Mr. Howe:

Yes, that is the best, most practical and surest safeguard we know. That is the safeguard relied upon in the present act.

Mr. Knowles:

The minister gave figures a while ago as to the over-all percentage of profits made during the war in relation to the cost of war supplies. I think the minister gave a figure of four and a fraction per cent, something under five per cent. Has he the comparable figure for the defence supplies purchased since the end of the war or for the period during which the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been doing this work?

Defence Supplies

Mr. Howe:

No. It would be difficult to arrive at that unless you could work out the cost of every contract. We could do that during the war when the contracts were for large sums and when we had the machinery to put in cost accountants and determine the cost at the factory. When the profits were found to be excessive the contract was renegotiated and the profits recaptured. We have no machinery to do that today. Practically everything that is bought for defence purposes now is bought by tender.

Mr. Adamson:

I gather from what has been said that if the Minister of National Defence wished to have a building constructed it would be done under this measure. Would that apply also to the construction of such works as radar screens and other _ purely military projects? As I recall, during the war there was a branch in the Department of National Defence which dealt with fortress construction because I used to know the colonel in charge. If that is so, this would appear to be a new departure in connection with national defence under which this agency would build all works for that department even though they were fortresses or for purely military purposes.

Mr. Howe:

The Department of Trade and Commerce would place the contract for the construction of radar screens and for all other works for the defence services, as it did during the war, except such works as were carried out by arrangement with the Department of National Defence by its own troops. There was a construction battalion during the war, I think in both the army and air force, which did a certain amount of work by arrangement with the Department of Trade and Commerce. That would still be possible, but the act requires that all construction be procured through the agency of the Minister of Trade and Commerce except by special arrangement.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 302, respecting defence supplies and projects.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) moved the second reading of this bill, he explained the bill. I think it is only proper to say that we in this party are in agreement with the intentions of the bill as indicated by the Prime Minister. We feel that a real attempt has been made to place statutory orders, regulations, orders in council and so on, on a footing where it will be more feasible than it has been in the past for members and others interested to ascertain what is in the orders and regulations and how they are affected by them. However, there are one or two reservations which we have with respect to the bill and which I should like to indicate, and there are certain questions we would like the Prime Minister to answer when we are in the committee stage.

Although we now have a statute which as I read it provides for the consolidation of all effective orders and regulations up to the present time, and of which the Prime Minister tabled the first volume in the house recently, the bill goes on to provide for a system of consolidation of subsequent orders in council and regulations but the method by which that publication and consolidation is to be carried on is in turn to be left to order in council. We would have preferred if it had been possible to have had some specific provision in the bill as to how this was to be done and the basis upon which it was to be carried out. As the situation is at present, under section 9 there is provision for the future publication and consolidation, but that is left to the governor in council by regulation.

I do not refer to the fact that there are statutory requirements for publication in the Canada Gazette, for the laying on the table of parliament within certain statutory periods of regulations and orders in council, except such as may be excepted by order in council, but rather to such regulations governing future consolidations along the lines of the volume already tabled and which are to be left to order in council. I think it would have been desirable if at least an outline of that system could have been incorporated in the bill itself.

It is appreciated that this task of providing adequate publicity for orders in council and regulation and ensuring that all those who are affected shall have a chance to know what they are before they become law is a difficult one, and the whole problem of delegated legislation under present-day conditions of carrying on government is bound to be a difficult one. Therefore I think the Prime Minister and the house will appreciate the import of my remarks, that it would be

desirable if we could have a statutory definition of how these things are to be published.

One will recall that in the past orders in council and regulations did not have the effect of law until they had been passed by the house in the form of a bill, not simply being tabled. Orders in council that had been laid upon the table were given second reading and it was only after they had been formally approved by the House of Commons that they had the force of law.

My authority for this statement is to be found at page 2382 of Hansard of May 22, 1918, where the following is to be found under the heading "Concurrence in orders in council":

Sir George Foster moved

that the orders in council laid on the table of the house on the 2nd April, 1918, be concurred in. He said: The orders in council which have been issued and laid on the table form a long list of two pages. They are formal to a certain extent, but the law requires that these orders in council when passed shall be laid on the table of the house within a certain time.

That is the situation at the present time. Orders in council have to be laid on the table of the house generally fifteen days after they are passed, or if parliament be not then sitting, within fifteen days of the commencement of the next session. Then Sir George Foster continued:

I think they are not law until they are so laid on the table of the house, and thereafter if approved by the house.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier replied:

These orders in council, as I understand the law, have to be submitted to the house and ratified by the house.

Sir George Foster:

Yes.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier:

So I would suggest that my hon. friend allow this motion to stand until tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker:

Stand.

That understanding was confirmed the next day when the matter again came before the house. The discussion is reported at page 2479 of Hansard for May 23, 1918, and reads as follows:

Sir George Foster:

I move, seconded by Mr. Carvell:

"That the orders in council, copies of which were laid on the table of the house on the 2nd of April, be concurred in."

Sir Wilfrid Laurier:

As a rule these orders in

council are considered in committee of the whole because it is more convenient to discuss them in committee than with Mr. Speaker in the chair. I have looked at the orders in council referred to in the motion and I see nothing of any importance in them, so that possibly we can approve of them without going into committee, if my hon. friend will call attention to any particular one of them which may be of importance. As I am advised at present, and from a cursory glance at them, I see nothing objectionable. They appear to be in most respects merely technical orders in council.

I refer to that to show that the discussions we have had on the practice of order in

Regulations Act

council government and the dangers inherent therein are by no means to be passed over lightly because so seriously was it regarded at the end of the first world war that these orders in council and regulations, which were laid on the table of the house in pursuance of statutory requirements, did not in fact become law until concurrence of the house had been formally moved and granted. I am not going to go so far as to move an amendment to the bill at this time to incorporate in it any such provision, but I think it gives force to the suggestion that it would have been desirable if the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), while going as far as he has, after a great deal of careful study and consideration, to provide that orders in council and regulations will be fully known and understood so that those affected may know what laws they have to operate under, had gone a little further and provided in the bill he has introduced actual statutory provisions governing their publication and consolidation instead of leaving that in turn to be made the subject of an order in council. With these observations, however, I say that we concur in the bill and approve its objectives. We would like more information as to the classes or types of orders in council which it is intended to exempt by regulation from the provisions of this statute with regard to consolidation and publication. We would also like more information as to the method which it is proposed to follow in the future to provide for that consolidation and publication.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I will take only a moment or two because generally speaking this bill strikes us as a piece of good legislation. Indeed anything that makes it more clear to parliament and to the general public just what the laws of the land are is all to the good. We have got to the situation where regulations passed under statutes are far more numerous than the statutes themselves, and in the very nature of things they, are a part of the law of the land. The two or three reservations mentioned by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) have been in my mind as well. I shall not take time to spell them out. He used almost the exact language that I had intended to use when he said he hoped that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would give us a little clearer statement as to the classes of regulations which the government has in mind with reference to the clause providing for exemption from the requirement that all regulations be tabled and published.

In fact I noted when the Prime Minister made his speech on second reading of the bill he said that the publishing and tabling of

Regulations Act

all regulations would now be made compulsory, and I took it at the time that was an unequivocal statement. There is in the bill, however, the exemption clause, which we would like to have explained fully at some stage of the debate today. The other comment I should like to make is that I -trust the bill will be passed in time for its effect upon a great host of statutes to reach the commission revising the statutes of Canada. I note that a good many statutes will have sections repealed or a few words struck out of a section, and I think it would be desirable when the Revised Statutes of Canada appear that those changes should be incorporated therein.

The Prime Minister might also say a word when he replies, or when we get into committee, with respect to the tabling of reports. When the legislation was first forecast, as a matter of fact by comments made by the Prime Minister during the last session, I thought it was going to cover both regulations passed under statutes and reports of departments that are laid on the table of the house each session. The same lack of uniformity applies in connection with those reports as in the case of regulations. The period of time within which a departmental report must be laid upon the table varies from ten days in some cases to fifteen in others, and longer periods in others. As a matter of fact I believe there are some departments which are not required by statute to place their reports on the table of the house, although I believe in most cases they do. It would seem to me that it is desirable that there should be uniformity in that regard as well. I would appreciate it if at some stage of the discussion the Prime Minister would indicate whether that matter has been given consideration, and with what result. I need not take longer because, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, generally speaking we think this is a piece of good legislation.

Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):

Mr. Speaker, it is said that order is the first law of heaven. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on introducing this measure which is designed to make the parliament of Canada a little more heavenly. With the reservations that have been made so far, I want to tell the Prime Minister that we think this is a good piece of legislation. We certainly congratulate him on introducing it, and we support it.

Mr. SI. Laurent:

Mr. Speaker -

Mr. Speaker:

Order. I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):