Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

May I say to the leader of the opposition that there is a rule under which it is sought to confine questions on the orders of the day as largely as possible to urgent matters. Questions which can be answered by notice on the order paper should be placed there. My hon. friend will not mind my saying that he himself sets an example to the rest of the house. Several times I have asked myself whether he has considered the effect of his asking me questions almost every day. I do not object to my hon. friend asking questions, but I do think a number of the questions which have been asked have not been so much for the purpose of having me give my hon. friend information as for some other purpose.

Oh, oh.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I do not know why that should pain my hon. friends; it is a fact.

Mr. HOMUTH:

It does not pain us, because we have to do it.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am sure my hon. friend will not mind my mentioning that it has been the custom as long as I have been in the house for the leader of the opposition, when he intends to ask an important question on the orders of the day, to give notice if possible to the Prime Minister in advance. I have not thus far had from my hon. friend any notice of any question he has asked. I shall be happy to answer immediately any question I can, but I hope I shall not be expected to encounter a sort of catechism at the opening of the house each day.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, we might as well clarify this position once and for all. First of all, this is the first time I have heard the Prime Minister say that he wanted notice of any question he might be asked. That condition may have arisen partly because the facility with which he answers most questions completely disarmed me, and it did not seem to be necessary to send notice. I shall, however, be glad to give him due notice from now on, and that he has not received it previously is only an oversight. If it will help him in his onerous position in trying to make clearer the answers he gives, I am sure that it will be in the interests of the house and country to give such notice.

May I add, however, that as leader of the opposition I do not make any apology for being curious about some of the policies and actions of the government. The Prime Minister himself will understand that there are certain questions which we as members of the opposition demand to be made clear to the house and country. If we have transgressed from time to time, I am sure the Prime Minister will excuse me on the grounds of inexperience and, perhaps, youth. In any event I want to say at once to him and to the house that I am not putting questions for any ulterior design, but rather I am conscientiously trying, so far as it is within my power, to carry out what I believe to be my duty as leader of the opposition in the house.

More than that may I say that I do not think the Prime Minister has been overburdened with questions from any private member or from the leader of the opposition since the beginning of the session. I have been particularly careful on that point in the questions which I have asked. They have always been questions which I thought were in the national interest. So long as there are questions in the national interest, Mr. Speaker, which I as leader of the opposition believe should be put, then I am going to ask your indulgence and the indulgence of the house in directing

328 COMMONS

Procedure in Questions on Orders oj the Day

to the Prime Minister or to any member of the government any question which I think may fall within that category.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I say a word further to my hon. friend, replying to the subject he has mentioned? My reason for asking to be furnished with a copy of a question in advance is not that I am in the least concerned about not being able to say something in reply, but that I would hope that the question asked would be really important enough to bring forth in reply information that is also important or of a pressing nature. I should like in replying to be in the position to give the house as full information as I may be able to on the question asked. That is why I desire to have notice where the matter is one of importance. I hope my hon. friend will not feel that he is restricted to giving notice at all times. Where there is an important question notice in advance will help me to give the house full information.

Some exception was taken to my saying that there might be some other motive than that of merely seeking information. If my hon. friend had wished to know whether any assistance had been furnished to ministers, that one question in itself would have sufficed without the newspaper article. The reading of the article was what caused me to think that there might be some other reason for the question in my hon. friend's mind than that merely of ascertaining if any appointments had been made.

My hon. friend has the privilege of asking me a great many questions. May I have the privilege of asking him one? I shall put it in the form of a notice, so that he will have plenty of time to answer it. I should like to ask on behalf of all hon. members of this house if he can inform this house how soon, if at all, the leader of the new Progressive Conservative party intends to seek a seat in this house. Does he intend to endeavour to get in before parliament is dissolved, or at what date is he likely to be here?

Mr. GRAYDON:

Is that an invitation to the new leader of the Progressive Conservative party to run against my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in Prince Albert, and is that seat to be opened now?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Prince Albert has the best possible representation in this parliament.

Mr. COLDWELL:

The Prime Minister asked a question of the leader of the opposition, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the one he

asked. Are we to understand from his statement that when this house rises it will be dissolved? I notice the word "dissolved" was used rather than "prorogued".

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I used the word "dissolved" intentionally, but I was not saying whether this session would end with prorogation or with dissolution. My hon. friend will find that out in due time.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

Following the discussion we

have had, and since the Prime Minister and I have become much more intimate on the subject of asking questions, at the pain and the risk of receiving another little scolding I should like to ask another question. I shall not however, ask any more questions of the Prime Minister until I have given him due notice. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will be in a position to answer the question I have in mind. It arises from a Canadian press dispatch dated at Chicago, February 9, in these terms: .

Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, forecast indirectly in a speech here to-night the extension of coupon rationing to commodities not yet under control, and the introduction of a "point system" of rationing for some lines of goods.

Will the minister explain to the house why, when parliament is in session, such an important announcement, affecting every citizen in Canada, should be made by the chairman of a board, rather than by the appropriate minister in the house? I raise this point not as a matter of carping criticism, but as a matter of principle. I would caution the government that when parliament is in session we shall expect all announcements of the kind to be made in this house by the minister in charge of the department. Perhaps the minister would also say whether this statement of policy made by Mr. Gordon was at the minister's direction and with his consent and approval.

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, first of all one must determine whether Mr. Gordon made the statement. I gathered from the newspaper report to which reference was made by the leader of the opposition that Mr. Gordon had indirectly forecast something in a speech he had made.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Obliquely.

Rationing

Mr. ILSLEY:

I believe "indirectly" was the word used. If it is a matter of a newspaper reporter making some deduction or drawing some inference from something Mr. Gordon said, then it would be entirely premature for us to discuss the matter on the basis of his having said it. I will see what was said on that occasion.

With regard to the announcement of policies by gentlemen in the position of Mr. Gordon, may I say that the practice is very clear and I believe has been maintained consistently by the government. I do not know of one occasion on which Mr. Gordon has made an announcement of government policy which had not already been made by a member of the government. I do not know of a single one. He is extremely careful in that regard. He knows very' well the functions of a minister and the delimitations of those of a governmental official.

With regard to the question of speeches by administrative officials generally, may I point out. that it is necessary for them to make some speeches. The public demand that they make some speeches in explanation of their regulations and orders. Those speeches are made to assist the public in understanding and carrying out such regulations and orders. But matters of government policy are announced by ministers themselves. I do not wish to dis-guss this matter at length. It would be easy to make a long speech on the subject, and this probably is not the proper time to do it. I could not make my point any clearer, however, than by making reference to two speeches made in the month of December last. At the beginning of that month the government embarked upon a new policy of stabilization of the cost of living index by subsidizing consumers in the purchase of certain commodities. It would have been improper for Mr. Gordon to make an announcement of that policy, because it was a distinct departure from earlier policy and could be made appropriately to the public only by a minister. On the other hand, when a little later in the month it became necessary to ration butter, it would have been, I suggest, equally improper or at least less appropriate for the minister to announce such rationing, because the wartime prices and trade board had already been vested expressly by order in council with the responsibility of deciding when it became necessary to ration certain commodities. They were given the power of rationing commodities, of seeing that there was fair distribution. That was the position with respect to sugar, tea and coffee, and it was true also of butter.

72537-22 .

This does not mean that the wartime prices and trade board does not keep in touch with the government. I keep closely in touch with what they do, and I take responsibility for their actions. Announcements of new policy, or departures from policy, are for the minister, but announcements having to do with the cariying out of policies already decided upon by the minister and the government are for the heads of the various boards concerned.