Mr. SPEAKER:

I would like to make a statement to the house regarding questions. It is not generally known that oral questions

are not permitted under any rule in this house. Standing order 44 provides for placing questions on the order paper seeking information relating to public affairs, and it adds that if any member requires an oral answer he may distinguish his question by an asterisk. In former years a few urgent questions were orally addressed to the government on the orders of the day being called, but now all kind of questions are asked at that stage of the proceedings. Most of them could be placed on the order paper. Even newspaper clippings and telegrams, the accuracy of which has not previously been ascertained, are then read and included in the official report of debates. This practice is resorted to on the ground that it is followed in the United Kingdom House of Commons. There could be no greater mistake. The rule at Westminster is quite different from that, and it could be followed with advantage by this house. Our standing order No. 1 provides that:

In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this house.

What is the custom today in the United Kingdom house? I cannot find it in a better place than in the 14th edition of May's "Parliamentary Practice", published a year ago under the control of Sir Gilbert Campion, K.C.B., present clerk of the United Kingdom house. Let us quote what he says at page 332:

Notice of a question to a minister or other member is usually placed upon the notice paper, unless the question relates to a matter of urgency or to the course of public business. The custom formerly in vogue, of giving notice of questions by reading the question aloud, is no longer allowed, unless the consent of the Speaker in the case of any particular question has been previously obtained. Notice of a question is given by delivering the terms thereof in writing to the clerks at the table during the sitting of the house.

This is the same as our standing order 44 respecting written questions. But with regard to oral questions, the same authority says at page 340:

Questions which have not appeared on the paper, but which are of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, may be taken after a quarter to four o'clock, provided they have been submitted to the Speaker and have been accepted by him as satisfying the conditions imposed by standing order No. 7 and provided notice has been given to the minister concerned.

This is a very wise rule. Under the practice now followed here, a member may have shown his question to the minister concerned but he has kept it away from the Speaker, who, taken-

Rental Ceilings

by surprise, has no idea of the wording of the question and still is called upon to decide whether the question is in order or not. This is unfair to the Speaker, who is thereby placed in the same position as a judge called upon to render judgment without having seen the documents in the case. I venture to suggest that we accept the United Kingdom practice whereby the Speaker be shown beforehand any question to be addressed to ministers. Our procedure in this matter is hardly parliamentary. The time has arrived when it should be governed by practical rules.

Mr. BRACKEN:

With respect to the statement you have just made, Mr. Speaker, may' I ask a question in order that I may be clear as to its intention? Are we to understand now that prior to the orders of the day being called we are precluded from asking any but urgent questions, and is it the Speaker's ruling that he should see copies of these questions before they are asked?

Mr. MACKENZIE:

May I humbly say, Mr. Speaker, that I think any such rule must be adopted by a committee of this house. I respectfully submit that the suggestion made by Your Honour a few minutes ago is one that could with advantage be considered by a committee, formal or informal, of the house. I do not think that we can adopt forthwith a new ruling setting out procedure without further consideration of it. That is my own opinion.

Mr. BRACKEN:

I only want to be clear as to what the practice is to be. If we are to be precluded from asking these questions before the orders of the day are called, I should like to know. If we are not, we can continue as we have done in the past until some formal decision is made to follow a different practice.

Mr. MacINNIS:

I understand that Mr. Speaker merely made a suggestion which he thought would be a good one for this house to adopt.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Yes.

Mr. MacINNIS:

In my opinion the suggestion is a good one; at least I would consider it favourably, but before it is enforced in the house I think it ought to be discussed by some such committee as the leader of the house mentioned.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I must call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that I did not give any ruling. I thought it was my duty to help the house by calling attention to what the practices and rules are in the British parliament, and I suggested to hon.

members that when they have an urgent question to put before the house and they send notice of it to the minister, it would be only fair to do as they do in England and send a copy of it to the Speaker.

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the government has authorized certain amendments to the rental orders and regulations of the wartime prices and trade board. These amendments will permit an upward adjustment in rental ceilings of commercial accommodation and make provision by which this accommodation will gradually become free of controls. They will provide for the release from control of the prices of rooms in hotels and boarding houses in holiday resorts, and also provide certain relief for those who purchased tenanted houses as homes for themselves between November 1, 1944, and July 25, 1945.

More than a year ago, landlords and tenants of commercial accommodation were freed from rental controls if they were able to agree on a lease for a minimum term of five years with respect to premises then occupied by the tenant. Many landlords and tenants have made such leases and considerable commercial accommodation has already been thus released from control.

It has now been decided that another step along the road to complete decontrol of commercial accommodation can appropriately be taken. Accordingly a provision has been made that commercial accommodation will be released from rental control in cases where the landlord and tenant negotiate a lease for a minimum term of three years.

Rental control will be removed from commercial accommodation that is offered for rent for the first time, or that is now vacant or that hereafter becomes legally vacant, or which is wholly sublet.

The maximum authorized rental for all other commercial accommodation is increased by twenty-five per cent, provided that the landlord is prepared to enter into a lease for a minimum term of two years with the tenant. Such lease may be terminated by the tenant at any time on thirty days' notice but is binding on the landlord for the full two year term. If the tenant is not prepared to enter into such a lease at the increased rental, he may be required to vacate at the end of his present lease, and the accommodation will

Railway Act

thereafter be free from rental control. If the landlord is not prepared to offer such a lease to the tenant, the tenant may remain in occupancy after the expiration of his current lease as a tenant from month to month at the previous rental ceiling.

Accommodation in holiday resort hotels and holiday resort boarding houses is released from control. However, summer houses, tourist cabins and the like which, during the present housing shortage, are being used as permanent housing by non-transients will remain under control for the time being under the same regulations as other housing accommodation.

The only change which is being made in the present restrictions on eviction is in the case of a landlord who bought a tenanted house between November 1, 1944, and July 25, 1945. Such a landlord will be given an opportunity to prove to a court of rental appeals that he needs the house more than the tenant needs it; in which event he can give the tenant three months notice to vacate. This will provide relief for those who bought a tenanted house between these dates in the justifiable belief that they would be entitled to obtain occupancy of the house by serving notice on the tenant. This right was taken away by the "freezing of leases" order passed on July 25, 1945.

Mr. LOCKHART:

I should like to ask a supplementary question with particular reference to four cases which came to my attention today. I understand that the restrictions are lifted from those who purchased houses between November 1944 and July 1945. In the case I have in mind the purchase was made in 1943. What is the application of these amendments there?

Mr. ABBOTT:

It is not affected by the new regulations. There was a brief period during which persons who bought houses for their own occupancy were entitled to believe that under the law as it stood at that time they could get possession on giving notice. That right was taken away, in effect retroactively, by the passing of the freezing of leases order in July, 1945.

Mr. LOCKHART:

Whether the purchasers were returned soldiers or not?

Mr. ABBOTT:

It does not matter to what class the tenant belongs. Now it is felt that some measure of relief can be given as indicated in my statement, and that class of purchaser may go before the court of rental appeals and endeavour to show that his need is greater than that of the tenant.