $10. Then she sent it to the processor, but the government would not accept the valuation of $10, for which she had a receipt. The government officials valued the skin at $24, and the 25 per cent tax was then imposed upon that valuation. I have always argued that the government had no right to put a tax on the raw skin, but that is overcome by saying that the skin is going to be processed and when it is processed it is not a raw skin. This lady was charged $6 on this skin. When the article was made up she had paid the government $14.40 in taxes, which was nothing less than pure robbery.
I used a stronger word the other day and the minister took me up on it by letter. I used the word "gyp" so this time I used the word "robbery", which is not so strong. Why should the government put a different valuation on the skin which is sent in to be processed when a person has an invoice for $10. They charged her the tax on their valuation of $24, and I want to know whether or not an invoice should be accepted?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It usually is. The law requires that the tax be imposed on the current market value. If the invoice is for less than the current market value, then the skin has to be appraised at what is, in fact, the current market value.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I think there should be some definition of "market value". If it is going to be the market value, then why should it not be the price which this lady paid for the skin? I do not think the government or any of its officials should say that it should have been a higher price. When the lady received the article for which she had paid $10, she found that she had to pay the government $14.40, so she said she would not take it. If the government had taxed her on the $10, as they should have, then it would have made quite a difference.


Mr. Blackmore:: While we are on that subject, will the minister state by what criterion the government does determine the market value?
55704-164J
Excise Tax Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is set out in the law, and I shall be glad to inform the hon. member of it. The regulation reads:
The "current market value of furs" referred to in subsection 1 of section 80A of The Excise Tax Act, means in addition to the cost of the raw furs to the owner, all costs of freight, cartage, exchange in effect on the date of shipment, insurance, royalties and duty for delivering the furs to him, and in addition, the charges for dressing and dyeing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Repeal.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is the section, I believe, which covers automobiles, is it not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to speak about the situation which arose with the reduction of the tax, as related to automobiles which were in the hands of dealers under consignment contracts, upon which the department insisted on collecting the tax despite the fact that a legal contract had been drawn and the cars had been shipped by the manufacturer and were on the premises of the dealers. I understand that the department's attitude was that the goods having moved out of the manufacturer's warehouse and into the premises of dealers, that constituted delivery. I should like to draw attention to the fact that at this time the dealers were well stocked up with cars, and on the other hand the manufacturers had more cars on hand than they had space in the warehouses. This situation was the subject of considerable discussion between the manufacturers and the dealers.
With a budget imminent and the knowledge that it was quite likely something would be done about the tax, the dealers were very reluctant to take delivery of automobiles. In an effort to relieve the congestion at the manufacturers' warehouses these contracts were drawn, and in good faith the dealers took delivery of cars which they placed in warehouses. This contract was not recognized by the government, and I submit that it was wrong to assess the dealers a tax on property which they had not legally acquired. The contract had been drawn up and legally executed, so it should have been acknowledged by this government. I submit that it is wrong, and that these dealers have been subjected to a hardship.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The matter is one of some concern. It is a question of law, and was brought to the attention of the Department of Justice. One company in particular, General Motors, did this consignment. The Department of Justice gave the following

Excise Tax Act
opinion, and this is the deputy minister of justice speaking:
I am of opinion that the agreement entered into between General Motors and its dealers is an agreement to sell and, consequently, the dealers are purchasers under the agreement.
Excise and sales taxes under sections 80 and 86 of the Excise Tax Act are payable at the time of delivery of the goods to the purchaser and I am of opinion, therefore, that the taxes are payable in this case when the goods are delivered by General Motors to its dealers.
In the light of that opinion the Department of National Revenue had no option but to collect the tax. The other companies evidently had some doubt as to the legality of the procedure and did not adopt it.
I appreciate the position the dealers were in, and I indicated to one who came to see me the other day that if in their opinion the Department of Justice were wrong, then they should lodge an appeal. We would facilitate a test case, and if the opinion of the Department of Justice were overruled, and it was held that no tax was legal, we would be very happy to make refunds. Whether or not that is going to be done I do not know.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The difficulty is that by the time the dealer takes his case to court
he will probably spend as much in legal fees as he would save in tax.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think General Motors ought to look after the case for him.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue in committee with Bill No. 206, to amend the Excise Tax Act. Then we will take up Bill No. 205, to amend the Income Tax Act; Bill No. 275, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act; Bill No. 276, to amend the Tariff Board Act; Bill No. 277, to amend the Canada Elections Act; Bill No. 245, respecting the establishment of a national library; Bill No. 246, to amend the Canada Grain Act. Then we will go into supply, call one new department, and take up the estimates of the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 27, 1952