Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: On March 28 last, in reply to an inquiry by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), as reported at page 1758 of Hansard, I indicated that I would table certain documents with regard to the sale of Canadair Limited. I now table those documents. I think everything is here for which my hon. friend asked.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) stated there
Labour Conditions

were 2,200 unemployed veterans of world war II in Cape Breton, and that these men would be prepared to move to employment found for them in other parts of Canada if transportation were provided. As this point now has been raised perhaps it would be helpful if I gave the house the facts regarding a programme, such as that now suggested, which has been in progress since early this year. That is why I made the statement I did1 yesterday.
The national employment service of the department initiated a programme some months ago in Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia to encourage the movement of unemployed persons to steady employment outside Nova Scotia. Unemployed persons registered in the employment offices in these areas, with particular emphasis on Cape Breton, were interviewed weeks ago to find out whether they were prepared to take employment offered elsewhere. They were advised that transportation would be provided to the place of employment. Unemployed workers not then registered were invited to do so through wide publicity. The type of work offered was in construction and mining operations in Ontario. It is to be understood that no pressure was placed upon the applicants; they were invited to go voluntarily. Those who refused were not later denied unemployment benefit payments by reason of their refusal.
The interviews were first undertaken at Cape Breton, but as the number in that area who were interested in and capable of taking employment was limited the programme was extended to other parts of the province. Of a total of 2,000 men interviewed in Nova Scotia, including 1,200 in Cape Breton, about 700 were found willing to take employment elsewhere, and were apparently qualified for the work offering. Of those 700 about 500 passed the first medical examination, but only 266 passed the X-ray tests which were necessary for mining employment. As my hon. friend knows, in hard rock mining the medical examination is somewhat severe. Nearly^ 170 failed to complete their medical examinations. Of those medically examined, between 250 and 300 have been dispatched to other employment in central Canada, the majority of the men coming from the Sydney area. At the present time orders are being secured in other lines for unemployed persons in the Cape Breton area who are unable to qualify for jobs in the hard rock mines but who are willing to take work outside Nova Scotia.

The employment service advise that there are now 350 steady positions in Ontario available to the unemployed in the area referred to, with additional orders being received daily. The prospect is that there will be a substantial number of employment vacancies in central Canada which cannot be filled locally. The department has been paying transportation expenses in all cases, as well as the cost of medical examinations. I would think that in the circumstances many of the men to whom my hon. friend referred may have been interviewed already, but where men are not registered but are willing to take jobs elsewhere the first requisite is to register with the nearest employment office.
I think it will be recognized that one of the practical difficulties has been a disinclination on the part of many men-perhaps a natural one-to leave their present place of residence. Housing, of course, is a problem in regard to these movements. In consequence of housing difficulties, employment opportunities available at the moment are for single men, or for men willing to take the jobs and to await the removal of their families until accommodation can be found at their new location.
I need only add that in transferring men from Nova Scotia we are not overlooking the interest of workers in the locality where the labour demands to which I have referred exist. These are employment opportunities for which we have not been able to locate men in the vicinity of the work.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Can the minister tell the house how many of the persons interviewed in Nova Scotia for movement to central Canada were single, and how many were married or had dependents?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am sure my hon. friend would not expect me to carry in my mind a breakdown like that. My hon. friend is a married man like myself. I do not know the martial status of every individual I meet on Sparks Street.


An hon. MEMBER:: Martial?


Humphrey Mitchell: I mean what I said, martial status.


Mr. GILLIS:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour for some information with reference to the statement he has just made? We started this thing and I would like to have it clarified. Am I correct-


An hon. MEMBER:: No.

Questions


Clarence Gillis: -in my understanding-


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Answered.


Clarence Gillis: There are too many chipmunks over there.


An hon. MEMBER:: Somebody is nuts over there.


Clarence Gillis: I have lots of time; you fellows should be in a hurry.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Clarence Gillis: You are conducting the business of the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Certainly.


Clarence Gillis: We are only the policemen. Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask hon. members to permit the hon. member who has the floor to ask his question.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry there is not more respect for you on that side. Am I correct in my understanding of the statement the minister made a moment ago that in finding a solution for the problem which we started to discuss last night, it is the responsibility of the local employment agencies to conduct a registration, and the responsibility also of the personnel affected, the men out of employment, to make application in the regular way? That has been the effect of the regulations up to March 31 of this year, when the selective service regulations which provided for that machinery went out of commission.


James Horace King: Order.


Clarence Gillis: I am giving the minister some information.


James Horace King: Order. If the hon. member has a question to put to the minister he should be brief and to the point and not make a statement.


Clarence Gillis: I would like an answer to that question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the question?


Clarence Gillis: I asked the minister if the selective service regulations that provided the machinery he has just described did not go out of date on March 31 of this year?


Humphrey Mitchell: My understanding is
that they did not. I would say this to my hon. friend, and it covers a lot of territory: I think we have the finest employment service in any country on God's green earth.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Has the Department of Mines and Resources experimented in respect to obtaining coal-distilled gas?
2.	If 30, what is the estimated cost production per gallon on coal mined in Nova Scotia?
3.	What is the estimated average cost to produce one ton of Nova Scotia coal?
i.	What is the estimated number of gallons of gasoline which could be produced from one ton of Nova Scotia coal?
5.	What action has been taken, if any, with respect to the setting up of a pilot-plant or scientific centre of research in Nova Scotia to study the question of producing coal-distilled gas and the use of coal by-products?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	The, offices of the Department of Mines and Resources have conducted small scale laboratory investigations on the direct hydrogenation of Nova Scotia coals for the production of gasoline. No work has been done to date on the alternative modified Fischer Tropsch process by which the coal is first gasified and the gas synthesized into gasoline and heavier oils.
2.	Experimental work has been on a small laboratory scale and sufficient data are not available to make reliable estimates of commercial costs.
3.	A comprehensive answer to this question is given in the "Report of the Royal Commission on Coal" 1946, chapter 4, pages 113170. There are so many variable factors that it is difficult to give an average estimate of the cost, which could be used safely, of producing one ton of Nova Scotia coal.
4.	It is estimated that about 60 gallops of gasoline could be produced per ton of coal. (This includes the coal required for power and hydrogen generation.)
5.	The Nova Scotia government established recently the Nova Scotia research foundation to study in a general way all problems in research in Nova Scotia. It has not yet undertaken any specific investigation of the production of gasoline from coal or the use of coal by-products. Coal experts of this department are cooperating with that foundation.


NATIONAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT-OTTAWA BUILDINGS
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Is the Department of National Health taking over a building on Parkdale avenue in the city of Ottawa?
Inquiries of the Ministry

2.	If so, from what firm or individual, is this building being bought, or rented?
3.	What is the cost, or rent, of this building?
4.	What is the total floor space of this building?
5.	Is the Department of Public Works renovating this building?
6.	If not, by what firm, or individuals, are the alterations being done?
7.	What is the estimated cost of this work? Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):
1.	Yes.
2.	Rented from Ontario Hughes Owens Co., Ltd.
3.	Rental SIS,000 per annum.
4.	Gross area 24,933 square feet. Net area
22,000	square feet.
5.	It is the intention of the Department of Public Works to have this building fitted up with special plumbing, sinks, partitions, etc., to meet the requirements of the Department of National Health and Welfare,
6.	No contract has yet been awarded.
7.	Estimated cost cannot be made until definite requirements are known.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the diay:
Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that -an American halibut schooner now in Lunenburg is most anxious to ship a Canadian crew, will the Minister of Fisheries state whether Canadians can ship on foreign vessels? If not, will the minister state what prevents such action and whether or not steps can and will be taken to permit a limited number of Canadian fishermen to ship -on American vessels under these circumstances?


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: This matter was brought to my attention yesterday by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). I would ask that the hon. member allow his question to stand as a notice, and I will make a statement concerning the matter tomorrow.


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I should ask this question of the Secretary of State or the iMr. Fraser. 1
Minister of Justice. Has Mr. Igor Gouzenko been granted Canadian citizenship, and if so what procedure is being taken in connection with the matter?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Igor Gouzenko has not been issued a certificate -of Canadian citizenship. He has been made a British subject by grant of letters patent of denization, which are issued under the prerogative powers of the sovereign-that is, in practice, by the governor in council.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Did the Canadian
government confer British citizenship apart from Canadian citizenship? 'What is the idea of granting British citizenship but not Canadian citizenship?


James Lorimer Ilsley: A British subject may apply for Canadian citizenship if certain residence qualifications are complied with. Those are set out in the citizenship act.


Mr. HACKETT:: He is an offshore citizen.


Gordon Graydon: Is application now being made by this person for Canadian citizenship?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not sure whether application has yet been made, because I do not know whether the residence qualifications have been complied with. But I believe it is the intention of Mr. Gouz-enk-o to apply for Canadian citizenship.


Mr. KNIGHT:: Can that citizenship be taken away by the same authority as grants it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think so. Is the hon. member referring to Canadian citizenship?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No, British citizenship.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot answer that question.
I know that the right to issue letters patent of denization is an ancient one, and it was by that procedure that Mr. Gouzenko was made a British subject,


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY FOLLOWING REMOVAL OF SUBSIDY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. DROPE (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. The dairy farmers in this country are anxious to know what their position will be with the removal of subsidies at the end of this month. Will the ceiling price of butter be raised to take the place of the subsidy of ten cents per pound on butter fat now being paid?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was asked much the same question before the Easter recess by three or four hon. members, including the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), and the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand). I can add nothing to what I said then, namely, that any changes which may be made with regard to prices of dairy products would be announced shortly before the 1st of May. I think I did assure those members at that time that the government had no intention of reducing the return which farmers would be receiving from the 1st of May on, as compared with what they had received just prior to the 1st of May. As to what form the payment will take, I am not in a position to say at the present time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice, based on a promise he made before the recess to consult his cabinet colleagues as to the possibility of placing certain legislation on the order paper at this time. The question had to do with old age pensions, and other legislative matters. Is this legislation now ready?


Mr. MARTIN:: Yes, it is ready.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And can it be placed on the order paper now so that w-e shall have it while this debate is in progress?
Right Hon. J. L. 1LSLEY (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, the old age pensions bill must be preceded by a resolution, and it would be impossible to circulate the bill until the resolution is dealt with. So it was our conclusion that the best course to pursue was to finish the legislation we have before the house now. Then the resolution will be put on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could not the resolution be put on the order paper now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I make a supplementary reply? The legislation has been ready for some time-and the hon. member knows it, because I told him so in private.


Major James William Coldwell: Surely it does not matter what an hon. member is told privately. It is the answer he gets on the floor of the house that counts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I must rise to a question of privilege. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has made a statement as to information which he claims he gave me privately. I contend that things that are given privately should not be stated publicly, but as a matter of fact what the minister told me privately was that this matter would be proceeded with this session without fail. He did not at any time tell me that the legislation was already prepared.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may have been in error in disclosing what I told the hon. member privately; I do not admit I was, but if I was, the fact is that the hon. gentleman knew before he put his question today that the legislation was ready.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not correct.


Major James William Coldwell: But the house and the country did not know it, and the house and the country have a right to know it,


Paul Joseph James Martin: The intentions of the government were made known in the speech from the throne; they were revealed to this house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on two occasions, twice by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), and to a public audience in this country by myself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the meantime the old age pensioners are still waiting and suffering. There is nothing but delay.


Mr. MANROSS:: I should like to suggest to the minister of health and welfare that in the future if he has any private information he would like to get to the public he should give it to two unofficial scorekeepers so it can be published in the Ottawa Citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would have thought that the hon. gentleman knew of the London Free Press and would suggest that I give it to that very good newspaper.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Resources. When may we expect the major announcement as to the new government immigration policy which was so broadly hinted at in the recent Cartier byelection campaign?


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the government
will announce its policy in due course.

Emergency Powers



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the gerat public interest in UNESCO and the activity in the United States in the national phase of that organization, can the minister inform the house what stage the Canadian government's plans have reached for the setting up of a purely Canadian commission as recommended by the preparatory commission?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	I could not
do that in the time that it would be appropriate to take at this moment.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Will the minister do it later? I think this is a matter of some interest.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I will have no
objection to disclosing everything in that connection at the proper time, but I do not think I could do it in a short answer to a question on the orders of the day.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister take it as a notice of question?



EMERGENCY POWERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley for the second reading of Bill No. 104, to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war.
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last evening at the time of adjournment I was dealing with some of the powers to be granted to the executive under the orders in council to which reference is made in the appendix. I emphasized particularly the necessity of restoring to the courts the determination of the rights of individuals. Since last evening I have had occasion to look up one of the most important judgments handed down in Britain in the last two years. It deals specifically with the rights of the individual as against executive authority exercised under legislation passed since the end of the war and arising indirectly therefrom.
(Mr. Glen.]
This matter came before the court of criminal appeal in England, in the case of Leachinsky v. Christie. The judgment was reported in the 1946 Law Reports at page 124. The court was dealing with the very question I was endeavouring to place before the house last evening, namely, the necessity of restoring to the individual his right to take action against wrongdoers occupying administrative positions. Lord Justice Scott summed up the rights of the individual, and this was pointed out a little later on by one of the judges. It was stated that the appellant's breach of the clothing rationing regulations did not affect his right to personal liberty, that a transgressor of the law can still rely on the law and assert the law's supremacy.
This man took proceedings against certain police officials. I do not intend to go into the details, but the judgment is most significant. It has particular reference to the suggestion I made to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) last night that the untrammelled exercise of absolute power by administrative officials responsible only to the executive ought now to be removed from the orders in council that will continue to be the law if this bill is passed. Lord Justice Scott used these words at page 137:
Subject only to the sovereignty of parliament, which under our constitution can make any law, English liberty is absolutely dependent on our courts of justice. To keep clear the distinction between the functions of the executive and those of justice is vital. The English nation has been wont in the past to speak of autocracy in any form as the enemy of personal freedom, but it is equally true that the good working of democracy (in the true sense of that much abused word) depends upon the rule of law.
He goes on to say:
Arrest by the executive, uncontrolled by the courts, has happened in past times in English history, and it needed the intervention of the courts to curb the executive.
He refers to various authorities in that connection, and then goes on:
The lettres de chachet of eighteenth century France afford another illustration; the Gestapo in Germany in recent years affords a third; and finally it is the fear of a repetition of that vast, insidious, and progressive evil of encroachment by the executive on the proper sphere of the judiciary which is paramount in men's minds when they say they fear and therefore hate bureaucracy.
In that judgment the British courts once more made the declaration, so necessary from time to time if liberty is to be preserved, that the individual must have the right of recourse to the courts against the executive or those appointed by the executive.

Emergency Powers
This bill consists of a skeleton to which is attached a schedule. Under that schedule parliament is asked on the second reading of the bill to approve the principle of the orders in council which are annexed by description. The orders in council reveal a hodge-podge of deletions, expurgations and substitutions. The C.C.F. party support this type of control. They are frank about it; they say it does not go far enough along the road of interfering with the rights of the individual.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member says that is not their view? That is the impression one would get.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not go far enough in the direction of democracy.


Mr. ROWE:: What is democracy?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Control by the people of the things that affect their interests.


John George Diefenbaker: Now we have the definition I do not object to interruptions, and that is a very helpful one. There cannot be democracy where there are controls which deny the right of the individual to recourse to the courts. Even in 1946 the high court of justice in Britain defended the individual from the very thing that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says is in his mind as democracy. Sir, democracy consists first and foremost in the right of the individual to freedom. It extends above all to his right, as the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has said on a number of occasions, to go to the foot of the throne, to' appear before the king's judges, to be judged according to law and not according to administrative caprice.
What are we asked to do by this bill? After six or seven years of war are honest merchants and business men to be saddled with a continuation of powers which make men guilty unless they prove their innocence? Are we to be asked to give to officials the power to interrogate an individual without his having common law rights of protection? Are we to be asked to give boards power, exclusive, uncontrolled and untrammelled, to say that certain of these regulations shall apply to the masses of the Canadian people, and that some shall be exempt from their application? Is every man's business to be subject to examination, and is he to be denied the right, when found to be innocent, to take proceedings against those who did him wrong? I ask the Minister of Justice when he replies to say whether he will not remove these powers which have no right to exist, outside a period of war, if you 83166-135
will, and which only exist-and they certainly do exist-where there is a police state, something we do not want in this country.
Not only is a person liable to an offence under these regulations and orders, but, sir, if we approve these orders in council we approve the granting of these powers to a board or official not only to have a person incarcerated because of an infraction of the regulations or orders, but also to make him liable for failure to carry out what is known as a requirement directed by an administrative official. What happens if he is convicted-not of an offence against the regulations or against the order, but of an offence against the requirement? He is liable to a penalty of $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding two years.
Are we to be asked under this blanket bill to approve the principle of these orders in council whereby the courts shall be circumvented, whereby the individual shall be denied his time-honoured rights, whereby investigators shall continue to exercise overwhelming powers of investigation, interrogation and inquisition? Sir, the Minister of Justice should give consideration to removing the unjustifiable immunity of bureaucrats and their staffs from liability to action where they are wrong. Those things, sir, are the stuff upon which a socialist government must depend to carry out its policies of coercion, and we have that situation today in Saskatchewan. Why were these portions of the orders in council not removed? Why were they continued? Why is this absolutism still permitted undei order in council?
Speaking the other day in Toronto my right hon. friend said that the time had come to restore the freedom of the people, and that the government were trying to do that very thing. Apparently the government are now concerned over the fact that the freedoms of the people have been interfered with. I ask the minister, then: Is it not a fact that parliament cannot be too scrupulously regardful of the liberties of the people? Is it scrupulously regardful of these liberties by continuing to grant unnecessary and extraordinary powers to government officials to be exercised at their will and without regard to the consequences to the individual? As a matter of fact, if you commit no crime, and if they cannot convict you, under the powers of these orders in council which parliament is asked to make law, they still can cancel the licences of the individual who, standing for his rights, has refused to be coerced. Whether that power is generally used or not, it still remains

Emergency Powers

in the law which exercises the power of subtle intimidation against every business man in this dominion.
I ask too, sir, that the sections granting those extraordinary powers be removed. These matters have nothing to do with the continuance of controls. They strike at the principle of the orders in council which parliament is being asked to give blanket support. As I see the situation, by voting for this bill as a whole, parliament is asked to approve a principle to which I am opposed-and I think there are members on all sides of the house who are opposed to it-namely, the right of the government by order in council to amend statutes. Two of these orders in council were passed to amend statutes, and parliament is asked to approve the extraordinary procedure which was followed all too often during the war, whereby after parliament passed a law the governor in council by order in council amended, suspended or abrogated it.
I was interested today to hear of the step taken in connection with Mr. Gouzenko. It was a magnificent step for him to take. There is one instance in which I do not raise objection to the government using that extraordinary and ancient remedy to give recognition to services rendered. But, sir, that extraordinary right, vested as I recall it in the crown, one of the prerogatives and rights exercised by the crown beyond parliament and in some cases without the advice of his advisers under the theoretical background and its ancient operation and procedure, was properly exercised in a case such as that of Mr. Gouzenko.
What else are we asked to do? How many hon. members realize that under this bill parliament is asked to approve the power of the wartime prices and trade board to grant to the sugar corporation larger powers than that corporation has under the charter granted by the department of the Secretary of State? In other words a corporation is set up under statute; the government sets up the wartime prices and trade board and grants it power to give to that corporation set up under statute greater powers than those provided for in its charter. This most extraordinary thing we are asked to approve. The reference may be found on page 45 of the summary of the orders in council comprising the appendix of this bill which has been handed to us.
Why were these extraordinary powers not deleted? If the minister says they are not to be used, why have them? If freedom is to be restored in this country-and the minister

has said that the government intends to restore it-then start by removing powers which have harassed business men from one end of the country to the other. I hold no brief for the man who has done wrong, but I do hold a brief for the man who in endeavouring to uphold the law has been harassed and coerced by operatives during the last three or four years.
We are asked to approve fifty-seven orders in council. Some are good; some are bad. For the purpose of this bill the government asks the house to accept them holus-bolus, so that an hon. member who votes for the bill will be upholding things that are wrong, whereas if he votes against the bill because his conscience demands that he do so in order that these things shall not continue, that vote will be misrepresented and he will be held up as voting against certain of the orders in council which he would be prepared to support if given the opportunity in separate bills. As for me, I cannot approve the perpetuation of principles in these orders in council which characterize a police state. I realize that it will be said that these are strong words. Where in a police state was the foundation laid that did not first deny the individual the right of recourse to the courts?-and I once more use the words of Lord Justice Scott in Great Britain.
I cannot approve of orders in council which still continue to give the governor in council the right to amend statutes passed by parliament. Finally I cannot approve of a body such as the wartime prices and trade board being granted the extraordinary power to delegate to a corporation set up underdominion charter greater rights than that charter provides.
Freedom is indivisible. Freedom cannot be diminished and still remain freedom. There can be no freedom where the executive appoints administrative officers and says: Whatever you do, right or wrong, it is always right and we shall stand behind you; the courts will not protect those against whom you do wrong.
I shall deal with the other elements in this bill when the matter is before the committee. Today I have dealt with one thing, and it simply amounts to an appeal to the Minister of Justice, who is the custodian of the king's conscience and of justice, to remove these unfairnesses and to restore to the Canadian people their rights, the individual right of every citizen, rich or poor, of recourse to the courts; for only thus can be assured to the people the full meaning of the citizenship which was granted today to Mr. Gouzenko

Emergency Powers
and which, as indicated by the statements he has made regarding these rights and responsibilities, he so highly prizes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit one question before he takes his seat? Does he favour or disapprove the principle of price control?


John George Diefenbaker: I favour anything that will be good for this dominion, provided the rights of the individual are protected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes or no?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I do not think it is necessary to answer specifically many of the statements of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) about the tyranny of the bureaucrats, the destruction of the sacred rights of the individual, the disregard of the liberties of the people, the tearing down of the pillars of the constitution, and all those other lofty phrases that we have heard in so many thunderous accents on previous occasions when dealing with the kind of legislation that it was necessary to have to coordinate the efforts of the people of this country towards the result we were all so happy to see achieved about two years ago.
We do not forget, in spite of the impression that these phrases make upon us, that the hon. member is talking about our country, the country we have lived in for the last five years and the country for which these coordinated efforts were put forth during that period. It is the kind of tyranny we have had in this country that he is talking about, and he is talking about that to people who have lived here, not to those who do not know what has been going on but to those who have seen what was the result of the enactment and the operation of those measures, which I will admit are distasteful to any liberal-minded man and which are resorted to only when the circumstances make it necessary to do that for the safety, security and preservation of our institutions.
These measures have been criticized. We ourselves have felt that they were a proper subject of criticism, because they are not the kind of things to which we are accustomed or the kind of things toward which we are moving back at a pace which so many of our hon. friends in the house feel is too rapid. Nevertheless our critics, some of them-not all, but some of them who are concerned more perhaps with historical accuracy than with immediate political advantage-have had to admit, as Professor Lower did in a recent very interesting book, which he has entitled 83166-135J
"From Colony to Nation", that these measures have not interfered with the freedom of the people. On page 534 I was amused at the way in which Professor Lower expressed his judgment upon that:
The kindliest thing the historian can say about the King war administration-
That is after a pretty severe criticism of the machinery that had existed for the coordination of the joint efforts of the people.
-is that it consisted of men most of whom [DOT]were too thoroughly saturated in Liberal principles to take advantage of the arbitrary powers they had assumed. Despite defence of Canada regulations, despite neglect of parliament, Canada remained a free country, her press remained free, her citizens substantially retained their freedom of speech, and their representative institutions.


Mr. JACKMAN:: What about George
Drew?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
The men charged with government had not within their breasts-
He was not talking about George Drew when he said this.
-the men charged with government had not within their breasts the spirit of the despot, and although they erected a machine for war which, along with the other qualities of fine mechanism, had all the powers of the despotic state, they could not bring themselves to harness it to the ways of despotism.
Now what is this bill that is before the house, the principle of which is now being discussed? It is a bill to provide that for a period of twelve months the administration will have time, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) suggested before the last general election, to unwind gradually and in a progressive way the coils that had to be tightened for the purpose of coordinating our war effort,
The bill does not ask for the enactment of any new legislation. It refers to a body of wartime regulations, a body of regulations that we want to get rid of just as soon as we can without bringing about chaotic conditions; and we ask that, for a period of twelve months, such portions of it as may be necessary to avoid chaos be retained and be used in the manner described by Professor Lower, without impairment of the freedom of the individual, or without the destruction of the liberties of the people. When I hear hon. gentlemen say that the principle they are asked to approve on second reading is the text, the effect and the language of these 57 orders, I can hardly believe that they mean it.
Emergency Powers

If we look at the bill, what is it? The preamble states:
And whereas provision is made for the expiry of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945; and whereas it is necessary by reason of the existing national emergency that certain orders and regulations of the governor in council made under the War Measures Act and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, be continued in force temporarily, notwithstanding the expiry of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, in order to ensure an orderly transition from war to peace.
That is the whole principle of the bill. Everything else is a matter of detail that will have to be considered in committee; and against any line, any word, any comma, objection can be raised. The only principle that the house is asked to pass upon at this time is that certain orders in council, certain regulations that were necessary during the war and are considered to be still necessary to provide for an orderly transition from war to peace, be continued for a limited period.
When hon. members say that by approving the second reading of -the bill they are approving everything that is in the 57 orders in council, I am sure they do not mean that when these 57 orders in council are being considered in committee they will not have anything to say about them. I am quite sure of my ground there, and I will trust to the next few days in this house to prove that my confidence in that regard is not mistaken.
What hon. members are asked to do at the present time is to allow this bill to go to the committee so that parliament can determine which, if any, and how many of these orders and regulations should continue for a period- that and nothing more. It is on that and on nothing more that they are to vote.
I was surprised to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) say they were going to vote against the bill and then were going to discuss it in committee. What is the vote for? The leader of the opposition gave it clearly to be understood that lie would not vote against it if his vote was going to prevent its going to committee. It is only because he is convinced that in spite of his vote it will go to committee-


William Earl Rowe: No, he did not say that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, I find his statement in Hansard, and I leave it to any fair-minded reader of Hansard, to say if any other conclusion can be drawn from his statement. If hon. members say that when they vote, if a division is called-and I suppose there will be a division-it is because they hope and trust this bill will never get to committee, let

them say so, because if they say that, they say there is nothing in the bill that should be continued. Let them go to the country and say the view of their party is that there is nothing in the bill which should be continued but that everything should be dropped immediately. Let them go to the country and take that attitude.


Gordon Graydon: You are whistling past the cemetery.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not split the bill?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Why not split the bill? Why not let the hon. member or some of his colleagues determine just what the government is going to do, how the business of the country is going to be transacted? The reason why not is that the country has no confidence in them. We on this sidte have the responsibility of determining that these measures will not be allowed to fall by the wayside, and that we shall not have the chaotic conditions that would arise if they did fall; and we are going to discharge that responsibility. On previous occasions when I was before the house with measures for the extension of the powers granted by the War Measures Act the question then was, "Why don't you enumerate the orders in council you want continued?" This time when we do that they say, "Well, why don't you do something else?" We have been sitting here since January 30, and how much have we accomplished? If we had fifty-seven bills about which they could organize the kind of thing which their own newspapers call filibusters, would we be discharging our responsibility to the Canadian public? We intend to discharge it, and we have brought this bill before parliament so that parliament may take the responsibility of determining which- of these measures should or should not be considered. But if hon. members wish to take the stand by their vote that none of them should be considered, let them take that stand.


Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: I must say I very much enjoyed the speeches of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), though I disagreed to some extent with them. This bill has been before parliament now for almost a month; I know most hon. members are getting a little sick of it, so I am going to detain the house for only a few minutes.
The chief purpose of the bill is to permit the government to retain for another year certain controls which it deems necessary. This

Emergency Powers
group believes the government needs those powers, and we are going to support the bill. But at the same time we are concerned over the fact that, while the house has been debating the bill, one control after another has been dropped. It was only on April 1 last that the government, in a decontrol statement, removed about one-third of Canada's remaining price ceilings. As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) aptly put it, some of us are beginning to wonder whether, when this bill is finally passed, there will be any controls left.
In any event, whether there are or not, I believe the government, particularly in the last few weeks, has yielded to pressure. I do not know whether it is to pressure from my hon. friends to the right, whether it is to pressure from within the Liberal party itself, or whether it is to pressure from industrial interests, but I do think the government has yielded to pressure, in too rapidly taking off certain vital controls. As a result, the cost of living has recently gone up quite considerably.
I believe there is concern over that fact from one coast to the other. Most people will agree that throughout the war the government did a creditable job of price control; but if they continue their present decontrol policy they may in a few months undo the good work of many years. Today government members are advocating what they are pleased to call orderly decontrol; but in actual fact, whether or not the minister will admit it, instead of orderly decontrol, today the people of Canada are being given haphazard, hasty removal of essential controls. The latest announcement about a week ago on rental and price decontrol, I think virtually sounded the death-knell of any hope we might have had of controlling inflation in the near future. Ceilings have been taken off many articles which are still in very short supply. I refer only to one or two, such as washing machines, refrigerators, stoves, and other articles made from iron and steel. The government must realize that many articles are still in short supply in Canada, and that with the removal of ceilings many manufacturers are taking advantage of the demand, taking advantage of the short supply and raising prices unduly.
Canadians are greatly concerned with the sharp increase in the cost of living. It seems that each year finds the dollar of the farmer and worker worth a little less. Back in 1939 the United Steel Workers of America set up a special consumers' committee whose duty it was once a month to make certain purchases
of essential foodstuffs. That has been done ever since 1939, and today they find that the prices of those essential foodstuffs have gone up almost sixty per cent, according to a statement they made not long ago. Everyone knows that recently the price of milk went up, together with the prices of sugar, coffee, tea, canned goods and almost everything the housewife has to buy. Prices are fast reaching the point where the average Canadian is finding he cannot pay them.
One other step recently taken by the government will I believe, adversely affect the cost of living. I refer to the revoking of all orders in council under the War Measures Act having to do with customs tariffs. I understand that action has resulted in twenty actual tariff increases. It has resulted in the imposition of an excise tax on certain imports from the United States and elsewhere, and in the reimposition of dumping duties which were suspended during the war years. As I see it, there can be only one result from these tariff increases, namely, to increase the cost of the goods concerned. Then we are told that on June 1 the government intends to reimpose tariffs on all British goods. Think how many more articles will be affected by those tariff increases. This can only mean that the cost of those goods will go up also if the government carries out its stated intention. Surely, for the time being at least, when Canada is facing this crisis and trying to stop inflation, the government should not impose any tariff increases.
One other very unfair result of government decontrol is the effect on the farmers of this country. The farmer sees prices of his own produce for the most part kept rigid, with wheat frozen at $1.55 f.o.b. Fort William, while the world market price is at about $2.75; with beef and live stock prices frozen at perhaps forty to fifty per cent under the United States level. At the same time the farmer sees the prices of pretty nearly everything he has to buy going up. It seems that the government tells the farmer one thing, "We have to keep your prices rigid to fight inflation," but it tells the manufacturer something entirely different. Labour is also finding itself in a particularly difficult position. Prices are rising steadily, while wages remain more or less fixed. Many labour unions across the country have passed resolutions protesting this situation. They have written their members of parlist-ment and have paid for newspaper advertisements protesting the increase in the cost of living. Let the government make no mistake: Labour is becoming angry at these continued
Emergency Powers

increases, and rightly so. If price rises are not soon stopped, this country is likely to face labour unrest and strikes within a few months. If wage increases are given generally across the country, probably that will lead to further price increases which, in turn, will give impetus to the spiral of inflation we are facing today. This continent discovered after the first world war what can happen if that takes place.
If the government does not halt the headlong scrapping of controls, then I believe Canada is facing inflation, labour unrest and depression.
This party is supporting the bill, but we support it, believing that it is inadequate. We support it with the feeling that it is only a skeleton of the bill it should be. We believe that the government should reimpose price controls, particularly on those articles which vitally affect the cost of living. We believe that the government should also try to roll back some of the prices which have recently sky-rocketed to such a degree.


Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West):: Mr. Speaker, this debate, which recently caused a considerable display of histrionics, has developed into an ideological discussion as to the value of state planned economy as compared with free economy.
I believe that a comparison of what has taken place in the rest of the world, some of which has maintained controls, and some of which has abandoned them, would be of interest at this point. There are two sides to this whole matter of controls. The first side is that, with the abandonment of controls, we allow our prices to rise, and that included in those prices are prices of raw materials and wages paid to industrial workers.
There has been a great deal of discussion, and there was a great deal of talk yesterday in the house by members of the socialist party with regard to planned economy. The evils of free enterprise were loudly proclaimed, almost to the entire exclusion of any other discussion.
Let us accept the fact that in the 11)11 ted States, where controls have been almost completely done away with, prices have risen. In a moment or two I shall discuss the matter of the consumer resistance point, and inventory saturation. First of all, however, I should like to deal briefly with basic wages of industrial workers, and in this connection I would place on record certain figures which have just been published by the bureau of labour statistics in Washington. These figures set out the basic wage rates throughout a great portion of the world. These wage rates are given

for a 40-hour week, in United States dollars and at the official rate of exchange. The figures are as follows:
Rate of Wage per 40-hour
Country	week
United States	
$46	40Canada	
29	20Sweden	
18	40Great Britain (46-hour week)	17	60France	
16	40Netherlands	
12	80Czechoslovakia	
8	40Russia	
7	oo
The figure for Russia is approximate. I shall not go into the statement made here respecting the Russian scale of wages, because I believe it is not entirely accurate. The authority I quote states, however, that the basic Russian wage rate is considerably lower in the weighted index than the wages in Czechoslovakia.
Let us see what this leads to. On this continent we have the United States, which has been the first to abandon controls. We see that the wages paid industrial workers in that country are considerably higher than they are in any other country in the world. We see that Canada, which has gone far along the line of abandoning controls, comes next. We see also that the greater the control of the economy, the less are industrial wages.
I suggest that those figures speak for themselves. If we want a high level of industrial wages-and we do-then the facts speak for themselves. Where you have a minimum of controls, and a condition under which the worker and industry may bargain freely together, you have a high wage rate. But where you have wages controlled by the government you find persistently and continuously decreasing wages. Wage rates decrease in direct ratio with the amount of control imposed by the government. Those are official figures.
I should like to say one word about the abandonment of controls in the United States. True, prices have risen. But something else has happened. Consumer goods, and capital goods production have tremendously increased. Today the warehouses in that country are becoming filled. Today there is a resistance to further increases in prices brought about by the operation of the basic law of supply and demand. And it is expected or estimated by bureaux in Washington that a recession in prices to the extent of about sixteen per cent can be expected. Different lines have different expectations, since some are in shorter supply than others.
The United States allowed the law of supply and demand to operate. As was expected, prices increased. But what else

Emergency Powers
happened? Production went to work. Never has production in the United States been as great as it is at the present time. Production of automobiles, steel and even of coal exceeds the greatest production in any previous year in the history of that country. I suggest that this tremendous increase in production is one of the safest and greatest safeguards against a continuously rising price structure. It is, in fact, the only safeguard which eventually will be worth anything.
Government regulations are constantly being broken. Otherwise there would be no reason for having a legal or enforcement service. But the law of supply and demand cannot be broken. It is inevitable, like the law of gravity. Despite the fact that there has been a price increase in the United States, we see in that country an abundance of goods, whereas in Canada we are still suffering from considerable and acute shortages in many lines of essential products. In this abundance of goods we see where the law of supply and demand has begun to take effect. Not only are the people of the United States getting supplies, but because of that abundance of supplies there is expected and, in fact, there has already occurred a recession in the prices of many articles.
I spoke today simply to show that the planned economy throughout the world has done two things. It has created scarcities and it has created low real and cash wages. In Canada we must take one of two ways. North America is an island in the world where individual freedom and the freedom of the group to bargain still remains sacrosanct. We have been urged to accept some other economic way of life, but I suggest that the indisputable facts show that we are not only better off on this continent as far as freedom goes, but also infinitely better off in every way economically. The abandonment of the freedom of the individual and of private enterprise would be the most retrogressive step economically that this country could take.


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate but, because one or two things have happened, I feel I should say something. I have received many letters from constituents in Selkirk in connection with the taking off of controls. I assure the government that I am entirely in support of the bill, although I do not think it goes far enough. I believe controls should have been kept on much longer. This is going to have a bad effect on the country at large. The cost of living index has risen from 119-9 on January 2, 1946,
to 128-9 on April 1, 1947, an increase of 7-5 per cent. In the same period the index of agricultural prices rose from 178-9 to 184-8, an increase of only 3-2 per cent. In other words, the cost of living has risen more than twice the increase in farm prices during the last fifteen months.
What gets me on edge more than anything else is the rise in the price of oatmeal.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What about haggis?


William Scottie Bryce: At these prices we shall have to get a substitute for haggis. I need only look across at the opposite benches to see what oatmeal will do. The muscle and brawn of hon. members opposite has been produced by the use of oatmeal in their early years. I would remind the house that oatmeal is one of the best balanced foods in the world.


Mr. LOW:: All of us Scotsmen think so.


William Scottie Bryce: I wish some of those who claim to be Scotsmen would fight for it. A forty-eight ounce package of rolled oats cost only seventeen cents in January of this year, but today the price is twenty-two cents, an increase of five cents for forty-eight ounces. The farmer is receiving only three and a half cents more for thirty-four pounds of oats. I know that is all I get, and I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will agree that that is all anybody is getting. The man who rolls the oats is getting 56-2/3 cents more a bushel. That is excessive, and I do not think it is fair that such an increase should be received over what the farmer gets. I should like to have some minister tell me how that is justified. Mark you, both rolled oats and oats in other forms are under price control at the present time.
I thought I v'ould try to find out whether the milling companies were in financial difficulties, whether they were making ends meet. I have here the net profits made by the Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Limited, after payment of expenses, taxes and everything else. They are:
1941		 $ 769,000
1942		 812,000
1943	1	 1,003,000
,1944	 1,055,000
1945	 1,111,000
According to the company's own statement, the capital stock is made up of 20,000 preferred shares valued at $2,000,000, and 600,000 shares of common stock valued at $2,500,000. It will be seen that that company is in good financial condition. Why should they
Emergency Powers

have that increase in the price of oatmeal? The net profits for the Maple Leaf Milling Company Limited were as follows:
1944		 $658,000
1945		 541,000
The net profits of the St. Lawrence Milling Company were:
1944		 $127,000
1945		 131,000
And Lake of the Woods:
1944		 $387,000
1945		 389,000
I think these figures show that the increase of 56| cents a bushel is not justified. Then take hogs and bacon. The price being paid for hogs to-day varies according to the distance you are from seaboard, but it averages from $20.40 up to $21 and something. Not long ago we were able to buy bacon for fifty cents a pound, but today the same brand of bacon costs the housewife seventy cents a pound. There is no justification for that increase. The people who process the bacon when it comes from the farm are making good profits. In the fourteen years of its operation as a single company Canada Packers have made a net profit of $19,841,000, and those profits wei'e made on an investment by shareholders of not more than $1,438,000. Those profits have all been made from live stock and live stock products produced by the farmers of Canada. I think there should be some check on that sort of thing. If you continue to take off price controls you can imagine where it is all going to end. Once these controls are off and business men are free, they do not seem to have any conscience; they cannot get enough. I heard somebody say that big business should take stock of itself and give the consumer a square deal and I hope that whoever heard that advice will take it to heart.
Look at the price increases in jams, jellies and marmalades. A ten per cent increase was authorized by the wartime prices and trade -board on April 7, about a week ago. This ten per cent increase on 24-ounce containers amounts to six cents for No. 1 strawberry or raspberry and Nos. 1 and 2 cherry; five cents for No. 2 strawberry and raspberry; four cents for No. 1 peach; three cents for No. 2 peach and Nos. 1 and 2 plum. I hope that the government realize whom they are hitting when they permit this sort of thing. They are striking at the old age pensioner, the old man or the old lady who has provided himself or herself with an annuity, the blind people, the widowed mothers who are receiving mother's allowance and who have received practically 
no increase in income. With their income remaining the same, the increased prices mean a tremendous hardship for them.
I supported the wheat agreement with Britain both in the house and out of it. I never considered that the wheat price was a parity price; far from it. But I supported it because it guaranteed to the farmer a set price over a number of years, something that he had long been wanting-security. But I never thought the government would immediately start to raise the prices of the things the farmer has to buy. You have raised the price of binder twine, gasoline, tractor distillate, and the overalls which the farmer has to buy. He could get overalls for $2.50 when prices were under control by the wartime prices and trade board, but today the same overalls cost him $3.75.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is the same with everything he has to buy.


William Scottie Bryce: You leave me alone and make your own speech.


Solon Earl Low: He is trying to help you.


William Scottie Bryce: I am sorry; I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. My hon. friends to my right are as much entitled to their view as I am to mine, but if the government takes their advice it will cause a whole lot of trouble in this country which could be avoided. See what is happening with shoes. The ceiling has been retained on leather, but the shoe manufacturer was granted an- open market. You control everything the farmer has to sell, but you do not control -prices of the things he must buy. It is going to cost the farmer eight and nine cents more than he paid last year for the binder twine he uses on his farm. You have raised the price on gasoline. Talk about controlling prices-the government might as well have held the control as to give control to the oil companies. They are the ones who are now going to control and set the price.
There is one other point I wish to make in connection with overalls, and this is perhaps more in favour of the government. When the price of overalls was under control every little town in my constituency could always get a supply of overalls to sell. If twenty farmers came in there was a pair of overalls available for each of them to buy. But today that is not the case. It is the man with the big, purse who gets the overalls. That is another reason why I should like to see some of these controls retained longer.
Speaking on April 1, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) estimated that for every one dollar spent by the government on price control during the war and subsequently the Canadian consumer and the government saved $12.50.

Emergency Powers
He estimated the annual savings at $2,500,000,000 and the annual cost at $200,000,000, and said that for the total five years since price control has been in effect this means an approximate saving of $12,500,000,000, at a cost of $1,000,000,000, or a net saving of $11,500,000,000, or slightly less than $1,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada. That in itself should be sufficient justification for maintaining controls longer until conditions throughout the world or at least in Canada become more normal.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I was not going to take up much time, and I do not intend to. In the choice between control of prices left in the hands of profit-seeking monopolists and democratic control of prices by the people's government, we choose proper democratic government control.


Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, when this legislation was in the resolution stage I had thought it would be unnecessary for me to take any part in the debate. I was quite pleased with the government's intention as announced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley), to carry out what he called an orderly process of decontrol in order to avoid what he called booms and busts. But all through this debate I have been becoming a little sad, and I am now somewhat sorrowful because I find it necessary to take part in the debate.
The group with which I sit have been the target of constant attack during the debate on the resolution and on the second reading of the bill by the Progressive Conservative party which claims that we desire at all times to introduce measures of control and regimentation for the sake of control and regimentation. I am one of those who lived through the period from 1930 to 1935 when, during four of those years there was a Tory government in Saskatchewan and, in five of those years, a Tory government here in Ottawa, exhibiting the kind of conduct to the people of that part of the country that I was subject to along with the other citizens, permitting the machine-gunning of the miners in Estevan because they were demanding a decent standard of living, permitting the machine-gunning and clubbing of the relief camp marchers when they were stopped in Regina, and warning people like myself and others that we were breaking the law if we gave so much as a piece of bread and butter or sanctuary to any of those relief camp strikers who would not go into relief caimps at twenty cents a day. After all that, I find it amazing to have people like that directing the kind of attack they have been directing
against us. I grant them that it is their right. I would be the first to rise and fight for their right to do it if anybody proposed to take it from them, but I am amazed when I hear the kind of criticism they have been directing toward us. However, they are not the responsible party in this house and my criticism is not going to be directed entirely toward them. I suggest, more in sadness than anything else, that one or two of our Social Credit friends also take the same attitude as the Progressive Conservative party. I was sorry for that.
I was pleased with the attitude taken last night by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). He does not agree with us. That is his right. He gave us the reasons why he did not and he tried to convert us to his way of thinking. That is his right, but he has not convinced me. I believe he agrees that that is my right. But I was a little sad over the attitude of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques). He said that he was sick and tired of us. I shall grant that he has the right to be sick and tired of us, but to be sick and tired of anybody almost indicates to me that one has reached the point where he is ready to sing hymns of hate. I have no hymns of hate to sing with regard to that member or any other. I think hon. members should' avoid singing hymns of hate against us or anybody else. He should have given us a constructive idea of what he wanted done, and the house could then decide whether it felt like accepting his advice or not.
Early in the debate the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) read a letter from a women's group in his constituency. I believe that letter expressed clearly the attitude of a great many housewives' groups across the country. I can support him by quoting similar letters from women's groups in my own constituency; from the home makers club; from the local council of women; from the fortnightly club, a local organization, and also from the wartime prices and trade board subdivision, consumer branch of the liaison officers, composed of women in our little city of Swift Current. All these women have the same thing to say. The letters are all the same, but I shall quote only one. I have the other letters here; if anybody thinks they are not the same he is at liberty to examine them. No object would be served by putting them all on the record. I shall take the one from the subdivision of the wartime prices and trade board, consumer branch, the ladies who are endeavouring to carry out the suggestions of the government and the wartime prices and trade board who asked the housewives to see
Emergency Powers

that prices were kept in line according to the price control order. This letter read's as follows:
. . . the liaison officers passed a motion that in the interests of the families of low income brackets, which families predominate in our part of the country, the wartime prices and trade board at Ottawa be asked to continue paying subsidies on milk, butter, bread, oils, coal, vegetables and other necessities, and also that price ceilings be maintained indefinitely.
As I have said, the other letters are along similar lines, although couched in different terms according to the individual writers, but they mean exactly the same thing. I support what these ladies have to say.
Another thing has made me a little sorrowful and has put me almost in the position that another hon. member got into here but for a different reason. It was announced by the leader of our group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), that we intended to support this bill. I believe that all those who have spoken from this group have announced that we still intend to support it. I intend1 to support it, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything left to support. But ever since the resolution stage of this legislation, the things that have been asked for by the consumers of this country, the things that this bill is supposed to do, are gradually disappearing.
Just recently a delegation of women from western Canada came to Ottawa. I know that some will say-the newspapers have already said it-that they were inspired by the communist party. I have no proof that they were or were not. To me they were housewives. In my hearing they cited the names of the different organizations in their provinces wdiieh have given support to their coming here to place their brief before the government and before any members of parliament who would listen to them. They comprised church groups, auxiliary branches of the Canadian legion, the Canadian legion itself, which many of us are members of, and organizations of that kind. They supported these women regardless of whether they were communists or not. As I say, I do not know; I have no proof of who is or who is not a communist. Nobody ever shows me his card as to whether he is a member of the party or not. I myself was never a member of the organization or had a card and I do not expect ever to have one. I do not even know what one looks like; therefore I do not know a communist from anybody else unless he tells me himself.
This women's organization had nine points, every single one of which I can agree with
LMr. Bentley.]
and I believe most hon. members of this group and most hon. members across the floor should agree with regardless of its source, because it comes from the housewives of this country. I have been led to believe that the housewives do about eighty or eighty-five per cent of the bu3ung in this country. They asked first for the reestablishment of price levels at the 1945 figure and the reimposition of price controls. I will not go all the way with them in the 1945 figure, but I believe that they are asking for a roll-back to some practical time. That is a worth-while request on their part and I can support it wholeheartedly. They asked for the immediate restoration of milk subsidies to protect the farmer and make milk available to the public at the price prevalent before June 1, 1916. At the last session of parliament, right up to the last day, we of this group tried to have that done. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moved a resolution in the house, which was carried, asking that the government give reconsideration to the continuance of milk subsidies. We have supported that measure and have not yet changed our minds. These women asked for the retention of subsidies on butter, cheese and other foodstuffs of basic importance to the consumer. They asked for measures to prohibit the placing of new brands of food and clothing on the market to sell at prices above ceiling prices of similar goods of comparable quality.
In my humble way, I and the members of my family, our friends and the supporters of this party, supported the principle of price control in the interests of the war effort which we were undertaking at that time. We did not always agree that the wartime prices and trade board or its parent, the government, always operated as fairly and as well as they should. I say we supported the principle, but on more than one occasion we criticized its operation. The first instance, of course, was the original price-fixing dates on which they chose to do it. There is no object in anyone denying this because, when you buy clothes and wear them, you know, after you have worn them out, whether you have received value or not. This is one of the things that has happened. Manufacturers have manufactured goods that were not on the market before, given an article a new brand name to take the place of something on which they were compelled to hold the price down. On this new article there was no price ceiling, and they were able to demand their own price for it. Frequently we got an inferior quality of goods. I remember well the complaint about shirts was so great in the country that

Emergency Powers
somebody from the wartime prices and trade board issued a pamphlet. I remember we carried it on the victory loan campaign sometimes. It tried to convince us that the shirts we were getting at that time were as good as the pre-war shirts. Well, I had to wear the shirts and was wearing them out faster than I did before, although I was not working any harder, because the older I get, the slower and the lazier I get, and therefore I should not have worn them out so quickly.


Humphrey Mitchell: Open confession is good for the soul.


Thomas John Bentley: I think there are a lot of us in that position. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have often felt that- the government itself, through the strenuous days of the war, has now got itself into a state of decrepit desuetude or something of that kind, morally or intellectually anyway.
The fifth point that the women asked for was the introduction of a system of standardization of labelling of all kinds of materials and manufactured goods. I do not think there is anything very much wrong with that. Someone might say that- is imposing on private enterprise. Well, the great bulk of the people are not trained to examine an article and understand thoroughly the value of the' textile in it. When I was a boy and we wore homespuns, or when we got English tweeds from reputable manufacturers, we knew we were getting the goods. Recently I was in Halifax, Nova Scotia, talking to a clothing man there who had been a friend of my father, and I asked him if he could get any English goods. He said, "Sure I can, Tommy, but don't think for one minute that they are as good now as the old English manufactured goods used to be". When I looked at them they did look as good, because I cannot distinguish between a poor and a good piece of textile. We have a grading system to grade Canadian grain going on the foreign market, going out on the Canada grain certificate final, which assures the buyer in foreign countries that he is getting the grade of grain defined in the Canada Grain Act. Why cannot the public be assured of a similar type of grading in the textiles and other goods they buy for their families?
The sixth point that the women asked for was a sharp curtailment in the manufacture of luxury items of all kinds, coupled with measures to ensure the manufacture and release of adequate utility goods and clothing, particularly children's wear.
Every once in a while someone gets up in this house-and this includes the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)-and outside
the house, mostly on his part, and says that we need a bigger population here, an immigration policy to bring people in. Good heavens, we cannot even provide didies for the babies born in Canada. How will you have diapers for all the babies born to new immigrants until our own local manufacturers can manufacture diapers so that our babies can be properly clothed; or are we going to go back to the moss bag and straight board and pack them on our backs? I agree with that item, that the manufacture of luxury goods should be curtailed, the same as luxury building, until the necessary requirements of the ordinary people, whom the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) so eloquently called the little people of the country, are provided with necessities. Incidentally, I want to congratulate that hon. member on the speech he made yesterday, an excellent speech coming from that side of the house.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Some of you boys. have nice automobiles over there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you seen mine?


Thomas John Bentley: I do not think I will allow hon. gentlemen here and there to take up my time talking about the value of their automobiles.


John Lambert Gibson: Your automobiles, not ours.


Thomas John Bentley: They will be getting back to the relative usefulness of the old grey mare which they each used to own at one time.
7.	The retention of rent controls and the continuation of local rent control boards. Granted there have been some terrible errors, some of them justifiable errors, in the operation of rent control; granted there are not only veterans but others who did put their savings into housing with the best intentions of occupying the buildings they bought with that money, and were unable to get into the houses-a serious error on the part of the regulations or the operations-I think the difficulty could have been overcome without entirely removing, or even removing to the extent that we have seen, the system of rent controls. While it may be granted that owners of buildings which are rented to people as apartments, and sometimes very poor apartments, may have had a little less profit in their hands, I doubt if any landlord of an apartment building has actually had to go hungry in this country because he was subject to rent controls during the war or recently.
8.	The inauguration by the government of a national programme of low-rental housing,
Emergency Powers

to eliminate present slum and overcrowding conditions. Immediate diversion of building materials from non-essential construction to the building of homes.
Why, in the name of goodness, cannot the government realize that that is important, is possible, is practical and should be done? It is possible to do it and I support this delegation of housewives wholeheartedly in that demand.
The ninth and last of their points is this: The reorganization of the wartime prices and trade board to a peacetime prices and trade board, with representation from national, provincial, and local labour, farmer and women's groups.
I believe there is a lot of good common sense in that request. I believe the government should give it serious consideration.
I said at the outset that I rose more in sadness than in anger at this time, and that is so. Last fall, when I went home I saw something happen that I had hoped would never happen in this country. I do not want anyone to think I am opposed to the right of the people to strike. I am not opposed to strikes, but I am very much opposed to the conditions that make strikes necessary. This being the only weapon the little people have to use, they have to use it at times; and always when it is used nearly everyone concerned gets hurt. It is like a war. While one side may gain their point, while it was necessary that great sacrifices should be made by Canada and the united nations to protect their freedoms against the rise of those nations that threatened those freedoms, nevertheless we suffered severely, and the other nations more so. The same applies to industrial conflicts, and yet last fall I saw a farmers' strike, the first widespread strike of the kind I have seen in Canada. I had worked among farmers and in farm organizations and farmed for a long time in that part of the country. We have often had great grievances, and we have always tried to deal with them on the basis of debate, on the basis of compromise, on the basis of proper representation, so much so that a little more than five years ago I came to Ottawa with a delegation of 400 people, mostly from Saskatchewan, to present our case, rather than carry out what was asked for by some at that time, a positive delivery strike among the farmers.
Last fall it took place, and it took place not because any one out there loves a strike. Bear that in mind. No farmer wants to go on strike. We are peaceful and good-natured and we do not want to have a conflict if we Bentley.]
can avoid it. But the people there will fight if they are required to fight, and they will fight with every means at their disposal if they find that their living is going to be threatened and driven back to where it was some time before. The same holds good with labour.
The reason I made these few remarks about strikes was this. I saw an editorial recently in the Canadian Register. They were dealing with representation by Mr. C. H. Millard of the steelworkers union who asked for a roll-back of ten per cent in the prices of consumer goods. This is what the editorial says with regard to Mr. Millard's request:
Employers ought to grasp at the opportunity for discussion offered by labour leaders such as Mr. Millard. . . other big corporations should do what Ford of Canada has done or else explain why they cannot reduce prices. Big business is now too big to be allowed to claim the privileges of privacy.
This is not a C.C.F. paper; it is not a socialist paper; it is the Canadian Register. I will repeat that sentence:
Big business is now too big to be allowed to claim the privileges of privacy. There is a reasonable demand that the public, and especially labour, should know the facts about prices and profits. If big business is making no more [DOT]than reasonable profits it should not be afraid of publicity; and unless it takes labour into its confidence-
I would add "farmers" also.
-it will provoke a fresh series of strikes that will have disastrous consequences.
There is a lot in that. Hon. members will note they say big business is now too big to claim privacy.
Quite often we are criticized from different quarters of the house because of our stand on private enterprise or free enterprise or whatever you want to call it. I do not know whether any words of mine can clarify our position, but for a moment or two I am going to try. We believe in private enterprise. Every single member of this group believes in private enterprise. We believe in the private individual on a farm having the right to own that farm. If there were a monopoly of land in this country we would not 'believe in that type of private enterprise, and I want my Tory friends to realize that. The minute there is a monopoly of land in this country we shall be against the farmer who has that monopoly, but we believe in private enterprise. We believe in the right of the private storekeeper to run his store and the right of the private blacksmith to run his blacksmith shop; we want more of that in this country. But there is very little free enterprise left in Canada.


John Thomas Hackett: How about the doctors?

Emergency Powers


Thomas John Bentley: We believe in the freedom of the individual, and I come from the only place in Canada where they have a health region with almost universal health services. That is health region No. 1, Swift Current, Saskatchewan. There we do not coerce any doctors. Every doctor is free to enter into a contract with the health region or not, as he sees fit. No doctor there is compelled or coerced into taking part. I do not know what my hon. friend's information may be, but I am telling the truth. No doctor has to sign a contract; nobody can make him put his name to it. He is asked to do so; we try to get him to see the public service he can render by doing so.


John Thomas Hackett: What happens if he does not?


Thomas John Bentley: If he does not he can continue his private practice. He can carry op private practice or regional practice, as he prefers. I want it to be remembered also that this was done under democracy. The question was submitted to the people of the eighty municipalities comprising that region and seventy-one per cent voted in favour of it.
I was pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that there is very little free enterprise in connection with private enterprise today. The little storekeeper cannot set his own figure. Nearly all the places he has to buy from are coordinated in selling monopoly enterprises, in the wholesale, jobbing and manufacturing fields.


John Lambert Gibson: Or in cooperatives.


Thomas John Bentley: Possibly in cooperatives, but no cooperative sets the prices. The private merchant who happens to be behind in his accounts may even be subjected to the rule of the wholesale house with which he is behind, by having his mark-up made for him in his own store. That is not private enterprise or free enterprise; that is controlled enterprise, controlled by people who are not responsible to the people being controlled. I would much rather be controlled by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) whom I can vote, out at the next election if I wish, than by some guy whom I cannot vote either for or against whether he should be on the board of directors or president of Canadian Industries Limited or some other firm. To prove my statement, only recently we were told that by submissions-not by demand but by submissions-the government finally convinced the explosives division of Canadian Industries limited to sell small arms ammunition to the retailers of our part of the country who are members of the Palcon Hardware
and Merchants Consolidated, thus ending a fight that had been going on for a good many years, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) knows. Canadian Industries made us pay through the nose for small arms ammunition if we wanted to take our shotguns and shoot a prairie chicken, a duck or a goose.
Free enterprise, then, is something in which we do not believe if the individual is going to have complete freedom to do as he likes. There are two kinds of private enterprise; one kind is free and illegal. The private enterprisers I have been speaking of, the farmers, the small merchants, the professional men and so on, are law-abiding citizens, but there is another kind of free enterpriser, perhaps the sportiest of them all. He puts a blackjack in his pocket or a gun under his arm, puts something over his face so that he will not be recognized, and robs a bank or clunks somebody on the head in a dark alley; and as long as the police do not catch him he is a free enterpriser. When they do catch him he ceases to be free, but he is a private enterpriser, and that is how he operates. The other fellows, making up the great majority of the small enterprises of this country, are subject to control by some monopoly enterprise every way they turn. As was said here yesterday,' the farmer is subject to their control. When he sells his goods they tell him what they will pay for them; when he buys his supplies they tell him what he must pay for them. I need not go farther into that; the facts are well known.
I just want to repeat that we do believe in private enterprise, and we do not believe in the little private enterpriser being controlled by the freebooting monopoly enterprisers who control and own so much in this country. How much freedom has the labourer? He has freedom to take off his hat and say, "Please, mister, can I have a job?" He cannot start a nickel mine of his own; he cannot start a boot and shoe factory of his own. He has to go to some guy who, through the years, has accumulated enough money to operate a business; he has to say to that fellow, "Please, mister, can I work in your factory or mine?" Where is his freedom of enterprise? So he is going to strike, unless the sort of enterprise under which he has to work, which some people call free enterprise but which we call monopoly enterprise, will give him enough for the work he does to buy the things he needs; and as I have just pointed out, the Register holds the same view.
Emergency Powers

The farmer will do the same thing. This house, as a parliament, has agreed to certain conditions to cover the sale of a large part of our Canadian wheat. We in this group supported this honestly and sincerely, but as we were doing it we asked the government to hold the price line as far as the farmers were concerned. The government has continually neglected to hold the price line so that every day now the stabilized prices farmers are getting under these regulations are being threatened. As I have said before, our farmers are not hard people to deal with. They do not kick unless they have something to kick about, but I am receiving constant representations from them saying, "What is going on at Ottawa? Just when we think we have a price that might be some good to us we find we have to pay 44 cents more for gasoline and 124 per cent more for machinery, while the prices of all our household goods are going up." The united farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, took an active part in the farm strike last fall, along with the farmers' union of Alberta. They have regular meetings together, and I believe there is a delegation here in Ottawa at the present time. The united farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, issue a monthly bulletin called "Information", in which there is an editorial dealing with these very matters, part of which I should like to quote:
The farmers' strike last fall was an indication of how the farmer is thinking about this question.
He is thinking about it even more today than he was at that time, because the situation is getting more acute.
It was in one sense the first concerted effort at using the strike weapon. There is no question about it that this action also brought the farmers and labour closer together.
In the occupational group council of the people out in that country we find that farmers and labour are getting closer together all the time. This bulletin also contains addresses by some of these people which I should like to put on record, but I have not time this afternoon and in any event I do not think it would be of any particular value. The people in the country will read them, and those here who do not want to be convinced would not be convinced anyway.
We are going to support this bill. As I said, I am beginning to wonder what I am supporting. I am beginning to wonder, too, what is wrong with the Tories. I look at this bill and I look at the newspapers; I hear announcements of price controls that are being taken off. My wife tells me every day that

she is paying a little more, here and there. She asks me, "When did the price control go off?" I say "My dear, read the newspapers. Go up and sit in the gallery in the House of Commons, and listen to ministers of the government, and you will know more than I do"-or as much, anyway. She always says she knows more.
Then, I wonder what the Tories do want. I read the amendment offered by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and seconded by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). They agree on some things. For instance, they agree with old age pensions.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more unanimous in the House of Commons than that. I doubt if there is a single member in the house who would dare raise his voice against the increase in old age pension at the present time. The government can be assured of that; indeed, they are so thoroughly assured in their own minds that that is so, that they are going to make the old age pensioners wait until we have passed this kind of bill.
But for the Tories to stand behind and say they would be willing to vote for that does not mean very much.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Thomas John Bentley: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is one
of the fairest members in the house. Upon reflection I do not think he will agree that his statement about the government's making old pensioners wait is an accurate one, in the light of the agenda of this session. I am sure that, on reflection, he would want to correct that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two and a half months from the speech from the throne.


Thomas John Bentley: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do
love to be courteous to the minister who has just spoken, because he is such a courteous gentleman himself. I will accept his correction, if he makes it in good faith.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Old age pensioners cannot live on courtesy.


Thomas John Bentley: That is right; they
cannot.


Mr. PROBE:: The government is likely
going to make the payment retroactive.


Thomas John Bentley: We hope so. I feel sure that the increase in old age pensions payments will receive the unanimous approval of the house. But I should like to say this to the government, that I doubt very much if the government's idea of an adequate in-

Emergency Powers
crease will meet with unanimous approval in the house. We shall have an opportunity then to see just how many there are in the House of Commons, including those in the three groups on this side, and the solid group over there, and one or two partial dissenters, who are willing to deal fairly in the matter of the amount of the increase in old age pensions.
To expect that we shall ever have a bill in the House of Commons at any time which every hon. member could support wholeheartedly would be expecting too much. Therefore, as I have said, this group will support the bill as it is. We do so with a great deal of sadness, and with the wish that much that has been taken out had been left in, and that- much more had been put in before it was introduced.
At the outset I said I did not intend to take up much of the time of the house, but I felt my constituents should be represented in the debate, in view of things which have taken place since the measure was presented to parliament, and also in view of statements which have been made about us, particularly by the Tory party, who do not like what they call our type of dictatorship, but who loved the iron heel dictatorship of R. B. Bennett, and the machine-guns of the thirties.


James Horace King: When the minster speaks he will close the debate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is unnecessary for me to speak for more than a few moments in closing this debate. I may say that it comes as -a relief to me to have the opportunity to close the debate, because it has taken a long time.
The discussion has covered a wide range, and has been a valuable one. But it must be remembered that time is running on, and that before we get this emergency legislation through we have to consider a wide range of matters. I am in hopes that the house will make as rapid progress as possible in the days and weeks to come.
I am not at all sure that it is necessary for me to say anything about the position of the various parties with respect to the measure now before us. The principle of the measure was clearly expressed this afternoon by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). It is, I submit, summed up in the last recital in the preamble of the bill, which is as follows:
And whereas it is necessary by reason of the existing national emergency that certain orders and regulations of the governor in council made under the War Measures Act and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945 be
continued in force temporarily notwithstanding the expiry of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, in order to ensure an orderly transition from war to peace.
That is the principle of the bill; and I am surprised that any party in the house, any member in the house, should have found it necessary to take a position in opposition to the measure. I am surprised that that should be the case. It seems to me it is a measure which should pass unanimously, which should pass promptly. It seems to me the house should devote itself to considering, in as much detail as it wishes, orders in council which are appended to the bill. I should hope that that consideration would not be too detailed because, as has been pointed out, these orders in council are now the law of the land, have been for many years the law of the land, and are all destined to expire before very long. And so the degree of care required in legislation which is to be permanent is not required in legislation of this type.
Inevitably discussion has centred around certain of the orders in council which are appended to the bill. Those are the orders in council relating to controls. The positions of the three parties in this house with reference to controls has been carefully and repeatedly stated.
I have a feeling that those hon. members who took such an adamant and uncompromising position against the continuation of con-trois_I have an idea, I say, that those members have weakened very much in the last few weeks.
The Progressive Conservative opposition apparently came to the house determined to agitate for the removal of controls and the reduction of taxation, thinking those were the two things that the people of the country- or at least a great many of them-wanted.^ I am not saying anything about the reduction of taxation, because, of course, that is not within my province or department. But the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), in his first speech in the session, stated definitely and positively the position of the Progressive Conservative party on controls. I venture to say that today the leader of the Progressive Conservative party would not state that position in those terms. He would not take that position now.
The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) has stated positively he is for the abolition of all controls. And we can go throughout that party, here and there, and remember the speeches which have reverberated through this chamber, talking about the cancellation of controls, condemning the government for holding on to controls, stating that we must do away with them-and at
Emergency Powers

once-and that we cannot retreat gradually, stating that an orderly or gradual retreat is inevitably disorderly, and that the only way to get rid of controls is to get rid of them.
That has been the position taken by prominent and official members of the Progressive Conservative party throughout all this session-until recently; until they went home during the Easter recess, and found out something. They found out what was the sentiment of the people in their constituencies.
Nothing is more humourous, it seems to me, than the report of the deliberations of the convention or the annual meeting-or whatever it is called-of the Progressive Conservative party. According to the reports, the party divided into two elements. One was for doing away with controls and the other was for perpetuating some controls. Finally they decided, as I read in the Globe and Mail, to compromise by recommending that all controls be abolished which would retard the production of building materials. That was the momentous decision on the subject of controls arrived at by the Progressive Conservative convention.
The position I have stated on behalf of the government is a clear one. It is that we must get out of this field as soon as it is safe to do so, and I mean safe from the point of view of the people of this country. I have stated repeatedly that I cannot go along with the C.C.F. position, which apparently contemplates the indefinite continuation of controls. We cannot possibly contemplate a position like that, because we have no constitutional power to do so. We cannot have price controls by dominion authority permanently in this country.
The dominion government has to get out of price controls sooner or later. The dominion government must lay its plans so as to get out of price controls on an orderly, gradual and safe basis. That is the position of the Liberal party today; that is the position of the government, and I think it is the only common sense position that any party can take in this house. Recently a big smoke-screen was thrown up in connection with this whole matter of controls, and we have had such speeches as that delivered by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) about the courts and about certain powers which the wartime prices and trade board has the right to confer upon the sugar corporation and so on. Some of his points may be very good. I do not know whether those are or not.	.
As I said in my opening speech with regard to these controls, the powers are extensive. They had to be extensive. We pared down

some of them and perhaps some of them should be taken out in committee, but to elevate individual sections in long orders to the level of the principle of the bill and present them as the reason why the Conservative party is going to vote against this bill is to show a lamentable and shocking lack of proportion and confuses the issue entirely.
I am not going to say very much more about this. Nearly everybody has expressed himself and I have expressed myself already on two or three occasions. This attitude of handing everything back to business, which the Conservative party started out to put before this house as their attitude and their policy is impracticable, is dangerous and is wrong in the light of present conditions. It has been modified since by sheer opportunism. Reaction tempered by opportunism is the principle that underlies the attitude taken by the Progressive Conservative party in this debate and in this vote.
Mr. GRAkDON:	You are getting pretty
desperate over there.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would like to have a recorded division on this motion.


Mr. STOKES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MENARY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Douglas). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LAPALME:: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SMITH (York North):: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
(Translation):


Mr. DORION:: I was paired with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
(Text):
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Adamson	Jackman
Aylesworth	Lennard
Black (Yukon)	Lockhart
Blair	Macdonnell (Muskoka-
Boucher	Ontario)
Bradshaw	McGregor
Brooks	McMaster
Caouette	MacNicol
Casselman	Manross
Charlton Church Cockeram	Merritt Raymond (Beauhar-
Coyle	nois-Laprairie)
Daniel	Robinson (Bruce)
Drope	Rowe
Fleming	Stanfield
Fraser	Stephenson
Fulton	Stirling
Graydon	Timmins
Hackett	Tustin
Harkness	White (Hastings-
Hazen	Peterborough)
Henderson	White (Middlesex
Homuth	East)-43.


Mr. CARDIFF:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, three
times within the past few weeks we of this group have tried to give the house an opportunity, by placing certain amendments before it, to make clear to the government how the house and the country feel about the way in which certain price controls have been taken off or price ceilings lifted. These amendments were all ruled out of order, and we were told each time that the place for us to try to make that point was when we got into committee on the bill. Frankly I have found it difficult, in studying the bill, to see just how we are going to achieve that purpose by means of any amendment, but I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the minister, and I would appreciate his considering it and letting us know whether there is any way in which we can amend the bill so as to express the feelings of the committee which, I think, are the feelings of the country.
The Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State for External Affairs both administered some severe tongue lashings to the members of the Progressive Conservative party today. We enjoyed them and think these tongue lashings were well deserved, but I should like to point out to these two ministers the significance of one of the things that they said about the Progressive Conservatives.
Emergency Powers


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. May I call the attention of the committee to standing order 58 (2) which reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
We are now entering upon a discussion of Bill No,. 104, the principle of which has been considered carefully by the house and approved. I presume that the committee would want me to direct its deliberations in accordance with the standing order.


John Thomas Hackett: Do you rule, Mr. Chairman, that the tongue lashing was irrelevant?


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I felt that I should rise at this time and bring, this rule to the attention of the committee. It has been my experience that, if one or two members speak generally on the first clause, then we are almost bound to have a full debate on the principle and allow all hon. members to do so. The rule is that the discussion in committee must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. At the present time we are discussing the, short title.
, Mr. KNOWLES: Mr. Chairman, I know the rule is there and I agree with you that it should be followed. But I think you will also realize that it has been the general practice to allow such general discussion as one cannot get in in other places, on the first clause of the bill. I must also point out the position that hon. members are being put in if we are told, when the Speaker is in the chair, to wait until we get into committee to deal with certain matters and then, when we get into, committee, are told we cannot raise them there.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I did not intend to convey any such impression. I think there will be ample opportunity under the clauses to discuss all questions which came up during the discussion in the house. There are eight clauses and a very long schedule, and I suppose the committee can decide to consider each item in the schedule. That, of course, will be for the committee to decide, but I feel that we should decide now that the rules of the house are going to be observed and discussion should take place only on the clause under consideration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say something to the committee about the government's plan with regard to considering this measure. It is proposed to take up section 1 first, the section we are on. My submission would be that the rules of order, whatever the practice has been, should be

applied in the consideration of that section, and I hope that the discussion of it would be short. With regard to section 2, section 2 must be amended if amendments are to be made to any of the orders in council in the schedule, and so I will propose that section 2 stand until the schedule is dealt with. If amendments to any of the orders in council, or sections of the orders in council, are passed by the house, then it will be necessary to go back to section 2, which would have stood, and amend it so as to give effect to these amendments to the orders in council. Then I think that, before we deal with the orders in council in the schedule, we might as well deal witl) the remaining sections of the bill. And so the course of procedure I propose is to take section 1, let section 2 stand, take sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, then the schedule, and then go back to section 2 and amend it as way be required by any amendments to the schedule.
With regard to the hon. gentleman's problem, I presume he would like to propose some amendments somewhere which would put a brake upon what he might consider headlong action-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are reading my mind exactly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -by the government.


Gordon Graydon: This is about as headlong as molasses in February.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman is
experienced and he would select his own opportunity without assistance from me, but I would suggest that the proper place for that is upon consideration of P.C. 8528, which is the order in council setting up the wartime prices and trade board. If it is desired to move an amendment by adding some section to that order in council by legislation, the hon. gentleman has every right to propose it. If he moves the kind of amendment I think he will propose, I am afraid I shall not be able to accept it, but that is his opportunity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point, , and it is a continuation of the experience we are now having; my fear is that if we wait until we get to the order in council to which the minister has referred, and then seek to move an amendment to put a brake upon this headlong decontrol, in other words, the kind of amendment that would ask the wartime prices and trade board to reimpose some of the ceilings that have been taken off, we shall then be told by the Chairman, and .perhaps rightly, that such mandatory amendments would be out of keeping, out of order, with

Privilege-Mr Martin
the permissive nature of that particular order in council. That is my reason for raising the point now.
As a matter of fact, we felt in this group that it was not so much a matter of amending the order in council that was necessary as it was that expression should be given of the opinion of this house to the government, which they in turn could pass on to the wartime prices and trade board, and that is why we tried to move the three amendments we have moved during the past few weeks. That opportunity was denied, and we seem to be in the position where it is utterly impossible to get a vote of the house, to tell the government that we want price controls reimposed on certain items. What I was starting to say, in defence of my hon. friend to the right, was this, that the reason-


Gordon Graydon: Be careful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will be awfully careful when I start to do that. But the reason they have come back from the Easter recess not quite so sure that controls should be taken off is that in the meantime controls have been removed, as, for example, on the first of April by the Minister of Finance, with the result that there have been increases in the cost of living, and the people back home in some of my hon. friends' constituencies who, a few months ago, may have thought a good song to sing was, "Take off controls now", now know the effect of it and are protesting to their members, even in those Tory constituencies. In other words, the blame for their change of tune is not to be placed on our Tory friends, but on the government for what the minister rightly described a few minutes ago as headlong decontrol.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is your language, not mine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Weren't those your
words?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, Mr. Chairman. I must see what Hansard says but, as I remember, I said "what my hon. friend describes as headlong".


William Ross Macdonald: I think the committee should decide now whether or not it will observe the rules.


John Thomas Hackett: I should like to come to the aid of the government and recommend that the Chair declare it six o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 17, 1947