March 6, 1951

CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. Knowles:

But there was another part of the statement in which the Postmaster General said-

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   REDUCTION IN URBAN MAIL DELIVERIES
Sub-subtopic:   STATE- MENT AS TO SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND EFFECT UPON EMPLOYEES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Order.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   REDUCTION IN URBAN MAIL DELIVERIES
Sub-subtopic:   STATE- MENT AS TO SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND EFFECT UPON EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. Rinfret:

Read the statement, and we will discuss it later.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   REDUCTION IN URBAN MAIL DELIVERIES
Sub-subtopic:   STATE- MENT AS TO SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND EFFECT UPON EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliot:

I thank the minister for his complete information.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   REDUCTION IN URBAN MAIL DELIVERIES
Sub-subtopic:   STATE- MENT AS TO SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND EFFECT UPON EMPLOYEES
Permalink

PRIVATE BILLS

FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS


Bill No. 119, for the relief of Antonio Romeo.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 120, for the relief of James Edward Thomas.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 121, for the relief of Mary Louise Webster Hunt.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 122, for the relief of Marie Blanche Amilda Lessard Duplessis.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 123, for the relief of Anne Fineman Segal.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 124, for the relief of Ida Weinstein Yaphe.-Mr. Weir. Bill No. 125, for the relief of Shirley Title-man Rodin.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 126, for the relief of Yvette Ernestine Gagnon Lyons.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 127, for the relief of Rose Pakidailo Greenberg.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 128, for the relief of Marie Jeanne Dragon Bigaouette.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 129, for the relief of Olive Marguerite Cann Nichol.-Mr. Winkler.


COST OF LIVING

PRESS REPORTS AS TO RISE IN INDEX-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31

CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

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

Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):

Mr. Speaker,

I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the announcement in yesterday's press concerning the rise in the cost of living index to an all-time high of 175-2, and the need for the immediate establishment of price controls to stem any further rise in the cost of living.

Topic:   COST OF LIVING
Subtopic:   PRESS REPORTS AS TO RISE IN INDEX-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member for Saskatoon has given me notice of this motion.

I might say that yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) also gave me notice of his motion. I wish to thank the members for doing this. It is in accordance with a custom which is being firmly established in the house.

With regard to the motion now before the house, it suggests adjourning the house in order to discuss the rise in the cost of living index to an all-time high, and also the need for the immediate establishment of price controls to prevent a further rise.

Standing order 31 reads in part as follows:

The right to move the adjournment of the house for the above purpose is subject to the following restrictions-

Then follow a number of restrictions, paragraph (c) being as follows:

The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session.

When the house was considering the speech from the throne, an amendment was moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), to which a subamendment was moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and seconded by the hon member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), who now moves the present motion. That amendment to the amendment sought to add certain words to the third paragraph of the amendment offered by the leader of the opposition. The amendment stated:

We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed . . .

(3) To take effective measures to combat inflation and the rapidly rising cost of living.

The subamendment offered by the hon. member for Kootenay West sought to add to paragraph 3 of the amendment the following words:

Such as the immediate reimposition of price controls, and the payment of subsidies where necessary, so as to protect the health and- living standards of die Canadian people.

The motion now before us is to adjourn the house to discuss the immediate establishment of price controls. As I have read from standing order 31, the right to move the adjournment is subject to this restriction, among others:

The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session.

Topic:   COST OF LIVING
Subtopic:   PRESS REPORTS AS TO RISE IN INDEX-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

Before you rule, Mr. Speaker-

Topic:   COST OF LIVING
Subtopic:   PRESS REPORTS AS TO RISE IN INDEX-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Sit down.

Topic:   COST OF LIVING
Subtopic:   PRESS REPORTS AS TO RISE IN INDEX-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Under standing order 31

(6) (c) I am doubtful if the motion is in order. However I will not make a ruling on

Cost of Living

the basis of the point of order. Therefore I do not think it is necessary to have discussion on the point of order.

There is the question of urgency. The motion is to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance. I would refer hon. members to Beauchesne's third edition, paragraph 174, where it is set forth that:

"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate," when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough . . .

I must decide whether the rules of the house do or do not permit this subject to be brought on early enough. If hon. members will look at yesterday's Hansard they will find at page 942, under the heading "Business of the House", that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) said:

Tomorrow we will move third reading of Bill No. 24, to confer certain emergency powers upon the governor in council.

That is the first matter which will come before the house today. Yesterday, as reported at page 907 of Hansard, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said:

If there is to be any system of controls of a substantial extent, controls over any wide field, that would have to be done by virtue of regulations or orders made under the Emergency Powers Act.

According to the statement made last night by the Minister of Public Works, the Emergency Powers Act will be the first matter to be considered by the house today. Therefore there will be every opportunity, I should think, within the rules and within the scope of that bill, to discuss the matter on which the hon. member for Saskatoon has moved the adjournment of the house.

Under these circumstances I do not think I should allow the motion to stand.

Topic:   COST OF LIVING
Subtopic:   PRESS REPORTS AS TO RISE IN INDEX-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31
Permalink

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

QUESTION OF SUBSIDIES OR OTHER ASSISTANCE TO PRODUCERS


On the orders of the day:


PC

John Alpheus Charlton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the announced policy of the government by the Prime Minister to subsidize wheat producers for losses incurred under the wheat agreement, has the government given consideration to the position of the eastern wheat growers, cheese producers, hog producers and apple growers whose products were sold below world prices under government contract to the United Kingdom?

Topic:   AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF SUBSIDIES OR OTHER ASSISTANCE TO PRODUCERS
Permalink
LIB

Louis Stephen St-Laurent (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

948 HOUSE OF

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Charllon: In view of the short answer given by the Prime Minister to my question, may I ask, if the government has not already considered the matter, whether it is prepared to do so now?

Topic:   AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF SUBSIDIES OR OTHER ASSISTANCE TO PRODUCERS
Permalink
?

Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent

Mr. Si. Laurent:

We are always prepared to consider anything, but that does not mean that the results of the consideration would be something that would comply with the apparent hopes behind the hon. member's question.

Topic:   AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF SUBSIDIES OR OTHER ASSISTANCE TO PRODUCERS
Permalink

March 6, 1951