[Stage Direction]
First report of the standing committee on marine and fisheries.-Mr. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house has substituted the name of Mr. Richard (Ottawa East) for that of Mr. Gourd (Chapleau) to act on the part of the House of Commons as a member of the joint committee of both houses on the restaurant, and that the Clerk of the House do carry said message to the Senate.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of G. H. Castleden he substituted for that of S. H. Knowles on the war expenditures committee.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there have been several inquiries made in the house as to. whether a decision had been
made respecting petitions which had been submitted for the disallowance of certain Saskatchewan statutes, I think I should table, for the information of hon. members, an order in council adopted this day, and approving the recommendation of the Minister of Justice that these statutes be left to such operation as they may have.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster- for Mr. Croll) moved the first reading of bill No. 162, respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company and Pere Marquette Railway Company.
Mr. STIRLING:: Explain; can we have an explanation?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.



FIRST AND SECOND READINCS

[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	163,	for	the	relief	of	Frances
Gladys Ruth Leveille Williams.-Mr. Cassel-man.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Dorothy Ada Greenwood Pringle.-Mr. Brown.
Bill	No.	165,	for	the	relief	of	Edward
Vaughton Molson.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 166. for the relief of Elizabeth Jean McKay Hepplewhite.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Alfred Henry Gray.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Dante Antonio Olak- Mr. McGregor.
Bill	No.	169,	for	the	relief	of	Josephus
Barzyk.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill	No.	170,	for	the	relief	of	Florence
Mardi Harding.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Ernest Lavoie. -Mr. Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in a statement released to the press this morning by the United States secretary of agriculture, Mr. C. P. Anderson, it was announced that the government of the United States had decided to discontinue the rationing both of
. Meal Rationing

meat and of fats and oils, effective to-morrow. This decision will naturally 'necessitate a reexamination of our own policy. .
Hon. members are aware that ever since the formation of the combined food board more than three years ago there has been a general understanding between the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada that each country would endeavour to make its best contribution to the common problems ffe have been facing. It has, of course, always been understood that each country must necessarily be its own judge of how best to implement that understanding.
In July last I announced our government's decision to resume the rationing of meat in order that Canada might make the fullest possible contribution to the needs of the United Kingdom and the continent of Europe, as we then saw' them. I am satisfied that the world situation to-day, and as it will be during the coming months, is even, more . urgent and. more desperate than appeared at that time. .
Our rationing programme in Canada has made it possible to ship overseas during the past two months more meat and dairy products than we [DOT] ever before supplied in a similar period of time, and this has been done without imposing any undue or unreasonable curtailment of domestic consumption.
We have not yet been officially advised of the United States announcement. It is my understanding that the United States will continue, through "set-aside" orders, to provide meat for overseas shipment in 1946 in an amount not less than that estimated for 1945. There are, however, important distinctions between the United States position and ours. The probable United States meat exports, although large in terms of tonnage, are not likely to be more than five per cent of their total available meat supplies. Our meat export programme in 1945, which we believe should be carried forward into 1946, calls for exports of nearly one-third of our total meat-supplies and nearly one-half of our inspected meat supply. The United States, in exporting less than five per cent of its meat supplies,. may be able to manage its programme through "set-aside" orders without rationing, and still be able to maintain fair distribution and fair prices. We are convinced however that in Canada we could not, without rationing, export between forty and fifty per cent of our federally inspected kill and maintain orderly distribution and hold our price ceilings.

May I remind hon. members that the main purpose underlying our rationing policy is to enable Canada to take her full part in the attempt to avert or moderate one of the greatest human tragedies of all time.
I have much in mind a remarkable and moving debate which took place in the British House of Commons while I was in London. The people of the United' Kingdom have gone through six long years of meagre and monotonous diet, and their rations this coming winter will be as low as or lower than they have been at any time since the outbreak of war. Yet four w'eeks ago members of all parties and, all sections of the British House of Commons in the course of that debate were found urging the government, not only to use its influence to secure the maintenance and, if possible, an increase in food exports from North America to the continent of Europe, but also, if necessary, still further to deplete its own stocks and even reduce the rations in order to avert or lessen the extent of the appalling tragedy that is unfolding itself in Europe to-day.
The government feels that it will have the support of all groups in this house, and all sections of the Canadian people, in maintaining those policies which will make it possible for us to continue our best endeavours to meet the perilous situation which confronts Europe as winter sets in. With all considerations in mind, it is the government's intention to continue its rationing programme until such time as it may feel justified in adopting other measures.
. CIVIL SERVICE



WAP. DUTIES SUPPLEMENTS-WAGES AND SALARIES CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax):	Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to address a question to the government, more particularly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to whom I sent an enlarged note on the subject of this inquiry. As a business man operating retail stores I have received many inquiries. I hold in my hand some of the reports which have appeared during the past week about the payment of war duties supplements to civil servants. Many people are interpreting these to indicate that the government itself is not following the principle of wage and salary control-
Some hon, MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. ISNOR:: -that it is imposing on private employers.

Civil Service-War Supplements


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would remind the hon.
member that when a question is put to a minister, it should not give information to the house but rather should seek to obtain information from the minister.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: My question can be put in
three words:	Is this correct?


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has received some reports of misunderstanding about this matter, and he anticipated this question. We are grateful to the hon. member for Halifax foT sending it to us ahead of time. I should like to read a statement on behalf of the minister who at the present time is out of the city.
As a result of the publications during the past .week of the lists of those civil servants who received war duties supplements, and of incomplete expositions in the press of their nature and purpose, including, I may add, a tendency to use the short and convenient word "bonus" in describing them, many people have jumped to the conclusion that the government itself, as employer, has not observed the principles it kid down in the wartime wages control order and the wartime salaries order. Such a conclusion is wrong and is based on misunderstanding.
War duties supplements have been paid to civil servants instead of higher wages or salaries that would result from permanent promotions or reclassifications, and they are similar to the increased wage or salary rates which private business has been permitted to pay to employees who have been promoted or reclassified as a result of added responsibilities and increased duties.
Early in the war the government adopted the policy of making no permanent promotions or reclassifications except to fill vacancies due to death or retirement, or in quite exceptional circumstances, because it was felt that the abnormal conditions of war did not make possible a proper appraisal of permanent positions, and also because it was felt that civil servants could reasonably be expected to shoulder some additional duties without extra pay. Later, after the wage control and salaries orders had been introduced and it was evident that the war would last some years longer, it was realized that civil servants who were doing substantially more difficult and important work than that appropriate to their salaries should get some increase in pay even though they were not permanently promoted or reclassified. War duties supplements were introduced to meet this need, and under regulations particularly designed to ensure that they would be
granted only in circumstances which would entitle increases to be paid to private employees under the wage or salary orders.
More specifically it has been the policy, and required under our regulations, that war duties supplements be awarded only to those civil servants who have been given "added duties and increased responsibilities," and in amounts warranted by these. They have been comparable with increased salaries for promotions permitted under paragraph 3 of the salaries order or with increases in war industry permitted under paragraph 5 (a) (iii) of that order. They are comparable with the increases permitted under the wages order, without application to war labour boards, which result from the promotion or reclassification of employees from one job classification to another.
Indeed, the need to follow closely the principles applied to private business under our stabilization policy has brought us under criticism from civil servants who accuse us of discrimination in not granting these supplements more widely. Naturally, many persons who have done more work, or worked longer hours, or whose work has been of real importance in the war, feel that their efforts and importance should be recognized in higher pay. But we could not follow a general practice of that kind without endangering our stabilization programme if the same principles were permitted to apply in private business. Consequently we have had to restrict the payment of supplements to those who have in fact been given additional duties and increased responsibilities, not simply a greater amount of work, and who would therefore, under normal circumstances, have merited promotion, or, in the technical parlance of the civil service, reclassification.



BRITISH IMPORT LICENCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Trade and Commerce intend to make a statement in regard to the question I asked yesterday?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to advise the house that at the very earliest opportunity I intend to make a statement on the question raised by the hon. member for Peterborough West, which is attracting a great deal of attention not only in the house but throughout Canada generally. More completely to inform the house upon the situation, certain communications are being carried on, and just as soon
British Import Licenses

as they can be brought to finality I propose to make a statement to the house. In the meantime I want to assure the hon. member and the house generally that this question is receiving the very closest and most earnest attention of the government.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask regarding standing order 81, which reads as follows:
A prorogation of^ the house shall not have the effect of nullifying an order or address of the house for returns or papers, but all papers and returns ordered at one session of the house, if not complied with during the session, should be brought down during the following session, without renewal of the order.
On March 21 last the following question was passed as an order for a return:
By Mr. Pouliot:	Since the beginning of the
war, how much was paid each year by the dominion government and any dominion board, commission and corporation and any other dominion agency to:
1.	The law firm of Borden, Elliot, Sankey and Kelley, barristers and solicitors, of the city of Toronto?
2.	The following partners of the above-mentioned firm: (a) H. Borden. K.C.; (b) B. Y. Elliot, K.C.;	(c) R. H. Sankey, K.C.; (d)
W. A. G. Kelley; (e) J. T. Johnson; (f) I. G. Wahn; (g) A. D. McAlpine, and (h) Hon. C. P. McTague, K.C.?
There were two or three other similar orders for returns passed that day or the day after, and I hope that I shall have the returns soon.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I say to my hon. friend that, as he is no doubt aware, the rule he has just read applies to prorogation. It does not apply to dissolution. A dissolution of one parliament ends all its proceedings.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of t'he day:
Mr. ANGUS MaeINNIS (Vancouver East): May I ask the Minister of Labour if his department has taken or is contemplating any further action to try to effect a settlement in the Ford dispute?
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: My hon, friend can rest assured that we will not give up until the last whistle blows. Anything and everything that can be done to bring that dispute to a 
good conclusion will be done. As a matter of fact I am meeting somebody this afternoon at four o'clock in connection with the dispute. I was informed this morning, although I have not been able to check it, that the power house will be opened in the near future.



NATIONAL&quot; EMERGENCY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of bill No. 15, to confer certain powers upon the governor in council during the national emergency following the war.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that much need be said in support of the motion that this bill now be read a second time, in other words that the principle of the bill be adopted. Its introduction was forecast in the speech from the throne in the following words:
You will be asked to approve a measure to extend certain specified emergency powers to meet emergency conditions in the period of reconstruction.
The necessity for such a bill was then the subject of extended debate, when the house was being moved into committee by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to consider his resolution to appropriate $1,365,000,000 for war purposes, demobilization, promotion of trade and industry, and so forth, I spoke on the subject at some length on October 2 last and I shall endeavour to avoid repeating much of what I said at that time.
The adoption of the motion for second-reading of the bill will mean two things, two very important things, both matters of principle : one, that in the opinion of this house the circumstances in which Canada as a whole finds herself during this period of transition to normal from the exceptional conditions existing during the war are still such as to give some matters comprised within the subjects enumerated in section 92 of the British North America Act aspects of such paramount significance as to take them outside the sphere of that section; two, that those circumstances are such that certain legislative powers of parliament delegated by parliament to the government under the War Measures Act during the period of the war should continue to be exercisable by the governor in council in the expeditious manner required by emergency conditions instead of having to be exercised by parliament itself in the unhurried way in which it is usual and proper to deal in the houses of parliament with legislation intended to be of a permanent character.

National Emergency
The first principle has to do with the temporary distribution of the legislative powers as between parliament and the- provincial legislatures. The second principle deals with the distribution of legislative functions as between parliament and the governor in council in connection with temporary emergency conditions. These are two quite different questions, but both fall to be decided as a consequence of the view which it may be proper to take of the same set of facts. Are we still in a condition of national emergency?
The legal principles which have to be applied are very clearly stated by the authoritative decision of the privy council in the Fort Frances case. Perhaps I may be permitted to call the attention of hon. members to some short sentences from that decision. Hon. members will remember that it was a decision rendered in 1923 in connection with the powers of a paper controller-
Mr. COLDWELL:: Is that the case known as the Free Press case?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes-Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Company v. The Manitoba Free Press Company:
In the event of war, when the national life may require for its preservation the employment of very exceptional means, the provision of peace,, order and good government for the country as a whole may involve effort on behalf of the whole nation, in which the interests of individuals may have to be subordinated to that of the community in a fashion which requires section 91 to be interpreted as providing for such an emergency. The general control of property and civil rights for normal purposes remains with the provincial legislatures. But questions may arise by reason of the special circumstances of the national emergency which concern nothing short of the peace, order and good government of Canada as a whole.
And a little further down:
It may be, for example, impossible to deal adequately with the new questions which arise without the imposition of special regulations on trade and commerce of a kind that only the situation created by the emergency places within the competency of the dominion parliament. It is proprietary and civil rights in new relations which they do not present in normal times, that have to be dealt with.
And again:
The kind of power adequate for dealing with them is only to be found in that part of the constitution which establishes power in the state as a whole. For it is not one that can be reliably provided for by depending on collective action of the legislatures of the individual provinces agreeing for the purpose.
And again:
Where an exact line of demarcation will lie in such cases it may not be easy to lay down a priori, nor is it necessary. For in the solution of the problem regard must be had to the broadened field covered, in case of exceptional necessity, by the language of section 91, in which the interests of the dominion generally are protected. As to these interests the dominion government, which in its parliament represents the people as a whole, must be deemed to be left with considerable freedom to judge.
The other point which arises is whether such exceptional necessity as must be taken to have existed when the war broke out, and almost of necessity for some period subsequent to its outbreak, continued through the whole of the time within which the questions in the present case arose.
When war has broken out it may be requisite to make special provision to ensure the maintenance of law and order in a country, even when it is in no immediate danger of invasion. Steps may have to be taken to ensure supplies and to avoid shortage, and the effect of the economic and other disturbance occasioned originally by the war may thus continue for some time after it is terminated. The question of the extent to which provision for circumstances such as these may have to be maintained is one on which a court of law is loath to enter. No authority other than the central government-
And ,of course here it means the government which in its parliament represents the people as a whole.
-is in a position to deal with a problem which is essentially one of statesmanship.
It is that problem of statesmanship which is before the house at this time. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a problem of a party or of partisanship, though every time the necessity arises to do something of this kind, no matter which party is in power, is always an occasion for the parties opposed to the government to reaffirm in the strongest possible terms their attachment to the constitutional processes of parliament. I think it is quite proper that they should be affirmed. No one deplores more than I do that at times there should be occasions when it is necessary and inevitable to ask parliament to delegate some of its legislative powers to a government in which it is willing to express and to maintain its confidence. It is unfortunate that that should be so, but it is nevertheless a fact; and it is, when the circumstances arise, a question of statesmanship as to whether or not that shall be done, whether or not the circumstances are such that it i3 requisite for the safety of the state as a whole that it be done.
As I said before, the matter was the subject of extended debate when the resolution of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) appropriating in bulk $1,365 million was being discussed at the end of September and early in Ootober, and that was a similar occasion. It is not in accord with traditional constitutional practice that moneys should be placed in bulk by parliament at the disposal of the executive without specific appropriation in a schedule of estimates called and indivdually considered.
National Emergency

But under certain conditions it is inevitable that that be done, and it was done each year during the period of active hostilities and it is being done again at this session, of parliament. When war breaks out, the War Measures Act, which was passed in 1914 and which is now chapter 206 of the revised statutes of 1927, contains a delegation of legislative powers to foe exercised by the governor in council as circumstances may require. The statute provides that the issue of a proclamation declaring that a state of war exists is conclusive and that slate of war is deemed to exist until another proclamation declares that it has come to an end, and technically that might be sufficient to enable the governor in council to carry on for a protracted period. But it was the intention of that War Measures Act, I submit, to delegate these extraordinary powers to the governor in council for the purpose of making such orders and regulations as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion, or insurrection deem necessary or advisable for the security, peace, order and welfare^of Canada.
I believe it was intended to delegate these powers for the purpose of enabling the governor in	council	to	take such	expeditious
measures as might be required to secure the safety of the state against the immediate dangers resulting from a state of war; and though it might be technically correct, it would not be within the general intent, of that statute that the governor in council exercise under that statute extraordinary powers to protect the safety of the state against dangers arising out of the economic disturbance consequent upon war.
On the	former	occasion that	aspect	wasgone into	and it	was	stated by	many	hon.members that such was their view. Resolutions or recommendations or reports submitted to the Canadian Bar association were invoked to show that that had been the view of a committee of the Canadian Bar association, and	there were	specifically	cited	portions of that report which I venture to read again, because the argument I wish to submit is strengthened by the language used there, to which I could find none preferable. I quote from page 690 of Hansard:1.	Continuation of controls after the war. There appear to be many who believe that some measure of control, specially in relation to ceiling prices, should be had and continued for some time after the war as a transit and adjustment period policy. Otherwise prices might jump suddenly to extreme limits, and bring a chaotic situation.2.	Should the necessary controls be continued under the War Measures Act?

It is expected by some, feared by others, that the federal government, for such controls as may appear necessary to maintain, will continue to rely on the authority of the War Measures Act.
And the view was expressed that that should not be done.
Your committee recommend that the proclamation declaring that the war no longer exists be issued as soon as the war with the enemy is really at an end according to the established principles of international law.
Let us make the distinction here between the war emergency itself, which is the fact of a state of war, an an economic emergency, which, though a consequence following the war, is not the war emergency. It may be an economic emergency. The calamity against which we have to protect the nation is not the war itself, or a consequential defeat of our arms, or the invasion by the enemy, but is an economic state of affairs that may be most serious, and that may. or may not be adequately coped with by the provinces. If the federal administration feel that, after the war, and in relation to such economic conditions of the country, a state of emergency exists, of a most serious character, and national in scope, let them face the issue directly and submit to .parliament a new law affirming the existence or the apprehension and determining the exact nature of the new emergency.
That is what had been decided even before this report was made. At the time I exhibited to the members of the house this bill which I had received from the printers on August 2S last designed for the purpose of submitting to the house the belief of the government that a state of national emergency existed, and asking the house to pass up<*n that question and declare whether or not it shared the view that there still existed a national emergency which givps to some of the matters that normally fall within the provisions of section 92 of the British North America Act, aspects which are not proprietary and civil rights in their normal acceptation but which are something more vital to the safety and well being of the state as a whole.
Hon. members will recall that at that time I quoted a sentence or two from a speech which had been delivered by the leader of the opposition in April of this year and which I placed on Hansard at page 690. I will not read it. again to the house but will sim.ply paraphrase it. The statement was that it would be dangerous to cut off all at once the controls that were found to be necessary' during the war period; that they constituted something which would have to be unwound carefully and according to careful planning.
Once again I deplore that this has to be so; but if it is so, neither the government nor parliament would be discharging its responsibility to the Canadian nation if it did not adopt appropriate measures to cope with the situation. And it is not only in this country that such a situation has arisen. Hon. mem-

National Emergency
bers doubtless know that there has been recently adopted by the parliament of. the United Kingdom a bill dealing with supplies and services, and transitional powers to continue for a period of five years the delegation to His Majesty in council in respect of regulations which had been made for the purpose of meeting conditions arising out of the war.
Hon. members know that the parliament of the United Kingdom adopted in 1939 the Emergency Powers Defence Act, which provided that:	*
Subject to the provisions of this section, His Majesty may by order in council, make such regulations ... as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.
This bill of 1939 had been passed foir a period of two years subject to its being extended from year to year if an address were presented to His Majesty in that behalf by each house < of parliament. The last extension by address would have expired on August 24. 1945, and the coalition government. had introduced a transitory powers bill for a period of two years. Before the resignation of the non-Conservative members from the coalition government, it had not been possible to have the bill considered and passed.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: The country was still at war.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. The caretaker government modified the project and provided for a bill that would extend it for a period of six months, to February 24, 1946. But after the general election and the constitution of the new government, a new bill was introduced to enable His Majesty in council to exercise those extraordinary powers for a period of five years. The bill was the subject of animated debate in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, as one would naturally anticipate it would be; because I have always felt that there no people were more careful of the preservation of their constitutional rights and the traditional functions of parliament than the British people.
The criticism of the bill seems to have been predicated on its duration, not on its principle. I understand that Mr. Eden declared in the debate that had it been restricted, as was the original bill, to a period of two years, opposition would not have been raised against it. Here the situation is different. Of course in the United Kingdom
they have only one of the two questions facing them which I mentioned in opening my remarks. They have no problem of distributing the legislative powers as between themselves and any other authority. They have only the .problem of distributing the legislative functions as between parliament and His Majesty in council. Here we have the other problem, which is a serious one. On Monday we are to' resupie the deliberations of the dominion-provincial conference. This parliament and this government have a responsibility to respect in its terms and in its spirit the provisions of the constitution. I think that only a declaration of this parliament will be sufficiently impressive upon the Canadian people to be accepted as to whether, or not there exists a condition which gives to some of the things normally within provincial jurisdiction aspects which require that they be dealt with in another sphere in the national interest. That is a matter upon which each member of this house will have his responsibility to assume by his vote upon the principle of this bill, because the adoption of the motion for second reading would imply that in the opinion of this house there exists a situation in which some matters which would normally be of provincial jurisdiction, have to be dealt with by a central authority, by the state as a whole, through this parliament representing the peopfe as a whole. This is a serious matter, one not to be passed upon lightly, and not to be passed upon without good and sufficient reasons.
On a former occasion I suggested that I did not think there was any member of this house who would have been prepared, since the cessation of active hostilities, to take the responsibility of declaring that the war had come to an end and that everything which had been done under the War Measures Act had ceased to be operative. I suggested to lion, members on that former occasion that a very interesting reference book on economic controls had been placed before the dominion-provincial conference, in which the situation was discussed and in which the reasons for its appearing to be necessary .to maintain for a time some measure of control, and to de'control gradually, were set out. I hope that hon. members on that former occasion that sidering the thirty double-column pages of that interesting reference book. I am not going to read it into the record at this time; I am merely going to summarize it and to state it is my view that if all the remaining controls were removed to-day the consequences would be immediate, drastic and far-reaching. Prices would rise sharply; the cost of living would move steeply .upward: exist-
National Emergency

ing shortages in food, housing accommodation and clothing, which are the three most important items in living costs, are such that sharp price advances would appear to be inevitable. The immediate price increases resulting from the hungry market and the removal of subsidies on such key commodities as milk, bread, butter, cotton textiles, would accumulate rapidly as workers sought to protect themselves through wage increases, as producers raised their prices in response to rising wages and material costs, as buyers scrambled for goods and shelter to protect their individual needs, and as the speculative tendency gained momentum. It would be difficult to say how high the cost of living would go before the inevitable collapse. At first, higher prices in the United States and in other countries would stimulate increases here. Later perhaps price levels of the United States, if that country maintained some measure of control, might provide a ceiling.
Nevertheless it seems, to me clear that the increase in the Canadian cost of living before the recession set in would be very substantial, and the consequences of this would appear to be serious. The weaker producer groups in the community would be unable to increase their incomes to compensate for the higher cost of living. Savings of the whole Canadian people would depreciate. The returned service man would get poor value for his gratuity and reestablishment grant. Dependents of those fighting men who, unfortunately, did not return, would face serious privations. Pensioners and others who have made provision for their old age, through life insurance or other means, would find that that provision would be imperilled and their security materially lessened. Many citizens would not get a fair share of the necessities now rationed, and those who did would do so only at a very substantially increased cost. And above all our post-war objectives would be lost or indefinitely postponed in the atmosphere of confusion, bitterness and class conflict that would certainly ensue. Orderly reconversion to a high level of peace-time employment would not be possible .under such circumstances.
It may be said that, according to correct international principles, the war is still continuing-and that is so. We still have troops in the occupational forces. But the adoption of measures designed to cope with economic conditions, under the War Measures Act, in the manner in which it is drawn, would not appear to be desirable. The War Measures Act was enacted for the purpose of protecting against the immediate consequences of the state of war; and it would not appear to be proper to try, to use the technical terms of 
that act to deal with matters which were not intended to be included by the parliament which sat when the terms of the act were drawn.
It is submitted to the house that it is preferable to face the situation. The emergency which now exists overlaps the war emergency, and is a consequence of that war emergency, but is not in itself a part of the war emergency with which it was intended the War Measures Act should deal. I would not be prepared to say how far the courts would go in holding that measures adopted now were for the purposes envisaged by the War Measures Act, though technically the act is still in force and still provides a delegation of powers therein contained. It must be remembered that parliament can delegate only that which is within its jurisdiction; and one of the important questions for the consideration of the house is this question of fact: Is it or is it not true that some matters normally of provincial jurisdiction have aspects at this time which are other than their normal aspects as dealt with in the subsections of section 92 of the British North America Act?
I think hll hon. members will agree that it is necessary that those controls which were established during the war period should not be abrogated at one fell swoop. I mention bread, milk, butter, the prices of which have been controlled by the payment of subsidies. If these controls were removed the prices would jump to much higher levels, and it would not be possible to maintain wage controls. The whole of these controls are integrated, and each part is necessary to the harmonious functioning of the whole system. A large number of the controls have already been removed, and all are under active consideration by the respective departments which are administering the regulations made under the War Measures Act. The Department of Justice is in the fortunate position of having been able to recommend the repeal of practically all that had to be administered by its officials. Neatly all the defence of Canada regulations have been repealed, and those small portions which remain to deal with such matters as prisoners of war and with the troublesome question of residents of Canada of the Japanese race, et cetera, and are constantly under active consideration for the purpose of effecting restriction to the greatest possible extent.
The bill as drawn will of course be subject to very careful scrutiny, as to each of its sections, when it is considered in committee. This is not the time to discuss the extent to which its provisions go. WThen the bill has reached the committee stage I expect to be

National Emergency
able, to supply much information which will be required by hon. members. At this time however there are only the two questions I mentioned in my opening observations which require consideration. Are we still in a condition of national emergency such as to affect the distribution of legislative powers between the dominion and the provinces, and, as a practical proposition, such as to affect what should be the distribution of legislative functions as between parliament and the governor-in-council?
Though active hostilities have ceased since V-J day, I would ask hon. members to bear in mind what took place after the first great war. To refresh their memories I would point out that the cost of living index in November, 1918, showed' an increase of 54 per cent above that of 1914, and in July 1920 it showed1 an increase of 92 per cent above 1914. The wholesale price index in November, 1918, showed an increase of 100 per cent above 1914, and in May, 1920, showTed an increase of 155 per cent over 1914. It will be seen that the economic consequences of the disturbance brought about by war conditions were more serious following the cessation of hostilities than they were during the period of hostilities. That is something which might very well be anticipated as likely to happen again- and with increased violence this time, because the amount of purchasing power which has been distributed and saved by the Canadian people is very much larger than it was in 1918, and the shortages of essential supplies, housing and so forth appear to be greater now than they were at the end of the other war.
I submit, to the house that without in any way departing from its attachments to the traditional constitutional practices of a free parliament, there is a situation which requires to be dealt with in an extraordinary way, and for that purpose there is required the extension of- some emergency powers. This bill provides that it shall be in operation for no more- than one year, unless before its expiry the houses of parliament by an address request that it be extended for a further period. That is not only because we are more modest than the government of the United Kingdom; it is because we think it is necessary that there be frequent consideration by parliament of the real situation as it exists, and that the only safeguard for the kind of legislation which was found to be necessary during the war, and which overrides the ordinary aspects of property and civil rights, would be a declaration, not by the government but by parliament, representing the nation as a whole, that parliament considers that that situation
still exists. And there should be at periods not exceeding one year a review by parliament of the situation. No other declaration would comply with the language used by the privy council as a decision of statesmanship. The courts will be loath to interfere, only if it is made by a parliament representing the nation as a whole after due consideration of all the factors and the consequences involved.
I submit that the principle of this bill should be adopted, and I suggest that as expeditiously as may be convenient, we should get to the committee stage so that we may determine there the' extent to which emergency powers should be provided for at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, first may I say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) that I followed with much interest his remarks in regard to this bill. It was an address delivered without any suggestion of partisanship, and in what I have to say I intend to follow a similar course.
May I say at the outset that I felt that at times the minister was struggling as he endeavoured to explain why it was necessary for the government to ask for the extensive powers that are requested in this 'bill. He expressed the opinion that the principle to be decided on second reading was this: First, is there an emergency? Second, by reason of that emergency should certain powers that ordinarily rest in the legislatures of the provinces be allocated to the dominion for a period of one year?
I found myself in agreement with him when he stated that certain controls were necessary, and when he referred particularly to the necessity of controlling prices and goods in short supply in order to assure a fair distribution of scarcity. But I draw the attention of the house to the fact that while the government asks that certain controls be continued, the government through the minister does not designate what those controls are to be. The minister quoted with approval a reference in the speech from the throne wherein the governor general used these words:
You will be asked to approve a measure to extend certain specified emergency powers to meet emergency conditions in the period of reconstruction.
Mr- LALONDE: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that he thinks the minister should have given a list of controls?
Mf- DIEFENBAKER: If the hon. gentleman will permit, I should like to follow through my argument. I want to know what controls are being asked for. I do. not want
National Emergency

to be misunderstood, because I think the question is a proper one; but at the moment I was leading up to the point I wished to make. When the minister stated that there was a principle at stake in this bill, the only control he referred to was a control with reference to prices. In order to bolster up his argument he went back to the prices that prevailed during the inflation days following the last war. He says that no reference should be made to the details of the bill. I contend that parliament, in a desire to assure that there shall be a fair distribution, of scarcity and that the dangers of inflation shall be prevented, will be in general agreement provided that specific measures are brought, before it. What the government in fact is doing under the guise of this bill is to introduce a measure which goes farther than any other ever introduced in this parliament or any other parliament in the empire, and which far exceeds the powers asked for by the government of the United Kingdom within the last six or seven weeks, and it need hardly be mentioned that in that country there is in power ft Labour government- which intends to change the whole economic system and bring into effect socialism by the socialization of banks, coal mines and other great industries.
Let me point out that the powers being asked for in the bill that are objected to are not the powers that were referred to by my learned and hon. friend; they are powers that cover everything that any province could possibly do under its constitutional powers, as well as everything that parliament can do. If, as the minister says, all the government is asking for is the power to impose certain controls, I say to them: Bring in a measure to that effect and tell us how they are going to operate. The government should not be permitted through a measure conferring upon them general powers, to ask for the powers that are vested in them by this legislation.
Only the other day the Minister of Finance enunciated a proposition with regard to cabinet government which was a return to the days of Charles I. It was of interest to me to note that in the quotation the minister gave at the end of his remarks he indicated that he had been reading of the period of Charles I and Charles II. Here is what this government is asking for. It is asking parliament to delegate to the governor in council the following powers: First, all the powers under the War Measures Act as it exists to-day. Then the bill says this:
and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms-*'
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
In other words the War Measures Act does not give the government sufficient powers. It goes on:
-it is hereby declared that the powers of the governor in council extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated.
Let me refer to those subjects:
(a) production, manufacture, trading, exportation and importation.
Everything under the sun that business or agriculture could do in Canada is covered by that. And the powers asked for are over and above those contained in the War Measures Act is contained in that paragraph. Then "(b) foreign exchange." I am not going to argue about .that, realizing the necessities of the moment and the agreements among the united nations. Then "(c) transportation by air, road, rail or water." If the only control the government wants is the control over prices, as has been stated, why ask for control over transportation by air, road, rail or water? What is the purpose of that? Then, the next:
(d)	supply and distribution of goods and services, including the fixing of prices;
(e)	employment, including salaries and wages.
These are the only two controls to which the minister made reference. Next (f):
(f)	appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property and of the use thereof, including the control of rentals and occupation.
Why does this government ask for the power of forfeiture of property? If the only control that is necessary is one over prices in order to ensure a fair distribution of goods in scarcity, and to prevent inflation, I ask again, why does the government ask for the power of forfeiture? Little wonder that the minister was somewhat apologetic when he stated how difficult it was to come before parliament and ask that these undemocratic powers be vested in the governor in council. I am pleased with what the government did in regard to the legislation in dispute in the province of Saskacthewan, in that it has left that legislation to the courts. That is democratic ; it is proper; it is the course, I say with deference, that should have been followed. But under this act it asks for powers that no socialist government taking power in this country could ever surpass; in fact, a socialist government could with much fewer powers change the entire economic system of this country'.
I go on to the next:
(g)	entry into Canada, exclusion and deportation, and revocation of nationality.
Sir, what has that to do with controls over prices and the assurance that everyone shall receive a fair share under rationing and at.

National Emergency
reasonable prices? This paragraph is a denial of the rights of British citizenship and it is asked for and placed in a measure introduced by a government which has said over and over again that irrespective of one's racial origin British citizenship means something. Instead of the government bringing in a bill to revoke British citizenship, it brings it in by the back door by giving power to the governor in council to deport anybody, no matter how many generations he may have lived in this country. Sir, there is more in this paragraph (g) than the principle to which the hon. Minister of Justice referred.
And then finally:
(h)	imposition and recovery, in connection with any scheme of control contained in or authorized by orders and regulations, of charges payable to the Receiver General of Canada or into such fund or account as may be ordered.
There may be an explanation of that. But it is a comprehensive section of this bill which the government asks parliament ;to approve.
I shall refer later to some other sections of the bill, which in effect would constitute an abnegation by parliament of its rights.
I said at the beginning that I accept the need for certain controls. But why is the government, in taking this means of continuing these controls, adding powers which by no stretch of the imagination are capable of being used for the purposes indicated by the minister in his speech? In moving the second reading of the bill the minister on behalf of the government is asking us to say that there is a national emergency. Here let me refer for a moment to the declaration of the committee of the Canadian Bar association, which the minister quoted with approval. Let me quote one part of it with approval-nay, all of it, in fact:
Let them face the issue directly and submit to parliament a new law affirming the existence or the apprehension and determining the exact nature of the new emergency.
I ask the minister, when he replies, to tell us where in the speech he delivered he determined the exact emergency that requires the vesting in the governor in council of control over production, manufacture, trading, exportation and importation; transportation by air, road, rail or water; appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property; entry into Canada, exclusion and deportation, and revocation of nationality.
We accept the principle of the need of some controls being continued as enunciated by the minister; we accept it with approval. But we say to the government, bring in your bill defining in precise terms what the nature of the control is to be, and in respect of what 47696-155
matters. I realize that in a time of war it is axiomatic that the survival of the state is paramount; the continuance of democratic symbolism is of lesser importance. But I also say this, that subject to the immediate needs and necessities which should be determined and placed before parliament, unnecessary abridgments of undemocratic rights must end with the return of peace.
This bill is epoch making. If it become law it makes the governor in council allpowerful for a period of one year, without regard to the desires of parliament. Sir, parliament has been a casualty of this war, and it must not remain so. Under the proposals contained in this bill as drafted the only right which parliament will possess will be the right to determine supply. It not only grants to the governor in council the powers to which I have referred, but it gives the governor in council power to delegate them to someone else. In support of that contention I refer to section 3, subsection (1):
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existence-
The authority for delegation is contained in the words, "and authorize such acts and things." Parliament will be supplanted for one year, and the bureaucracy which this country has built up during the rperiod of the war is perpetuated.
Look at the powers asked for. The minister would not let members look at them; we are just to look at the preamble and ithen we are to vote on a question of principle. I say to you, sir, without fear of contra

diction that section 3, coupled with the preamble, contains a comprehensive and allinclusive dictionary of the powers which were or could have been in the contemplation of the draftsman. There is not a field of economic welfare, not a field of business, not a field of life itself in all its ramifications that the governor in council will not have absolute power over, as will those to whom he will delegate the power. It goes beyond anything suggested in the speech from the throne of September 6, the words of which, I repeat, are these:
You will be asked to approve a measure to extend certain specified emergency powers to meet emergency conditions in the period of reconstruction.
Is this emergency such that there is no power under the sun which the government will not need?	_
The governor general in his speech said "certain specified powers". The government introduces a bill with no specification, but simply an enunciation of all the powers which



RET I SET) EDITION

[Stage Direction]
National Emergency
[Stage Direction]
can be contemplated under the War Measures Act and, "without restricting the generality of the foregoing," the other additional powers. What parliament is being asked under this bill as it stands is to give the governor in council a blank cheque of power authorizing the governor in council or those delegated by him to exercise all the powers under the War Measures Act and all the additional powers comprised in scetion 3, subsection 1. This bill pretends to place the War Measures Act in peace-time garb, whereas in point of fact it clothes the governor in council with greater powers than ever before.
Parliament ceased to exist, legislatively speaking, during the period of the war. The legislation in the main was passed by boards and controls and deputy ministers under the War Measures Act. There are six volumes of these acts and regulations. Boards were multiplied on every hand, new agencies were created, and every board and every agency became a little parliament of its own having the right to legislative authority.
The first principle as I apprehend it that we must follow in this house is to assure a fair distribution of goods; to take measures necessary to prevent inflation; to give private enterprise an opportunity to do a job for this country a's it did during the period of the war, both in industry and in agriculture. The people of this country want jobs, and they expect parliament to create an atmosphere of confidence in government instead of the uncrntainty that now prevails. No man knows what the next control is going to be, or the next interpretation of controls already effected.
I believe that an end must be put to the uncertainty of having 'one board giving the green light to business and to industry, and another, almost at the same time, giving the red light. I believe in the maintenance of economic equilibrium, but economic equilibrium cannot be secured or maintained by the establishment of administrative anarchy under a bill such as the one now before us.
The minister mentioned Great Britain, and spoke of the powers parliament had delegated to the executive for a period of five years. Powers were granted, but parliament was left in control by a provision of the British act that any orders in council passed under that act should be laid on the table of the house for a period of forty days, during which any member of parliament may on motion ask parliament to revoke or repudiate or discharge the order in question. There is no such power here. Why was not that power included if it was not intended that absolute power without recourse to parliament was to be exercised

on the part of the governor in council? The only provision in that regard is contained in section 3, 'subsection 4:
Every order in council made under this act shall be laid before parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
No provision such as is made in Great Britain, where a socialist government, carrying out its great programme as it sees it, took steps to see to it that parliament should have the right to review at any time the acts of the king- in council. Re-read the powers to be conferred under this bill. If the government exercise these powers it will be but a short step from regulation of business by government to government in business. I believe that the government has a place in the control of business to assure fairness and square dealing and to prevent cartels, and it has a place too in certain monopolies-electricity and the like. But, sir, no country can exist one-half private business and one-half government enterprise, each in competition with the other in the field of business and commerce. If another government came into power to-morrow all the powers which are conferred permit of just that.
Now I come to section 5, for the description of which it is difficult to find suitable words. How many hon. members in this house realize the import of that section?
The orders and regulations made under the War Measures Act or pursuant to authority created under the said act in .force immediately before the day this section comes into force shall, except for the purposes of subsection 4 of section 3 of this act-[DOT]
That is, those already revoked.
-be deemed to be reenacted on that day under this act or pursuant to authority created under this act.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The reference is not to those already revoked; that is already provided for. The reference there is to the requirement to table. They have already been published.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER.: The correction is properly made. I thank the minister for it. That section means that all the orders in council that have been passed since 1939 will, on the day that this bill becomes law, be deemed to have been enacted by parliament and to be thereafter in effect./. The minister said that the government was proceeding rapidly in the matter of decontrols. Well, here is the record. The promise in May and June, during the election campaign, was that unnecessary controls were to be removed, and the Minister of Reconstruction made the Statement in one of his speeches as reported in the press that eighty per cent would be removed immediately after the end of hostilities in Japan.

National Emergency
I do not believe in wholesale decontrol. I realize that there must be a degree of gradualness. In this regard the minister saw fit to compare Canada with Great Britain. Let us compare them, then, from the point of view of the speed with which the two countries have respectively decontrolled. In Canada, between V-E day and October 22, 1945, the total number of orders in council that had been dealt with, which had been passed under the War Measures Act, were: revoked, 13; revoked in part, 5. Since V-J day there have been revoked in their entirety, 21 and revoked in part, 5.
In Great Britain the home secretary, when introducing the measure in the House of Commons on October 10, pointed out that as far as possible the government to which he belonged would ensure that parliament maintained control over controls and that orders in council would be revoked with dispatch, particularly those that were undemocratic. This is what he said-as reported in the press-speaking in the House of Commons:
The government intends only to retain those war-time powers which were desirable in the public interest during the period of transition from war to peace.
The government of the United Kingdom do not w-ant ail the powers this government is asking for, and in the main, are keeping the power to control prices and to make sure that all will receive a fair distribution. He goes on:
' On May 8, V-E day, there were in existence 342 defence general regulations and 345 other regulations; a total of 687. On the next day the present Lord President of the Council, then the Home Secretary-
Mr. Morrison.
-announced the withdrawal of 84 of the general regulations and 95 others, a total of 179.
He then points out that since the Attlee government came into power it has Ween doing the same, and the result is that to-day the total number that has been reduced is 219 general regulations and 241 others, a total of 460. The only powers that Britain is retaining in its government are the powers that affect activities that must be continued during the period of transition if chaos is to be avoided.
What is the situation here under section 5? The total number of formal acts of the governor in council up to September 28 is 94,731 including 58,402 orders in council. These are orders in council that have been brought to light. How many are there that have not been brought to light? How many secret orders in council is this parliament asked to approve under section 5, making them law on and after the date on which this bill becomes law? Only the other day the 47G96-155i
Eldorado order in council was brought to light, two months after it had been .passed. The seamen's order, which denied a man the right to have counsel, and placed him in the position where he could1 be brought before a board and made to give evidence against himself and be sent to prison thereunder, came to light in the prosecution of an unfortunate in British Columbia.
Section 5 ratifies everything that the government has done under the War Measures Act and all the orders in council in effect on the date when this bill becomes law. If this bill had become law when it was first introduced, or two or three or four weeks afterwards, parliament by passing the measure would have been unwittingly approving the Eldorado order in council, although it was a secret order, however tyrannical its operation and however detrimentally it might have affected justice. I do not know how many orders in council -were passed under the War Measures Act, and neither does the minister, becuase he told me so in answer to a question some weeks ago. No one knows. The minister said it would require a careful examination over a considerable period to find out, first, those that were passed under the provisions of the War Measures Act, and second, those which, while not designating the War Measures Act as the parent, had nevertheless been in effect passed thereunder.
I repeat, under section 5 parliament is asked to give approval to orders in council passed amder the War Measures Act, sight unseen, in some cases unheard of by parliament. That section when it was introduced, had it been translated, into law; would have afforded the commissioner under Eldorado an opportunity to exercise tyrannical powers and would have denied anyone affected by this provision recourse to the courts,. because it would have been considered to have been passed by this parliament, and as the minister stated if parliament declares that there is an emergency the courts will accept a lawful emergent legislation passed in consequence, and cited in support of his contention the Fort Frances case.	.
Parliament should not be asked on second reading or on any other reading to approve and adopt as its own star chamber legislation which it does not know anything about, the production of which was denied-held back is possibly, a better way of putting it-and in respect of which the government refused or neglected for one month to answer questions I asked on October 5. Under the guise of giving support to certain controls we are asked to stand up manfully in this parliament and say to the government: We place
National Emergency
[Stage Direction]
our approval on everything that your controllers and ex-controllers, your boards, agencies or commissions have done under the War Measures Act whether we know of their existence or not. We are asked to say: We accept the orders in council upon which they acted. Surely, sir, never before was any parliament asked to do such a thing. Admitting the necessity of controls such as those to which 1 have referred, I ask why the government did not bring in a bill covering them specifically? Under the guise of bringing in certain controls we should not give to the governor in council a despotic power uncontrolled by parliament.
I should like to know this from the minister who drafted the bill: Were some of the bureaucrats who desire to hang on to the powers they have had during the period of the war consulted? Did they participate in the draftsmanship? Experience has shown, sir, that men who get unlimited power are not willing to release that power without a battle.
Under section 5 parliament is asked to approve orders in council under which democratic powers have been annihilated. And what is more-I could refer to them by name- under some of the orders in council which we are asked to approve, bureaucrats not only make the laws but they are also the judges of their own acts. Are we to approve those acts? Are we to be asked to approve what las been going on in this country, discrimin-ited in some cases against small businesses? That is what we are being asked to do. In Great Britain the government accepted suggestions from the members and carried them into effect. I suggest that this bill be submitted to a committee of the house with power to examine the controllers who will be affected by this particular bill and have them answer for what they have done, have them give an account of their stewardship before parliament perpetuates them in office under the provisions of section 5 of this measure.
I deny to the government the right to ask parliament to approve and accept secret orders in council which deny access to the courts; yes, and under which in some cases where gross unfairnesses were effected by tyrannical acts on the part of certain investigators and snoopers who went about this country inciting the commission of offences, and who have been imputing bad faith to honest people instead of excusing mistakes that were of small significance. I make that statement advisedly. In my own province an honest man was followed, and followed, and followed, and finally after a week's inducement he did what men sometimes do when given the opportunity of having a large amount

of money placed before them; he capitulated, and then he was prosecuted. Sir, it was never intended that justice should be administered as it was in that particular case-and it is not an exceptional one.
I deny the right of the government to ask parliament to perpetuate the general emergency as envisaged in paragraph 3, subsection 1, when all the minister establishes is an emergency in one or two fields. If the government do not intend to use these powers, why do they want them? Surely it cannot be argued that the government wants them only for decoration. Does the government contemplate that before parliament meets again in March, a matter of three months, they will need the power under this section to introduce a planned economy and industrial and agricultural regimentation such as is envisaged in certain of the provisions of this measure?
If the government do not intend to use these wide powers, why do they ask for them? Why do they not ask only for the powers that are necessary, instead of asking for a blanket authority to cover everything that can possibly be conjured up?
I refer also to the section dealing with entry into Canada. Does parliament intend to confer on the governor in council the right to say whether any particular person shall come into Canada? Why is this not done under the Immigration Act? What has the government in mind? Why is this power sought? For years I have heard people speak of how unfair certain legislation was in 1917. In 1945, with the war over, the government asks parliament supinely to place in its hands citizens of whatever racial origins they may be, British subjects or any others, with the right to deport them on the order of the governor in council or of some other person designated by him.
I come to another phase of the question. In 1941 I happened one day to be studying a statute, and I found that the advice I had given on it did not work out as it should. Well, lawyers sometimes find that. When I looked into the matter I found that the statute had been amended or suspended in part by an order in council. I placed- a question on the order paper. There were those who said: "Do you mean to tell me that statutes passed- by parliament are being amended, suspended1 or abrogated by order in council?" Finally I got an answer. It took a long time. A return fully an inch and a half thick was brought down, listing the statutes suspended or amended by order in council. Are we being asked under section 5 to approve in time of peace what has been done in this regard during the period of war?

National Emergency
Grote Stirling: We are.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) says that we are; and it is a fact. The government ask this parliament, after the end) of hostilities, to approve that statutes which are still in a position of being suspended, amended, or abrogated by orders in council shall be accepted by parliament as being amended, suspended or abrogated, as the case may be.
The preamble always gives the course and indicates what has been in the mind! of the ' draftsman. When one reads the preamble to this bill he can come to only one conclusion, and that is that the government intends that everything that has ever been done under the War Measures Act shall be approved, and that further powers shall be given.
Let me read part of this preamble:
And whereas it is necessary for the peace, order and good government of Canada that during the period of transition to normal from the exceptional conditions existing during the war, with the attendant dangers and responsibilities for the nation as a whole, acts and things done and authorized and regulations and orders made under the War Measures Act be continued in force.
As I said a while ago, we are asked to approve everything, the controllers have ever done under the provisions of the War Measures Act. We are asked to accept and adopt all the orders in council passed under that act. I always thought that knowledge was necessary before there could be approbation or approval.
Then the preamble goes on to say:
-and that the governor in council be authorized to do and authorize during the said period such further acts and things and make such further orders and regulations as he may by reason of the national emergency resulting from the war deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
That is the conclusion of the preamble. This bill as it now stands seems to have been carefully conceived and equally carefully drawn to assure that every hon. member who votes in favour of it will be placed in a position where it can be said of him that all criticism, of what has been done by controllers, officials and other war agencies, of the unfairnesses which in many instances have occurred, of the administrative despotism which has denied appeals to the courts, of the orders in council which have denied the rule of law and in some cases have permitted discrimination as between members of the same class, has been ffilse and empty, for on voting for the emergency powers bill you have approved and adopted them. On the other
hand, if one takes the other view some w'ill say to the people of Canada that those who so voted are against proper controls.
I say to the minister: Bring in a measure showing what you are going to do in maintaining necessary controls, and there is not a member in the house who in the interest of peace, order and good government in this country will not support you. But we want to know. We do not want the minister to come before the house and, after a cursory examination of the bill, say to us, "Well, there are a couple of things everybody is in favour of"-knowing that we are all in favour of those things, but at the same time failing to deal with the larger principle at stake, namely, that of whether in this country we shall perpetuate the despotism of a bureaucracy which to-day controls in every part of our country, which is endeavouring to maintain itself, and can so maintain itself only if it secures powers such as are comprised in this bill.	.	,
Now I come to an even more serious matter. The minister, when referring to the Fort Frances Pulp and Paper company case, quoted the following words from the judgment:
In the event of war, when the national life may require for its preservation the employment of very exceptional means, the provision of peace, order and good government for the country as a whole may involve effort on behalf of the whole nation in which the interests of individuals may have to be subordinated to that of the community in a fashion which requires section 91 to be interpreted as providing for such an emergency. The general control of property and civil rights for normal purposes remains with the provincial legislatures but questions may arise by reason of the special circumstances of the national emergency which concerned nothing short of the peace, order and good government of Canada as a whole.
If parliament passes this bill in its present form, we in parliament will be conferring upon the governor in council, or his delegated authorities, power to entrench on matters of provincial legislation-not in respect of a scattered few subjects, but in everything that can possibly came within the ambit of the powers of a provincial legislature. The government is asking for legislative jurisdiction over property and civil rights equal to that possessed by any legislature in this country. If passed in its present form, this measure places the dominion in a position where it can dominate the dominion-provincial conference. If we pass this bill in its present form, then for a period of one year parliament is informing every legislature in the dominion, "We have emasculated your powers, and turned them over to the governor in council. They comprise everything that a legislature can do,
National Emergency

every possible power a legislature could ever discharge, and we have placed all these powers under the control of the governor in council."
Have the provinces been consulted?


Mr. MacNICOL:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Are they agreeable to having all these powers turned .over to the governor in council, for a period of one year? And it is not only for a period of one year; if the minister is in a position to have the necessary majority behind him to secure an address passed by this house and the other house. I say that we in parliament have a right to know whether the provinces are willing to have their rights taken away for a period of more than a year or more, because if they have agreed thereto much of my argument in that connection would have no point. If they have not intimated to the dominion government that they do not mind what powers are taken from them, then the dominion-provincial conference next week will be nothing more than a formality, controlled by the fact that the provinces will be in a position where the dominion can do anything it pleases regardless of their wishes and desires.
There were certain other matters I had intended to discuss at this time, but I shall defer them to the committee stage. I would ask that, before second reading, this bill be sent to a committee, so that once and for all we would have an opportunity of seeing and hearing from some of the men who control the destinies of this country outside parliament, and who have legislated for us throughout the period of the war. There is no one in this house who could ask those men any questions that would be embarrassing. Find out from them at first hand what powers they need and what the economic situation is in certain particular phases wherein they believe necessary controls should be maintained.
While the minister talks about the danger of inflation and the necessity of controlling wages, across the line thg President of the United States avers that what must be guarded against is the possibility of disastrous deflation and that industry as a whole could raise wages substantially for a period of six months without increasing prices.
Let us find out what powers these controllers or officials intend to use, how they are going to use them, when they are going to use them and who they are going to use them on. If we in this parliament are to delegate the power that we are delegating to the governor in council and to those to whom he delegates the power, do we discharge our responsibilities in parliament in accepting as our legislation the thousands of orders in

council that are still in effect under the War Measures Act? Why should we put our imprimatur of approval on something we do not know anything about? Let the government bring before the committee the orders in council which have been passed under the War Measures Act, after the government finds out which ones were passed under that act. Bring them before the committee and let us examine them so that we shall know what they are and the import of each.
If we are going to delegate this absolute power that will make of this parliament for a period of one year a phantom, legislatively speaking, let there be a provision in this bill, as there is in Great Britain:
. . . and every order in council made under this act, shall be laid before parliament as soon as may be after it is made; and if either house of parliament, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such order in council, order or instrument is laid before it, resolves that it be annulled, it shall cease to have effect, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new order in council, order or other instrument.
Why have we not done that here? The minister spoke of the fact that in Great Britain the Labour government had taken this power for five years but, as the home secretary said, they intend to leave parliament to control; they are going to let members of parliament rise in their places and ask for the support of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, as the case may be, to revoke or repudiate orders in council passed under the emergent powers granted by parliament.
There is another control in the United Kingdom. The House of Lords has set up a committee to review' all these orders in council. I think the time has come when possibly the other place might well consider-and I say this with great deference'-looking over afid considering the mass of ordfers in council, this march of legislative enactments oyer a period of years. They should be examined so that it could be ascertained which of these orders in council impinge and infringe upon private rights, and are unnecessary.
Can there foe any objection to that? That committee would have before it the controllers and other officials who could come marching with their orders in council which they are asking us to perpetuate for a period of another year and possibly more. Great Britain protects the right of parliament by providing that orders in council may be set aside after being submitted to the scrutiny and examination of parliament. Do that and those who desire to perpetuate themselves in office under order in council legislation will be placed on the defensive. In my opinion this

National Emergency
bill as it now stands asks parliament to abdicate its right to control. The laws that are to be passed will affect every phase of the economic life of this country, as well as our national life, under the section dealing with nationality and deportation. Let us retain in parliament, with the coming of peace, the right to legislate. If that is given up, let us know how it is being exercised. Let us act, if I may use the expression, as the police of the regulations that are enacted.
The minister said that we have to continue controls, but in Great Britain to-day the trades union congress is demanding that controls over labour ,be relaxed. They contend that if these controls are perpetuated and continued they will prove a hindrance rather than a help to obtaining production and giving an assurance to men that they will be able to secure jobs. In this country we find that some of these controls curb industrial expansion. No one knows what will happen to-morrow. There can be jobs only if there is encouragement to industry to expand. There is no encouragement when industry does not know what the next law is to be that is passed behind closed doors by a controller who is not responsible to parliament.
Let us examine the "whole situation; let us review the controls that now exist. I think the minister was rathgr apologetic as he placed this measure before parliament because, distinguished and outstanding lawyer that he is, he knows that never before did any government ever ask for powers like these. I like to think of what would happen if the position were reversed, if we were on that side of the house and they were, over here. We would hear of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights; we would hear of the Atlantic charter.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are getting it
now.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad my hon. friend is listening. He just arrived and he does not realize what I have been dealing with up to the present moment. I read the debates of parliament during 1920 and 1921 before the Meighen government went out. That government never attempted to bring before parliament a bill asking for a scintilla of the powers that are being asked for under this bill.


Mr. CLANTON :: Did it not just enact section 98?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister speaks about section 98. I ask him what that has to do with the question before us now. Is that all the legislation that he knows anything about?


Brooke Claxton: Will the hon. member allow me to answer.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister can
make his speech later on., I say that no government in this country would have attempted to bring in a bill such as this one before the last six j'ears because of the fear of liberty loving people. I am beginning to think that this government, having regard to some of its expressions with regard to representative and responsible government as enunciated by the Minister of Finance during the past few days, has arrived at a point where it believes the people of this country after six years of war have been anaesthetized against responsible government and democratic institutions. I think of the words uttered in the British House of Commons by one hon. gentleman who said:
Legislation such as this may kill the instinct to liberty in this country simply because liberty becomes a legend which nobody remembers.
Liberty will become a legend in this country for a period of one year if parliament abdicates its powers to the extent that it will have done if this bill passes in its present form. Parliament will have placed the governor in council in the position that all the powers he exercised during the war will be as nothing compared with the powers that he will be permitted to exercise if this legislation is passed in its present form. Parliament must call a halt.


Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Ivinderaley):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with much that has been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the able argument which he has just presented to the house. However, I am not able to follow him all the way. I do not agree, for instance, that we should have a separate bill for each necessary control, as I understood him to suggest. I believe that we can amend the bill now before the house so as to restrict the government to the controls which it actually needs at this time.
To us in this comer of the house the whole act is repugnant, as it must be to anyone who adheres to the principles of political democracy. We are as anxious as anyone that controls be lifted, and that we depart from the vicious practice of legislating by order in council. As was stated clearly by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) only a few days ago, the main function of parliament is to legislate, and the sooner we revert to this exclusive function in its entirety, the better. It will always be the duty and the province of the ministry to set up rules and regulations to enforce laws passed by
National Emergency

parliament, and that, of course, is legislation in a way, but only what I may call secondary legislation.
The bill before us, however, enables the ministry to legislate and enact substantive law, and, generally speaking, that is intolerable in democracy in ordinary times, the more so under our constitution because the government by such legislation not only takes over the function of parliament but interferes seriously with the powers of our proyinces with respect to subjects which are specifically assigned to provincial legislatures. If we were living in ordinary times, we would undoubtedly oppose the passing of such a bill most vigorously.
This measure is to be called the National Emergency Powers Act, and the preamble states in part:
... it is necessary for the peace, order and good government of Canada that during the period of transition to normal from the exceptional conditions existing during the war, with the attendant dangers and responsibilities for the nation as a whole, acts and things done and authorized and regulations and orders made under the War Measures Act be continued in force and that the governor in council be authorized to do and authorize during the said period such further acts and things and make such further orders and regulations as he may by reason of the national emergency resulting from the war deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
It is this preamble, in my humble opinion, upon which we have to make up our minds. Is there a national emergency and is it necessary that during the period of transition to normal, with the attendant dangers, the regulations and orders under the War Measures Act be continued in force, and that the government be empowered to make further orders by reason of such national emergency resulting from the war, assuming that such national emergency now exists?
I believe that the important point to consider is this, whether the dangers and the extraordinary circumstances resulting from the war are still with us, and whether we believe this to be a state of fact. If we do, we must endorse the principle of this bill.
I have come to the conclusion that for the security, peace, order and welfare of our nation some of the orders and regulations already passed must be continued and that the government must retain certain powers to make further laws for that purpose.
I have tried to draw a picture in my mind of what might happen if the government to-day proclaimed the war at an end, which would automatically suspend the War Measures Act and repeal the orders and regu-

lations made by virute of that act. The picture that forms itself in my mind would be one of utter confusion and chaos. We must not forget that it was largely by the powers granted to the government under the War Measures Act that Canada was able to make her notable contribution to total war in the field of war production; and in order to reconvert to a peace-time economy we must retain some of these controls. The government must have some of these powers so that reconversion may be orderly, or at least as orderly as possible. Otherwise, in the mad scramble back to the promised land of free enterprise, a lot of people will be crushed, and I am afraid that it will be largely the little man- the forgotten man-who will suffer the most. Therefore, I shall vote in favour of the second reading of the bill, and endorse its principle.
But we shall reserve our right to introduce amendments when the bill is in committee. For all practical purposes the bill contains the same wide powers contained in the War Measures Act, and we believe that this is unnecessary since the actual shooting is now over. It is true that some of the subject matters enumerated in section 3 of the War Measures Act have been left out of section 3 of this bill, but in any event the enumeration of the subjects in section 3 of this bill is made meaningless by, the words contained in the first subsection, "but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms." That phrase is all right in time of war, 'but I maintain that it is not necessary in time of peace. I contend, as did the hon. member for Lake Centre, that the government should state the specific powers which it needs to legislate, and should restrict itself to those powers. If we leave in the bill the word's which I have just quoted the government would not be restricted to the subject matters specifically enumerated in section 3 but would have the wide powers which it had before. We shall govern ourselves according to the explanation that is given when the bill is in committee, and I trust that the government will see its way clear to accept an amendment which will restrict the powers it seeks to the subjects specifically enumerated in section 3, as such subjects may be amended and finally passed by the committee.
We also take exception to some of the subjects enumerated1 in section 3 of the bill, or at least we shall have questions to ask as .to why the government deems it necessary to have certain of these enumerated exceptional powers. We consider paragraph (g) entirely unnecessary. It is the paragraph referring to entry into Canada and deportation and also the revocation of citizenship. This paragraph

National Emergency
alone is capable of promoting a first-class debate on discrimination and kindred acts of intolerance so repulsive to a British democracy; but I say that the powers sought in this paragraph are entirely unnecessary. Why should the ministry wish to include powers which they already have by virtue of laws now on the statute book and duly passed by this parliament? The minister in charge of immigration has full power under, I believe, section 4 of the act to admit into Canada anyone as he deems fit; he has also the power of exclusion and deportation; and as far as revocation of nationality is concerned, this is fully covered1 by the new citizenship bill at present before parliament.
We shall also take objection to the wording of subsection 4 of section 3 of the bill before us, and already referred to by the previous speaker. This subsection reads as follows:
Every order in council made under this act shall be laid before .parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
The principle enunciated in this subsection is a good one, but the wording is too vague, and it is only to make it more specific that we intend to introduce an amendment to this subsection to provide for the orders in counr-cil to be laid before parliament within a specified time, and, if parliament is not in session, that these orders in council be published in the Canada Gazette immediately, so that all members of parliament may at once be cognizant of these laws passed by orders in council. Parliament should also assert its supremacy by retaining the power to annul such orders in council. There is nothing new or revolutionary in the amendment which we are going to propose. Other acts of parliament of Canada as well as of Great Britain contain these provisions, and I think that if parliament is willing to grant to the ministry these extraordinary powers of legislation, they will not object to a clause which will assert the supremacy of parliament, which is the fundamental principle of the whole of our constitutional law.
I am occupying only a few minutes, because I think the bill ought to be passed, that we ought to "make time"; and we believe that it should receive second reading without undue delay, that the principle should be endorsed, and that such amendments should be made in committee along the lines which I have indicated.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, may I take just a few minutes to place before the house, in a completely objective way, and with the desire to engender more light than heat, a view regarding the legislation which is now before the house.
Bill No. 15 in effect extends the life of the War Measures Act for another year, on the assumption that it is advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
I hope .every hon. member is perfectly clear as to the implication of the whole bill and as to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleagues of the cabinet are asking them-asking them, I say, as the accredited representatives of the people and the custodians of democracy in Canada-to do by approving bill No. 15. The cabinet is asking this house to set aside the national constitution, the powers, rights and privileges of parliament, the sovereign authority of the people, and the constitutional autonomous rights of the provinces, so well spoken of by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). In effect, it seems to me, they are asking parliament to abrogate democracy in Canada and to vest complete and absolute power in the Prime Minister and the cabinet.
Now the members of the cabinet are asking parliament to confer upon them the power to do and authorize such acts and things and to make from time to time such orders and regulations as they may deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada. Under these absolute powers any order and/or regulation issued with the approval of the cabinet by some self-opinionated bureaucrat with an inflated idea of his own self-importance is to have all the force of law.
In addition to these absolute powers, and evidently to avoid the* odium of having to enact orders that have the force of law for the purpose of suppressing free speech, criticism of government policies, and the general system of regimentation introduced during the war period, the government is asking parliament to approve and authorize the continuation of all those war-time measures which marked our decline into the totalitarian state while our men were fighting totalitarianism on the battlefronts of the world.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the substance of the bill. Sometimes, I find, it is good for all of us to take a straight look at the whole ugly picture. I put it very bluntly, I know. But I ask now that hop. members will answer this within themselves: Could Hitler or any other dictator with whom the world has been afflicted during these disastrous years of human history have asked for more complete and absolute power? What could not be included in the power to "do and authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations" as officials of government may deem it necessary? Incidentally, it appears that the cabinet seeks the power, as

National Emergency

set out in section 4, to enforce those regulations even to the point of confiscating p'roperty, seizing goods, or prescribing penalties for disobeying the Pooh-Bahs-I like that word, which I learned last night from the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mac-donnell)-of the vast state bureaucracy that has grown up in Canada during the war years.
The government pleads that these powers are necessary because we face a national emergency. People all over the country are asking, just what is the nature of this emergency? The war against Germany, Italy and Japan is at an end. The men and women of the armed services, after four, five and six years of regimentation, discipline and taking orders, are coming back with high hopes of being able to enjoy the freedom for which they have been fighting. They are finding at home regulated, controlled1, inspected and bureaucracy-written industries, agriculture, and business firms, that are attempting to readjust themselves to peace-time conditions. If ever there was a time when the path to progress should be cleared of all unnecessary controls and restrictions, when people should be free and unhampered to tackle the great task of reconstruction which lies before them, when the flood-gates of abundant production should be opened wide, it is now.
Spokesmen for the government will reply that if the controls which exist were to be removed now, chaotic conditions would result. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), has pointed out, prices would rise and greater labour unrest would follow. The short answer to that, of course, is that the government, though warned repeatedly about the dangers ahead, have persisted' in remaining within the confines of a debt-creating system of finance by which they have actually created for themselves the very problems which they now seek absolute powers to control.
Under a sound democratic and scientific system of finance, neither inflation nor deflation could threaten our economy. At the same time, I must admit, it is a fact that under our present debt-ridden and restrictive money system, both inflation and deflation, with all their disastrous consequences, do threaten our economy. These dangers cannot be dealt with satisfactorily through controls that place in the hands of individuals great power and authority over their fellow men because, as the war has so definitely proved, when one control is introduced to cure human problems it inevitably creates more and other serious problems. In my judgment, the only effective controls are those which are inherent in a justly scientific economic structure that, by its very fairness and justice, induces the

full support of all classes of the community and which will be freely sustained without compulsion of any kind.
We are prepared to grant that the government requires temporarily to exercise a measure of control over price structures, foreign exchange, export and import of goods, and so on; but is that any reason why parliament should abrogate its authority and give the cabinet the power to do any act or thing which the cabinet may deem necessary? Apologists for the governlnent will answer, of course, that the government must lay before parliament the orders in council which it does pass. The members of this house must know that means little or nothing. Even Hitler would condescend from time to time to report to the reichstag what he had done by his own special dispensations, and his report was always met by cries of "Heil, heil", for what else could be said on matters over which they had no power whatever?
Yes; orders in council will be laid before parliament; they will be published in the Canada Gazette; but that will in no way detract from the powers for which the Prime Minister and his colleagues are now asking in this bill. There are a good many considerations which members should have in mind when voting on bill No. 15. I have not very much time to deal with all of them, and therefore I shall limit myself to just one or two of the most important.
In the first place, during the war the government of this country exercised very wide powers. They created a vast bureaucracy for the purpose of exercising a mass of controls and prohibitions to deal with the emergency which they saw before .them. Men were appointed to positions where they wielded great power, and some of them became petty despots. I can assure the house of that. To be perfectly fair about the matter, I think that under all the circumstances, and taking everything in balance, they did in the main a pretty good job of preventing chaotic conditions in our country. But it is an axiom that all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The measure of corruption which does take place in any army of bureaucrats is in direct proportion to the power that they have been wielding; and so, sir, Canadians should now keep their eyes wide open, now that the war is over and we have returned to a condition of peace.
These bureaucrats do not want to lose their jobs. They do not want to lose their power. It is always far easier to build up a bureaucracy than to tear one down after 'it has become thoroughly established in the country.
I warn the government that they will have

National Emergency
plenty of trouble to get rid of the deadweight of the vast machinery that has grown up during war time, and therefore they should be indicating to the people of Canada right now their,honest determination to bring about in Canada at the earliest possible time that happy condition in which our people can live in freedom without having hordes of insolent bureaucrats continually prying into every phase of their existence.
I cannot advance any stronger argument to my hon, friends on the other side of the house for the exercise of exceeding great care than to remind them again that absolute power corrupts absolutely. This- bill asks for absolute power to be vested in the government. Surely it would not only be in the best interests of Canada but be a kindness to the government themselves if t'he members of this house saved hon. members opposite from the absolute corruption which might be their fate if they secured the absolute powers which the bill would confer upon them.
As for the power seeking bureaucrats who are involved behind the scenes-and I am satisfied there are plenty of them-I submit that it is time for them to become -again just ordinary citizens and to work out of their systems the tendencies they have acquired while they have wielded such great powers as they have been wielding during this war. The habit of wielding power grows by leaps and bounds. It has all the danger of a cancerous growth. I am perfectly well aware, of course, that it is not foreign to some men to deny themselves the glamour and the privilege which the exercise of power does bring, but I say that more normal men quickly succumb to its most insidious appeal.
It has always been repugnant to the British people and to a democracy such as ours to leave things to a great body of so-called experts. That was an obviously necessary condition during the war, but we should all remember that the war was fought to blaze the trail for a new economic system, what the Prime Minister was pleased to call the "new order". The principles upon which this new order should be built must evolve out of the people and should be expressed through their elected representatives in this parliament. It should not in any sense be considered to spring from a group of bureaucratic experts who might wish to impress their will upon the people.
I turn now briefly to another aspect of the whole matter. Is it just a coincidence that both during the war and since the end of the war we have witnessed in every democratic [DOT] country in the world1 a rapid advance 47696-156J
toward the totalitarian state condition? In Great Britain, in the United States, in. Australia, and in New Zealand, increasing centralization of power in the national political executive, increasing bureaucracy, more and more controls, together with the policy of harsh taxation going hand in hand with a pyramiding debt and growing regimentation have been introduced in a form which indicated from the outset that the intention was to continue, if not all, at least a great many of the controls and regimentations into the post-war period. In Australia, the federal government asked for increased powers. They did so by referring the whole matter to the people in a plebiscite, and despite the fact that they were still at war, the people of Australia turned down the government's bid for power and denied them the extra ones for which they asked.
In Great Britain, as has already been pointed out only too well, the newly elected Socialist government has given itself power to exercise virtual dictatorship for another five years but, as was ably pointed out by the hon. member for Lake Centre, no such dictatorial powers has it asked for as are asked for in bill No. 15.
In the United States it would appear that the exacting system of controls of war time will continue in operation for some time to come. Evidently, Mr. Speaker, nowhere in the world to-day is there left the semblance of democracy which existed before the war. Everywhere, even, in countries with democratic constitutions, the totalitarian concept in a greater or lesser degree has become entrenched as a result of our bitter struggle against the countries which were determined to fasten totalitarianism upon the world.
My reason for mentioning these things is simply this:	Unless we in Canada determine
now to lead the way out of the darkness of a world in which democracy is in eclipse; unless we consciously and determinedly set about the rehabilitation of a democracy rendered anaemic by the exigencies and practices of war time; then, despite the fact that nazi Germany and Hitler have been defeated in war, Hitler's ideas and the Hitlerian cult may emerge victorious in the end!
I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I did feel that I should make clear my position and that of the Social Credit group with respect to the whole matter of continuation of emergency powers We consider that the government should not seek such blanket and absolute powers as are set forth in clauses 3 and 5 of the bill, especially as parliament will be almost constantly in session during the next seven or eight months. We think it is possible
Private Bills

for the government to specify fairly definitely the particular powers of control necessary to meet the requirements of the present state of emergency. These only should be voted by parliament at this time. If other emergencies arise, which cannot now be foreseen, parliament can- be asked to deal with them. Past experience has shown that this house can act with reasonable speed when danger threatens either from some external source or from the development of internal situation. Therefore I would ask the government to amend the bill along the- lines of the suggestions which have already been made. When this bill is before the committee we shall be prepared to propose certain amendments. I would ask the government to amend the bill to make it more acceptable to those of us who are unprepared to grant the absolute powers called for in section 3. The government should also set out at once to do everything in its power to open wide the flood-gates of production in Canada, so that it will not have to come back and ask this parliament for any extension of emergency powers when the term of the present bill expires.
On motion of Mr. Pouliot the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24, to incorporate the Canadian Jewellers Institute.-Mr. Jackman.
Bill No. 25, to incorporate Dominion General Benefit Association.-Mr. Ross (Souris).
Bill No. 26, to incorporate Ottawa Valley Trust Company.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 29, to amend an Act respecting Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company, The Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Company and Great Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Reid.
Bill No. 28, respecting The Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company.-Mr. Lesage.
Bill No. 30, to incorporate International Air Transport Association.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 31, to incorporate The Arctic Institute of North America.-Mr. Benidickson.
Mr. RALPH MAYBANIC (Winnipeg South Centre) moved that Bills Nos. 34 to 90, inclusive, be read the second time.
Mr. LESAGE:: On division.


Mr. GAGNON:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Mildred Euretta Mackay Disher.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Mary Emerson W'hittemore Schlemm.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Andrew Lawrence Card.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Annie Morrison Wisely Pitblado.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Joe Eisen.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Ellen Therese Cramer Watson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Rita Gendron Reid.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Evelyine Pearl Edwards Aird.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Helen Turned Luke.

Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Lois Elizabeth Allworth Pierce.

Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Armandine Cecile LeBrun Lachance.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Grace Irene Paquet Hopkins.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Alma Joan Begin Oswald.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of George Ernest Reed.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Sylvia Heather McCulloch Peck.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Frederick Keith Beattie.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Robert Coull. -Mr. Homuth.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Violet Beach Meredith.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Max Engel-berg.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Bertha Harris Fineberg.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Nils Jens . Pettersen.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Benjamin Charles Stafford.-Mr. MacLean,
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Florence Mary Daniel Nightingale.-Mr. Benidickson.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Edward Stephen Vasselin.-Mr. Homuth.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Robert Marshall Miller.-Mr. Merritt.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Dorina Laurin Wallis.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Helen Louise Clark Leet.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Dorothy Anita Duffy Gregson.-Mr. Casselman.

War and Demobilization
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Irene Grace Hannan Smith.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Lorna Maud Clerk Kingsland.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Edgar Jean.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Ethel Maybird Wright Latreimouille.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Marie Rose-Alba Germaine Belair Blanchard. - Mr. Cleaver.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of William Bernard McCarrick.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Lome Edward Souva.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Edith Gertrude Jackson Holloway.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of George Allenby Bradshaw.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Phyllis Fitch Farber.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Vencel Hume-nay.-Mr. Rose.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Waldo James Cousins.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Albert Wilson Harvey.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Iris Ester Westerberg Duffy.-Mr. Smith (York North).
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Della Frances Gardner Hudson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Joseph Gerard Fernand Arthur Groleau.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Audrey Nathaniel Smith MacNair.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Ovila Bernard. -Mr. Emmerson,
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Albert Edward Spray.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Helen Isabel Dibblee Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Robert Hiscock. 

Mr. Homuth.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Jacques Noel Cerminara.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Joseph William Henry Beausoleil.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Rita Beryl Gwendolyn Scott Lunn.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Neil Sinclair McKechnie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Albert Evariste Gelinas.-Mr. Maybank.



WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 22, consideration in committee of bill No. 172, for granting to His Majesty aid
for national defence and demobilization- Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Golding in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. MACKENZIE moved the third reading of the bill.
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is given third reading I should like to say a few words. I am not going to make an extended speech because I know it is desired to have the bill read a third time to-night. We went through the sections rather hurriedly, and I rise now only to protest about the provisions of section 5, subsection 2, which deals with the powers to bury orders and directions. A careful reading of that section will show that very wide powers are being given to the minister. As was stated this afternoon on another measure, some of us are a little reluctant at placing so much power in the hands of the government. This section reads:
(2) AH orders and regulations of the governor in council made under the War Expenditure and Demobilization Appropriation Act, No. I, 1945, and this Act shall have the force of law and may be varied, extended, or revoked by any subsequent order or regulation, but if any order or regulation is varied, extended or revoked neither the previous operation thereof nor anything duly done thereunder shall be affected thereby, nor shall any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred thereunder be affected by any such variation, extension or revocation.
I am quite certain I do not know what I have read, for legal language is always a tongue twister and a mind twister. However, it is obvious that under that section the minister has tremendous powers, and I wish to protest against such powers being given to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply) moved the second reading of bill No. 173, respecting the Department of Reconstruction and Supply.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Reconstniction and Supply
[Stage Direction]
On section 6-Ministerial powers and duties.
Grote Stirling: Would the minister give us a statement with regard to this important section describing how he proposes to merge Munitions and Supply into Reconstruction in order to effect a smooth-working organization.


Mr. HOWE:: This section embodies the general transfer to the minister of the powers and duties of the Minister of Munitions and. Supply and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. I have a chart of the new department which could be gone into in detail. The merger is not at all difficult, because many of the functions are common functions, for example, the legal department, the service department generally and the deputy minister's department. The production departments of Munitions and Supply have been liquidated pretty well and merged into the purchasing department. The purchasing department will become one branch in the new department. It will still purchase the requirements of the armed services and certain material for other governments, but it will purchase as a purchasing department rather than as a series of production departments.
The controller's branch is closely associated with Reconstruction although still in Munitions and Supply. It will still be necessary to keep a few controls, such as lumber, metals as they affect atomic energy, rubber for a time and construction for a time; all having to do, not with war at the present time but with reconstruction. The transfer of these branches into Reconstruction will be a natural step.
The liquidation of accounts and contracts, which is the big job in the Department of Munitions and Supply at the moment, will work in naturally with Reconstruction, as will the renegotiation section which is also very active in connection with the liquidation of obligations of the Department of Munitions and Supply. It seems to me that the change over obviously brings the branches from Munitions and Supply, which in effect is an obsolete title, into the field of reconstruction which is of paramount interest at the present time. It will allow the orderly liquidation of war activities and will, I hope, enable the new department to give some help to reconstructing Canada's peace-time activities and to reconstructing our civil economy.


Grote Stirling: The minister has been referring, both last evening and this evening, to the renegotiation of contracts, and I wish he would elaborate on that a little. The contracts let by the Department of Munitions and Supply have to a large extent come to an
	.
end, as he has said himself. In what sense are contracts being renegotiated at this stage? I can understand the liquidation of contracts owing to production cut-off, but what is the purpose of renegotiating those that are still on hand?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The department had certain purchasing practices. If a new type of production were required, the practice in many cases was to fix a target price; that is, to allow the contractor to make a certain number of units and then make a firm price contract based on those units with a renegotiation clause. Usually those contracts called for a ceiling price of perhaps three, four or five per cent of cost. Then there were lump-sum contracts based on yearly production. Before these contracts can be settled it is necessary to audit the accounts over the years and to renegotiate the price according to what is indicated.


Grote Stirling: They are continuing
contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; contracts that have been cancelled, but before final settlement can be arrived at a very large proportion of our contracts require over-all audit and renegotiation to bring about a fair and reasonable price. The negotiation of direct contracts with, the department is not difficult, but in addition to the direct contracts there were many thousands of sub-contracts. The main contractor would contract with other contractors to manufacture his component parts. We have found over the years that, .whereas we could1 keep close control of the main contract, we did not have the same control of the sub-contracts. There have been cases where sub-contractors have made inordinate profits, and1 it is the practice of the department to examine these subcontracts and, if the profit is found to have been excessive, we bring the contract price down to allow of a reasonable profit and adjust it accordingly. That is the main work of renegotiation to-day. I made a statement last evening on the number of contracts renegotiated to date, and the figure standing in my mind is that there has been a recovery of $300 million to the crown.	-


Grote Stirling: And a thousand contracts yet to come?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The main contracts have been renegotiated and the recovery in the future will not be as great, but there is a still substantial sum to be recovered from profits which we regard as excessive, namely from sub-contractors.


Grote Stirling: That applies to contracts which have been terminated?

Reconstmction and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Grote Stirling: What volume of contracts is still outstanding with Munitions and Supply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very few indeed. At Research Enterprises Limited we have certain contracts, mainly for the United States and the United Kingdom, for types not in production in those countries which they desire to have completed to a certain extent. Certain of those contracts will continue until next April. Beyond that there are very few contracts that are continuing. A few ships were finished to a point where it was decided to finish them. All the gun contracts I think are finished.


Grote Stirling: The minister referred to the United States. Are there contracts still outstanding for the allied nations, and what about the other dominions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only outstanding war contracts are for the United Kingdom, mainly ships so nearly completed for United Kingdom account that the United Kingdom asked us to finish them at their expense.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Do the new contracts for ships for European countries come under this department? How are they handled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are placed through purchasing agencies. The French have a purchasing mission here which is placing contracts for ships for the French government.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It does not go through any government department here?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, except that the Department of Trade and Commerce has a certain oversight of the manner in which government loans to these other countries are expended. But that does not extend to the placing of the contract or to the policing of the contract. That is a matter for the French government.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Can the minister say how large the combined staffs of Munitions and Supply, and Reconstruction are at the present time, and how large he expects them to be in 1946, say at the beginning or the end of the year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The present strength of the Department of Munitions and Supply is about 2,500, and of Reconstruction something less than 300. The combined department by January 1 will have a strength of about 2,500, and by April 1, about 2,000.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Is C.B.C. and T.C.A. under this department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have nothing to do with C.B.C.


George Russell Boucher: Not as regards granting permits?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is under the Radio Act. The air services branch of the Department of Transport is under my administration by the Transfer of Duties Act put through in 1939.


Mr. CASE:: The intention is that the
Department of Munitions and Supply will disappear ultimately?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it will disappear when the merger takes place. When the bill is passed the Department of Munitions and Supply will disappear into the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, which is also a temporary department. It is hoped that all the departments Vith which I am associated will disappear within a few years.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Wartime Housing will be under
his department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: And T.C.A. will be transferred to the new department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: T.C.A. is still in the Department of Transport and will continue there, although by the Transfer of Duties Act the administration of that particular branch was transferred to myself personally.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister stated that the number of employees on the staff of Munitions and Supply was 2,500 and on the staff of Reconstruction, 300; but there are also a number of workmen engaged, for instance, in Wartime Housing. Are they not virtually on the government payroll, and are we not as taxpayers seeing that they get their weekly wage? Is the same not true of Polymer and of other crown agencies now engaged in manufacturing?


Mr.   HOAVE@: No. The figures I gave refer to the strength of the department, not to the personnel of the crown companies.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Just to the strength of the administrative staff? Can the minister say how many people are engaged and on the government payroll in addition to those who are' engaged in the administrative service of these two departments?


Mr.   HOAVE@: I think it is a little irregular to say that the employees of these companies are a burden on the taxpayers, because Polymer is bringing a handsome return to the taxpayers, and that, is true of most of the crown companies, particularly Allied War Supplies. If the taxpayers had a few other businesses doing as well we would be in a very fortunate position.
Reconstruction and Supply


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I did not hear the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for Rose-dale likes to think that any enterprise operated by the government is a burden on the taxpayer, and I was saying that we have a few that are a benefit to the taxpayer.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The imputation was the minister's, not mine. I simply asked how many were virtually on the government payroll through working for government-owned corporations. I should like to have an approximate figure, if the government has it, of how many people are employed in. crown companies under his jurisdiction through the operation of these two departments.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say. There are 800 on the payroll of Polymer and approximately 3,000 on the payroll of Research Enterprises, at the moment. Does he want me to give him the number of workmen working on wartime houses?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Yes, I should like to have them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know what it is. They are all employed by contractors. I cannot say how many employees there are.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: By independent contractors?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Wartime Housing does not do any building itself. As far as Allied War Supplies goes, there would be, I should think, at least 3,000 employees in all its various activities. That gives a rough idea.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister said a moment ago that a number of these crown companies are paying some returns to the tax-payer. I want to pass just one word of comment on that, because the other night, in reference to Polymer, he intimated that it was breaking even as far as costs of operation are concerned. Surely he does not mean to tell the committee that the investment in Polymer is paying anything to the country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes. .


John Ritchie MacNicol: Oh, no; the minister
knows better than that. We have $50 million in it. It is not paying any return to the country. But, forgetting about the investment, I think the company is producing rubber at a * reasonable price and maybe is having something ahead. Will the minister say now that the company is making a return on its investment of $50 million?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, the war-time investment was $50 million, but it hardly represents that investment as a peace-time plant. The

peace-time value is capitalized at $27 million, and it is paying at least bank interest on that, plus a profit.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not going to argue that point. As $50 million of the country's money has shrunk to $27 million, we have already lost $23 million, so that is not a very profitable venture for the country, although I hope it will be in the end. But I do not like to see the minister, who is a businessman, trying to tell other businessmen that at $50 million it is a business proposition to-day, which it is not.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Why did business
enterprise not build Polymer?


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend is asking a silly question. Businessmen would not do that. In the first place they would not have $50 million to place in a plant; and when they manufactured rubber articles they brought crude rubber from Malaya and elsewhere. This is a wartime measure. Businessmen try to run things in a business way. I was in business for many years, and I could not make investments which did not yield any returns. However, that is not what I rose to say.
I am interested in what the minister said about the purchasing department. Is it not getting near the time when this country should have a purchasing organization covering every department? Are we to continue with each department having its own purchasing unit? Huge businesses employing from twenty-five to thirty thousand men have one purchasing department; they have not purchasing branches in every hole and corner of the plant, have they? No, they have not. Their purchasing department consists of experts who know how to buy. I should be-sorry to see this department set up a big purchasing organization of its own. I hope the minister will not allow it to absorb a whole lot of employees who would be retained unnecessarily. I had hoped, now that the war is over, that the vast number of employees in the munitions department would be reduced to a very small number. Certainly the reconstruction department will not require any more office employees than an equally big private business, say the New York Central railroad or some other big corporation. Pressure will have to be exerted against filling up the department with unnecessary employees. Certainly the munitions department should be greatly reduced in numbers. The office employees who during the war filled the large number of buildings occupied by this department could surely be reduced to, say 10 per cent of their former numbers.

Reconstruction and Supply
I will say this in favour of the minister, that if he carries on the department in the same excellent manner as he assisted the Steep Rock mines to get under operation he will do a good piece of business on behalf of the country. At Steep Rock the government, through the Canadian National Railways, constructed a large dock for loading iron ore and built the sidings into the mine.
I call that reasonable and fair assistance, of somewhat the same nature as that given by the Ontario hydro commission, who built a power line into the mine. But beyond that kind of assistance, I hope the department will be very careful about what it does in the direction of itself entering into construction work.
I understand the minister to say that 2,500 office persons are now employed in the munitions department. How many were employed at the peak of its activities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About 4,500.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is a good reduction. There are about 300 in the Department of Reconstruction. Do I understand the minister to say that he expects that number to rise?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Operating by itself it will rise shortly to about 350. The combined departments will drop to 2,500 by the first of January.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Just a minute until I get this right. When the minister says 350, does he mean that the Department of Reconstruction will require about 350?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As at present organized, yes. The consolidation of the two departments will make for some economies in staff, so that while to-day the staffs of the combined departments would be about 2,800, when the merger is through there will be about 2,500.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In other words, the Department of Reconstruction will practically require 2,500 alone, because the Department of Munitions and Supply mugt be pretty well wound up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no; that will take us some time.


George Russell Boucher: Of these 2,500 who are now in the Department of Munitions and Supply, how many are permanent civil servants, entitled to superannuation, et cetera; how many are temporaries, and what will be the policy of the department as far as making all employees temporary, or what proportion of employees in the new department will be permanent and what proportion temporary so far as compliance with the Civil
Service Act is concerned in respect of their appointment, their tenure of office and their right to privileges under the act? Could the minister give us some information on that matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Munitions and Supply was a temporary department; the Department of Reconstruction is a temporary department, and the Department of Reconstruction and Supply will be a temporary department. As my hon. friend knows, no civil servant can be appointed as permanent to a temporary department. We have a few permanent civil servants, certainly not more than 200, on loan from other departments. I doubt if there are that many now. They represent the only permanent civil servants in the two departments.


George Russell Boucher: These appointments are not made through the civil service commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Russell Boucher: Appointments are still made through the civil service commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Russell Boucher: Are there in the department any who are not so appointed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; I think the civil service commission recommend any appointments. Certainly they fix the salary of every appointee.


George Russell Boucher: In that event, where employees from the various departments are released, is any provision being made for their transfer to another department instead of being let out into the cold, cold world?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend knows where the soldier preference comes in. He is also aware that the civil service commission has charge of all permanent appointments. There is nothing that the Minister of Reconstruction can do about that. I am afraid that the employees of our departments must go the way of all temporaries.


George Russell Boucher: I cannot quite agree that it cannot be done, because when a civil servant has given good and faithful service to' a department, if his department happens to be a temporary' one, an opportunity should be given to other branches of the government to avail themselves of his services. I was wondering if the government was giving any consideration to the plight these employees will be in when they are released from a temporary department. Something should be done in that regard.
Reconstruction and Supply


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Will this new purchasing department carry on the purchasing for the various branches such as defence, public works, fisheries and so on? I doubt very much whether, under the set-up here, the purchasing department will be able to carry on efficiently for the various branches of government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has been purchasing for only the three armed services, army, navy and air force, and for no other department of government. As I have told the committee, the Department of Munitions and Supply is in process of being liquidated, and I anticipate that when it is liquidated and when demobilization is completed the purchasing functions of the armed services will revert to those services.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It is the intention for the time being to carry on the purchasing for the defence departments?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Can the minister state to within two hundred the maximum number of employees employed by the munitions and supply department during the war?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I gave it as 4,500.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The minister now
informs us that by April the new department that is being created will be absorbing all the functions of Munitions and Supply as well as the new functions it will undertake, and that the number will be cut down by 2,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be down to 2,000.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: In other words, they will require almost half the number of employees that this gigantic purchasing and operating department required at its peak, handling millions and billions of dollars. It is hard to believe. I hope that the Department of Reconstruction will not be so deep in the country's business that it will be necessary in April next to employ almost as -many as the Department of Munitions and Supply employed at the peak. The government will be in the business of reconstruction of the country, keeping its finger in that pie to the extent that it will need almost half the number of persons it employed when it had carte blanche to handle all the country's business in the conduct of a war. There will be short shrift for private industry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not like to have that go on the record without correction. The reconstruction activities of the department at peak will require.a staff of 350. Does my hon. friend think the business of handling fourteen billion dollars can be stopped all at once, 
without sufficient staff? I can assure him that my difficulty in liquidating the Department of Munitions and Supply is to keep enough staff to do the work that is necessary. There are several thousand contracts to audit, several thousand claims to settle, and all the other work that is involved in closing out a great number of contracts and in disposing of a tremendous volume of war material. Having all that to do, we shall need a few .men, regardless of what the Department of Reconstruction may require.


Mr. SENN:: A good deal has been said pbout purchasing. What about salvage in the department? Does the War Assets Corporation come under the minister's department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; War Assets Corporation is a crown company reporting to the Minister of Reconstruction.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) :: I wish to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the section we are now dealing with has to do with ministerial powers and duties, and the remarks that hon. members make should be relevant to that provision.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thought we were on section 5.


William Henry Golding: No; section 6.


Mark Cecil Senn: The question I was asking might more properly be asked in connection with section 7, which provides that the rights, powers, duties, liabilities and functions of the minister shall extend to boards and other public bodies. I should like to ask the minister, when the present section is carried, to explain what jurisdiction he has over War Assets Corporation.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Some mention was made by the hon. member for Davenport about the Polymer corporation. I do not think the committee should lose sight of the fact that the important consideration was not so much whether it would, operate at a profit or a loss at a time when our natural supply of rubber had disappeared and the minister "had to face up to the question whether Canada would do something about the matter. We are all proud of the magnificent performance of this particular branch, and I hope that in future the minister will use the same imagination in the exercise of his powers as he did during the war. He asked himself this question:	Have
we the materials? Is there need for this particular undertaking, and can Canada carry it out? He has won the gratitude of the people of all the united nations for the magnificent job that Canada has done and I would

Reconstruction and Supply
ask him a question with regard to future policy. During the war years the minister proceeded on the assumption that those doing a worth-while job should receive adequate compensation. Will the same principle be continued in the years ahead? I have in mind the national research council. Some of Canada's brightest minds stayed here at great sacrifice throughout the years of the war, and it has been demoralizing for many of them to be frozen at pre-war incomes during the war, while temporary people with very little experience were drawing higher salaries. A friend of mine has been doing an important job, and at the same time a ' college graduate just out of university was engaged at a salary $600 a year more than my friend was receiving. Hon. members will appreciate how demoralizing it must be for a well equipped man who has been doing a very important job for nearly twenty years to find himself in that position. Has the minister anything to say as to whether we can expect at an early date that decent compensation will be paid those who are doing such jobs in his department, taking into consideration their experience and qualifications?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The scale of salaries in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply will be similar to that in every department. It will be determined by the treasury board. I am not revealing any secret, however, when I say that the cabinet is studying at this time the salaries of technical employees, and I hope that as a result of their study there may be some adjustment in salaries.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I hope that what I have to say is relevant to this section because it deals with ministerial powers. What I have in my mind perhaps goes just a little bit beyond that. In the view that I hold, the future of the economy of this country consists in a tripartite partnership of labour, industry and government. I know it is very easy for industry to say-and the parrot cry is usually used-let government keep its hands off.
There are many stupid people in this world. They are not confined to the professions, or to labour. I think it applies to industrial people as well. The thought that I have in my mind is this, that those of us who adopt that extreme, and, in my judgment, foolish view, overlook a great deal of history that we have in this country. Strange as it may seem. I am coming in a moment to support the minister and ask him to extend his operations just a little bit farther. What I have in mind is this:	Take the province from which
I come. I suppose our greatest industry is
that of growing grain. For many years we have had a board of grain commissioners. They have settled the difficulties between companies and farmers, between farmer and farmer, and between company and company. This has been going on for at least twenty-five years; yet we have not heard any complaint from that industry. Take another industry, that of transportation, one of the largest we have. The railway companies-and we now know that this has been true for a great many years-may publish no freight rate on an article from here to Prescott where our honourable whip entertained me last week-end, without the person affected being able to apply to a board, and apply cheaply, to have that rate determined on the basis that it should be. Let us also remember that they cannot even close a station, cannot let a telegraph clerk or a station agent go, without the approval of the board of transport commissioners.
Take the business of insurance which extends all over Canada. No one can write an insurance policy in any of the various provinces without a licence. Perhaps we might have a little economy there. We have nine provincial insurance departments and one dominion department. I know the privy council went a little cock-eyed and refused to permit the dominion to maintain the whole position which, of course, it should do. Take the second greatest industry in our province, that of thei mining of coal; there we have a Mines Act. It is modelled on the British Mines Act. That Mines Act is a code for everybody from the general manager down to the boy who opens the doors to permit the trip to go through and then shuts it so that the air may travel in its proper place. I mention these things because some people say:	"Let
government keep its hands off." Government has had its hand in the regulation of business in this country for the last twenty-five or thirty years. We do not hear a complaint from an insurance company, a grain company, a railway company or a coal mining company. I say that to dispel certain fears which are in the minds of people who do not know the history of business in their own country.
Therefore I say to the minister-the chairman is wondering when I am going to develop my argument-I do not believe in government ownership. I have tried to make that plain, but I believe in government regulation, interference-if you want the dirty word let us use it-where things are not right. Monopoly in itself is not bad, but when monopoly takes . advantage of its position-


An hon. MEMBER :: Oh, oh.
Reconstruction and Supply


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish you would say it louder so that I would know what you are saying. You just said, "Oh, oh". A woman in childbirth says, "oh" and lots of other things. Monopoly in itself is not bad, but when it takes advantage of that position to drown or kill small people then it is bad. Monopoly, properly operated, may produce things very cheaply, but the minute it takes advantage of that, it is bad, and I think in connection with that this parliament might some day make a study of patents which largely support that position. Where you have monopoly, there you need government intervention, interference, control or whatever you care to call it. Consequently in my conception of the future business and economy of this country, that great partnership between labour, industry and government, I trust that the minister will, if necessary, expand his view and his purview and his authority, so that somewhere in the government we shall at least have a third wheel as a steadying influence to maintain the position of capital and labour and always that great base of the right-angle triangle, the common man, the people who do the consuming, the white-collared guy who pays most of the taxes. Perhaps I disagree with some of my colleagues in that respect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Minister's powers over boards and other public bodies.
Mark Cecil Senn: Perhaps the minister would reply to the question I asked about salvage. As I understand it, the War Assets Corporation which has been set up is responsible to the minister's department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am just the owner of the thing; I own the shares.


Mark Cecil Senn: I wish to find out, if possible, just what control is exercised over it by the department. Where does it get its powers; what are its powers with respect to disposal of crown assets and where they are to be disposed of, and how; have they to be disposed of by tender; who sets the prices at which they are sold, and so forth? We hear ' many stories to-day about things that are worth considerable sums of money and cost considerable sums of money being sold for very small amounts. Perhaps the minister could give us a short explanation of the War Assets Corporation's activities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is described ini section 10 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act, which reads as follows:
(1)	There shall be established a corporation to be known as War Assets Corporation.

(2)	The corporation shall consist of a board of not less than six directors appointed by the minister with the approval of the governor in council.
(3)	The corporation shall be a body politic and corporate having capacity to contract and to sue and be sued in its name; and shall be and be deemed to be for all purposes an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada.
(4)	The head office of the corporation shall be at Montreal in the province of Quebec or in such other place as the minister may from time to time determine.
(5)	The corporation may establish branches and appoint agents in Canada and may also, with the approval of the minister, establish branches and appoint agents outside Canada.
(6)	The corporation shall be responsible to, and be subject to the direction and control of, the minister.
I hardly think a debate on War Assets is appropriate now. At the present time we have a committee on war expenditures sitting. The officers of War Assets Corporation are appearing before it now. I believe the question, of salaries is under discussion there at the present time. I hardly think it would be helpful to have a second discussion here in the house, while the discussion is going on before the committee.


Mark Cecil Senn: I have no thought of pursuing the matter any further, Mr. Chairman, because I understand that such an investigation is going on. What about the war assets allocation committee? Does it come under the minister, as well, and, if so, what are its duties?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The crown assets allocation committee is described in section 5 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act, as follows:
The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may
(a)	establish a committee to be known as the crown assets allocation committee.
(b)	appoint one of the members of the committee to be chairman and fix the salary, if any, to be paid him;
(c)	authorize payment to any member of the committee who is not in the public service of Canada of a fee for each meeting of the committee that he attends; and
(d)	authorize payment to each member of the committee of actual disbursements for expenses necessarily incurred in connection with the discharge of his duties under this act.
And then section 7 states:
The committee shall advise the minister on matters relating to the use, disposal of or dealing with surplus crown assets or otherwise arising out of this act which are referred to it by the minister, and in particular without limiting the foregoing, it shall
(a) consider questions relating to surplus crown assets referred to it by the minister and recommend to the minister whether the corporation should sell or otherwise dispose of any such assets or whether they should be dealt with or disposed of in some other way;

Reconstruction and Supply
(b)	consider representations made by any government department, provincial government, municipality or public body with respect to surplus crown assets and make recommendations to the minister in connection therewith; and
(c)	exercise and perform such duties and make such investigations and reports as the governor in council or the minister may from time to time direct.


Mr. GILLIS:: I have no desire to hold up the passage of this bill; we are prepared to expedite it. But shall we have an opportunity some time before Christmas to discuss this whole matter of reconstruction? I understand that War Assets Corporation will come under the minister's department. It is disposing of millions of dollars worth of property accumulated by the Canadian people during the war. The minister will not know anything about those transactions until after they are made, or whether they are right or wrong. They are just reported.
I should like to have the minister's personal opinion on one point. A number of airports across Canada are being declared surplus war materials, and are being placed in the hands of War Assets Corporation. There is a serious housing shortage in Canada. Most of these airports were modern villages with paved streets, electric lighting, central heating and so on. With only a little renovation those buildings would accommodate thousands of people.
I am particularly interested, because one of those airports is in my own community, situated between Sydney and Glace Bay. War Assets Corporation is going to dispose of it. That airport is a modern village, equipped in every way to house thousands of people who are looking for accommodation. There is no housing available in that community, nor is there likely to be for some considerable time. Does the minister think it is feasible to utilize the services already provided in a village of that kind for the purpose of creating housing facilities, until such time as we can build houses?
Mr. HOWE; That is exactly what is being done in many communities. In order to make sure of prompt action in changing over existing accommodation of that type for purposes of housing, the department has appointed a special officer in the person of Brigadier General Colin Campbell, a former member of this House of Commons. AH hon. members know that he is a vigorous and able engineer, with a fine war record. Brigadier General Campbell has been spending all his time during the last several months in working with municipalities to make available that type of living accommodation. The government can hardly be expected to enter into
this as a government enterprise. We are quite willing to turn it over to a town, a village or anyone who wishes to sponsor it for local needs. However, my hon, friend will appreciate the difficulty of the government's going into the housing business, in that type of accommodation.


Clarence Gillis: The minister's department
has been written to on several occasions with respect to that particular airport. The answer received w'ould indicate that the department did not know anything about it. I bring this matter to the minister's attention, because there is a tendency for no one in Ottawa to know anything about the maritimes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My department knows a
great deal about the maritimes, but knows nothing about any building until it is declared surplus. I think the difficulty has been that the hon. member was inquiring about_ those buildings at a time when they were in the possession of one of the armed services, and had not been declared surplus. One ruling we must stand by in the Department of Reconstruction is that we must deal with nothing of which we do not have possession. We get possession of buildings of that type only after they are declared surplus by the branch of the armed services owning them.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Under the operations of
the Veterans Land Act $1,200 has been made available to returning men for the purchase of stock and equipment. A large amount of equipment formerly used by the armed forces- trucks, tools and the like-might very well be used by those who are administering the act in connection with the resettling of soldiers on the land. Is War Assets Corporation making any equipment available to those who are administering the Veterans Land Act; if so, under what terms?


William Henry Golding: I do not think the hon. member's question is relevant to the section. The section reads:
The rights, powers, duties, liabilities and functions of the minister shall extend and apply to such boards and other public bodies, officers, subjects, services and properties of the crown as may be designated or assigned to the minister by the governor in council, over which the minister shall have the control, regulation, management and supervision.


Percy Ellis Wright: The department is handling War Assets.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think, Mr. Chairman, the
question is a fair one. The priority set up for war assets gives any federal government department first priority. If the Department of Veterans Affairs wishes to be a claimant for
Reconstruction and Supply

the material, it will get the material first. The second priority is that of the province. I may say that the province of which my hon. friend is a shining representative lets very little get past it. After that come the municipalities, and following them come individuals. That is, they come after all three governments have been served.
The matter of priorities is engaging the attention of the committee that is now examining war assets. It is very important, because there is nothing that slows down the sale of war materials and causes so much difficulty to those administering the sale" as the system of priorities which is being observed at the present time.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Just to follow that up, what the minister has said is an absolute contradiction of the answer the minister gave me on the subject last night. I raised the question of priorities for veterans, in connection with automobiles, station wagons, tractors and that sort of thing, and pointed out that they had asked for this very thing. The minister at that time quoted an article from Washington, supporting- his statement, which said that priorities would not be allowed to veterans. If this is to be turned over to the veterans department, it will be to their interest if they knew how it is to be handled. Discharged veterans are making these requests every day and the officials of this corporation are telling them that they have no priorities over any civilian. That is happening day in and day out. If anything is being done, these service men should be told about it just as soon as possible. If it is to be handled under the Veterans' Land Act, then the country should be told so immediately because it is now in a turmoil about the matter.
The minister's statement to-night conflicts very much with what he put on Hansard last night. He said that if any of us could offer any suggestions as to how the matter could be handled, he would be glad to accept them and give them proper consideration. Auction sales have been held, and some have been held in my part of the country *where wagons, automobiles and trucks have been sold and where farmers have been given preference. Someone must vouch that they are bona fide farmers. The price ceiling is respected; bids are made, and then they draw numbers in a lottery to decide who gets the article at that bid. If it is being handled in that way for the farmers, why could it not be handled on the same basis for the veterans? It would mean a great deal to many of these chaps.
I should like to give a concrete example.
A chap told me about purchasing a poultry

farm in Ontario. This fellow is still going to university. One of these station wagons would mean a great deal to him in getting to and from the university and in looking after his poultry farm. He has been to see the officials of the War Assets set-up and has been told that there is no preference for him. These men need these articles, because they will mean a great deal to them and their dependents in becoming reestablished in civil life.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What provision is being made for appeals from rulings of boards and officers under the supervision of the minister? Let me illustrate my question. At the present time there is a difference of opinion between the department of natural resources of Saskatchewan and the timber controller regarding the ceiling price of pulpwood in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I understand that the ceiling price for Manitoba is $9 a cord and for Saskatchewan, $8. The minister is familiar with the territory and he knows there is a large area around The Pas from which pulpwood is obtained. This pulpwood is shipped through Hudson Bay Junction in Saskatchewan and the freight rate there is actually higher than from many points in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan department of natural resources is contending that the ceiling price should be based on the freight rate. It seems to me that they have a good argument, but the timber controller argues that the present arrangement has been in existence for several years and that it would hardly be worth while to disturb it. What provision is there for an appeal from a decision * made by one of these boards should a provincial government or a corporation wish to take an appeal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I presume the appeal would be to the minister. As the minister would be very ignorant of the -whole subject, probably he would accept the controller's opinion, the controller being a student of the matter and having a greater knowledge of the subject.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: We should have a statement from the minister with reference to War Assets Corporation. I am sure that other hon. members are in the same position as I am. I do not know what the policy of the department is to be in connection with surplus assets. I should like to refer to the Financial Post of January 29, 1944, in which the president of the corporation, Mr. Carswell, is reported to have said this:
Since the key job of the corporation is to protect the going economy against impingement of war surpluses, it stands to reason that the corporation should never get into competition with industry, which is another way of saying it should not sell direct to the consumer but

Reconstruction and Supply
rather to those whose^ legitimate business it is to deal with the article concerned and on a basis that, within the corporation's powers, will ensure reasonable profit to dealer and reasonable price to consumer.
I would take from this that as far as possible they intended to keep out of the business of dealing with the public and were going to deal through private channels of trade. Then I find that on June 12, 1944, the Minister of Munitions and Supply is reported on page 3728 of Hansard as saying:
The purpose will be to sell the goods as directly as possible from the government to the ultimate consumer. As a matter of practical administration, there may be commissions given to a group of dealers, but there would be no outright sale to dealers for re-sale at any price the dealer likes to charge to the ultimate consumer. The purpose is to work directly from the government to the ultimate consumer.
There would appear to be a contradiction of policy there. On the one hand, we have the president of the corporation giving an interpretation of policy which we might call the private enterprise interpretation, while on the other hand we have the minister saying that the policy will be to deal with the pdblic through the shortest route. It may be said that was in 1944, but I have here the annual report of War Assets Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1945. I find that there appears to be another contradiction here, and I quote from page 27 as follows:
At all times to make every effort to control the price to the public and to reach the public by the shortest feasible route.
In passing, I may say that I am 100 per cent behind that policy, but the very next paragraph in the report reads:
The corporation has avoided and will continue to. avoid, direct sales to the public, excepting in some special cases where direct sales are normal and sound.
In the first few pages of this report we find set out some of the sales which they consider to be sound. I do not want to go into them now, but they are mostly bulk sales in large quantities to big firms. The point I am getting at is this: We are going to follow either one policy or the other, either the policy enunciated by Mr. Carswell, which appears to be the private enterprise policy and which seems to appeal to a certain section of this house, or the policy of selling as directly as possible to the public which has been enunciated by the minister and which I hope will be followed.
We are going to deal with about S2.000 million worth of surplus war assets, taking the minister's own figure which he gave yesterday. Two billion dollars is a lot of money in anybody's language. As was said yesterday by the hon. member to my right, this is wealth which has been paid for by the taxpayers of this country. It is wealth which belongs to the people in the sense that it does not belong to any one in particular; it belongs to the general public, and therefore we should try to make that wealth bring back as much as possible into the public treasury and at the same time have it reach the consumer at a reasonable price. I do not know of any other way in which that can be done more fairly than by selling directly to the public.
Yesterday the minister said that it would be difficult to set up retail establishments across the country. When we are dealing with $2,000 million worth of 'the kind of goods that the people of this country are asking for to-day, it should not be a hard job to set up some of these service men who have come back from the war in businesses of their own and supply them at wholesale with items from War Assets Corporation. Let them do the retailing to the 'public and let the corporation have sufficient control to see that the profit is reasonable. It could be done on a consignment basis, so that these men would receive a commission on everything they sold. It is important that we as representatives of the public should watch carefully how the corporation handles these war assets, because on the face of what we have seen so far we are not satisfied. I am concerned about what has been going on. We know that goods have been destroyed; this has been admitted by responsible ministers of the crown in this house, and we do not know how much more will be destroyed. We are not told what the plans of the corporation are. It seems hard to get information about it, and we are afraid that much of the surplus assets paid for by the taxpayers will foe either destroyed or sold in bulk at ridiculously low prices to somebody who will profiteer andi get away with a lot of money. We want these assets to reach the people at a reasonable price and at the same time to recover as much as possible for the treasury so that the public interest will be safeguarded.
I notice that my hon. friends to the right have often said that the servicemen will not have an opportunity of going into business if we go too far in this country into public enterprises. I am not so sure that public enterprise is the biggest enemy of the servicemen who want to go into business because, when I see what is happening in private enterprise circles, I wonder how much they are really concerned with the servicemen who desire to enter business. In 1943 the Canadian Manufacturers' association pre-

Reconstruction and Supply
sented a brief before the senate committee on reconstruction and reestablishment in which they wanted assurance that "government-owned plants and equipment should not fall at bargain prices into the hands of newcomers to competitive branches of industry." Just what do they mean by saying that they did not want these plants and equipment to fall into the hands of newcomers to competitive branches of industry? Who are the newcomers in business to be? It is quite clear that by and large they will be the returned men who are trying to set themselves up in business. The Canadian Manufacturers' association, who I understand are the very pillars of capitalism, do not want any competition. . It seems strange that these gentlemen who in one breath shout about how wonderful competition is, should in the next be belly-aching that they do not want competition even from servicemen. Competition with them seems to be very much like castor oil, much easier for them to prescribe than to take. If we want to follow the right policy we should not pay much attention to such organizations as the Canadian Manufacturers' association, who are speaking for their own benefit and not for the public interest. We have heard a lot in the last few weeks from hon. members to my right about giving the serviceman a chance to go into business or to set himself up in some sort of trade. I believe that servicemen are entitled to every opportunity, but I do not believe that they will get that opportunity if we follow the tenets of private enterprise.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am surprised at all these complaints coming from Saskatchewan. My hon. friend may not know that practically all the war assets in that province are distributed by a crown company that is owned by the provincial government, which is hardly an example of free enterprise.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If I may correct the minister before hon. gentlemen "bust" their seats in applauding, may I point out to him that in Manitoba we are still living under private enterprise.


Mr. SKEY:: The hon. member for Dauphin has said what I would have said last night had it not been so late. I should like to second all he said with a view to the desirability of a clarification of policy on the disposal of war assets. I have expressed myself once or twice already in regard to this matter and I have been particularly concerned that there has been so much mystery about exactly what is happening. I consider that the minister for the benefit of the public

should make a statement of policy to the committee, because there is in the public mind a considerable amount of confusion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have already explained the impossibility of dealing directly with every one of the twelve' million people who make up Canada's population. I have explained that War Assets must of necessity be a wholesaler dealing through retail outlets. But of a staff of about one thousand in War Assets Corporation, at least eight hundred are veterans and I assume that they are doing their best for the veterans. The reason my hon. friend and a good many other people do not come in direct contact with War Assets is that War Assets is a wholesaler selling through retail outlets. A great deal of material goes out in that way through hardware stores and other outlets. It must necessarily be so to obtain a wide distribution. My hon. friend will realize the impossibility of setting up a new retail outlet in every city or town or village in this country, and if it were done in only one village and not in the next there would very soon be trouble. There would have to be a tremendous organization set up for just a short period, because we hope that this . distribution will not last for very long. Accordingly War Assets has a small compact organization dealing with established retail outlets to get as wide a distribution as possible. So that the two policies of choosing the shortest feasible route of getting the assets to the public and at the same time dealing on a wholesale basis are quite consistent.
We do not sell large blocks of assets at any price that may be bid, on the understanding that the buyer can resell them at any price he likes. That is not the method. They are sold to retail distributors under a direct contract that the spread between the price the retailer pays and the price he will charge the public will be fixed. We are not allowing huge profits to be made on sales by War Assets to the retailer and the retailer's sales to the public. The spread is kept to a definite amount, under a contact that the difference between the price to the retailer and the price to the public shall be as limited as the transaction will stand.


Mr. PEARKES:: Referring back to the subject of these groups of hutments which are made available from the armed services many of these hutments on the Pacific coast are outside the municipalities in what is known as unorganized territory. I understood the minister to say that priorities are given to the municipalities. Could similar consideration be given to organized groups in the unorganized territories? These unorganized territories are

Reconstruction and Supply
not uninhabited territories. They are scattered communities in which a great many people are living, but which up to to-day have not organized as a municipality or village. There is on Vancouver island a shortage of houses in the rural districts. If these hutments could be made available on the same priority as was given to the municipality, then groups of business men, farmers associations, the legion, or some other .recognized group of citizens in the rural community could utilize those hutments to the benefit of the area. Could similar priority be given to recognized groups in these unorganized territories?


Clarence Decatur Howe: War Assets Corporation is
always ready to give priority to a non-profit organization, but it must be a bona fide nonprofit organization. If it is, it gets practically the same priority which goes to an organized public government; that is, a municipality or a city. But it must deal in a way which makes it perfectly evident that it is not engaged in profit making.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, I mean a non-profit
organization.


Mr. McIVOR:: I should like to give an
example of the procedure of the War Assets agent in Port Arthur. The agency sold a number of beds. We found that one of the local boys' or girls' camps wanted these beds, but they were too late for the sale. The agent said, "You can still get those beds, and you will get them at the price which we state". Very little was made by the local store, I believe no more than 5 or 10 per cent, certainly not more than 15 per cent, and the local camp was very well pleased because of this sale of war assets.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I find myself somewhat
at a loss to know what the future of this Department of Reconstruction and Supply will be. In the first place the minister said that it was of a temporary nature, almost self-liquidating, and in reply to the hon. member for Carleton he said that because of its temporary nature it was impossible to put any substantial number of the staff under the civil service. Then my hon. colleague-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish that my hon. friend,
if he desires to quote me, would quote me correctly.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister may amend my statement if he so desires.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that the entire staff
was under the civil service, but I said that, the department being a temporary one, it could make only temporary appointments. But it is certainly under the civil service.
Every employee is obtained through the civil service commission. My hon. friend has not heard of the difference between permanents and temporaries, I suppose.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Civil servants?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I understand the ordinary practice is that 10 per cent of the staff of a department is kept on temporarily.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In a temporary department
100 per cent of the staff is temporary, unless they are borrowed from permanent departments. No power on earth will permit me to appoint a permanent employee in the Department of Munitions and Supply or in the Department of Reconstruction.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Do I Understand that, of the 2,000 employees who will be in the combined departments of munitions and supply and reconstruction by next April, a substantial proportion will be under the ordinary Civil Service Act? Perhaps the minister will tell the committee what the number will be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They will all be under the Civil Service Act, but they will be temporaries.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I think I understand the
situation now. The hon. member for Calgary West said that he would like to see the powers of the minister extended in the regulation of business. I wish to know whether the minister intends that this Department of Reconstruction and Supply will gradually disappear after the so-called emergency following the war, or will it grow, will it maintain its staff as^ of, say, next April, or will it gradually diminish? For instance, we have at the present dime a shortage of housing, so that the minister engages in wartime housing. I suppose the time may come when there will be a shortage, not of supply but of demand, and then the minister will say that government money must be spent to maintain employment, and that is a policy with which perhaps we are all in sympathy. But I do not think the committee has yet a very clear understanding of what this bill envisages in the way of the amount of power, whether it will grow and grow like a snowball, as power so often does in the hands of a department; once set up, it seldom relinquishes it and is always looking for new fields in which to exercise its authority and keep its place in the sun. I should like the minister to outline if he can just what growth or what disappearance he expects of the functions of this department over, let us say, the next business cycle, a term with which he is quite familiar.
Reconstruction and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Munitions and Supply is in process of liquidation, and will disappear just as fast as we can liquidate it. The life of the Department of Reconstruction was limited- originally to four years. One year has elapsed; it is now limited to three years: we hope we can liquidate it sooner than that. The purpose of the department is to convert the wartime economy bac-k to a normal civilian economy. As soon as that can be accomplished 1 shall be a man without a job, a displaced person.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The minister says that the Department of Munitions and Supply is being liquidated as rapidly as possible. Am I to understand then that, when we pass this bill, if there is any carryover from the Department of Munitions and Supply it will be handled by this new department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Therefore as far as we are concerned there will no longer be a department of munitions and- supply.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I was disappointed with the minister's reply to the hon. member for Rosedale. It did not seem to me that that reply was in accord with the point of view which we heard here last night. The minister hopes and perhaps a great many other hon. members hope that at the end of four years we shall be back to normal and that there will be no need for a department of Reconstruction. I should like to ask the -minister what his conception of "normal" is. Will 'normal" be the condition which prevailed in this country from 19-29 to 1939? If that is normalcy there is certainly something needed, and I do not believe the hon. member for Rosedale has the answer, because the party he is speaking for had every opportunity to make this a pleasant land from 1929 to 1935 and they failed, and failed miserably.
Last evening the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said that in the next few years times wall be very difficult and that there will be great need for the Department of Reconstruction. Does anyone in this committee believe that times will change so much for the better in three or four years that we shall have no need for government intervention, not just for social reconstruction but to prevent social disintegration by making some employment?
I am sorry that the minister's social outlook is not a little brightei;, because, as I mentioned last night, I believe he could do good work in that direction. He has capacity for that kind of work, and I want to tell him that it will be needed and that they might as well start planning right now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Definitions.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Paragraph (a) of this section mentions a number of the "projects" which the department has in mind. I am not quite clear as to what each project means. I -can understand what is -meant by "air ports" and "dockyards": I presume those will be for government docks and for Trans-Canada airports? What is the significance of the reference here to "roads"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The old act referred to -defence projects and this merely refers to projects. The only change is the deletion of the word defence.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But what is the significance of 1;he word "roads"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government has a policy for maintaining a high level of employment and income, as indicated in the government white paper, and that policy contemplates that when private industry is unable to maintain full employment the government steps in with a programme of public works.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I agree with that.


Mr. HOTV  E@: It may be that the government at that time will wish the Department of Reconstruction to place contracts for such public works and this gives the authority.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am heartily in accord
with that. In other words, if Trans-Canada were to be completed, the plans and- specifications pertaining to the roadway would be prepared; tenders would be called and contracts awarded.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Tha-t is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am heartily in accord
with the department initiating any works and letting, them by contract to give employment.
I agree with wha-t an hon. member to my left said a moment ago, that this is imperative and also that all these projects mentioned should be along that line. What is the significance of "enterprises for industry"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the wording of -the
present reconstruction act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It does not mean that
the government would erect industrial factories and operate them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have no hesitation in
repeating wha-t I said before, despite what anyone else says to the contran', and every-

Reconstruction and Supply
one has a right to his own opinion. I am opposed and will remain opposed to the government entering into business, conducting business itself, manufacturing agricultural implements, boilers, or furniture or anything else. I have spent twenty-five years in business and I know something about it. I do not at any time discuss either law or medicine because I do not know anything about those matters, but after twenty-five years in business I do know something about employment, notwithstanding what anyone else may think. The industrialists of the country have done a magnificent job; down the years they have given employment to millions of people, and industry should not be scoffed at and made light of by anybody, no matter who he may be or where he may come from. Certainly no industrialist would scoff at industry or employment or anyone associated therewith. In reference to these projects I support them because I understand what they mean, as explained by the minister, namely, that the department will initiate works programmes, one of which is in connection with roads and let contracts therefor to take up the slack if at any time industry is not able to do so. That was my conception of the Department of Reconstruction. It has never been my conception that the department should enter into private business and carry on industrial enterprises in peace time.
Mr. STIRLING':	One of the minister's
colleagues said some time ago that it was not the government's intention to proceed with public works for the purpose of employing people at that time. Can the minister tell us whether he foresees that we are more nearly approaching that time? Does he expect in the reasonably near future that the government will be embarking on some of these projects? Second,vcan he say whether there is a list established of work which, when that day comes, the government proposes to undertake.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the view of the Department of Reconstruction that no extensive public works will be required for the next year or two, certainly for the next year. The country is faced with a great problem of building homes sufficient for the people and in repairing the wear and tear of past years. That work is not being carried out, owing to the fact that it takes some time for the construction industry to gain momentum. The railroads have stopped buying steel rails because they cannot get. men to lay them, and maintenance of any kind is quite deficient. To start public works would only delay work
that is absolutely necessary for the conduct of the normal economy. That is a general statement applying across Canada, though there are local conditions that vary it. There are a few spots in Canada where some public works will be necessary in the reasonably near future, and there may be some unemployment in the winter, inevitably, with the seasonal aspect of employment, reconversion of factories and accelerated discharges from the armed services. That will be incidental to the relocation of the population which must take place, because if everyone in Canada settled on the Pacific coast, for instance, we could not find employment enough for the people there. There must be a distribution of men to the various areas where, work is naturally available, but I am certain that by next spring there will be employment for all. I am certain of that, without the need for any artificial programme of public works.


Grote Stirling: Is there an established list of public works which the minister contemplates undertaking when that time comes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is being established, yes.


Mr. PROBE:: With reference to section 9, paragraph (e) "supplies", as I understand it, the minister is empowered to enter into contracts for reconstruction purposes. According to this section, he is empowered to get such supplies as are enumerated here: materials, equipment, ships, aircraft, automobiles, vehicles, animals, goods, stores, articles, or comr modi ties of any kind, including anything which in the opinion of the minister is or is likely to be necessary for production, storage or supply for reconstruction, and so on. Does this section mean that we are now with one hand, through War Assets Corporation, unloading two billion dollars' worth of goods paid for by the ratepayers of the country, and with the other hand writing cheques for more materials that are likely to be used for reconstruction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


John Oliver Probe: Will the minister explain the situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is no. There is no other answer.


John Oliver Probe: Definitely no?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is it,


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is the minister considering the taking over of building projects of the Department of Public Works? If not, what coordination will there be between his department and Public W'orks?
Reconstruction and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: This reconstruction is a coordinating department which does not take over the work of any other departments of government but tries to assist in timing the work so that it will fit into the pattern of full employment.
* Mr. PROBE: I am still not satisfied as to the purpose of section 9 paragraph (e). I should like an explanation as to the need of that paragraph.
>
Mr HOWE:	The old act gave powers to
purchase those materials. Naturally they are not purchased by the department. We are the servant of the armed services, and under the new bill we shall still be. The army requisitions anything that it requires, sends the requisition to us and we purchase the materials. We continue to' do this. I might remind my hon. friend that there are 500,000 people in the armed services to-day. They must eat and they must have boots and clothing. It is the function of the Department of Munitions and Supply now, and it will be the function of the Department of Reconstruction. and Supply to purchase these supplies when they are requisitioned by the armed services.


John Oliver Probe: I am in considerable confusion here, because I was just reading a little summary of supplies that were being sold by War Assets Corporation. For example, I note that 10,660 odd pairs of C.W.A.C.'s shoes-very good shoes too by the way-were being sold by War Assets Corporation to a distributor in Montreal at the rate of approximately $1.70 a pair. The. minister assured us that these shoes had a certain ceiling on resale, and I am going to look for those shoes on the retail market with great interest, expecting that they will be sold for about $2.25 a pair. Are we on the one hand to dispose of these shoes and the equipment of our armed services with the aid of War Assets because they seem to be surplus, and then next week are we to buy more C.W.A.C. shoes because some department of ordnance made an error in guessing the amount of material that the same service personnel would be using? Could the minister assure us that at least an ample stock of all these clothing supplies, motors and the more expensive equipment other than edibles is still in store for the use of the armed services until they are demobilized?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might point out that anything of war assets has to come from the army, navy or air force. If we are asked to buy any article that has been declared surplus we always check with War Assets to see what became of the surplus declared. It
(Mr. Jackman.]
might be an odd size. There is usually a very good reason for declaring a surplus; but what is declared surplus is not for us to determine.; it is a matter for the armed services itself. The purpose of this amendment is to change the last line of the old act. It says:
.Storage or supply of any munitions of war or necessary for the needs of the government or of the community in war.
We are not at war, and therefore we are deleting this phrase, but at the same time we will carry on the same, functions for the armed services in. peace that we did in war. It is just a change- in phraseology.


John Oliver Probe: The minister has added a paragraph and the word "reconstruction". I hope we are not selling all these commodities on the one hand and on the other require them later on.


Ernest George Hansell: Before we leave section 9, may I say that I was particularly interested in the minister's reply to t'he remarks of the hon. member for Davenport. When the hon. member asked what was really meant by some of those projects such as "roads", the minister to my mind made a sad confession. He said that the time might come when industry was unable to provide employment, jobs. It does not make any difference to me whether he referred to private industry or government-owned industry. He feared the time would come when industry would not- be able to provide jobs. I do not believe that the ultimate objective and function of industry is to provide jobs, but rather to supply the best quality of production at the cheapest price to the consumer as rapidly as possible, and with as little human effort, sweat and toil as possible. If we follow the minister's argument through and the time eventually comes when we have what was once upon a time known to be overproduction, then the minister says that this measure will give us the opportunity of stepping in and providing work. What for? For work's sake? If that is the case, then what we are doing to-night is passing a bill enabling the government. to set up in future years huge labour camps. The only difference between, this and what happened in pre-war years will be that the work camps will be a sort of glorified thing.
I believe that I have thrown some light on this, and perhaps in years to come I might be able to refer $o my two-minute speech to-night and remind* the minister that a good title for this bill should have been "The Department of Glorified Relief".

Business of the House


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Grote Stirling: Could the .minister give us any idea when section 14 will be operative?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As soon as the formalities can be complied with. The new make-up of the organization must be filed with the civil .service commission. All the people in the department who intend to stay in must be blanketed into t'he new department. I anticipate that it will become operative by the middle of December.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MACKENZIE:: I should like to call item No. 9 on to-day's order paper.


Grote Stirling: How does the minister make that comport with what was mentioned at eleven o'clock last night?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was not mentioned last night.


Grote Stirling: What preparation can members of the house make if we are to jump around like that. We were arranging for agriculture estimates and two resolutions in the name of the Minister of Labour.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I point out to my hon. friend that there is a technical difficulty with regard to this resolution. If the house will waive that difficulty we shall proceed with it. The difficulty is this. If my hon. friend will look at page 2 of to-day's order paper he will see that there was a report from the committee on external affairs to which an amendment was moved by the Minister of Justice. Both resolutions respecting the International Labour Office have reference to the report which has not yet been adopted by the house. However, as I said last night, if the house were prepared to waive that, we could deal with the resolutions.


Grote Stirling: I do not follow that. What are the numbers of the resolutions about which the hon. member is speaking?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Items Nos. 10 and 11 on to-day's order paper.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister say that they have already been committed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They were referred to the committee on external affairs. That committee reported back to the house, and when the report was made an amendment, which has not yet been disposed of, was moved. This appears at page 2 on to-day's order paper.


Grote Stirling: I remember the incident to which the minister refers. If I remember correctly, it was the final paragraph of the report which was questioned. That in no way affected the rest of it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Correct. I think the house might very well deal with these two labour resolutions.


Grote Stirling: Yes; it would be agreeable to proceed with them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then I shall ask that ' item No. 10 on to-day's order paper be called.


Angus MacInnis: Surely this is not correct procedure.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only by unanimous consent.


Angus MacInnis: I do not believe even unanimous consent can help. We cannot just deal with these rules as we might like. These two resolutions were referred! to a committee of the house, and that committee has made a report concerning them. The report has been moved, but it has not yet been debated. How can we deal with what was referred to the committee, without dealing with the report that was made by the committee on what was referred to it? It seems to me that if we are to be logical we cannot throw things around like that.


Grote Stirling: The state of affairs is exactly as the hon. member has described it. When I spoke I was referring to the position in which the house is placed. The leaders and the whips have met, with an idea to making progress-if progress is possible. But this can be done only with unanimous consent. If the hon. member does not give unanimous consent, then that is the end of it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not like to be technical in these matters, and if there is any objection we shall not proceed. However if the hon. member will look at page 251 of Votes and Proceedings he will find that the committee definitely recommended these two resolutions. However, I am not insisting, if there is any objection.


Angus MacInnis: If we proceed in this way, what becomes of the special motion on the second page of the order paper?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The contention there had nothing to do with these two resolutions.
I believe the committee was unanimous in recommending them. However, if the hon. member objects, I shall not insist. Would the house agree to unanimous consent, so that we might proceed with these resolutions?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Proceed.

Labour-Approval of Convention



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour moved:
That this house do approve of the cpnvention concerning the protection against accidents of workers employed in loading or unloading ships (revised), which was adopted by the general conference of the international labour organization of the league of nations at its sixteenth session in Geneva on the 27th day of April, 1932. as reported from the Standing Committee on External Affairs.
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have not the report before me at the present time. However, I recall that there were two resolutions, one of which dealt with statistics in mines and in other industries, and the second of which dealt with safety in ;he loading and unloading of ships.
I believe the committee in its recommendations drew attention to the lack of adequate inspection and of adequate inspectors. It also drew attention to the fact that the government or the Department of Transport could not get sufficient inspectors of a calibre required to do this kind of work, until the remuneration paid is better than it has been in the past.
The inspector of tackle in connection with the loading and unloading of ships was before the committee, and pointed out that in only five ports in Canada have we inspectors. On the west coast there are inspectors at Port Alberni and at Vancouver. There are no inspectors at Victoria, Prince Rupert or New Westminster. The inspector at Vancouver is supposed to do that work.
These conventions laid down a minimum programme of conditions, in whatever industry they referred to. When a country ratifies or adopts a convention, that country is under the obligation to fulfil the conditions laid down in the convention. I submit that in Canada up to the present time we have not lived up to the minimum required in the convention. Although we have not ratified the convention, I would expect it would be ratified to-night. It will be up to the department concerned to see that these conventions are lived up to.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I say, speaking for this party, how very much we are in favour of this resolution. I support it personally for two reasons, one of which is quite immaterial, namely, that I want to get home for Christmas. The second is much more imporant, in

that it seems to me that this is a part of a contribution which this nation is making toward the amity of nations, and broad understanding in affairs of this kind.
I compliment whoever is responsible-and I know this began many years ago In Geneva -and would add that I am very happy to be one of those present, and to say on behalf of this group just'how much we are in favour of this particular resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Humphrey Mitchell: That this house do approve of the convention concerning statistics of wages and hours of work in the principal mining and manufacturing industries, including building and construction and in agriculture, which was adopted by the general conference of the international labour organization of the league of nations at its twenty-fourth session in Geneva, on the 20th day of June, 1938, as reported from the standing committee on external affairs.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister
state why he believes it is advantageous for us to accept this resolution?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to join in that request; and may I assure the house that we hold in this matter the same views I have expressed concerning the one with which we have just dealt.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think it is necessary to repeat what was said when these resolutions were introduced. I have taken a keen interest in the international labour organization since its foundation. I join with the hon. members for Calgary West, (Mr. Smith) and Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) in paying tribute to the work of that organization. As I have said before, of the organizations emanating from the treaty of Versailles this one has made as great if not a greater contribution to the welfare of the men and women engaged in commerce, agriculture and industry than any other organization of its kind. My understanding is that during the committee's sittings officials of the international labour office appeared and said that both these resolutions measured up to the conventions adopted by the international labour office.
I would recall that the Canada Shipping Act was passed by the Bennett government in 1934.
The international labour office has just finished one of its sessions in Paris. Representatives were there from employers and

_____________Labour-Approval of Convention
employees and the government of Canada. At this moment a committee of the international lalbour office is meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, to deai with the broader question of the welfare of men engaged on deep-sea ships. Next month another committee will meet in London at which workers and employers and the government will be represented to deal with conditions on the inland waterways of the different countries affiliated with the organization. Following that, there will be another meeting of a committee of the international labour office in London to deal with the broad question of coal mining. My hon. friend asks, "In what way?" The statistics compiled by the bureau of statistics and the Department of Labour are of a kind and character that comply in every particular with the standards laid down by the international labour organization. I think that answers my hon. friend's question.


John Horne Blackmore: What are the stipulations involved which would improve conditions in our mines? In general; we do not want too much detail.


Humphrey Mitchell: The whole conventions were set out in Votes and Proceedings early in the session. I have not them in front of me at the moment. If my hon. friend will get Votes and Proceedings he can study them at his leisure, if he has not done so already.
I think he is asking me a difficult thing to memorize a convention of the international labour office.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I repeat what I said a moment ago because we have in this house an -institution called Hansard. I want to make it plain that we agree most heartily with the minister who moved this resolution, We feel that by standing with other nations who are peacefully minded we are perhaps advancing the situation in world trade. I am sure if the minister ever goes back to Geneva he will build a better looking building than the labour office occupies at the present time.


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to say in a general way in commenting upon the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, that merely because a matter is accepted by an international organization is no guarantee that it is sound. The mere fact that Canada has gone many years without adopting this convention and suddenly makes up her mind to adopt it seems to me to be some indication that an explanation . ought to be given.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Horne Blackmore: I would much prefer the hon. member to show hi? knowledge than ask me a question.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask it or not?


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly; ask the question.	[DOT]


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the hon. member know of any country in the world where mining conditions are better by law than they are in the Dominion of Canada?


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member will tell me how the adoption of this legislation will improve conditions in Canada, he will be giving me what I want to know.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is merely to show that we .believe.


Angus MacInnis: I think it can be done very briefly. I am quite sure the hon, member knows the constitution of the international labour office. It is an organization where government members, employers' representatives and labour representatives meet. Conditions in various industries are considered at these conferences. A great deal of time is given to the consideration of different problems; it goes on over a period of years; nothing is done hurriedly. The conference agrees upon conditions that should prevail in the particular industry with which it is dealing. I mentioned this evening the inspection of tackle in the loading and unload^ ing of ships, generally a most dangerous occupation. They laid down careful requirements for safety in that particular industry. When that is done it is called a convention of the international labour office and it is referred to the various nations members of the international labour office who are asked to ratify the convention in order that there may be similar conditions in all maritime countries, in this particular case. Consequently no country can say, "We will not put these conditions into effect because they are not in effect somewhere else," and thus have an advantage in a competitive industry. The purpose is to improve conditions in the industry- generally.
As a matter of fact, Canada has been rather backward in the ratification of conventions. There is an additional reason for that than our desire not to do so. Perhaps we should have' ratified this convention many years ago, as I understand' it was passed in 1932. But we did not have a shipping act that provided for the necessary regulation and inspection. When the shipping act was passed in 1934 it was not proclaimed for some years afterward
War Service Grants

and ratification was held up in that way. I can assure m37 hon. friend that the international labour office is doing an excellent job.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the War Service Grants Act, 1944, by incorporating in the measure the provisions of certain orders in council passed under the War Measures Act and by extending and clarifying in several other respects the application and operation of the act, as recommended and reported by the special committee on veterans affairs.
He said:	May I explain that this is the
unanimous report of sixteen members representing all parties. I do not intend to ask that the bill go farther than first reading tonight. I am asking the house to accept the general principles of the resolution and amendments proposed by members of what I think was the most able committee I have ever seen in this house. Then on Monday or Tuesday of next week we can go ahead with the details of the bill, either on first or second reading as may seem fit and proper to the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Mr. BROOKS; Is the minister going to make a short statement?
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I had intended to
reserve a full explanation of the bill for the first or second reading, but with the permission of the committee I should like to say now that last -year we passed a War Service Grants Act, which was in three parts, and as a result Of administration it has been discovered that there were some flaws in the legislation. This year a committee of
sixty7 ex-servicemen, members of the house, representing all parties and groups, has been working long hours and very hard over the legislation passed last year. We had the most wonderful cooperation from members of all parties in the house and the committee's work was done in the true spirit of the past which has always characterized committees dealing with the welfare of the veterans.
If I may, I should like to reserve a full explanation of the bill for the first or second reading. To-night perhaps it would be sufficient for me to say that the legislation is based on a unanimous report from the committee after careful and truly splendid cooperation.


Mr. BROOKS:: 

END OF VOLUME II