April 2, 1947

CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

Because our own figures have gone up, too.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

Yes, and I am glad my hon. friend mentioned that, because our own figures have gone up enormously. I believe they have gone up, roughly speaking, in the civil service, from

75,000 to 150,000. And I think that does not include special boards.

Mr. MeCANN: It is 133,000.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

We should have had that figure before, because we have not heard it up to now.

Mr. MeCANN: That is the official figure from the bureau of statistics.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

It does not take into consideration crown companies.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

As I said, in the fully planned economy we find a few people at the top and a mass of civil servants to carry out their will. That implies two things; it implies, first of all, that you have comprehensive wisdom at the top, which, I maintain, just does not exist. And secondly it means that when you have that planning at the top, you must have your planning carried out.

For instance, if certain decisions are arrived at regarding labour, then I think it is quite clear you cannot have collective bargaining in force. There may be some question raised as to that, but that is my belief.

From what is happening in England, a country which we think of as the home of freedom, I think it is clear that you have

Emergency Powers

there today a situation under which, unless you are a member of a trade union-and not only of a trade union, but one of the trade unions which is right inside-you are in an invidious position. I note that an hon. member shakes his head. I must frankly admit that I was greatly surprised, and I cannot give proof of what I say. All I can say is that I have asked serious people if that is so, and they have told me it is so, and that we have how, even in free England, a situation which we think of only in those states which we regard as the home of tyranny.

I might digress by referring to the fact that an unprecedented thing happened in England a month ago during the crisis when the weekly papers were-I will not say banned, but they were told to stop publication. I hold in my hand the New Statesman and Nation. I believe it can fairly be said that it is a very strong supporter of the government. I would say it is far to the left, but this publication read the government quite a lecture. As to the ban it said:

This suggests an attitude infinitely remote from present day realities. Lord Salisbury could afford to be as aloof as this; Mr. Attlee certainly cannot But even Lord Salisbury would not have gone as far as Mr. Greenwood-

One of the ministers.

In reply to a question about the suspension of weekly periodicals he said: "I would not

have thought that serious and enlightened opinion would suffer by having a fortnight in which to think for itself." The remark could scarcely have been worse. In the first place, it showed a remarkable indifference to the principle of the freedom of the press, and secondly, it implied that it did no harm to leave educated people without the facts and arguments on which to form an intelligent opinion.

I have rather digressed there, because it seems to me that when you will certain things, you will the consequences of those things. And when we start out with planning, it takes us a long way.

Let me give an illustration we ran across the other day in the banking and commerce committee. Incidentally I might say that the officials I met created a favourable impression. I should like to give an instance of just what happens and how far people can go. We had a case raised there where steel was being rationed for export. There was not enough to go round and the companies were being given only enough to make a kind of token export in order that they might be in position to keep their foreign connections. One company was denied steel, and the basis of that denial was perhaps plausible. It was considered that their form of manufacture was not likely to be long continued because

they were selling to Holland and it was thought that purchases by Holland might not continue very long because we had made a loan to Holland and they were buying with the proceeds of that loan. Another company was allowed to export. The officials were quite frank about it, as I say, and they put forward an argument which was interesting and which you could not brush aside.

My only point is this: When you start

planning, where do you go? It seems to me that inevitably you drift into the position where you must begin to play the part of Providence. Several times within the last couple of days we have heard the phrase "orderly decontrol". I think that is a reasonable phrase, but we have also heard the phrase, "we must not decontrol until all risk is removed." I do not think the minister used that phrase, but it has been used. The officials get that idea and I think it is inevitable that they should. I am just pointing out that when we start this planning business we start on a path which takes us far.

I want to mention another place where it takes us, and in this connection I intend to read an extract from the report of the wartime prices and trade board. We come to the point where we are making criminals out of our citizens. That is another thing we , should have in mind. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) ruined one basic part of this speech by announcing yesterday the decontrol of prices on used motor cars. I sent him a note of remonstrance and told him that I thought he should delay it. However, I am not going to hold a grudge against him but I admit this part of my speech would have been much better if they were still under control. However, they were under control at this time yesterday. At least, we did not know that they were being decontrolled; only the press knew that.

I want to read this, and I am very serious about it because it just show-s where we go when 51 per cent of us undertake to invade the rights of the other 49 per cent. People will say, "Do we not invade their rights in the matter of education; do we not invade their rights in the matter of tariffs?" My answer is, "Yes, we do; you have to have a tariff. You cannot have every one making his own tariff." The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) shakes his head there, but we do have to have a tariff. While you and I may not agree about- it, we have to work under the same tariff. If 51 per cent vote for it, we have to have it.

Emergency Powers

Then we have to send our children to school. No one will object to that except a few cranks. I suggest that the reason free institutions have been maintained in British countries so much longer than anywhere else is that we have not invaded the people's rights any more than we have needed to. We have left them as much freedom as possible. I would commend this argument to you by just reading a paragraph from the report. I suggest that this shows what happens or what may happen every time we begin to control. Every step we take in the way of control leads us into so much of this sort of thing. This reads:

The price ceiling on used automobiles has proven extraordinarily difficult to enforce.

I would think it would. I think I am a law-abiding man and I am a rather timid man. I think even if I had wanted to sell my old car I would not have done it, and that would have been partly out of fear. But I can imagine the ordinary citizen asking himself why in heaven's name he should not be allowed to sell his used car. Why it should be regarded as a necessity which should be controlled has never been clear to me. However, it is not controlled now and I will say no more about it. This continues:

The demand for automobiles has been exceptionally heavy and the production of new vehicles to supply that demand has been so beset with shortages and other difficulties that the demand has pressed heavily on the existing supply of used automobiles. Enforcement problems here are concerned not only with organized gangs but also with the irresponsible "fly-by-night" type of illegal dealer and with the private individual who attempts to obtain an excessive price for his own automobile. -

I suggest that hon. gentlemen consider where they have to go once you get into controls. Let me quote the last sentence, which reads:

All types of alleged offenders must be checked if the prices of used cars are to be controlled, yet the number of sales of such vehicles is so great that it is almost impossible to keep up with the work of investigation and prosecution.

I was going to say persecution, but it is prosecution. I submit very earnestly for the consideration of this house that that is a relevant matter. I go back again and say that when you have these controls, they have to be enforced or it makes a fool of every one. That is a matter for consideration.

I want to say a word about the planned economy I have tried to picture, this over-all planning with its thousands of thousands of officials which enter into the people's daily lives. I understand that Mr. Strachey said the other day that this justified the use of

something like agents provocateurs in order to find infractions of the regulations. It is reported that he said that that was justified I suppose when you get into this business you have to be efficient. If you are going to control people, you have to control them and you have to do the things that are necessary. No doubt that is the answer that will be given. That is one side of the question.

The other side is that people are trying their best to produce. I was shocked the other day when the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) made the remark that he did not think the manufacturers were interested in production, they were just interested in profits and money. He gave a very harsh and unflattering picture of our manufacturers. I put it to hon. members here in this house; is that a true picture? Is this a group of people who somehow or other are so different from the rest of us, who are so wicked that they are pursuing a life which is reprehensible to all the rest of us? I suggest that that picture is exaggerated.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
CCF

Frederick Samuel Zaplitny

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. ZAPLITNY:

I did not call them wicked.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

I am only interpreting what the hon. member said, but he did say that the manufacturer was not interested in production. I have had a fairly considerable experience with business men and I would say that the ordinary business man is interested primarily in doing a good job. He is interested in making profit, of course. I remember one business man who was doing a very good job. He was turning out the best article he could at the lowest price. He used to say that profit was a byproduct, that if a man did a good enough job and did it well enough, he would make a profit. That man was interested primarily in doing a good job, and I suggest that that is true of most manufacturers.

Another great advantage in carrying on privately is that they find out if they are wrong. These men are checking each other. We talk about the profit system, but it should be called the profit and loss system. It has been said in this house that the manufacturer fixes his own prices. He does nothing of the kind. If he fixed his own prices, would there be the failures we see at every turn? Of course there would not. As long as there is competition he does not fix his own prices. I will come back to this question of competition, but I see my time is running out and I must hurry on.

I do not want to sit down without doing justice to the point which I said I would try to do justice to, and that is the failures on the part of the private enterprise system, I

Emergency Powers

know that competition is often blunted; I know that there are such things as price agreements; I know that there are such things as near-monopolies. I say, and I wish that every business friend of mine could hear me say, that we who believe in the private enterprise system have to see that there is real competition, and we should be prepared to say that in these cases-there are some, such as the telephone business where a monopoly or a near-monopoly is probably the sane and sensible thing-there should be regulations. We cannot have it both ways.

I wish to say also that I think we should be assiduous, astute and careful to find every way we can to produce real competition. I am not denying that it is not difficult. I am saying that those of us who believe in competition, must accept what I think Herbert Morrison once said in England: "We want private enterprise, not private unenterprise." Those of us who believe in competition should agree with that. I agree with it.

The other day I was struck by a speech of the late Sir Alfred Mond, which he made in the British House of Commons twenty-five years ago in an interesting debate with the late Right Hon. Philip Snowden. I commend it to hon. members. He said he had been told by an American business man when speaking of the efficiency of large combinations, that when one of them was unscrambled into its relative parts the relative parts had been able to do a more profitable job than had been done before; they were more efficient because they got rid of the deadening red tape and the overhead which were involved in the huge combinations. I was interested in that; and the other day I was interested and pleased to read that cost figures do not show that the largest companies have the lowest cost figure. I read a responsible publication-I am Sony I have not it here today-which showed that cost figures would indicate that it was the companies of moderate size which had the lowest cost. Therefore I say that there is no reason for those of us who believe in freedom, those of us who desire the largest possible area of free economy in the countiy, to feel that it cannot be efficient. If you look back on the record I suggest that any fair-minded man will admit if it can be kept free, if we can have competition, if we can have a system whereby individual energy and all the other incentives that can be applied, can be brought to bear and put to the fullest use along with regulations where they are necessary, that is where we get the incentive; that is how we shall get the production; and then we shall get the social security that we all desire.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
IND

Bona Arsenault

Independent

Mr. BONA ARSENAULT (Bonaventure):

We have listened to an able speech from the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Maedonnell), but I am afraid that it is pretty hard for me to share some of his views on the subject. Last week the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett)-I am glad to see him in the house this afternoon-challenged Quebec members representing rural constituencies to accept the control policy of this government. I am proud to say- that I was one of those who rose and accepted the challenge, and I arh glad to be permitted today briefly to express my view on this measure which provides for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war.

In spite of what we have just heard from the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, I am one of those who firmly believe that the Canadian people do not want to go back to the year 1921 and its wholesale price index of 225 with the cost of living index at 200. The Canadian people know that we cannot go back to 1929 and its miserable crash; that we cannot go back to the thirties and that awful period of economic crisis, of total unemployment and of shameful starvation for tens of thousands of Canadian people in a country of plenty. The Canadian people know that we cannot go back even to the year 1939 with its 700.000 unemployed Canadians. Therefore I am one of those who firmly believe that the horse and' buggy days are over. If we are not to go back to these tragic years, then the hon. member for Stanstead or any of his colleagues who oppose this measure will have to devise a better means than that provided in this bill in order to protect the interests of the common people of Canada before I am convinced-and that also applies to my constituents-that I should not heartily support this bill. Whether we like it or not, that means holding on to the controls, and holding on to them as long as is essential for the common good of the Canadian people.

I will go farther than that. Not only does it mean the retention, for the time being of such controls as we know to be beneficial to the Canadian people in order to hold and stabilize our post-war economy, but in many cases it also means the reimposition of some of the controls which have been lifted. I shall go still farther-and I am in good company, along with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and many other hon. members-and say that I believe it is possible-it should be possible-to devise some means

Emergency Powers

whereby we shall never return to the old system of control by private enterprise to the detriment of the common people of Canada.

What is worrying me today? It is not the control bill; not at all, but the very fact that this government is shifting too fast from second gear to high gear in its decontrol policy. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that there are too many obstacles on our economic highway to justify too much speed. What is worrying the householders of Canada today is not this bill, but the very fact that a higher cost oT living is around the corner. And higher costs of living will follow decontrol measures such as those announced in the house yesterday. I am afraid that a further rise in prices is inevitable. In many cases decontrol means higher prices and higher prices mean hardship, particularly in the lower income bracket.

Hon. members are aware of the fact that that is a consequence which may follow in years to come. World-wide shortage of basic materials and foodstuffs limit the supplies of commodities available in Canada. The immediate removal, such as suggested by some opposition members, of such controls would ensure inequitable distribution of goods and foodstuffs throughout our country and would overnight create dissatisfaction, confusion, if not disaster, and chaos in Canada. The needs of thousands of Canadians would not be met, could not be met. Hardship and a sharp reduction in living standards would follow. Of course, big business would speculate on the necessities of life as they did in the past, to the detriment of our farming, working classes, white-collared workers and other fixed wage earners. For example, if today rent and eviction controls were lifted, what would happen? We all know that there would be almost a revolution in Montreal and in other large cities of Canada.

It seems -perfectly clear that the immediate removal of controls on a great number of commodities and manufactured goods would involve a disastrous price increase, which [DOT] perhaps would meet the approval once again of big business but would surely not be to the advantage of the Canadian consumers. Scores of examples could be given, but I do not want to delay unduly the proceedings of the house. Take, for instance, milk. Milk was under government control and has now been transferred to provincial jurisdiction. That very fact contributed to a rise in the price of milk from ten to fifteen cents a quart in the province of Quebec, which means from $8 to $9 a month for every working-class family in the cities of Quebec using from six to seven quarts

of milk a day. Nine dollars a month means something to the working man's budget when the cost of living is already so high.

What is happening in gasoline? The government had control of this commodity and it was transferred to provincial autonomy. The automobile owners of the country entertained the hope that the three-cent war tax would be lifted, that they would be relieved of that burden, but that was just wishful thinking. That tax will remain. The government have not even withdrawn from that field. The provinces jumped on it and made it not a temporary wartime tax but a permanent tax. Federal respect for provincial autonomy, I contend, at least with regard to milk and gasoline, did not bring much relief to the Canadian people in the form of dollars and cents.

What about maple syrup? When this government controlled maple syrup you could buy the syrup last year at S3.15 a gallon, and now we are asked to pay from S6 to $9 a gallon, an increase of from 100 to 200 per cent. These are not bed-time stories; they are the plain truth. This is the situation as we size it up today. And what is the result? Instead of contributing to the relief of thousands upon thousands of Canadian families, who are suffering from the sugar shortage, the bulk of our production of maple syrup is exported to United States tobacco manufacturers and candy shops.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

John Thomas Hackett

Progressive Conservative

Mr. HACKETT:

Does the hon. member deny the farmer of the province of Quebec the high price he is getting for his maple products?

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
IND

Bona Arsenault

Independent

Mr. ARSENAULT:

That is beside the point. I certainly do not deny the farmers of the province of Quebec a fair return for their product, but I will deny anyone, whether it be a farmer or a trust of any kind, the right to take advantage of the present situation; and, as regards maple syruip, I think that if the price is not stabilized at around $4.50 a gallon very shortly, then this government should step in and impose a ceiling so as to regulate the. export of that commodity.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

John Thomas Hackett

Progressive Conservative

Mr. HACKETT:

Don't worry. They will not do it. There are too many constituencies that produce maple syrup.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
IND

Bona Arsenault

Independent

Mr. ARSENAULT:

Do you think they should do it?

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

John Thomas Hackett

Progressive Conservative

Mr. HACKETT:

No, I do not.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
IND

Bona Arsenault

Independent

Mr. ARSENAULT:

All right then. I will give one more example before I resume my seat. The automobile retail trade is passing through a crisis at the present time, particu-

Emergency Powers

larly in the city of Quebec, in the district of Quebec and throughout the eastern part of the province of Quebec. As the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) admitted last night, there is a black market with wide ramifications throughout the province of Quebec and throughout the country, and it has reached the point where they are controlling the sales of used cars and, I will add, of new cars, which item was overlooked by the minister yesterday, more efficiently than the manufacturers and the dealers themselves. The way to secure a new automobile promptly is not to go to the dealer and have your name put on a waiting list, but to go to the black market and pay 3500, $600 or SS00 more for a new car. If you do that you can come back with a new car. Priorities on retail sales of automobiles have been abolished by the government, having been left to the good will of the automobile dealers and manufacturers, with the result that today we are at the mercy of a huge black market.

I heard the other day in this house that if this government lifted all controls overnight the law of supply and demand would work out all right. Well, it just does not work. It is the law of the jungle that prevails in too many instances. Automobile manufacturers find if more profitable today to export a substantial part of their production, leaving the Canadian people in a mess. The official figures show-and I have them here-that during 1946 Canadian exporters shipped abroad over $78 million of new passenger cars and trucks. Where were these cars and trucks shipped to? To British East Africa, British South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Gambia, the Gold Coast, Nigeria, British India, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, France, China. The Netherlands, Portuguese Africa and a dozen other places.

I know many veterans wearing medals on their chests who are denied the right of purchasing a new car, in our district at any rate, in the eastern part of the province, notwithstanding that a car is the only means whereby they can earn their living. Over 40,000 trucks and over 25,000 passenger cars, have been shipped to these countries, but you cannot get a car in Quebec city-, nor can you get one either in my constituency or anywhere throughout the district of Quebec at the present time. Almost two years have passed since we emerged from the war, but there is not an automobile available for any Canadian who needs one in order to earn his living, unless he is prepared to pay hundreds of dollars above the ceiling price, or is willing to have his name placed on a dealer's waiting list bearing already 500, 600, 700, or 800 names.

It is time these conditions were put an end to, and there is only one agency in Canada that has the right to put an end to them. That agency is this government. If the automobile manufacturers-and this is my last example- continue to disregard the interests of the Canadian people to the extent indicated, then here is another field where this government should obviously step in and again reestablish some sort of system of priorities, or apply a rigid control over automobile exports, if not an embargo, until this trade is brought back to normal. It should take the necessary steps to stop what I would call the shameful and harmful exploitation and profiteering which now exist in automobile marketing as a result of the lack of control.

The hon. member for Stanstead challenged us the other day. Would he or any of his colleagues now rise in the house and declare that there is not any more need for beneficial controls such as those covered by this bill? I do not think he will. My job here, Mr. Speaker, is not to fight the case of automobile manufacturers, to fight the case of Canadian manufacturers or to fight the case of monopolies or big business. My duty is to further the interests of my constituents and, in a general way, those of the Canadian people at large, which I am doing in supporting the government's control policv provided by this bill.

Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, the bill which we are considering is a trespasser upon provincial jurisdiction unless a national emergency can be established. That is, I believe, common ground to the Liberal party and to mine. It raises an important question, the existence of a national emergency. I do not wish to draw into the debate the statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) the other day, for other than one purpose. In the course of the debate the Minister of Justice said, as reported at page 1554 of Hansard:

... it appears to me that the true effect of the decision in the Canada Temperance Act case is that there does not have to be an emergency to found jurisdiction on the part of the dominion; that the dominion may have the power, even when there is no emergency, to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada, even though its legislation touches upon matters ordinarily regarded as solely within the provincial jurisdiction.

It is true that on March 24, in answer to a question addressed to him by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret), the Minister of Justice did say:

Our emergency legislation is based, on the existence of a national emergency arising out of

Emergency Powers

the war, on the emergency doctrine, to which no one takes any exception either in this house or outside it.

I agree with the minister that the existence of an emergency doctrine is admitted, but whether or not a national emergency exists on to which the doctrine may be fitted, is another question. The statement of the minister is relevant to the discussion because it establishes that, in his opinion, a national emergency is not necessary for the invasion by the dominion of the legislative field which, in normal times, is reserved to the provinces.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

That statement would have to be taken with all the qualifications appearing from the deputy minister's opinion, because that was part of my statement.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
?

Mr HACKETT:

I do not wish to put

anything into the mouth of the minister. I do not wish to draw from anything that he said any inference which might even savour of unfairness; but I understood the minister to say that it was his interpretation of the Canada Temperance Act case and his belief that the dominion might invade the provincial field of legislation for reasons other than an emergency.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

No, not any reason.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

John Thomas Hackett

Progressive Conservative

Mr. HACKETT:

I will agree that he did not say "any reason".

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

All I am saying is that to take one sentence out of its context is unfair, and that the whole statement, including the deputy minister's opinion, must be read in order to give a fair report of what I said.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

William Henry Golding (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):

Order. I think if the hon. member is going to deal with the statement made on March 15, he will be out of order. But if he deals with the statement which was made on March 24, that will be in order.

Topic:   EMERGENCY POWERS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Permalink

April 2, 1947