[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, I must crave your indulgence for referring again today to thie matter of Polish treasures. I do not wish to prolong the controversy, but it is only proper that all the facts be placed before the public so that they may have their own views as to their proper interpretation1.
Press statements have been called to my attention in which it is said that the Polish charge d'affaires in Canadia wrote to the Mother Superior of the Hotel Dieu in Quebec city stating, amongst other things that the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had been placed at his disposal to recover the art treasures which were said to be stored at that place. I have no direct knowledge of this communication or of any other communications which the Polish charge d'affaires may have addressed to private individuals in Canada. It is not true, however, that any undertaking was given to the representative of the Polish government in Canada, either orally or in writing, by myself or any official of the Canadian government, to the effect that the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would be placed at his disposal. He was informed only that, in order that he and his solicitors might undertake any legal proceedings they thought appropriate, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would be asked to endeavour to ascertain the location of the missing articles. In order that there may be no misapprehension on this subject, I am quoting the relevant part of the letter in which the charge d'affaires of the Polish legation was informed of the location of the articles which had been stored in Quebec City.
The portion of the letter, signed by the under-secretary of state is as follows- -
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: What date?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have not the date, but it was just as soon as we got the information that these articles had been located in the city of Quebec. It states:
I have now been informed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that certain Polish art treasures which were brought to Canada by ithe Polish authorities in 1940 and which subsequently disappeared have mow been located at l'Hotel Dieu, Quebec city, Quebec. The articles at this location are said to be contained in twenty-three trunks and one wooden box and to have been stored previously at the Redemp-torist Monastery at Ste. Anne de Beaupre.
As we agreed with your solicitors, we are communicating the information to you for any further action you and your solicitors may wish to take.
On the orders of the day:


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked for the production of certain papers. He said:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister admits that the mounted police were used for civil purposes, he can have no objection to producing the reports given by Corporal Car-riere and Constable Houle, either bo himself as Minister of External Affairs or to the Minister of Justice, and I would ask whether or not those reports will be tabled.
Later he said:
Them I would ask the Minister of Justice whether he would produce these reports, because they deal with a civil matter, and the mounted police do not deal with civil matters.
To which I replied:
I shall be glad to give consideration to my hon. friend's request and give him an answer tomorrow. I am strongly under the impression that police reports to the commissioner, if there are any, are not under any circumstances producible in this house.
I find that there were certain reports from these two members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to their superiors but that they were of a confidential character and were so marked, and I therefore must decline to produce those reports on the ground of public interest.
I have not been able to find any indication in the authorities that anything turns on the distinction my hon. friend made yesterday between police activities in criminal matters and in civil matters. If anything did turn
Polish Art Treasures

on that, the same rule would clearly apply to reports made in civil matters. I quote from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, page 251:
The practice of asking for reports from officers, addressed to particular departments of the executive government, is considered to be open to serious objection. As to "confidential documents" passing between officers of a department, Mr. Speaker Peel observes: "They are not necessarily laid on the table of the house, especially if the minister declares that they aye of a confidential character." He adds: "that if a minister stated in his place that a document was of that class, the house should tajie his word, and he was not bound to lay it on the table.
The observations which apply in that citation to reports from officers of a department apply a fortiori to reports from members of the police forces to their superiors, and it would be clearly contrary to the public interest to produce such secret and confidential reports or lay them on the table of the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when the minister states that it is not in the public interest to produce the papers I believe his statement must be accepted; but when he says that there is no authority for it and that it has not been asked before in parliament I must say that the Prime Minister himself, when leader of the opposition on July 2, 1935, at page 4133 of Hansard asked for the production in this house of certain instructions given to the mounted police of that day, and himself desired the production of those papers. As a matter of fact-and I want to be frank- the answer given by the Prime Minister then was that he did not think they were producible. It is fair enough to say that; and I cannot find that it was discussed later. But certainly in 1935 the present Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition thought it only proper to produce them.
While we are speaking about production, sir, I would suggest, being bound by what the Minister of Justice says, that possibly the Secretary of State for External Affairs, having chosen selected portions of a letter a few moments ago, will now table in the house the entire letter or state paper, as the case may be, because of citation 315, which I shall now read:
A minister of the crown is no.t at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the house, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table.
He has referred to one of the documents that I had in mind, and I suggest, sir, that he now be asked to table the entire letter from which he read a selected extract.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have not the letter here; I shall give the request made by the hon. member for Lake Centre very sympathetic consideration.



RENT CONTROL


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) referred to a telegram he had received from the secretary of the Retail Merchants Association of Alberta relating to the matter of commercial rentals, and suggesting that authority be retained by the rentals division of the board to deal with each case on its merits when application for a board ruling is made by a tenant. He asked me if I would give the matter consideration and make a statement with regard to the request.
I would say now with respect to the commercial rentals situation that there still remains in order in council PC. 9029, the wartime leasehold regulations, section 6, subsection 1, which makes it an offence for any person to charge a rental which is higher than is reasonable and just.
As the government is continuing rental control on housing accommodation, it is necessary that this section remain in effect.
This section has general application; accordingly, it remains an offence for a landlord to charge a rental for commercial space that is clearly unreasonable and unjust. Should any such case be brought to the attention of the wartime prices and trade board, investigation will be made.
Hon. members will realize that it is unusually difficult to assess the value of commercial accommodation because so much depends upon the value of the site, nature of the business carried on, and the volume of business attributable to the location.
It must be also remembered that rent control of commercial space has now been in effect for over six and a half years. During this time many locations which in 1941 had little commercial value have now become quite valuable for one reason or another. Because of these factors previous maximum rentals in effect are not necessarily relevant in determining the reasonableness of the rentals now being asked.
Since December 1, 1945, the law has permitted a landlord to enter into a lease with an existing tenant at a rental that was mutually satisfactory to both parties, provided that the term of the lease was for a period of five years or longer and the lease contained

Rent Control
no predetermination clause. The five-year period was reduced to a three-year period in the spring of 1947. It would not be the government's intention to examine into the rentals reserved under these leases, as these were lawful rentals.


Mr. FLEMING:: I take it it is clear that it will continue to be the responsibility of the wartime prices and trade board to enforce the provisions of section 6 (1) of the wartime leasehold regulations with respect to unreasonable and unjust projects.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe I can answer that in this way, that if it is clearly established that a rental which is unreasonable and unjust is being charged the board would consider taking a prosecution. It is open under the section for anyone to do it, with the consent of the board or with the consent of a provincial attorney general. I am not prepared to say now to what extent the board should be or would be prepared to undertake the task of prosecutions. What I have said, in effect, is that if cases of that kind are brought to the attention of the board, investigations will be made.


Mr. GREEN:: May I ask a supplementary question? Does the board have power to reduce rentals, or can it merely prosecute?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It can only prosecute.


Mr. MacINNIS:: May I ask a supplementary question? The minister said that if it was clearly established that the rent was unreasonable and unjust, certain action would be taken. How is that to be established before it can be brought to the attention of the wartime prices and trade board?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I should put'it this way. Presumably the tenant would be in the best position to decide whether he thinks the rent is unreasonable and unjust. He could complain, I assume, to the wartime prices and trade board. An investigation would be made and the investigator would come to a conclusion one way or the other. If he came to the conclusion that it was clearly unreasonable and unjust I assume that the board would institute proper proceedings. I have stated that the board will investigate complaints of this kind to the extent of its capacity.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: As I understand it, this will have nothing to do with the right of the landlord to evict his tenant. The only remedy suggested now is that the tenant may prosecute if the rental fixed is considered unreasonable and unjust-or is it "or unjust"?


Douglas Charles Abbott: And.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We have had this phrase in our legislation for a long time. I am sure no one appreciates more than the minister the difficulty of basing a prosecution upon words of general application such as "unreasonable and unjust". I was wondering if the board had had any success in prosecutions of the kind, realizing as I do the great difficulty of asking a tribunal to decide. Perhaps some refinement might be made in that term, or more definite words used, so that in the event of the proper authorities launching a prosecution they would have some hope of succeeding. This is like asking what is the size of the chancellor's boot, or something of the kind. It is a very broad phrase, and I am inclined to think that it would be difficult to enforce a regulation under those words as they stand.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Answering the first question, I understand that before the over-all ceilings were applied early in the war there were two, or possibly three, prosecutions under the "unjust and unreasonable" clause, and I understand there were two convictions. Then the over-all ceilings were put on and a breach of the price ceiling automatically was considered to be selling at a price which was unjust and unreasonable.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would the minister, for example, regard an increase of 100 per cent unreasonable as against 40 per cent?
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE. (Cariboo): The question which I intended to ask the minister has been asked already by the hon. member for Calgary West, but I should like to add this: Does the minister not think that the term "unreasonable and unjust" is so general that a conviction would be difficult to obtain?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a matter of opinion.



PROPOSED REMOVAL OP COMMERCIAL RENT CONTROLS -MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), for leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious situation which will develop subsequent to the removal of commercial rental controls on Monday, March 8, and the drastic effect which this will have on the cost of living and the necessity for immediate action to prevent the closing of small businesses which will doubtlessly result from exorbitant increases in rentals of commercial accommodation after March 8.
Rent Control

In view of the statement made this afternoon I think it becomes more necessary that this matter should be discussed1 because I believe the suggestions made to the house are entirely inadequate to meet the situation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort, has moved for leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. Hon. members know that it is the practice to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance when under the orders of the day they would have no opportunity to discuss it. In a few minutes from now, according to the business of the house which was decided last night, the house will proceed to debate the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Hon. members know perfectly well that in the course of that debate it will be their privilege to discuss any matter. Therefore I do not see why I should permit the adjournment of the house to discuss this matter when the house will have an opportunity to discuss it in a few minutes.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, I cannot find anything in standing order 31 which provides for this sort of adjournment, which says that if there is an occasion on which the matter can be discussed the motion should not be granted. If the debate on the address goes on, there is no assurance that the hon. member who wants to raise this question will be able to speak. This question either stands or falls on its own merits as a question of urgent public importance, and in my. opinion it cannot be sidetracked by saying that there is an opportunity to discuss it in some other debate. It is a question which stands by itself and which must be decided according to the rules as they appear in Beauchesne's rules and orders.


James Horace King: The hon. member will understand that I cannot enter into a debate on the ruling which I have given. It is a well known fact that a member may ask leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. The idea of permitting such a motion is to enable hon. members to discuss urgent matters of public importance when they have no other opportunity to do so. But in a few minutes from now, as I have already said, the debate on the address will be before the house, and it will be the privilege of members to discuss any matter in that debate. I am sorry, therefore, mat I cannot accept the hon. member's motion.



FIVE-POWER CONFERENCE STATEMENT AS TO CANADIAN EEPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) yesterday asked a question about the five-power conference in Brussels and I replied that I had not been able to follow his question closely enough to venture an answer then. I have had an answer prepared which I should like now to give to him. His question as it appears in Hansard is this:
I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Canada has a representative or observer of -any kind at the five-power conference which opened today in Brussel® to discuss defensive matters. If not, was she invited to send one? If not, is the British government keeping Canada informed in any way as to the proceedings -and developments?
The answer is as follows. On March 1, Mr. Attlee announced in the House of Commons in London that the United Kingdom and France had recently made certain proposals to the Benelux governments on all the aspects of western union and that the Belgian government were arranging for conversations to open on the official level in Brussels on March 4, at which there would be preliminary discussions covering the general question of economic, social, political, and defence co-operation.
Since the meeting in Brussels has been arranged to afford officials of the five powers, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, an opportunity to discuss the general considerations involved, Canada has not been invited to attend, but in accordance with the usual practice, the United Kingdom government is keeping Canada informed.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, of which I have not had a chance to give him notice. Will he see that I get an answer to a question I asked a good many weeks ago and which was passed as an order for return on February 11. It has to do with the purchase of Dominion of Canada bonds by the government itself and the investment of Canadian funds from the sale of United States dollars. I cannot seo

Inquiries of the Ministry
why it should take more than twenty-four, or at the most forty-eight hours to answer the question, and it is now nearly six weeks since the order was passed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall make inquiries and see what has happened.



LOANS TO OTHER COUNTRIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: May I ask the Minister of Finance if I may have an answer to the question I asked on Wednesday, March 3, in regard to the repayment of loans made by the government of Canada to foreign' countries?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will try to let my hon. friend have an answer on Monday.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L, CHURCH (Broadview): May I ask the Prime Minister what is the present position of private bills on the order paper?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: There will be an hour tonight for private bills.



PUBLIC BILLS AND PRIVATE MEMBERS' RESOLUTIONS

Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). Can the Prime Minister give any indication when private members will have an opportunity to discuss their public bills and resolutions?


Mr. CRUIOKSHANK:: Oleomargarine next year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the house has been in session now for a considerable period of time, and up to the present private members have occupied most of the time of the session. I think the government will have to endeavour to have headway made with government business before more time is taken up by private members with their measures. A little later in the session we can see what opportunities there may be for taking up public bills. Provision has already been made for private bills other than divorce bills to be taken up on Friday evenings, but until
further headway is made on government business, I believe it is in the public interest that the government should give precedence to its own business. Later on we shall be able to see what may be possible with regard to public bills.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The Ottawa Morning Journal of March 3, quotes Premier Drew of Ontario as saying:
"in seeking to convey the impression, that he was unaware of the threat of early war .im the Pacific prior to the departure of the Hong Kong force in. October, 1941," Prime Minister King "is simply piling falsehood on falsehood."
Later on I am quoted in support of Premier Drew's statement as having said in evidence before the Hong Kong inquiry the following:
I felt, perhaps without any sound- basis except having read these dispatches, that there was a very good1 chance of war breaking out with Japan.
In justice to all parties, including myself, I think I should say that in the very next line of my evidence, in reply to a direct question as to whether I believed war with Japan was imminent, I said no, war with Japan is not imminent.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are we to get the evidence given before the Hong Kong commission piece by piece, or all at once?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Ask George Drew.


Charles Gavan Power: May I say that I am in entire agreement with the hon. gentleman, and if this points any moral at all it is this, that Premier Drew as well as all others concerned should have waited until the evidence was produced before speaking.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On my point of order, sir, perhaps the hon. member will tell us when it will be produced.


James Horace King: Order. If the hon. member for Calgary West has a point of order I would ask him to state it.



EMERY CASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister any
1912
Speaker's Riding

knowledge of whether Premier Drew or his attorney general is appealing the ridiculous sentence imposed on a man called Emery in the province of Ontario?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have no knowledge of that matter, no.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Shaw.
James Horace King: 
Mr. LOW:: Mr. Speaker, permit me just a word in connection with the ruling which you have just made. I contend, sir, that the amendment to the amendment is of the same character exactly as the amendment itself, and that it is clearly-


James Horace King: Order.


Solon Earl Low: -a want of confidence motion.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but there is an old practice in this house and in England that the Speaker's ruling cannot be debated.


Solon Earl Low: In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, because your ruling is so completely unjustified by the rules of the house I must challenge it.


James Horace King: Order. Will the hon. member be kind enough to repeat what he has just said? I did not understand him.


Solon Earl Low: I say, sir, because your ruling is so completely unjustified by the rules of procedure of this house, in that it places our subamendment in a different category from that of the Conservative party, although they are both want of confidence motions, I must challenge your ruling.

Speaker's Ruling


James Horace King: Those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say "yea".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


James Horace King: Those against will please say "nay".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


James Horace King: In my opinion the "yeas" have it. Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's ruling. I have declared out of order the amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Shaw, and Mr. Low appeals. I base my ruling in declaring the amendment to the amendment out of order on Beauchesne's third edition, page 142, citation 367:
A subamendment on the address in reply to the speech from the throne may be moved subject to the same rules as any other amendment. It must be relevant to the amendment and cannot raise a new issue.
I also base my ruling on the ruling given previously by Mr. Speaker Lemieux, which can be found in the journals of the House of Commons, 1929, at page 110:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment has been proposed, and this rule has -invariably been insisted upon by Canadian Speakers.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: I was paired. If I had voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.
(Translation):


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. McDonald). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


Mr. HERRIDGE:: Owing to the illness of the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Far-quhar), I am paired with him. Had I voted, I would have opposed your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hal ton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.


Major James William Coldwell: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon I attempted to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31, for the purpose of discussing the matter of the removal of commercial rentals control, and I accepted your interpretation of the rule. But may I suggest that I am now denied the right to discuss this matter; having already exhausted my right to speak on the address I have no other opportunity of dealing with it in this debate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And many others cannot.


Mr. BRADETTE:: You have some good men behind you.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member has spoken already on the amendment-


Major James William Coldwell: No.


James Horace King: -so he will have the privilege of speaking on the main motion.


Major James William Coldwell: No; I spoke on the main motion.


James Horace King: In order to avoid any confusion, I have just asked the Clerk of the

house when it was that the hon. member spoke, and I find that I was right. He spoke oni the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, so he still has the right to speak on the main motion.


Major James William Coldwell: The only question I would raise is this. Should we not reach the main motion today, and as the .rent controls are to be lifted on March 8, I should be unable to bring the matter up in time to discuss it. That is the point.


James Horace King: It is up to the house to decide its own business, but it is the duty of the Speaker to apply the rules.
(Translation):


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: When the debate adjourned last night, I was stating that, in view of the events which have just taken place, it was not suprising to see that the communist party remained legal in Canada.
(Text):


James Horace King: Order. It was called to our attention yesterday by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson) that after the orders of the day are called there is always a great deal of confusion in the chamber. His remarks were applauded by hon. members on both sides of the house. However, in spite of what he said, the noise continues from hon. members on both sides, to a point where it is really impossible to hear the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe). Therefore I would ask hon. members to keep silence so that the hon. member who has the floor may have an opportunity to be heard.
(Translation):	[DOT]


Liguori Lacombe: Here is the first paragraph of the statement attributed to the Mounted Police:
On December 2, 1947, the Minister of External Affairs requested the Minister of Justice to instruct the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to ascertain the then location of the missing Polish art treasures and further, if the missing articles were located, to endeavour to keep ithe same under surveillance until a decision could be reached as to what action might be taken by the Polish legation.
"As to what action might be taken by the Polish legation". If words still convey a meaning, then this means that the Polish legation in Canada was and still is considered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) as having full power to dispose of the Polish art treasures.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no!


Mr. LESAGE:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Liguori Lacombe: Shall we infer-

The Address-Mr. Lacombe


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Mr. Speaker-


Liguori Lacombe: I beg my hon. friend to keep cool and not to interrupt me before knowing at least what I am going to say.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Very well, go on!


Liguori Lacombe: Any questions?


Mr. MARIER:: No, later on.


Liguori Lacombe: Hoes this mean that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who maintains an embassy to Tito's but denies one to the Vatican, would hand over to the communist government of Poland those religious , art possessions, many of which belong to the church of that country? Nobody knows!
In a state of doubt and uncertainty, I feel personally much more reassured on this point by the attitude of the Quebec premier than by the attitude of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. LALONDE:: Of the tory Quebec
premier.


Liguori Lacombe: Under the circumstances, the right hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government have caused our federal politics to play the odious part of a gestapo for Poland's imposter and communist government.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: But it is the provincial government that has carried out the seizure.


Liguori Lacombe: Such has been the unspeakable attitude taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Together with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), he ordered the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to locate the Polish treasures, priceless sacred vases, church vestments and frescoes, the property of the Polish church, at the very moment when His Holiness Pope Pius XII had issued a solemn condemnation against atheistic communism. And now that he finds himself in this mess of his own making, what right has he to protest against the words uttered by the Quebec premier?
Mr. Speaker, I marvel at your patience, a virtue which I suppose I may be said to share with you, but I would ask that order be maintained in the house.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Well might our own patience be admired for letting you utter such falsehoods.


Liguori Lacombe: I respect your opinion, but so should you respect mine.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nobody does.


Liguori Lacombe: No one conscious of the dangers now threatening the world can share the minister's indignation. Why should we be so actively sympathetic towards Stalin's henchmen and so eager to co-operate with Poland's communistic regime? Yet, however strange the government's attitude in this case, it will not surprise anyone. We are now accustomed to their policy of laissez-faire. Moreover, the Secretary of State for External Affairs appointed an ambassador to Yugoslavia, whose government has persecuted the primate of the Catholic church, Archbishop Stepinac, a martyr whom they chained in a cell, after a mock trial, and whose only fault was that he defended his church and his flock.
Mr. Speaker, I beg you to restore order in the house.
Why not close our embassy in the land of Tito, that Stalin No. 2, and establish one instead at the Vatican?
Why not appoint an ambassador to the Vatican where the great and august pontiff is asserting himself as the champion of true liberty, charity and peace?
We are witnessing a never-ending series of deplorable deeds both in the national and the international spheres as well as reprehensible omissions; yet, anyone in full possession of hi3 spirits, unless he is blinded: by direct prejudice, will admit that only aberration or unjustified apprehension is preventing the government from fulfilling a sacred duty, towards Canada and civilization, which is threatened: from all sides.
The government allowed the communist party to broadcast. Within hearing of the whole world, Tim Buck smeared his country. The CBC allows Stalin's agents to use its airlanes. In 1940 and since, the CBC, which is the government's jack of all trades, prevented me from speaking over its network, though my script had been passed by the censorship division. The Corporation is but the servile tool of the government, its master's servant. In allowing communist speeches to be broadcast, the government unconsciously promoted the organization of a whole spy network in Russia's interest. We have not seen the last of this gang of spies which is a real adder's nest. No stone must be .left unturned in an attempt to destroy it. The
The Address-Mr. Lacombe

best method would be to ban the Labour Progressive party which is, to all intents and purposes, the communist party in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to unmask the baseness as well as the sins of commission and omission of public men whom the lying and white-washing propaganda of a partisan press attempts to boost to the highest pinnacle. The time has come to expose the exaggerated reputation of the so-called demigods that a CBC sponsored legend surrounds with complacent admiration. The time has come to unmask these patriotic puppets whose heart is in London while their shell remains in Canada.


James Horace King: Order. I would remind the hon. member of the fact that according to standing ordere motives are not to be imputed to fellow members or to ministers of the crown. I have paid close attention to the hon. member's speech and I have every reason to believe that the epithets he has just used are aimed at members of this house. If such is the case, I must ask the hon. member to withdraw these words.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, such is not the case. I am not alluding to anybody in particular. I am not speaking about any member of the cabinet. My remarks apply generally to policies in this country. I respectfully submit that I am perfectly in order in such a debate as this. I would not wish to aim such epithets at hon. ministers, particularly when they do not deserve them.


Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Hear, hear.


Liguori Lacombe: I am discussing the
general policies of this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are watering your wine.


Liguori Lacombe: I am not watering my wine. My wine is strong enough to give the hon. member a taste of his own medicine. Besides, wine improves with age.


Maurice Lalonde: The hon. member is smiling.


Liguori Lacombe: The time has come
properly to deal with the standard bearers of military and financial imperialism in this country. The hon. member for Beauhamois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) was perfectly justified yesterday when he expressed his utter contempt for the behaviour of those contented imperialists who prove so costly to this country. Canada is ruled not from Ottawa but from London. When recently parliament

requested that light be shed on the ill-fated Hong Kong expedition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) answered that London would not allow him to do so. Since when must a sovereign country kneel before a foreign nation and beg its consent to account for the blood of their own sons killed in a struggle where only valour could compensate for a lack of training, strategy and equipment directly attributable to a foreign government.


Maurice Lalonde: Why is the hon. member smiling when dealing with such a sad question?


Liguori Lacombe: It is a shame.
I know the point the hon. member is trying to make. It is not likely to shed any light on this debate.


Maurice Lalonde: This is too sad to laugh.


Liguori Lacombe: It is a shame. It is a challenge to the pride of a free and sovereign country. How long shall we follow in London's wake? A century ago, under the union government, things went differently Since we took part in imperialistic wars we have gone back one hundred years to the status of colony. If we continue to bend under the yoke of slavery and domination, some will lose all notion of patriotism; in fact, they have already done away with it to give allegiance to a foreign country whose flag still flies over Canada.


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the hon. member in the course of his speech, but before he resumes his seat, may I ask him a question?


Liguori Lacombe: I have already resumed my seat.


Paul-Émile Côté: May I ask a question of the hon. member?


Liguori Lacombe: Surely.


Paul-Émile Côté: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. member appeared concerned about unemployment in Canada. Could he tell me whether this is a seasonal condition, which compares rather favourably with that of the past twenty-five years, with the exception of the last year of the war? And then, does he know that employers in this country forecast a labour shortage substantially more acute than last year?


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, a question is being put to me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That's it.


Liguori Lacombe: I have the right !o ask the hon. member a question.



194S

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Bentley
Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no, answer first.


Liguori Lacombe: Is the hon. member asking me a question, or does he want to make a speech?


James Horace King: Order.
(Text):


Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I honestly did not intend to take part in this debate-that is the truth-but something occurred last, night which makes it essential that I do so. Before going into that, like others who have taken part in this debate I should like to add my word of congratulation to the mover and the seconder of the address. The manner in which they carried out their task merits the distinction that was given to them when they were permitted to undertake it.
The particular reason for my taking part in this debate is a short speech which was made last night by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). I am not disputing in any way his right to make that speech, but his doing so affected what has become the general procedure in these formal debates. As a rule the whips know how many speakers there are to be from each group; the Speaker gets a list and from that list he recognizes the various speakers in turn. We had expected that the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming) would be the last on the list last night; consequently we were ready for a vote, as I believe everybody in the house was.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are ready now.


Thomas John Bentley: We are not. The leader of the opposition made his speech. If the hon. member for Eglinton had been the last speaker there was nothing much that needed to be said. He did a lot of breast-thumping like Tarzan, but unlike Tarzan he gave his jungle howl before victory was attained. He gave it in his challenge last night. If he was out west among the cowboys he probably would be one of those rootin' tootin' two-gun boys they sing about on the prairies. But he did not disturb us at all.
When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) took the floor he did some fancy skating which I do not believe could be excelled, if equalled, by the young lady from Ottawa who is at present overseas and has done such a splendid job in her field for Canada. The leader of the opposition drew a very fine distinction. In view of some of the things that happen occasionally, Mr. Speaker, the ability of the leader of the opposition to draw fine distinctions will some day eminently fit him to be Speaker of this house, although I hope the time never comes when
his group will be elected with a sufficient majority to place him in that position. But he has that qualification, if none other.
He tried to make it appear in his speech that the C.C.F. wished to have farm prices controlled at lower levels with no compensatory feature. In a very casual way he said he was using farm prices simply as an illustration, but he certainly tried to leave the impression that we were endeavouring to have farm prices controlled at lower levels, when every honest member of this house knows that ever since I come to this house, I and the larger number of this group who came here in 1945 as well as those here before have continually said:	We believe in orderly
marketing as the organized farmers want it. We believe in prices for agricultural products that will bring the farming community its share of the national income according to its numerical strength. We believe, and we so stated in 1945 and at every other opportunity we had, and I state it again now, that while we believe in that, we believe also in the other types of controls which make those stabilized prices worthwhile tc the farmer in bringing to him that share of the national income to which we believe he is entitled. The leader of the opposition deliberately last night attempted to make it appear as though we had some other motive.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The socialist-


Thomas John Bentley: I did not hear any word my hon. friend uttered except the word "socialist." I have heard them muttering it under their breath so often that it does not register any more. My hon. friend knows nothing about socialism except what he read in a dime magazine.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I certainly do not know anything about it after listening to you.


Thomas John Bentley: And I doubt if my hon. young friend knows much of anything. However, that is not my fault.
The speeches of the Progressive Conservative party have indicated quite clearly what they want, and the leader of the opposition indicated it again last night when he was quoting from a survey by the American Federation of Labor, the last words of which were "the excess money supply." The purport of it was that the excess money supply is the thing that causes the difficulties we are experiencing at the present time. So he believes and stated quite emphatically, I think, that he believes in removing the excess money supply so that the people will not be able to buy. I suppose the reason for that is that if we can
The Address-Mr. Bentley

remove the excess money supply which is supposed to be in the pockets of Canadian consumers today, they will buy less products and make more available for export to countries able to pay any old prices at all, and consequently there will be increased profits for the people the Progressive Conservatives represent.
They have also made it clear in their speeches that they believe in higher interest rates, another method of removing the excess money supply, as they call it. Of course if those things were done, what would happen? Unemployment would be created in this country, and the creation of unemployment in this country is precisely and exactly what monopoly business interests want. They believe in that. They believe in their position in society, and they are defending that position. They believe that their position in society is so great that they are entitled to have a pool of unemployment. I have read in a businessman's magazine a statement that burnt its way right into my soul. That statement was this, and I can remember it because I have read it so often: The system of free enterprise carries with it the right to a normal float of unemployed. They believe that, and the people who support them in this house are prepared to believe that.
The leader of the opposition tried to create the impression that the C.C.F. are prepared to have wages go to any kind of level or height without any check whatsoever, when again we have made it abundantly clear that the only reason we do not want any wage control order put into effect at the present time is that we believe the incomes of people, whether they are wage earners, pensioners or all the rest in the low income brackets who cannot afford to buy the things which this country can abundantly produce-their income should first be raised to the point where they will be able to buy. Then you would find there would be no support from us if any of those groups demanded more than their share of the national income. That is the position we have always taken on wage controls. I do not think any of our group will dissent from my statement that that has always been our position in this house and as a political party in this country. If that were done-and it will be done when the C.C.F. government comes into power in this country-make no mistake about that-


Arthur Leroy Smith: When will that be?


Thomas John Bentley: Before our Tory friends get there. I appreciate the anxiety of our Tory friends to get back into power. Their

anxiety is pathetic. They remind me of a story I heard once about Adam. Adam went to St. Peter and asked for an opportunity to go back to earth. St. Peter reminded him that the last time he was on earth his conduct had been open to criticism. Adam replied, "Yes, sir, but I would like to go back and turn over another leaf." I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a moral in that story.


Mr. HARTT:: It is immoral.


Thomas John Bentley: I did not suggest anything that was immoral or unmoral, but if anybody takes anything else out of it, that is their privilege.
Our amendment was voted down last night. I cannot repeat the terms of it but in the debate on that amendment and in other debates we have pointed out that we believe in the reimposition of price controls now. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) said that a roll-back would be difficult now. We have never been unreasonable in our suggestions for the reimposition of price controls. We wanted them held in 1945; we wanted them held in 1946 and in 1947, and this session we are still asking for the same thing. We know that the reimposition of price controls and subsidies is not a permanent solution to the economic difficulties of this country, but we believe it is a necessary expedient at the present time until long-range planning becomes effective. As I said before, we are convinced that long-range planning in the interests of the ordinary people is not going to be done either by the Conservatives to my right or by the Liberals across the way. They do not believe in it. They believe in, planning for those people who make it possible for them to have the great political power in the country that they possess.


Mr. CASE:: We do not have the support of Tim Buck, anyway.


Thomas John Bentley: On that particular point, Mr. SpeakeT, we have already stated our case; we have no control over Tim Buck.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER:	Why don't you
renounce him?


Thomas John Bentley: We have no control-
Mr. COLDWELI,:	We certainly have
renounced him, and if necessary we shall do it again.


Thomas John Bentley: We have no control over Colonel Drew, but we shall have some day, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. MEMBER:: What a hope!

The Address-Mr. Bentley


Edmund Davie Fulton: When you amend the
British North America Act you may do as you wish.


Thomas John Bentley: I hope the hon. gentlemen are finished with their interjections for the time being.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit a question? I was unfortunately out of the house when the hon. member indicated that I had advocated high interest rates. I want to ask the hon. member this question. Does he not know that what I was urging was that inflation was the cause of high prices; but I was also arguing that artificially low interest rates create artificially high prices? What I was arguing was that these artificial rates were doing the damage. Here is my question. Assume that this tight ceiling was taken off and let us say interest rates rose by half of one per cent. Would it be better for a man to pay half of one per cent interest extra, which would amount to S5 a year on $1,000, or say $10 a week additional costs by reason of the high prices from which we are now suffering? That is what I was trying to argue.


Thomas John Bentley: Well, Mr. Speaker, to answer that question I would have to go into another debate. I agree with the hon. member that that is what he was arguing, but we do not agree with the argument; that is the point.


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he not think that higher interest rates would attract more money for investment at high interest rates and more investment means more money in the pockets of the people, and therefore more inflation?


James Sinclair: Charlie McCarthy.


Thomas John Bentley: It could easily happen that way.


James Sinclair: That is another debate, too.


Thomas John Bentley: It might happen that way. We believe in the control of prices under these conditions and when controls are necessary for the welfare of the people, and we have stated that on many occasions. We believe it will be necessary to have subsidies to make that possible, and since we have at the present time the kind of free enterprise that monopoly capitalism believes in and that we do not believe in, in many of its phases, we believe that the excess profits of these institutions should be taxed back into the public treasury to make these subsidies possible. These are our beliefs, and they have been expressed time and again in different ways.
As I said, I do not blame others for having their point of view, but I did not like, and I do not yet like-I am doing my best to inform anybody to my right who cares to listen-the things that the leader of the opposition attempted to read into our speeches as our meaning last night. They were entirely inaccurate.
Our Conservative friends believe in the control of the economy of this country by their big business friends. They believe-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


William Irvine: Oh, yes.


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, they do. They believe in the divine right of bossism to regulate the lives of other people and say when and how much they shall eat.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member knows that that is a misstatement. I challenge him to prove it.


Thomas John Bentley: I attach more importance to the speeches of the top flight men. They let the lesser individuals rise in their places and use words which have no meaning, but which suit the purposes of the Progressive Conservative party.


James Sinclair: Go back to the kindergarten.


Thomas John Bentley: The purpose of the Tory party is to perpetuate individual bossism by some individuals who have been successful or lucky enough to control immense amounts of the Canadian economy and the lives of Canadian people. I have lived this in the history of the country, Mr. Speaker. I have lived it. No man in this House of Commons has taken a more active part-


An hon. MEMBER:: In Saskatchewan.


Thomas John Bentley: I lived in Ontario. No man in this house has taken a more active part in the early days in trying to build labour unions than myself in the days when I was working for wages in this province. I have seen the goon squads march and I have been blocked by the goon squads myself. I have had this history driven into me as a wage earner in this country. I come from Saskatchewan now and I am glad of it because at least in that province we have built up an attempt through a great many years to bring some degree of equity to the ordinary working and producing people of that province.
I am very sorry that, on account of the Speaker's ruling, I am not going to be able to deal with some of the things that I should have liked to discuss, but there are a few things I
The Address-Mr. Bentley

should like to say to our friends across the way, the Liberals, which I think they should be told. We have told them time and again that they are too ideologically close to the Progressive Conservatives to deserve the name of Liberal any more.


Maurice Hartt: You are entitled to your mistakes.


Thomas John Bentley: They could all get together and you could call them whatever name you wanted to, but it would not be the name that would indicate equity to the ordinary Canadian people.


Mr. PROBE:: Call them coalitionists; that is good enough.


Thomas John Bentley: That is right. I should like to mention in that regard, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. TUCKER:: I would rather be a friend of my friends across the way than be a friend of Tim Buck.


Mr. COLD WELL:: The hon. gentleman did not say that in 1945.


Thomas John Bentley: In 1945 the supporters of my hon. friend and his friends over there informed me that they were going to support the Liberals because they felt that they were more progressive than any other party in Canada. That was the party led by Mr. Buck at that time.


Walter Adam Tucker: No communist supported me, because I told them I did not want the support. I did not ask for it and I did not accept it.


Major James William Coldwell: You are the exception which proves the rule.


Charles Edward Johnston: Don't point that thing over here; it might go off.


Thomas John Bentley: Keep your eye on the clock, Mr. Speaker; I do not want this time to be taken off my time.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Go on; you are doing a great job.


James Sinclair: Yes, a great job.


Thomas John Bentley: My hon. friends of the Tory party are being facetious. After all, that is the final argument that they can fall back on, having nothing left of an intellectual nature.


James Arthur Ross: Time will tell.


John Oliver Probe: Time has told.


Thomas John Bentley: We believe that the big business interests that I spoke of will go on to rule the Tory party, and they have a tremendous influence on our friends across the way. I am not the only one who believes that.

There are people in big business circles who believe that and I shall give some evidence to support it. I hold in my hand a booklet which has on the outside, "Policy declarations of the Canadian chamber of commerce, 1947 and 1948." I turn to page 15 for the evidence to show that they influence the government very heavily. I will quote from them to show what I mean:
In, its 1947 submission to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue, the executive committee of the chamber recommended -abolition of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.


John Oliver Probe: Strike one.


Thomas John Bentley: To continue:
The chamber commends the government for the definite action taken in this regard.
They believe they had some influence there.
Mr. .TUCKER: Are they the ones that got the British government to take the excess profits tax off there?
Mr. BENTLEY': I do not sit in the British House of Commons and the hon. member will pardon me if I do not act as an authority on them, like some of my more learned friends. I have not mentioned the British government in this house. Anyone here will know that I am one member of this house who never draws on any other country for his opinions. My opinions are altogether made in Canada by a Canadian on the things I believe should be done here. Now to go on with my evidence bo show that big business plays an important part in government policy, I will quote some more from the same page:
The federal government is also to be commended for the steps taken thoroughly to review and overhaul the income war tax act, as urged by the chamber's 1946 annual meeting. The draft bill (No. 454) presented to the House of Commons on July 12, 1947, embodies a number of the chamber's recommendations. The opportunity to study this draft bill and to make further submissions, well in advance of final consideration by parliament, is appreciated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us see the other side of the picture. In other debates in this house I have pointed out what the organized farmers of the west, where I come from, want. So far they are getting very little of it. Organized business shows where it has influence on the government. The organized farmers are not yet quite so successful.
Now we will deal with organized labour. I have a letter written to members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate of Canada, signed by Pat Conroy, secretary treasurer of the Canadian Congress of Labour. It is dated February 25, 1948,

The Address-Mr. Bentley
and is marked from 230 Laurier avenue east, Ottawa, Ontario, which I believe is their headquarters. The second paragraph reads-and I want to point out to everyone here that the Canadian Congress of Labour has a larger membership than the Canadian chamber of *commerce.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are a good
guesser.


Thomas John Bentley: Perhaps my hon. friend could make a better guess. He is full of wisdom. However, we will see what the Canadian Congress of Labour says in this letter.
At the last session of parliament, the government introduced a collective bargaining bill, and at hearings of the standing committee of the House of Commons on industrial relations, the congress made a critical analysis of the proposed legislation, pointing out that it was unsatisfactory in a great many respects. This bill was not proceeded with, and it is understood that a similar bill will be introduced by the government in the near future.
In the one case the chamber of commerce congratulates the government because they removed one feature that the chamber dislikes and gave them an opportunity to make submissions for the removal of some more. The Canadian Congress of Labour, a working man's organization, consisting of people who slug it out for a living, states that the government will bring in the same thing this year as they brought in last session in spite of the critical analysis to which the Canadian Congress of Labour subjected their labour bill last year. Is there anything more needed to support the statement I made that these two old parties are both governed by the same central commercial hierarchy?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: May I ask a question?


Thomas John Bentley: You may.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Has the hon. member made a comparison of the progress that organized labour has made under democratic government with the progress it has made under socialistic government?


Thomas John Bentley: There are only a few democratic socialist governments in the world.


James Sinclair: They have all turned commie.


Thomas John Bentley: Oh, no, they have not. Name one.


James Sinclair: First of all, you have the socialist democrats and then the commies moving in. Czechoslovakia is the latest example of it.


Thomas John Bentley: In the British commonwealth of nations we have had socialist governments in Australia and New Zealand for years and they have not yet turned to anything else.


Thomas Miller Bell: Read the result of the Wigan by-election yesterday and see how many communist votes there were.


Thomas John Bentley: There have been socialist governments in Sweden, and in Norway today.


Walter Adam Tucker: Sweden is getting worried today. It is people like you that put the communists in power in Czechoslovakia.


John Oliver Probe: So is the hon. member for ' Rosthern getting worried.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is such people that put the communists into power in Czechoslovakia.


William Irvine: Make your own speech and shut up.


Thomas John Bentley: May I proceed, Mr. Speaker, or will you take five minutes off my time?


An hon. MEMBER:: We'll give you six months if you want.


Thomas John Bentley: I believe it was a crown prosecutor who said that. He is no doubt used to that remark.
What I was trying to say is this. I am not comparing Canada with some other place. I have no affiliations with another country. Two hundred years of Canadian ancestry has removed me from any possible chance of saying that I have a fatherland or motherland somewhere else. I have lived very little of my life outside, except when I have travelled to see something else. I have no intention of leaving Canada, because I like it. But I do not want Canada to be compared with other countries. I only want to make this comparison: What is Canada capable of doing and what is she doing? If these things compare favourably I am agreeable; if they compare unfavourably I am not agreeable and will continue trying to have them favourable. I state that even though we have made advances under our democracy, and have made many improvements-I would be the last one to deny it-there are still many things more we want to have done; and if I thought it was of any use, Mr. Speaker, I would change my tone from accusation to one of pleading. I would beg of these people who so far have represented one or the other type of government that we have had here, and both of which mean the same thing, to change their course, stop taking their orders from the Canadian chamber of commerce and start
The Address-Mr. Bentley

taking suggestions from the farm organizations and the labour organizations in this country.
If I thought it would produce any softening of their hearts, any lessening of their desire to be the bosses of mankind, to be the brass hats and established bureaucrats by divine right; if I thought anything would make them feel that way I would plead with them, even though it robbed me of dignity. I would gladly relinquish dignity in the interests of my fellow-Canadian wage earners and farmers.


James Sinclair: That is very touching.


An hon. MEMBER:: We take suggestions from our constituents.


Thomas John Bentley: And from the Canadian chamber of commerce.


Walter Adam Tucker: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does the hon. member not admit that the government has accepted suggestions, far the last five or six years, steadily from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and has that body not so stated in its annual submissions to the government?


James Sinclair: Last month.


Thomas John Bentley: Did the government take, in regard to coarse grains-


Mrs. STRUM:: And the price of barley.


Walter Adam Tucker: Why don't you let the bill go through?


Thomas John Bentley: There have been a few minor things and one major thing done that organized farmers asked for. Organized farmers asked for years for wheat and grains to be marketed by the Canadian wheat board, but the government refused from 1935 until September, 1943, to do this, and then only did it because a situation, in the transportation field during those war years made it imperative. It was not done at the request of the organized farmers. I know that story too well. The government has done some minor things, but in the major fields it has yet to do anything, and I will now mention some of them. I wish I could deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Redi Deer (Mr. Shaw). There was a great deal of it that I would have been happy to support, but unfortunately I shall not be able to deal with that as I should have liked to. Nevertheless I can mention a few things about it that are worthwhile when we come to them.
We would have been glad to have supported it, even though it did not do all the things

that we would like done, nor did it do those-things that would have been done under it in ways that we would have liked best. But,, unlike the leader of the opposition, we are too-anxious to see come out of this debate some good for the Canadian- people to quibble about little things, and we are not prepared to allow some political differences to prevent us from assisting another political party with a good: idea along the lines we believe in.


Walter Adam Tucker: You are not wearing your halo today.


John Oliver Probe: He is showing you how to-make a speech some day.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am afraid I might make the same mistake as you made.


Thomas John Bentley: The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is suggesting that I am not wearing my halo today. I am doing: my best in my own humble way as a citizen to earn a halo some day. So far it has not been granted to me and, according to the doctor's advice, unless an accident happens I am not likely to achieve that in the near future. But in the meantime, as I say, I will continue to do my humble best to work in the interests of the people of this country who do the work.


James Sinclair: Very touching.


Thomas John Bentley: Yes; that is something, which my hon. friend across the floor is utterly incapable of understanding.


James Sinclair: You will break your
collarbone trying to pat yourself on the back.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: He is waiting for Mr. Johnston to do that.


Thomas John Bentley: I should like to remind my hon. friend w7ho walks out of the house when he cannot have his own way, that there-is no such thing in Canada as a C.C.F. Liberal coalition government, and there will not be.


James Sinclair: God forbid.


Thomas John Bentley: God forbid is right. We are happy to have heard that you believe in your coalitions that you have in British Columbia and wherever you think you can get together.


James Sinclair: Will the hon. member permit a question? I was going to ask the hon. member whether he was aware that there were two coalitions in British Columbia. In the last provincial by-election there was the coalition of Liberals and Tories and there was the coalition of the L.P.P. and the C.C.F. in both Saanich and Cariboo.

The Address-Mr. Bentley


John Oliver Probe: That is a lie.


James Sinclair: It is not a lie.


Thomas John Bentley: There is no such thing.


James Sinclair: The L.P.P. collected money for the C.C.F., and the only thing that made the C.C.F. mad was that they could not get their hands on it.


Major James William Coldwell: A coalition requires agreement. There is repudiation on our part.


Thomas John Bentley: That is the kind of question that we can expect from the hon. member gentleman who behaves as he sometimes does in the house.


John Oliver Probe: He is just not mature.


Thomas John Bentley: In the amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer there are a number of things that we would have liked to see. We believe that the things contained in the first paragraph are absolutely essential to this country, and if it is out of order to move them as an amendment or a subamendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, then I hope the government will at least take note of them and start to set up machinery to put them into operation. We could agree with paragraph (b), although I would have wished that he had added a little bit more to it; because in paragraph (b) he suggested the elimination of the sales tax and substantial reductions in excise, processing and all other hidden and nuisance taxes. I wish he had added in there, a substantial reduction in the existing excise tax and an undertaking that no new excise taxes will be imposed by the proposed legislation which we were told last night will follow this debate.


George Hugh Castleden: To impose an excise profit tax.


Thomas John Bentley: Yes. Turning to paragraphs (c) and (d), we would have liked to see that a little more extensive to include a number of other people. For instance, we would have liked to see it include veterans -on pension, veterans dependents, and veterans on war veterans allowance. In that connection I would have liked! to see veterans on veterans allowance paid* their allowance,
' regardless of whether they live in Canada or in foreign lands. Some of our veterans whose pensions are small, but who have reached the age of sixty entitling them to war veterans allowance, because of the condition of their health have to live in Arizona or some place else, are unable to get war veterans allowance.
I think that is a restriction that is absolutely unfair. I would have liked to see the provision I mentioned included there. \Ve would have liked to see the non-pensioned war widows included and pensions for the spouses of all old age pensioners, even though the spouse is younger than the pension age required.
We regret that the speech from the throne did not contain any suggestion that there were to be amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, to make it more equitable, that it be paid on an individual basis. There was no suggestion in the speech from the throne that the government intends to set up a federal co-operative act. Everybody loves it. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) says he fathers it and has all through the years; but when it comes to the point of doing something about it, actually to breathe some life into whatever he has produced so far, nothing has taken place. We should like to see that. We should like to see a federal marketing act. I could spend quite a bit of time in telling why we want it, but the agricultural people of western Canada want it. badly.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. BURTON:: Oh, give him fifteen minutes extra for all the interruptions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Thomas John Bentley: I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


William Ross Macdonald: Only with the unanimous consent of the house may the hon. member continue.


William Irvine: He has it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I would not ask for any more time, if I were you.
(Translation):
Mr. GEORGES-H. HEON (Argenteuil): Mr. Speaker, although the fact may annoy and irritate those of a fanatical and narrow turn of mind, and recent happenings show that, unfortunately, such people are still found among us. Canada officially recognizes two languages, French and English, granting to both equal rights and equal consideration and making neither dependent to the other.
Therefore, if I choose to express myself in the language spoken by the discoverers of this country, I need neither apologize nor ask
The Address-Mr. Neon

anyone's permission. Some lion, members within hearing may perhaps not have the opportunity or the good fortune of speaking or understanding the French language, but if they are steeped in the history of our country and in the principles of etiquette and courtesy, they will respect the sacred rights of the language I am proud to use and allow me to speak without interrupting me. This is a purely hypothetical suggestion, but should the audience number some ignorant, and intoxicated noisemakers hating everything that is French, they would doubtless attempt to silence me, thus giving vent to their contemptible feelings, by using the trick of gibbering and incomprehensible interruption, or by raising some useful but well-worn technical objection.
In the latter case, all those who, like me, cannot disown the blood which flows in their veins and recall with pride their French origin, would leap in anger at this insult and remind interrupters in plain language that as long as there remains one French-speaking Canar dian in this country and one French-speaking member in this house, the French tongue will be spoken, honoured and respected.
We are neither poor relations nor valets nor a conquered people in this country of ours, in any of the provinces or in this house, but equal partners and associates.
There is ample evidence in the political history of Canada to show that Canadians of French origin have always acted in a spirit of conciliation, very often to their own detriment. They have always expressed a sincere wish to work in harmony with their fellow-countrymen of other races in building a strong, united and autonomous Canadian nation. But they are firmly resolved that their right to speak their own language anywhere should be respected. There can be no compromise on this point.
Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate, fortunately drawing to a close, we have heard many speeches. Some have been excellent, such as the one delivered by my hon. friend; from Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr, Dion); others were open to criticism. I wish to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Gaspe given on Monday March 1, 1948, and which Le Devoir of March 2, 1948, described as a "bad speech" acompanying a "bad deed." In his all-out attack which undoubtedly caused the absentees concerned to tremble with fear, the speaker directed his big electoral guns against Messrs. Duplessis, Sauve and Chaloult. He was particularly critical of

certain parts of the two latters' speeches. It is rather surprising that the official opposition in the Legislative Assembly did not elaborate further on the member for Gaspe's speech and follow suit. They have there,, indeed some dangerous challengers and we shall await impatiently to hear from the hon. Mr. Godbout and Jos. Francoeur. They will oppose Mr. Chaloult cn immigration and civil service and Mr. Sauve on the subject of Canada's war effort.
As for the criticism directed by the hon. member at the Hon. Paul Sauve's remarks, let me remind him of a thing or two, even though I have no intention of embarrassing him with certain unpleasant memories. Not far away from where he sits in this chamber there are some supporters of the government, who, during the sessions of 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and especially 1944, when conscription had to be voted by the government of the day, were most bitter in their condemnation of our participation and used much more violent language in speaking of their own leaders than did Mr. Sauve. If my hon. friend and those who sit with him, wish to criticize the speeches which may have been made on the part we played in the war, why does he not begin by cleaning up the ranks of his own friends, if he is so exasperated by criticism of our war effort? He could find all the subject-matter he could wish to speak on if he were only to consult the official report for those sessions. If he cannot find it, I shall only be too happy to give him the reference in a subsequent speech.
(Text):
As I rise to address the house briefly, Mr. Speaker, may I immediately, both on my own behalf and on behalf of the population of the historic constituency of Argenteuil which I am proud to represent in this parliament, pay a most respectful tribute to the memory of a distinguished Canadian, the late Lady Perley, wife of my immediate predecessor the Right Hon. Sir George Halsey Perley.
Lady Perley spent her life in promoting, encouraging and supporting, financially and otherwise, innumerable social, charitable and welfare organizations, particularly in her own city of Ottawa w'hich she loved and served so faithfully and well.
During the long period while her husband acted as federal member for Argenteuil, Lady Perley took a very active interest in the social, educational and economic welfare of the constituents of Argenteuil. And while Sir George Perley acted as high commissioner in

The Address-Mr. Heon
London, and overseas minister of militia during the first great war, Lady Perley gave unstintingly of her time and money to entertain the Canadian troops at Canada House in London and, generally, to assure their welfare through the various auxiliary services, as many old veterans will surely recall.
It is not unfair to affirm that the distinction, the charm and the devotion of Lady Perley contributed immensely to the splendid achievements of her distinguished husband in the realm of public and social services to his fellow-countrymen. The Perley name will ever remain beloved and respected in the constituency' of Argenteuil and in the city of Ottawa, although both "Sir George", as he was affectionately called, and his devoted wife, have passed away.
The speech from the throne contains a thinly-veiled warning as to the dangers of the international situation, and it is evident that all classes of our population have become keenly worried and anxious as to the possibilities of another conflict. I trust that very soon the government will make a clear and positive statement of the true situation that exists so that the country will know definitely, as is its absolute right, whether there will be an enduring peace, a cold war or another armed conflict: There is no need or place for an iron curtain in Canada.
Be that as it may, one must strain his imagination considerably to remain optimistic as to the ultimate alternative which can only be a choice between serfdom and freedom. When I speak of freedom I speak of the only true freedom which was implanted in the soul of man by his Creator, a freedom built on the spiritual destiny of mankind, freedom for which a son of God died on Calvary. Let us not prostitute the word "freedom". It has never meant licence and lawlessness, seditious utterance or conspiracy against religion, consti-uted authority, our Christian way of life, our free institutions. We pray it will never mean the exploitation of the many by the few, of the poor by the rich, of the humble by the mighty, of labour by capital or of capital by labour.
Thus, whilst in our midst we are whittling away our freedom and squabbling as to its true meaning, the forces of evil and serfdom- they are one and the same-are rolling westward in Europe and eastward in Asia. Here is the score as, in baseball parlance, we go to bat after the disastrous Czechoslovakian inning. I shall refer first to Poland. However, because Poland has come to the fore on account of the hidden treasure episode, I do not intend to rely upon my own opinion, but rather will I quote from outstanding authorities, the first being Raymond Leslie Buell, adviser to Time Incorporated on foreign affairs. He wrote the following which appeared in the American Mercury of March, 1946:
If world war II has any meaning it is that the people of Poland and other victims of axis aggression should have the right to choose their way of life and their economic and political system. But this right has been denied to the people of Poland. Today they are being subjected to a reign of terror imposed by a communist minority backed by Russian force. Those Poles who believe in the independence of their country are systematically being liquidated. It is my considered judgment that the present fate of Poland is one of the great outrages of history.
Gladwin Hill of the New York Times, after a visit to Poland, wrote the following which appeared in the New York Times of October 17 and 24, 1947:
Behind the facade of a "coalition?' government consisting of four "fake" parties, Poland today is ruled by three communists, members of the old Comintern and. citizens of foreign countries. These are Bodeslaw Bierut, president of the national council, a citizen of Soviet Russia, Wladyslaw Gomolka, vice premier of Poland but a citizen of France, and Stanislaw Rad-kiewicz, minister of public security, a man who hardly knows Polish and who is a high official in the soviet political police. In fact, soviet employees, who are unseen from the outside, are in charge of all Polish governmental agencies.
There exists in Poland a "subtle reign of terror" with possibly 100,000 political prisoners in jails and concentration camps, whose only offence is opposition to the "current communist dominated regime." Poland is in the throes of an intense political struggle. It is a struggle led by Moscow trained communists to get permanent political control of a country that is historically conservative. The Russian troops which stand back of this communist dominated regime are stripping Poland of industrial plants, cattle and numerous other articles, thereby deepening terrible economic distress.
Finally, this is a quotation from R. H. Mackham, Balkan expert of the Christian Science Monitor, who writes:
Bodeslaw Bierut, one of the leaders of the third international, is the despot of Poland.
Is it small wonder then, in view of these statements, that some of us, much like the nuns of the Hotel Dieu, are wary of striking a bargain with these individuals?
Let us consult again our score cards:
In Yugoslavia, Joseph Broz, another member of the third international, is the absolute dictator.
In Hungary, Maty Rakosi, still another member of the third international, has stolen from and robbed, Hungarians of their freedom.
In Roumania, Alma Pauker, woman member of the third international, is the undisputed boss of 16,000,000 Roumanians.
The Address-Mr. Heon

In Bulgaria, George Dimi-troff, leading member of the third international, is the master of 8,000,000 Bulgarians.
In Austria, Ernst Fisher
In eastern Germany, Wilham Piech
In Italy, Togliatti
In France, Thorez
In Finland, Kuusinen
In Greece, Zaehairiades and Villafides
In China, Mao-tse-tsung
are all members of the third communist international and are plotting day and night to turn over their country to the forces of evil and the enemies of freedom.


Pierre Gauthier: Does the hon. member say that Togliatti and Thorez are the chief communistic authorities in Italy and France?


Mr. HEON:: I have not made that statement. I have said and repeated that Thorez in France and Togliatti in Italy, with others, are working towards the establishment of communist-dominated regimes in those two countries.


Pierre Gauthier: That is what I wanted to know.


Georges-Henri Héon: Are we agreed?


Pierre Gauthier: Yes.


Georges-Henri Héon: Thank you.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is Czechoslovakia. What a tragedy, yet what a lesson for all countries still remaining free! Mr. Benes and his associates failed to listen to the advice of those who warned him that one cannot serve God and Satan, and he chose instead to negotiate, to compromise, and to trust those evil forces whose amoral code is based on treachery, deceit, liquidation and the obliteration of Christianity, decency and freedom. Where do Mr. Benes and the Czechoslovakian population find themselves today? Exactly where all other nations and individuals have found themselves when they trusted and believed in the lies and cajoleries of the Marxian and Leninist enemies of Christian- freedom.
But, tragic and regrettable as the Czechoslovakian robbery may be, it will serve some purpose if it is taken as a final warning by those governments and peoples in all the lands where the light of freedom still remains unextinguished. Shall our own country, Canada, ever become infested with or subservient to these same atheistic, destructive forces? The answer will be in the negative, provided that -we rededicate ourselves to the cause of Christian freedom and see to it that we do not foster religious, racial or cldss hatred. Marxism and Leninism can never take root in a country where the people go reverently 
and regularly to church, draw adequate wTages, are properly housed and educated, and are free to move and do as they please; but insufficient wages, profiteering, slums and ignorance are the breeding grounds of bloody revolutions and the dictatorship of the proletariat.	.
It is then the duty of everyone of us here, Mr. Speaker, to proclaim freedom; but that is not sufficient. We must always legislate and administer to sustain and extend freedom.


William Ross Macdonald: I
was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I was paired with the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. McDonald). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: It has been intimated to me during the past several hours that a number of government members are profoundly sorry that they have been deprived of the opportunity of supporting my subamendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name them.


Frederick Davis Shaw: During the last several weeks speeches which have emanated from that quarter have indicated that hon. members are conscious of the fact that the electors back home are, in the first place, dissatisfied with the prevailing high rate of taxation. They are dissatisfied with the low exemptions at
present in force under the Income War Tax Act. Hon. gentlemen have also indicated that their electors are demanding the elimination of the sales tax. They have indicated their realization that demands back home are also being made for reductions in the excise tax and in other taxes as well. A number of them have referred to the necessity of making revisions in the Family Allowance Act, in some instances for the purpose of removing anomalies and in other cases for the purpose of making larger payments under that act.
Certain hon. members have seen fit to rise in their places and protest against the shabby treatment which is still being accorded our pioneer citizens. I have heard many of them protest against the eligibility age as being far too high. I have heard many of them protest against the means test. They have also lifted their voices in opposition to the fact that the wife of a pensioner, if she is under seventy years of age, is not at present eligible for a pension.
Many statements have come from quarters opposite, sympathetic toward disabled persons in this country who, in consequence of their disabilities, are unable to secure a decent standard of living. Moreover, we have heard assertions in support of certain subsidies, selected subsidies, if I may call them that, which would have the effect of reducing living costs for many of our people.
It is a fact that the people of Canada, and more especially those in the lower income tax brackets, have been pleading with the government for relief from the very great burden of living costs under which they at present suffer. This heavy burden has resulted directly from government policy or, I might say, from the actions of men. It can be eased-there is no question about it-and made more bearable by immediate changes in policy. Hon. gentlemen on the front benches opposite are the only ones who are in a position to make those changes.
The people of Canada, in overwhelming majority, have demanded lower living costs. We know, as members of parliament, the number of communications we have received in this respect. Many of our people have been, led to believe that the only method by which we can reduce these living costs is through the reimposition of price controls. The government has taken the position that in peacetime the people of Canada would not submit to an overall system of price controls, and we have admitted that perhaps the government is right in that stand. But this does not mean that there is not another way of effecting the same result, namely, a lowering of living costs for Canadians.
The Address-Mr. Shaw

I should like to point out that since the government considers it impractical to reimpose price controls, then- the logical thing is for it to approach the matter from another point of view. If the government cannot bring down prices so as to make it possible for all Canadians to enjoy a decent standard of living, it can surely go a long way toward establishing at least a minimum income for all Canadians, an income that will furnish that decent standard of living. The government stands condemned in- the eyes of the Canadian people. Why? For its failure to take the action which could achieve that result, namely, the lowering of living costs and the establishment of a decent standard of living.
Some specific things the government could have done are embodied in the amendment to the motion which I should like to move. Before moving it, I should like to say this. The amendment is not intended to be by any means a complete list, but at least it does indicate a method by which the government of Canada could reduce the living costs of all Canadians by at least twenty per cent. At the same time I am sure that the government could be dispensing something like social justice for thousands of our aged people, for our veterans and their dependents, and for the blind and helpless adults who are now without an adequate means of support. So, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), that the following be added to the motion:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers should have given- assurance to this house that legislation would be submitted during the present session, whereby the following results wo-uld be achieved, as a contribution towards- meeting -the crisis in living costs, and towards stabilizing the Canadian economy:
(a)	Exemption from income tax on incomes of married persons of $2,400 and less, and of single persons of $1,500; these to be progressively increased to $3,000 and $2,0-00 as production increases in relation to demand.
(b)	Elimination of the sales tax, and substantial reduction in excise, processing -and all other hidden and n-uisance taxes.
(c)	Substantial^ increases in family allowances; increases in old age pensions, together wi-th elimination of the means test and a reduction in the pensionable age.
(d)	Adequate provision for -all disabled adults.
(e)	Selective subsidies, especially on food products and necessities of living.
Before sitting down, I should like to emphasize to hon. members opposite that they are fully conscious of the fact that this amendment embodies the demands which are now being made by the people back home. They know it. This is their opportunity to prove 
that they are conscious of their demands and that they are prepared to support them. I am much afraid that those who oppose the amendment can be charged by the people back home with closing their eyes to their demands and supporting the party.


Major James William Coldwell: I first want to make a brief comment, Mr. Speaker, on the amendment which has been moved. Yesterday afternoon the house voted on an amendment I moved sometime ago in effect asking for the reimposition of price controls and subsidies. The government and the house have not approved that proposal. Consequently, under the circumstances under which most of the Canadian people now live, with the climbing costs of living and the insufficiency of wages, salaries, pensions and so on. to meet the increased cost of living, it seems to me that my hon. friends of the Social Credit party have moved an alternative which must be considered by both the government and the house. If you are not going to prevent the costs of living from rising, of necessity you must give these groups to whom I have referred more in the way of purchasing power in order to buy the necessities of life. Consequently, as an alternative to the suggestion that we made to the house, we shall support that amendment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 48, to incorporate National General Insurance Company._
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member who is introducing the bill and moving second reading will perhaps wish to have an opportunity of explaining it. I do not think we should deny him that opportunity.


Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Speaker, this is the usual procedure in the incorporation of a dominion company. At the present time there is such a company in Manitoba, known as the National General Insurance Company, and it is now doing business in that province.
The present application is made because of the expansion in the business of the company. It is necessary to incorporate as a dominion

Private Bills
company, and to refinance. This is in the form provided by the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. The bill is for the purpose of authorizing the company to carry on business in all classes of insurance, with the exception of life insurance. One section of the bill provides that the head office of the company shall be at Winnipeg. I would have it in Windsor, but I cannot do anything about that. It has to be in Winnipeg.


Mr. BRYCE:: Winnipeg is a much better place.


Donald Ferguson Brown: That, of course, is a matter of opinion,, which the hon. member for Selkirk may enjoy.


Angus MacInnis: Is it sufficient to defeat the bill?


Donald Ferguson Brown: I doubt it, under the circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROCH PINARD (Chambly-Rouville) moved the second reading of Bill No. 59, respecting the Trust and Loan Company of Canada.
Thomas Miller Bell: Will the hon. member explain?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. PINARD:: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 49, respecting the Eastern Trust Company-Mr. Isnor.
Bill No. 50, respecting the Ruthenian Catholic Mission of the Order of Saint Basil the Great in Canada-Mr. Hlynka.
Bill No. 115, to incorporate People's Fraternal Order-Mr. Croll.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rinfret for the second reading of Bill No. 8, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present last Friday night when some reference was made to this bill. I do not wish to go over the ground covered by the sponsor of the bill, who quoted from the Canada Year Book and gave some of the history of the venture. He did not tell
Bell Telephone Company

the house that this matter had been before parliament in 1928. The company has not expended all the money which it now has. It is proposed to increase the capital by $350,000,000, which will give it a total capitalization of half a billion dollars.
This company operates a monopoly which concerns every telephone user in Ontario and Quebec. Some of the other provinces have telephone systems of their own. When the hydro electric movement was under way back in 1907 and 1908 it was proposed by Sir Adam Beck to have public ownership, not only of light and power, transportation and radials, but of telephones. It was proposed that the same poles would carry the wires for the radial railways, the telephones, the electric light and all that kind of thing. A good job was accomplished in the province in the way of providing cheap power and light, but unfortunately the rest did not go through.
The subject matter of Bill No. 8 was before the House of Commons in 1928. At that time the bill was opposed by some of the newspapers in the Toronto district, because permission was being asked to increase the capital from $75,000,000 to $150,000,000. In 1928 an elaborate discussion of this matter took place in this house lasting for many weeks and months. In considering the principle of this bill you will have to look into the history of the company from the time of its inception. This company has a subsidiary known as Northern Electric, which at that time was a United States trust.
When I first entered parliament in 1921 this proposal was before the house. The first application to amend the Railway Act was made in 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910. At that time the board of railway commissioners had no jurisdiction over express and telephone companies. After a long fight led by some of the Toronto papers, by the late W. F. Maclean, M.P., and by myself as an alderman, the Railway Act was amended to give the board of railway commissioners jurisdiction over express and telephone companies.
An application was made under that particular act by the city of Toronto to the board of railway commissioners. An elaborate investigation was carried out by Clarkson, Dilworth and Company, chartered accountants. I would refer the house to Hansard of April 10, 1928. The discussion on the bill to increase the capital to $150 million went on for several months and finally it was put over by this house until the 1929 session.
I should like to look at this bill for a few moments to see what it proposes to do. This bill was introduced last December in another place but no section of it received any detailed

examination or consideration there. It was read a second time, without any practical discussion, and referred to a committee. There was no discussion and then it came back on January 29 and was. read the third time without a word of explanation. That type of proceeding is not in the interests of the high court of parliament, especially when it concerns giving this monopoly company power to increase its capitalization to half a billion dollars at a time when it does not need all that money and cannot get parts or equipment for a long time under the export and import dollar plan.
The company has enough money left to carry on all the work it can do for a year yet, and under Bill No. 3, which deals with exports and imports and other regulations, it cannot get parts. It cannot get material and many people cannot get telephones. The discussion the other evening dealt largely with quotations from the annual speech and report of the president and others of the Bell Telephone Company delivered at the annual meeting held recently. The estimate of expenditures for the next five years is as follows:
Right of way	 $	1,233,000
Land and buildings	 42,200,000
Central office equipment ....	96,855,000
Station equipment	 94,607,000
Exchange lines	 86,518,000
Toll lines	 25,605,000
General equipment	 14,630,000
Total	 $361,738,000
Dear knows where we shall be at the end of that time. As I said, away back in 1908 and 1909 it was proposed by Sir Adam Beck (hat telephones should be brought under the cheap light and power movement in Ontario. In 1928 I had the support of an old Liberal paper, the Toronto Globe. At that time the Toronto Globe was a good Liberal paper. At that time the question of the Northern Electric Company, which was a subsidiary of a United States company, was brought up. At that time the board of railway commissioners had no jurisdiction over the Northern Electric Company. A bill was brought before parliament to give the board jurisdiction, not only over the telephone company but over its subsidiary, the Northern Electric Company. I would refer hon. members to Hansard of May 18, 1928, page 3136, where there appear extracts on the Bell company application from the proceedings before the board of railway commissioners.
It was shown then that the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, through the control of Western Electric, held 43 per cent of the stock of Northern Electric. All patents involved belong to the American Telephone

Bell Tele-phone Company
and Telegraph Company. Under a contract made in 1923 the American Telephone and Telegraph Company get one and a half per cent of the gross revenue of the Bell Telephone Company. That amount was then being paid into the United States company which supplies the equipment needed by this company.
In 1909 the Toronto application came on for hearing before that great chairman of the railway board, the late Mr. Justice Mabee. Let me say that I am not opposed to private enterprise but I am opposed to over-capitalization and public utilities, melons and monopolies, and the more this is looked into the more you will find that what I say is correct. I remember when the Toronto Railway Company, with a light plant, the Toronto Electric Light, was trying to sell these two junk plants to our city for 832,000,000, although not worth a third of it. If that had gone through we would have had to pay twenty-five cents for two tickets on the street railway in Toronto, forever. But a great newspaper in the city of Toronto, the Evening Telegram, defeated it, and in opposing the over-capitalization of this railway, referred to my opposing that proposed purchase deal on the eve of an election in the city, on December 31, 1918, in these terms:
. . . the support which J. Ross Robertson gave to the man who fought the battles of Adam Beck for the cause of hydro progress, and who almost single-handed and alone saved this city from bankruptcy, when T. L. Church beat back the purchase raiders in 1913-14.
If that sale of these two companies to our city had gone through we would have had two tickets for a quarter in the city of Toronto and we would not have owned the T.T.C. railway as we do today under the management of the newly formed Toronto transportation commission.
I would not oppose a reasonable application for increased capital by the Bell Telephone Company. It is a well-managed concern. It has some of the finest officers I know in the Toronto district. I would not complain about granting a reasonable increase of, say $100,000,000 for the next three years. That is all it needs, and it does not need even that much. It has enough capital to do it until the next session of parliament.
As I said, the Bell Telephone Company made application to increase its capital stock from 875,000,000 to $150,000,000 in 1928. An amendment was moved to limit the increased capitalization. The intention of the company was to split a melon of $75,000,000 on a five-to-one basis, and Ontario was to be made the goat of a melon split and to pay eight per cent a year, whereas the company's bonds got only 2J per cent.
The Drayton-Acworth royal commission in 1917-18 inquired into the question of overcapitalization of railway companies, express companies and telephone companies, and they recommended that before any applications for increased rates or capitalization were granted by parliament they should be reported on by the board of railway commissioners for Canada. That recommendation has been violated in the present application. In the company's application in 1928 for increased capital the board of railway commissioners found that the Northern Electric Company, a subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company, was outside its jurisdiction and could not be required to submit its records for inspection. The then member for South Toronto, Mr. vjeary, luuuuii^cu a um in the 1028 session to amend the Railway Act to grant the railway commission power in relation to the investigation of subsidiaries of telephone or telegraph companies, like the Northern Electric. The bill proposed that section 375 of the Railway Act, chapter 170 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, be amended accordingly. The government of Ontario, with the city of Toronto, strongly opposed the application of the Bell Telephone Company to increase its capitalization to $150,000,000, and split a melon in Ontario. Their position is set out on page 1896 of Hansard of April 10, 1928. The discussion went on for days and months in the house, with the Ontario government opposing the application for more capital stock and for increased rates. The Ontario government was represented before the railway commission by Mr. Reid, who did well there. He saw fit to write a letter to the Toronto Globe, which was considered then to be the mouthpiece of the Liberal party, although, as I said in 1928, it had latterly been somewhat critical in its attitude toward its old-time friends. The Liberal party deserted Liberal principles. The Globe then was a supporter of public ownership of public utilities in Ontario, such as light, power and transportation, and telephones. Did the government lay down any policy in 1928 with respect to this handout, increasing the capital stock from $75,000,000 to $150,000,000? It was just a huge melon of $75,000,000 to be cut at the expense of telephone users in the city of Toronto and of all Ontario.
Of course the Bell Telephone Company has the right to operate under fair and proper conditions. When the application in 1909, during my term as alderman, came before the late Mr. Justice Mabee, I pointed out that it does not cost any more for your electric light because you are farther away from the power house; that it does not cost you any more
Bell Telephone Company

for your water because you are farther away from the pumping station; that it does not cost you any more for your gas because you are farther away from the gas house; and the chairman of the commission saw the point immediately. On the other hand, why should it cost you more for your telephone if you live farther away? It is just a system of poles, wires and electric instruments, and the free use of highways. There was a difference in the rates paid in many parts of Toronto in those days, north of Bloor, in Deer Park, North Toronto and many other parts now incorporated in the city.
I am speaking without preparation, but I remember in 1928 that Mr. Commissioner Lawrence of the railway commission asked some questions of the representatives who were opposing the application. The railway commission, under Mr. Justice Mabee, ordered a flat rate for telephone service for the whole of greater Toronto, reducing the rate from $75 in some parts of the city-I am speaking from memory-to $30, and I think $40 to $50 for business telephones. Deer Park and on up to Mount Pleasant cemetery on Yonge street were paying that higher figure, but a flat rate was ordered for the whole city. The telephone users in the riding of Davenport, which I used to represent in this bouse, were paying a very large sum for residential and business telephone service. If we had men like Mr. Justice Mabee, who was a strong chairman of the railway commission, there would be no objection to a reasonable increase in the capital stock of the Bell Telephone Company. I am not objecting to a reasonable increase, but I am objecting to over-capitalization and melon splitting.
In this country great corporations have acquired franchises with their heavy rates in light, power and transportation. We found that out in Ontario and in Toronto. We had to pay $32,000,000 for the power companies in the Niagara district. We took them over a few years ago, in 1921, and today, compared with rates under private ownership, rates for commercial and domestic lighting are about one-third of what they used tp be. The money is put back into the pockets of the consumers, and power at cost established for the people.
Under our system of parliamentary government the consumer seems to be the forgotten agency. In recent years he has become the forgotten man. You do not consider him at all, but he is paying the taxes. I have been a supporter of reasonable private enterprise, but want it humanized, and with cheaper rates. I am not going to speak any further tonight. The bill is going to a committee. I would

ask the house not to pay too much attention sometimes on bills like this to what they see in the newspapers. I had five of the six papers opposed to me when I opposed the purchase follies and when we were trying to take over the street railway. An effort was being made to sell a railway and electric light plant for $32,000,000, although they were not worth a third of it. They nearly got it through. The late Sir William Mackenzie was getting franchises all over this country. He was overcapitalizing and putting duplicate lines across the country. He was a skilled parliamentary diplomat and artist, but he found one city where he could not get past the ratepayers on his purchase deals.
I warn this house that if it authorizes this company to increase its capitalization to half a billion dollars it will mean an increase in tolls, and it is good-bye and good night to any chance of having any control or regulation for ever over this utility. Mind you, this is a very fine public utility. I have already said that. I know some of the officers and directors. It is well officered and well handled. During the discussion on Bill No. 3 the other day I congratulated them on one thing, namely, on their permitting their employees to get some of the capital stock and have better labour conditions. It is no wonder they can hand out some of their stock. The stock is to be split up and all that kind of thing.
I have given my reasons why I oppose this bill. We are on very dangerous ground to propose any such thing as capitalizing this company to the extent of half a billion dollars. They do not need it now. It is for five years, they say, to construct. We do not know who will own the country in five years the way things are going. We do not know whether we shall be here or not if we believe everything of the grave danger that the country is in today in foreign affairs. The leaders of the British parliament have already warned us of this gravity. This bill should go to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I do hope that that committee will give the bill better consideration than rvas given it in the other place the other day where they passed it in a very few minutes with no discussion on second reading, no discussion on third reading and all that kind of thing.
I ask for fair treatment for those who are opposing the bill. We do not expect to secure any advantage out of opposing the bill. It would be far better if I did not oppose the bill; it would be far better to leave it to some of the young members in the house who are

Bell Telephone Company
on so many committees, and in whom I have every confidence to protect the consumer.
As a supporter of the principle of public ownership of certain utilities, may I say that Ontario has been made the goat by this overcapitalization. We saw what happened in cheap light and power development and how it worked to the advantage of the consumers in Ontario. What was done there is just an example to the people of this country. Under over-capitalization the people do not own anything. The people should recover their heritage. After all is said and done, these magnificent natural resources of this country do not belong to United States capitalists; they belong to the people of this country and to all the people of the country. Political parties sometimes forget that this magnificent heritage is the property of all the people of Canada. That is what is causing so much communism in the country. There is a lot of talk about communism. While we here have not been friends of the communists, over-capitalization, high rates, putting large profits into the pockets of some of those who are making splits, the high cost of living and all that kind of thing, are factors in causing communism. That is one of the reasons for it. That doctrine has been preached in some of the pulpits of the country. You cannot blame them for getting down to brass tacks today when we see the things happening which I have mentioned.
From the Ottawa river to the Nipigon, the whole of new Ontario, to whom does it belong today, the mines, the waterpowers, the great natural resources, gold, copper, silver, platinum, lead, zinc, everything? Just get some of the financial books and see who owns it and where it is underwritten, not in Canada but in New York. While I welcome capital from everywhere to develop Canada, I believe in the policy of Canada for Canadians, for our own workmen, our own profits for our own people.
I do not object to newspaper criticism; far from it. I got nothing ibut criticism in the fight we had in Ontario and in our city. I am not asking for any favours. I strongly object to this parliament in the dying hours of parliament, because we shall not be here very much longer, giving this company half a billion dollars. The present parliament will cease to be a parliament before long. There will be an election, no doubt, at the proper time. I do object to giving this company $100 million increase. For what? They do not need it this year or for five years. If you gave them about $75,000,000 it would be more than they 5849-123
need for the next three years. The bill which had to do with exports and imports prohibits them from getting any material from the United States, anyway.
I ask for fair, square, honest, honourable consideration of this bill on its merits. Do not forget this: you have to be fair to the people who bore the burden of the day, and also the consumers. The Bell Telephone Company was a splendid organization during the war. It has good officials and directors; they are public-spirited citizens. I have no objection to them at all. This is one of the occasions when we should have a strong board of transport commissioners. If we had they could deal with these problems and would see that justice was given on the merits of the case. For that reason I have made these few remarks. Later I hope to make some further remarks, and I hope that perhaps other hon. members will say something about the matter.


Major James William Coldwell: This bill deserves more than a cursory discussion in this house on second reading. As the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said, this is an important bill respecting an increase in the capitalization of a very powerful, and if I may say so, a very efficient company, from $150 million to $500 million. That is an increase of $350 million in one bill. Since I have been in this house I know of no bill that has been passed which, has permitted such an increase in capitalization as the bill now before us.
I want to compliment the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who has just taken his seat, on his long service to the country in defending public ownership of important utilities. I do not know of anyone in the country who has more consistently, in this house and outside it, supported the principle for which he has pleaded tonight than the hon. member for Broadview. I sometimes think it is strange that a gentleman who is a member of the Progressive Conservative party should be such a strong proponent of public enterprise. I do remember, of course- and I sometimes refer to it-that the great hydro-electric system in Ontario was largely established by gentlemen who shared the views of the hon. member for Broadview, and I only wish that that had been the trend of that party throughout the years.
Had it been, that party would have been in perhaps a very much different position from that in which it finds itself today. This bill will, of course, be carefully considered by a committee of this house, and I think all
Bell Telephone Company

the details of this proposal should be inquired into with extreme care by the members of that committee.
There is, however, one new clause in this bill to which I wish to refer particularly, and that is paragraph 5 on page 3 of the bill. It reads thus:
It is hereby declared that subject to the provisions of the Radio Act, 1938, chapter fifty of the statutes of 193-8 . . .
And so on, the company has had and always will have the power to- operate and furnish wireless telephone and radio-tele'phone systems and to provide services and facilities for the transmission of messages of various sorts which are enumerated in the bill, over wireless and radio. The explanation given reads:
This section is new. The purpose of this provision is to clarify the company's p-mvers under its original act of incorporation with regard to the use of the latest and most improved means and inventions, including radio and wireless telephone and television in furnishing communication service and will make clear the company's position with regard to the use and operation of radio and wireless telephone in furnishing service to mobile stations and. to remote communities where the construction of wire facilities may be 'impracticable and in interconnecting its wire facilities with radio links.
This is an important new section in this bill that should not be passed over lightly. In the radio committee, from time to time, I have quoted a great deal from speeches of various hon. members who were here when the Radio Act was passed and particularly perhaps from the speeches of the then leader of the opposition, the late Viscount Bennett, then the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. Hon. gentlemen who were here at the time that Mr. Bennett dealt with radio will remember how he used to make this chamber ring with challenges to members of the house to deny that if we had to do over again many of the things we had already done in relation to the great resources to which the hon. member for Broadview referred a few moments ago we would not do what our predecessors did, that is to say, alienate out of the public domain control over great public properties in this country.
Here we have tried throughout the years to see to it that the control of the air waves, as far as this house would agree, and it agreed fairly well, would be such that we would not give away any further this great public facility or allow it to pass into private hands. To my mind this is an important section, and, if this bill is referred to the appropriate committee of the house, then I suggest that this particular provision, section 5, should be referred to the

special committee which I presume will be set up to deal with radio matters, so that the Department of Transport, appearing there as trustee of the air waves in the licensing of stations and so on, shall have an opportunity of discussing this with the committee; that the parliamentary committee be made thoroughly aware of what this clause actually means, and that the representatives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be properly heard.
After all, mentioned in this explanation of clause 5 are facilities that we have not yet put into use in our country. We have mention of television. Television in the course of the next few years may be a much more important facility that it is at the present time. I believe that, as experimentation goes on, many of the difficulties which now confront television will be met, and television may become universal, even as the standard band of the radio is at the present time.
With the tremendous development in radio and telephonic and telegraphic communication, this bill deserves much more consideration than it has had tonight. A feature of it that has been emphasized is the financial aspect of the matter, the fact that we shall permit, if we pass this bill, a very powerful company to increase its capital from $150 million to $500 million.
As the hon. member for Broadview said a few minutes ago in the course of his speech, in 1928 the extent of the increase was from $75,000,000 to $150 million. That in itself was a substantial increase, but now from $150 million this bill would give the company the power to increase its capitalization to $500 million.
I believe that when a corporation- gets to the point of being a half-billion dollar concern, owning what must be by its very nature a monopoly, it should be a public enterprise and not a private monoply. Some in this house may disagree with my colleagues and myself regarding our ideas on socialization o-r public ownership, but I do not believe that, sitting anywhere in this house, there is an hon. gentleman who really believes in monopoly control. Sometimes the actions of parliament encourage the setting up of monopoly or even the extension, of monopoly, but I do not believe there is anyone in this house who really believes that private monopoly is a good thing.
If we must have monopoly under our economy, the way in which it has developed over the last century or so, with the uniting of small businesses into big businesses, with the growth of public utilities such as we have

Bell Telephone Company
in the company now asking these rights or privileges-that is the better word-from us, I say that, since that development has occurred, we must safeguard the Canadian people against monopoly, and the only safe way, in my opinion, is this. When a monopoly is in the position that this monopoly is in, of controlling a great public facility, then surely the time comes when it should become a public utility.
That being the case, when we allow the company to increase its capital from $150 million to $500 million, what we actually do is to make it more difficult for the province of Ontario or for our own country, Canada, to take over a huge utility like this, because the larger the capitalization, when the time comes to arrive at an agreement with them for compensation, either through expropriation and the legal procedures, or by mutual arrangement, whichever you will, the very size of the sum involved makes it difficult for legislatures or parliament to face the situation that has been created.
When we pass a bill of this description, with $500 million of capitalization, what we are doing is actually placing a barrier against our successors if they desire to take over this facility. We are placing a barrier against their doing so, making it more difficult in the years to come for the nation or the province to take over this great facility.
Those of us who come from provinces in which we own our telephone systems know perfectly well that we enjoy a rate which is better than the one we get in the city of Ottawa. I sometimes compare the rate I have to pay between, we will say, this city and the city of Montreal with the rate I pay between the city of Regina and the city of Saskatoon.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Why not compare the rates and the service in Great Britain?


Thomas Miller Bell: Just a minute. Saskatoon is nearly twice as far; as a matter of fact. Saskatoon is about 200 miles from Regina and Montreal is about 120 miles from this city. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) says to compare the service.


Humphrey Mitchell: Certainly.


Major James William Coldwell: I would say the service we get from the publicly-owned utility in my province is just as good.


An hon. MEMBER:: Better.


Major James William Coldwell: One of my hon. friends says "better".


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: He is
prejudiced.


Major James William Coldwell: Maybe that is so. But let me point this out to those who are inclined to interrupt. The public ownership of the telephone system in my province and in the neighbouring provinces of Alberta and Manitoba is not the child of any socialistic government. It was set up years ago and it is so good that the Bell Telephone Company would like to buy those facilities. I think I can say without fear of contradiction, and without belittling the services we get from the Bell Telephone Company that the telephone systems in these provinces are as efficient and give as excellent service as anything that will be found anywhere else in Canada.


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Is the hon. member aware of the conditions of the telephone system down in the lower St. Lawrence area and in New Brunswick?


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Then it would give the hon. member an argument for the contention he is making, because it is one of the most amazing things in this country.


Major James William Coldwell: I like to talk about something about which I know. I greatly regret to say that I do not know as much as I should like t>o know about the lower St. Lawrence.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: I will let you know about it later on in this session.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member who asks me about the lower St. Lawrence perhaps does not know as much as he would like to know about the western provinces in which I have made my home for a good many years. I would suggest to him that, when I resume my seat, he can tell us what kind of service is received along the lower St. Lawrence. If that is accompanied by a description of the beautiful countryside in that area, as an inducement to our going there and examining the telephone system, I am quite sure that hon. members will enjoy the description of that beautiful part of Canada.
But coming back again to my point, let
me say that our telephone systems in our western provinces have not only been of great value to our communities and to our people there, but given good returns to the provinces and assisted us in that way. I sometimes think -and I believe the Minister of Agriculture
Speaker's Ruling

(Mr. Gardiner) whom I see in his seat, and who, incidentally, had a great deal to do with the development of the telephone system will agree-that the conditions under which the people are working within the Saskatchewan telephone system are equal to the best conditions that can be found in telephone businesses anywhere in Canada. As I said a few moments ago, I am drawing these things to the attention of the house-not only the large increase in capitalization but that one important section which hon. gentlemen should examine, namely, section 5, which not only gives to this company a new right but indicates clearly that it is not a new right; they have had it all the time. Since we have had the Radio Act in existence in this country for a long time, and since we have endeavoured at all times to retain control of the air waves, that is a feature of this bill which should not only be considered by the committee to which it is proposed to refer it, but be considered by any committee that is set up to examine radio, television and all these subsidiary matters that concern radio and allied facilities.


James Horace King: The hour reserved for private bills having expired, the house will revert to the business under discussion at six o'clock.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
James Horace King: Prior to six o'clock the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr, Shaw) moved an amendment to the motion which is actually before the house.
The amendment is more than the expression of an abstract opinion on a matter which may necessitate a burden on the treasury. It does not only assert an abstract principle. It goes as far as to say certain tax exemptions, the elimination of the sales tax, increases in family allowances, provisions for disabled adults and selective subsidies on food products be enacted during the present session.
One of my predecessors decided on February 20, 1936, that a motion requesting the government immediately to introduce legislation granting retirement allowances to all citizens over sixty years of age was out of order because it involved an expenditure of money. His decision was sustained by the house and has now the validity of a standing order.

I do not see much difference between demanding an expenditure immediately and saying that the cabinet should have given the assurance that legislation would be submitted during the present session whereby certain specific expenditures would have to be made.
The adoption of the amendment would be an order given to the house to increase expenditures and it is, therefore, an encroachment of the Governor General's prerogative to recommend expenditures.
The amendment is not in general terms and I have to rule it out of order.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): It is regrettable in the extreme, Mr. Speaker, that we have fallen into the practice in this house of allowing Your Honour to give rulings without an opportunity for debating these questions before you give them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Solon Earl Low: On a question of privilege-


James Horace King: The hon. member knows perfectly well that it is against the rules of the house to discuss the ruling of the Speaker.


Solon Earl Low: On a question of privilege, I plead for hon. members; I think hon. members are entitled to express their opinion about a trend into which this house seems to be falling.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but it is my duty to see that hon. members abide by the rules of the house; and the rules say that Speakers' rulings are not debatable.


Angus MacInnis: I would plead with you, Mr. Speaker, to give the house a chance to discuss this ruling, because it seems to me that it is not at all in order, having regard to the rules of the house.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member has been here for twenty years, and he knows perfectly well the rule which says that Speakers' rulings are not debatable. I must take this opportunity to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the Speaker does not give a ruling without having studied the matter very carefully. Hon. members would be very much surprised if they knew to how much trouble the Speaker goes in order to give justice to both sides of the house.
I have already given my ruling, and hon. members know perfectly well that it is against the rules of the house to debate it.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I very much dislike challenging the Speaker's rulings; but

Speaker's Ruling
these two today have been so patently out of order that I must challenge your ruling tonight.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's ruling. I ruled out of order an amendment by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), because the adoption of the amendment would be an order given by the house to increase expenditures, which would be an encroachment of the Governor' General's prerogative to recommend expenditures.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was paired with the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Farquhar). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is away on a matter of public duty. I am paired with him.
(Translation):


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. McDonald). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I say with great deference that I hope you will find some way, if the rules do not permit it now, to alter the rules so that this lamentable situation whereby there is no means to discuss your ruling before it is given may be changed. At the present time we are in the position where judgment is given before counsel may make an argument. I trust that you will give that consideration, Mr. Speaker,
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

because the danger is that your great office will be dragged down if it is not done.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock I spoke for a few minutes in support of the amendment which has been declared out of order and consequently I shall not pursue that subject further.
There is a matter upon which I should like to say a few words tonight, and I do not intend to speak at any length. But, first, may I refer to an interruption that was made this afternoon by my hon. friend the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) when the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) was speaking. As I understood the hon. member for Lake Centre, he said that neither the hon. member for Swift Current nor this party had repudiated the advances which had been made towards the C.C.F. within the last two months by Mr. Buck and the communist party.


John George Diefenbaker: Repudiated the
support.


Major James William Coldwell: I will deal with that in a moment. Throughout the years the C.C.F. has kept its skirts absolutely clean, and I think any impartial observer knows that perfectly well. The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) said this .afternoon that in a recent by-election in British Columbia the Labour Progressive party had given or collected money for the C.C.F.


James Sinclair: That is true.


Major James William Coldwell: He says that is quite true. I know nothing of that, but I doubt very much if the hon. member knows it of his own knowledge. However, I am going to say this, that what the C.C.F. has never done is to pay for newspaper advertising for the Labour Progressive or communist party as the party to which the hon. member for Vancouver North belongs did. Seated to my right is the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case). I was in Grey North during the by-election, and I saw a full-page advertisement, paid for by the Liberal association, advertising the coming to that constituency of various men who were characterized as labour leaders but whom everyone knew to be outstanding members of the communist party of Canada. And in 1945 may I remind hon. members that Mr. Tim Buck published large advertisements in the newspapers across Canada urging support for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Liberal party, and so far as I know that was never repudiated'.
On this recent occasion fortunately I am on the record. Mr. Tim Buck spoke in Toronto on the night of January 22-


Mr. MacNICOL:: Of this year?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, and on that very night I gave to the press this statement which I am going to put on the record :
In the 19451 elections, Canada's communist party'-the L.P.P.-called on the Canadian people to support Mr. Mackenzie King and the Liberals. Today the party has switched its line agiain, and is now declaring its support for the C.C.F.
It is clear to me that the new switch in the communist line is an admission of the utter failure of the Labour Progressive party to make any progress in Canada and of its loss of support even in those trade unions in which the communists have had dominant control hitherto. They are apparently trying ito halt their party's decline by seeking to identify themselves with the C.C.F.
Naturally, what Canadian communists decide to do is entirely up to them. But I want to make the position of the C.C.F. crystal clear. That position has been stated, and re-stated by national and provincial conventions throughout the years.
The C.C.F. will not collaborate with the Labour-Progressive party in any way, direct or indirect. It will not enter into any electoral arrangements with it or with any other party, whether on a national, provincial, or constituency basis.
There is a fundamental difference between, the C.C.F. methods and1 philosophy and those of the communists. We have always opposed', and oppose today, every form of dictatorship, including communist dictatorship. We abhor communist methods in crushing political opposition whenever and whereveT communists become the dominant force in a country.
We know that at bottom the communists have not changed their views about the C.C.F. and democratic socialism. They have always declared democratic socialist movements to be their principal enemy and their ultimate objective is to "liquidate" such movements as the C.C.F.
The present communist policy is therefore just a manoeuvre. The C.C.F. will have nothing to do with it.
That was my statement on the night of January 22. Since then there has been a meeting of the national executive of the C.C.F., and I am quoting from the minutes which I have in my hand.
The executive unanimously endorsed the recent public statement by M. J. Coldwell with respect to the new Labour-Progressive party line.
If that is not about as clear a repudiation as can be made I do not know how it could be made clearer. I wanted to place that on the record of this house in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to where we stand on this particular issue.
Ever since this movement was formed I have been connected with it. At various times we have been the target of abuse and attack by the communist party. At various times

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
they have tried to enter into some collaboration with us. But I want to say this very clearly, in all these years never at any time have we compromised our position; and I am quite certain of this, as long ?s those of us who today have anything to do with the C.C.F. are associated with that party, there will be no association or compromise with the Labour Progressive or communist party, certainly not to the extent that the Liberal party was compromised by the communist party in 1945.
As far as my hon. friends to the right were concerned at that time, I remember the secretary of their party gloating over the situation and saying, "Well, this splits the C.C.F. in many of the industrial districts of Canada and we shall benefit by that split." However, be that as it may; whatever the future fortunes of the Canadian people and of this particular party may be, it is certain that we shall keep our hands clean and our skirts clear of any association with any totalitarian group, whether they are fascistly or communistically inclined.
I want to say a word, Mr. Speaker, about the matter of commercial rents. This afternoon I attempted to raise the question and I accepted the ruling of Your Honour, although, had this debate taken another course, I might have been prevented from raising the issue in time. Perhaps I did not make it quite clear this afternoon, but today is March 5 and the controls come off on Monday, March 8. The intervening period of time between now and Monday is the week end, and during the week end there will certainly be no opportunity for discussion by representatives of the people in this house, and I doubt very much whether there will be much time for the government to consider the situation.
I was disappointed in the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) this afternoon. Under the conditions that exist in regard to commercial rents I do not think we can trust to the individual to take the initiative with the wartime prices and trade board. If he does so, even in the large number of instances of which I have some knowledge at the moment, the wartime prices and trade board will be so busy reviewing complaints made to it that there will be no opportunity for the board to do many of the other things that are vitally necessary at this time.
As I said, I am not going to make a long speech tonight. I stand by the statement I made at the opening of my remarks. I suggest to hon. gentlemen that they will find a great deal of material placed on the record by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) on December 12 last, to be found at pages 264 and 265 of Hansard. What the hon. member did on that occasion was to place before the house a number of complaints that he had received mainly from one city, Winnipeg, showing that the small business people who had occupied premises, in some instances for a good many years, were finding increases in rental of 200 per cent, 300 per cent and 400 per cent, even in some instances after adjustments had been made a year or two ago by the rentals control board in the city of Winnipeg. I have before me a sheaf of letters and telegrams, that I picked at random in my office, and that I have received among many within the past few days. Let me give a sample from Montreal:
Due to the relaxation of Tent control I am now being forced out of business. My landlord is demanding 450 per cent increase in rent.
This telegram comes from a Mr. Bastien of Montreal. Here is another man whose rent is increased from $70 a month to $200. Here is another small businessman whose landlord is demanding $300 a month increase in the individual's rent. Here is another telegram. These have been received during the last two diays. This man is to have his rent increased by 375 per cent, an increase that the small businessman cannot possibly meet. If this is universal-and I believe it is-then the small businessman will have to charge to the consumer of the goods that are sold in his store an amount equivalent to the increase in rent, and what we actually shall have as a result is a substantial increase in the cost of living.
I have another letter from a man in Toronto whose present rent is $75 a month. He is being asked $250 a month. I have one from the Retail Merchants' Association in my own province of Saskatchewan, from the city of Saskatoon. The letter says:
We are receiving many complaints in this province from merchants who have been asked to increase their payment on rent and in many cases to viaoate.
In the case of vacating and moving to a new location, businessmen find that not any space is available and they are therefore forced to accept the proposal of increased rent.
Would you therefore use your influence and vote endeavouring to have commercial rent control extended for a further period?
I could go on, as I say. There are several very pathetic cases here. Here is a letter from an individual whose people have occupied a little store in a small Ontario town for the last fifty years, and I infer that they have just been able to make a living. I may say the little town is Markdale, Ontario. They have now to move out and have nowhere to make a living. There is no place, they say, in which
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

they can carry on their business. There is another andl similar one from Edmonton. From all over the country these complaints are coming, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, I regret that the government has allowed us to reach this stage without having done something before now to protect the people of the country.
I have before me a letter from the Minister of Finance in reply to one written, not by myself but by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), dated February 18. I must say to the minister I am surprised that this attitude should be taken. I feel that it is an attitude which the minister should not have taken and one which this house should not accept.
This letter deals with a case in the city of Winnipeg. It has to do with a commercial school, the Bornoff school, where the rent is about to ibe raised. I am not going to read the whole letter, but the last paragraph says:
Relief in individual oases such as that of the Bornoff school is not possible in the absence of a national measure-[DOT]
It rather differs from what the minister said this afternoon.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not if the increase is not unjust and unreasonable.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question-


Mr. SKEY:: On a question of privilege-


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) has the floor.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). It relates to the first part of the speech by the hon. member who has just sat down. I want to know if the Minister of Trade and Commerce remembers the 1945 election when there were Labour Progressive candidates in both constituencies and we did not pay for their advertising.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not say everybody did.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Speaker, in view of the first remarks-


James Horace King: Does the hon. member wish to speak on a question of privilege?


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Yes.


James Horace King: I would ask him to state the question of privilege.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It is this, Mr. Speaker. As the candidate in the last election who contested Trinity constituency against the leader of the communist party, I should like to refer to the first remarks of the leader of the C.C.F. party and say simply this. On behalf of my party, and I know I speak for them as well as myself, the Conservative party have never encouraged, courted, wanted or solicited the support of the communist party, and they are the only party in this house who have no need to deny it.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker-


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Mr. Speaker, apparently I am not big enough to be observed, but I want to ask a question.


James Horace King: Does the hon. member rise to a question of privilege?


Antoine-Philéas Côté: No, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question.


James Horace King: If the hon. member does not rise to take part in the debate, the hon. member for Vancouver South has the floor.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: It is not my fault if the Speaker did not see me. I was on my feet before the hon. gentleman rose.


Major James William Coldwell: If the hon. gentleman wishes to put a question to me I have no objection to his doing so.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: I just wanted to ask the hon. member a question. If I recall it correctly, at the outset of his remarks he said that the C.C.F. party was this, that, and the other thing. I just wanted to know whether it was according to the new look.


Major James William Coldwell: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot answer that question because I am not an authority on the new look, as my hon. friend1 evidently is.
Mr. HOWARD C. GREEN (Vancouver South): I should like to take a few minutes this evening, Mr. Speaker, to place before the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) the situation with regard to these commercial rentals, because I greatly fear that the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of Finance will not meet many cases of great hardship. I have one or two suggestions to place before the ministry which may help them to solve this difficult problem they are facing at the present time.
As the house knows, the provision for maximum rentals is to be lifted on March 8.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has already been lifted.


Howard Charles Green: It will come into effect on March 8. Then the only protection that a tenant will have will be that provided by section 6 of the regulations underlying the rental controls. That portion of the section to which I refer reads as follows:
No person on behalf of himself or of another person shall let or offer to let any real property at. a rental that is higher than is reasonable and just or shall charge, demand, receive, collect, or pay such a rental . . .
The Minister of Finance admitted this afternoon that that provision was of doubtful value.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think I admitted that it was of doubtful value; at any rate, I had not any intention of doing so.


Howard Charles Green: Then I will take that position myself.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is different.


Howard Charles Green: It only permits of prosecution. It has nothing whatever to do with the amount of the rent-that is, by way of reduc-
The Address-Mr. Green

mg the rent-and there is no power to prevent giving notice and putting a tenant out. About a year ago some changes were made in commercial controls. The Minister of Finance will correct me if am wrong, but I believe those relaxations were to the effect that the following types of commercial properties were made free of any rent control:
1.	Space leased for the first time after March 1, 1947.
2.	Space becoming vacant after March 1,
1947.
3.	Space in new buildings which had not been previously rented.
4.	Space sublet by the tenant.
5.	Space covered by the special two-year lease on its expiry date.
There had been provision made for a two-year lease.


Douglas Charles Abbott: At an increased rental of 25
per cent.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. To continue:
6.	Space on or after March 1, 1947, leased to a tenant then in possession for not less than three years at any rental agreeable to both parties, provided that the lease did not contain a sales clause or any other cancellation clause in favour of the landlord, effective before the end of the third year.
Cases coming in any of those categories were freed of the commercial rental control, and I think a good many satisfactory adjustments were made between landlord and tenant. Then a few months ago, the government gave notice that as of March 8-


Douglas Charles Abbott: In June of last year.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, in June of last year- that this commercial control would be lifted entirely. Again arrangements were made between landlords and tenants, and there can be no complaint in those cases. But there are some cases-and I think they are in the minority-in which there is great hardship. For cases of that type I think something must be done. The leader of the C.C.F. referred to some a few minutes ago, and I have here three letters which I should like to read to the Prime Minister. My first letter is dated just a few days ago. The correspondent says:
I have been a tenant


Mr. BRACKEN:: Go ahead.


Howard Charles Green: I think the two I have read make the situation quite clear.


John Bracken: Go ahead and read the other.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I had better read it, inasmuch as it is slightly different. This letter reads in part as follows:
This man, who was am aeroplane pilot in the first world war, has for a number of years been renting a store on Granville street, in which he has been running a lending library. He also sells books, stationery and various other goods.

The Address-Mr. Green
His lease -will expire in a few months. His present rental is $65 a month and the owner of the store will give him a five-year extension, provided he will pay $100 a month rent, and ako pay-
And here is the catch in this case.
-$1,500 to instal an entirely new store front.
He is unwilling to pay this $1,500 bait has offered to take a five-year lease at $125 a month, which would in that period give the owner $1,500 additional. This offer was refused.
Then he goes on to say:
Ini this particular case, the present tenant cannot sell his business, which is well run and has many customers, because he has no lease to transfer with the business. Should there not be some tribunal to which a tenant threatened with extortion of this kind could appeal?
I point out to the house that this is an emergent situation which must be met. There can be no doubt that there is a shortage of commercial accommodation. In part, that is the government's own fault, because in Vancouver, and I have no doubt in many other cities, government departments are occupying a great deal of space that could be given up and made available for commercial tenants.
Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has announced, as part of the austerity program, that all construction of office space and space of that kind, is to be prevented, So that we have an artifical situation at the present time. I put it to the lawyers in the house that here is a situation similar to a case where there has been a forfeiture. A person may have paid a large amount of money as a first instalment on a property, or may have incurred a heavy penalty, and there is a provision in the law for relief against forfeiture and relief against penalty under conditions of that kind. Here I think we are on perfectly sound legal ground by arranging for some relief in cases of the type I have mentioned, particularly because the situation is an emergent one. There is no chance for the operation of the natural law of supply and demand in most of these cases.
I believe that in the vast majority of rental cases both the landlord and the tenant are only too anxious to play the game, and I think they have been playing the game all through the war. The cases to which I refer are in the minority. I suggest to the ministry that they might get around the difficulty by providing an appeal to a judge, I think it should be to a judge; an appeal against profiteering in rentals, and also against unreasonable evictions. Where a tenant can come to court and show that there is an increase of 500 per cent, there should be some 5849-124i
provision enabling the judge to deal with a case of that kind. There should be provision to prevent eviction, where an unfair advantage is being taken by a landlord.
The provision need not be for long, because sooner or later this whole rental question will have to be turned over to the provinces. I cannot understand, myself, why the government did not vacate the jurisdiction before now, and turn it back to the provinces, where it belonged.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A good suggestion; I am glad you made it.


Howard Charles Green: The provincial governments do not want it, because naturally they are quite content to let the dominion look after the baby as long as it will. But this whole question of rentals is a provincial question; and sooner or later it must go back to the provinces.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The provinces can take care of the commercial field now. We are out of that.


Howard Charles Green: Many of the provincial legislatures are sitting at the present time, and if the government were to announce as a policy that it would shortly be the responsibility of each province to deal with this question of rentals-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I announced that last June.


Howard Charles Green: -then the necessary legislation could be enacted by the provincial legislatures. And they can handle the rental situation far more effectively because they are much closer to the people. They know conditions in their respective provinces. But foT the time being, until something of that kind is done, I appeal to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance to bring in some provision for protection in these cases which are in the minority, where obviously there will be great unfairness. I think everyone in the house wants to see that the small people, who are in that unfortunate position, are given protection.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I should like to take just a minute or two on this question of commercial rentals, because during the last few months I have received a great many communications which indicate to me that small businessmen across Canada are facing the very great danger of being forced into evictions which will become a hardship to them.
One such case, for example, in the city of Edmonton, is that of a young man who struggled through his university years, served in the armed forces and was able to start up a
The Address-Mr. Low

small drug store in a district which was not too crowded, and in a building along with two or three other businesses. He has not been able to operate very long, but his business has proved quite profitable for the length of time he has been there. When the announcement as to the lifting of rent controls was made the landlord advised 'this young man that he would have to get out immediately. He had not been able to take advantage of subsection 16 in board order 315, and for that reason found himself without protection at all. He is having to sell his stock and fixtures because he cannot find another location in the city. He will have to sacrifice them, and he tells me that he will hardly get enough to pay his creditors.
That is a serious situation, and I suppose it could be repeated hundreds of times over across Canada. Surely something could be done to protect that young man and a great many others of his kind who find themselves faced with this serious situation today.
The other day I visited in this particular city a small stare which sold electrical goods and made electrical repairs. I should not think the store building was more than fifteen or sixteen feet wide where it fronts on Bank street, and the depth is not more than twenty-five feet. This man at the present time is paying just under $100 a month, and he takes care of his own utility services. He was notified a few days ago, when the announcement was made as to the lifting of commercial rentals, that he would have to pay $160 a month for that place.
That is out of all reason. Many people like that will be forced right out on the sidewalk, because they cannot afford to pay those prices. I received yesterday a telegram from Mr. A. C. MacKay, secretary of the Alberta provincial board of the Retail Merchants' Association which, I believe, I referred to the minister. This is what the secretary says:
Alberta merchants renting premises who were deprived from availing themselves of provisions section. 16 board order 315 are in serious dianger of having unreasonable rent applied .to premises if governments policy re decontrol commercial rents becomes effective as announced by minister. Specific cases have been brought to our attention where merchants who have operated from twenty to thirty-five years will be forced out of business due to desire of landlords to continue operations on their own behalf. Association has no objection to landlords obtaining reasonable rental increases but as new premises are unavailable merchants likely to suffer very severely. Suggest authority be retained by rental division of board to deal with each case on its merit when application for board ruling made by tenant.
The Alberta provincial board of the Retail Merchants' Association are very .reasonable in

their request. I feel satisfied that there is no good reason why the board should not continue with its practice of receiving complaints from individuals who feel themselves aggrieved and to judge each case on its merits and issue a ruling. I would say that this would be similar to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) who has just spoken. As I understood it, his suggestion was that a judge be appointed to hear these cases and to decide on the merits of the case.
I have no objection to that. I think his suggestion has great merit, but have we not already in most centres across Canada officials attached to the wartime prices and trade board who could continue under the rentals division of the board to do much the same job as the hon. member suggests?
It seems to me that as long as restrictions are continued on commercial building it is only right and just that the government do everything possible to protect the tenant and at the same time to make possible fair and just increases in rentals where the situation in a particular centre justifies such increases. I make this appeal only because I feel that great injustice will be done and great hardship will be caused to these small merchants.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, I have not taken part in this debate, but I should like to address a few words to the house on the aspect of the debate which has come up this evening. I do not think anyone in this house is desirous of seeing hardship, especially unnecessary hardship, perpetrated on any individual or on any class of individual. I am not in favour of the continuation of controls on commercial premises, for reasons that are neither numerous nor complicated. First, controls are alien to the whole idea of freedom of contract. If two Canadians wish to make a contract I for one believe that it is their privilege to make it. Second, why should this house consider itself the sole repository of wisdom, of equity and of fairness in the dominion? The fathers of confederation who wrote the constitution decreed that certain matters should be left to the dominion.


John Oliver Probe: Eighty years ago.


Mr. HACKETT:: Yes, but the principles are immutable. Principles imbedded in the constitution 80 years ago are not so entirely outmoded as some people would have us believe they are. The fathers of confederation in their wisdom decreed that matters of civil right should be entrusted to the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. Matters of rent have no status in this assembly. It was merely on

The Address-Mr. Hackett
an assumption'-and in my view, a totally unwarranted assumption-that an emergency two and a half years after the war exists-and an emergency no more exists two and a half years after the war than an emergency existed two and a half years before the war-that we are arrogating to ourselves a jurisdiction which, according to the constitution, belongs and belongs properly elsewhere.
Let the provinces decree what is a fair return upon rented property, if you will. Let the provinces who are in intimate association with the details of life in each provincial centre deal with the question. I am not sure at the moment how many legislatures are in session, but I understand-


An hon. MEMBER:: Eight.


John Thomas Hackett: Somebody says that
eight are in session. I know that the legislature of Quebec is in session ; I know that the legislature of Ontario is in session, and I know that the legislature of British Columbia is in session. Surely those legislatures will do whatever is necessary to protect the population of their provinces against the rapacity- I think that is an exaggeration-of landlords. I admit that there may be hard cases, that there will always be people who will attempt to be unfair, but the great majority of landlords are businessmen. They want good tenants, and they know that the amount that they can derive as rental from their premises is limited to what is fair and just. A few people may attempt to exceed those limits, but we have in all jurisdictions legislation which controls the rapacity of the individual.
For instance, we have a law against usury. It so happens that interest falls within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. No person may collect more than a stated amount of interest. I am confident that if parliament abandons this inter-meddling in affairs which are beyond its jurisdiction, other legislative bodies quite as patriotic, quite as well endowed and quite as capable as that which is within the hearing of my voice, will deal with the question and deal with it promptly and properly. We will put an end to this fictitious system that is bedevilling this house and this parliament. If we have witnessed in the last few weeks episodes within this house which anj-one who cherishes its tradition cannot but regret, it is largely because we have attempted to deal with matters beyond our jurisdiction and have attempted to exercise powers that are not properly within the scope of the powers of this body.
Just so long as there is this interference with normal and free transactions, there is bound to be a shortage of all kinds of buildings which require the investment of money. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has stated that many of the commercial buildings in the city which he represents so well in this house are in the use of the government. I am not going to labour that question, but I will tell the hon. gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches-I see opposite gentlemen from my own city who know the facts as well as I do-that commercial buildings where finance, where commerce and where industry were formerly housed are now filled with government employees, with people who should not be in the service' of the government, people who are attempting under the guise of an emergency to do for the citizenry what the citizenry is well capable of doing for itself. We shall not have new commercial buildings. The capital necessary to put up new commercial buildings required for the normal tenancy of those who are engaged in the growing business of the country will not come forth for investment so long as there is such uncertainty concerning the return which will come from such buildings.
We have heard a good deal about the hardship on the tenant. There may be hard cases for tenants; there inevitably will be. But nobody seems to have said very much about the hardship on the landlord, I think every man of business experience knows there are scores of landlords who attempted to assist weak businesses which were trying to regain their balance after the trying days of the 1930's, who find themselves with rentals frozen at a rate which was entirely unfair to the investor.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: How hard?


John Thomas Hackett: Let us not be quite so cynical in matters of this kind. Possibly a little more experience would enable my interrupter to be a little more generous toward that element of the population which is not necessarily wicked because it has enough to eat.
I am going to suggest, therefore, to the government that it abandon these rental controls on commercial buildings and trust the provinces to deal with them. Unfortunately at the present time the best of feeling does not exist between the federal government and all the provinces. That is unfortunate because, after all, we are all Canadians; we have a common interest, and at heart we aspire to the same ideals. I am of those who like to believe, in spite of casual criticism, that the great bulk of business people-and we are speaking now of commercial rentals-are decent folk who want nothing more than what is a just and fair return from their
The Address-Mr. Probe

investment. For these, among other reasons, I think it is well that we should put an end to the fiction which has given this parliament jurisdiction in a sphere in which it is absolutely incompetent to administer successfully.


Solon Earl Low: If the hon. member would permit a question, while I quite agree with what he said, would he not advocate the continuation by this government of certain regulations until such time as the provincial governments could set up the necessary machinery to take care of the situation?


John Thomas Hackett: commercial rentals are lifted but such controls can be reimposed by'the government or by parliament, if not by the board itself.
In my opinion, the dominion has ample power and authority to continue rental controls as emergency measures. If, however, any waiver of provincial jurisdiction is desired Saskatchewan will, in the public interest for the duration of the present emergency, waive its jurisdiction accordingly,
With best personal regards, I am,
Yours faithfully,
J. W. Corman, Attorney General.


Joseph William Burton: What did the Minister of Finance say to that?


John Oliver Probe: I did not get a copy of the reply.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a generous offer.


John Oliver Probe: Undoubtedly the attorney general of Saskatchewan will be in a position where he will continue commercial rent controls, because we do not intend that it be left as a battle between the tenants and the landlords in our province. But the point I make is that this still does not as a general thing in this Dominion of Canada solve the needs of either tenant or landlord until the government does something. This is not now a matter of the British North America Act. We are still in a building materials emergency. Obviously we have not given concern to the adequate supply of building materials so that the small merchant or professional or businessman can construct such premises as he would put up if the supplies were adequate. However, the government must take the whole blame because of its decontrol policy on all these matters.	,
I intend to leave this suggestion with the government. Instead of putting the onus on the tenant, who, generally speaking, has less adequate means whereby to present a proper case before the authorities, who may or may not act in the matter, I suggest that the Minister of Finance send out telegrams to his local offices of the wartime prices and trade board or get on the radio, as he did on November 17, and make an announcement to the effect that commercial rentals-, mind you, the same thing could be said in the case of domestic rentals, because many injustices are being suffered by the small landlord in the case of domestic rentals-shall remain as they were, and that where the landlord considers that his situation is untenable, the onus be put on him, for a change, to take his case to the proper judicial authorities whom the Minister of Finance will designate, and that the landlord, for a change-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


John Oliver Probe: Yes, I can make it louder.
I say, that the landlord, for a change, present his arguments before a proper tribunal who will assess the needs of the landlord for additional compensation. I will venture to say, that the average tenant of such properties would accede more gladly to such requests on the part of the landlord than do many landlords to the needs of the tenant who will lose his business because of a few rapacious scoundrels-I call them that-who will take advantage of the Minister of Finance and his policy.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The leader of this group tried at three o'clock this afternoon to raise this question, because our members are all convinced that this is a matter of urgent public importance; and in view of the fact that we could not discuss it at that stage, members on all sides are anxious that those who feel strongly should have full opportunity to express their opinions.
We have all had telegrams from people back home who realize that on Monday of next week there will be another factor boosting the cost of living; and in view of the fact that a committee of this house has been appointed to examine and report from time to time as to the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living, I think it is unfortunate that the cabinet should have resisted so stubbornly the representations made to have the whole question referred to the committee.
Technically, this factor has not yet caused any rise in the cost of living, but by Tuesday of next week I think this will be a question which might quite legitimately be referred to the committee. It will cause a great deal of confusion in Canada to have the government's action taken on March 8 brought to the attention of the people, when all across Canada we shall have the tenant exposed to drastic rental increases which will be legal.
I might say to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) that when I interrupted him a few minutes ago I had no desire to be facetious. I have the greatest respect for his views, and I merely thought he would give some information to support his claim that many landlords in Canada are experiencing real hardships. I know there are cases where landlords have a real grievance, but in view of the fact that many other members this evening went out of their way to show what will happen to the tenants, I thought someone in the house might present the landlord's case.
There are Very few in this house who seriously argue that it was not in the public interest in Canada to have rent controls during the war. I would say to the hon. member for Stanstead that, had he been in

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
one of the 7,925 families in. Winnipeg who last year applied for living accommodation without being able to get it, he would consider that there were more factors to the bargain than having someone who was willing to offer and someone who was willing to accept. In Winnipeg only 8-7 per cent of the families that required and needed accommodation last year were able to get it.


John Thomas Hackett: I was talking about commercial rents.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is part of the same problem. I submit that I am in order in discussing anything under the sun, as other hon. members have done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Even the weather is in order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The comment regarding the weather by the Minister of Finance is hardly in order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No offence intended.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I want to say to him that he is losing the confidence of a great many people in Canada. The former minister of finance established a very high standard of ethics and conduct. His saying "no" when demands were made by people who wanted an increase in prices established a great deal of confidence in democracy, and I submit that the behaviour of the Minister of Finance in recent months, in giving way to representations and allowing


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is a good schoolteacher but I do not need lectures on conduct.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think the minister will have to take his lecture.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. member to abide by the rules and address himself to the Chair.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was about to refer to the thirteenth annual survey of vacant houses and vacant suites, from the city of Winnipeg. I do not select this material from Winnipeg because Winnipeg has the worst conditions in Canada, but merely because the department of health in Winnipeg, for at least thirteen years now, has prepared a complete survey of housing problems in that city, and while the facts are not particularly complimentary to the city, they are made available to the public. I happen to have received this report for the year ended December 31, 1947; and when in one city there are 91-3 per cent of the people who are crowded and who desire new housing
accommodation and cannot get it, I think that is a matter of public concern. The report mentions that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There is no need of calling question tonight, because I shall not be able to finish.


Maurice Hartt: Now we can go home and read it in Hansard.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At page 15 of this report we find this:
Environment, especially during childhood and growth, modifies many inborn tendencies. Dark, gloomy, insanitary hovels, which submerge the thoughts of their inmates to the level of the beast, are not conducive to health, or later to good citizenship; moreover, under such conditions, sickness and; poverty occupy so much energy andj thought, as to preclude much effort for better things.


Mr. WARREN:: Question.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I know the hon. member for Renfrew North has not anything of great concern to ;talk about in parliament, but I wish he would allow me to proceed to discuss a matter which affects the people of his constituency as well as my own. To continue: Such places tare almost invariably without sufficient plumbing fixtures, hut many have sinks anil wash basins unlawfully and improperly installed, according to the whim of the house farmer. Families are herded in one or two rooms where objectionable intimacy is unavoidable. Water closets are in common use in lieu of sinks, for greasy dish wash water and table refuse. Water for drinking and potable purposes has to be taken from a bathtub's water supply in many oases.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that with conditions of this sort prevalent all across Canada, we cannot at this stage assume that we can now repeal all our rental controls. Those who have the money should be able to get the accommodation the-y desire. In tonight's paper is an article headed, "Cost of living index nears all-time high", which reads in part as follows:
Propelled by higher prices for foods, the official cost of living index climbed another 1-8 points during January and came w'ithin fractions of the all-time high of 150-6, established in the inflationary period that followed the first world war.
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reported yesterday that the index jumped from 148*3 at January 2 to 150-1 at February 2 . . .
On Monday the government of this country is placing those who are renting commercial quarters in the position where they will have increases of 100 per cent, 200 per cent, 300 per cent and 500 per cent. I know the Minister
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

of Finance this afternoon mentioned the fact that fines up to $5,000 can be levied on those who are guilty of charging unjust and unreasonable rentals. But I should like to ask him to tell the house whether he really thinks the wartime prices and trade board will be able to service the thousand and one requests that will come in from tenants all across the country next week as these rents start to go up. Those who are able to pay higher rentals will naturally be compelled to pass the cost on to the consumer. Before any increase in rentals was granted, I think the landlords concerned should have been required to come to the committee, place their cards on the table, and explain that it was impossible for them to carry on and that they would require assistance.
Since I have a good deal of additional material, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move fhe adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Let us have a vote on it. I move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Horace King: Mr. Nicholson moves that this debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


James Horace King: Carried.
On motion of Mr. Nicholson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had understood that there was a general desire in the
house to have the committee on veterans affairs established as soon as possible. As I said last night, if we had concluded this debate today at an earlier hour, the government had intended to have the house go on to the consideration of setting up that committee. I am entirely in the hands of the house. If hon. members would like to have that committee set up soon, the government is quite prepared to set apart Monday for debate on that question. But if the debate ran beyond Monday we would wish to resume with other government business on Tuesday. On the other hand, if there is exception to having the veterans affairs committee set up on Monday, we shall continue with this debate until it is concluded and then take up the setting up of the committee afterwards.


John Bracken: If the government wishes to proceed with the veterans affairs resolution on Monday, it will be acceptable to us on this side.


Mr. WRIGHT:: As far as our group are concerned, we would be prepared to have the veterans affairs committee set up on Monday.


Solon Earl Low: That is quite acceptable to us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am pleased to hear that. Then it is understood that we proceed with the veterans affairs resolution. But if that debate runs past Monday, we shall on Tuesday resume other business. If it is concluded during the day, we shall then resume the debate we have been having this evening.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 8, 1948