1945-12-05

[Stage Direction]
Second and final report of joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on a suitable design for a distinctive national flag. -Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce).


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved:: That for the remainder of the session standing order 105 respecting the posting of private bills be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Questions

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved that the following bills from the senate be now read a first and second time:
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Emile Bastien.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Cecilia Kate Burrows Andrea.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Helen Ea'ton Gair Curnew.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Jack Bailey.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Winnifred Pearl Simcox.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Robert Dickerson Silverman.
Bil No. 225, for the relief of Mary Arden Stead Eberts.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Omer Guindon.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Leona Mary Murphy de Marky.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of John Robert Mackenzie.	,
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Gertrude Silverson Holmes.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Herbert Lawrence Loucks.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bills read a first and second time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
DORVAL AIRPORT-EMPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES [DOT]	NATIONALS

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What was the total federal taxes for electric energy paid by utilities and their customers in the Montreal area for each fiscal year from April 1, 1939, to December 1, 1945?
2.	What was the total electric energy distributed during such years?


Mr. McCANN (On behalf of the Department of National Revenue):: 1.	No information.
2.	No information.


ANTI-SEASICK SERUM
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Have any steps been taken to place the anti-seasick serum developed by the Canadian Navy on the public market?
2.	If so, in what manner will this be done?
3.	If not, why not?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	The seasickness remedy was made for the navy by a commercial firm according to a formula accepted by the Department of National Defence (Naval Service). Further research indicates that a change in the formula may produce a more satisfactory remedy and the research group in charge has recommended that this work be completed before the product is released for sale to the general public.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered, by No. 1.


ARMOUR HEIGHTS, TORONTO, R.C.A.F. STAFF COLLEGE
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Were the premises of the R.C.A.F. staff college at Armour Heights, Toronnto, offered for sale to the government?
2.	If so, at what price?
3.	Was the offer accepted or refused ?
4.	What orders in council if any, have been passed for the expropriation or purchase of the property?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	$100,000.
3.	Accepted.
4.	P.C.6795 dated November 15, 1945.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Has the government received any complaints concerning delays in the payment of family allowances?
2.	If so, what steps are being taken to avoid such delays in the future?


Mr. CLAXTON:: 1 and 2. In a number of cases, as would be expected in a mass operation involving
1,400,000	applications, delay has resulted in
Questions

issuing the first family allowance cheque. These delays have in part been caused by the fact that many forms were incorrectly or incompletely filled out and had to be returned to the applicants for revision. Shortage of space, trained staff and equipment have now been largely overcome. In cases of such delay payment is retroactive.


MOBILIZATION SURVEY
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	Is the federal government employing any persons in connection with the mobilization survey ?
2.	If so, what work are they doing?
3.	What salaries are they receiving?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


PRODUCTION OF UNDERWEAR
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How many suits of underwear, (a) men's;
(b) ladies'; (c) children, have been produced in Canada during, (1) 1943; (2) 1945, as far as the records show?	-
2.	How much of each year's production of this underwear was used by, (a) the armed forces: (b) for domestic consumption; (c) for export?
Mr. MAYHEW*
Note: All purchases for the armed forces are made through the Department of Munitions and Supply.
1. (a), (b), (c).


CRUDE PETROLEUM
Mr. HENDERSON:: What was the quantity and value of crude petroleum produced in the province of Ontario in the fiscal years ending March 31, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945?


Mr. MacKINNON:: Petroleum Production in		Ontario
Calendar Year	Barrels	$1939 	206,379	401,4301940 	187,644	397,0781941 	160,238	337,7601942 	143,845	306,2421943 	132,492	311,3561944 	125,067	296,4201945 (9 months)	83,703	no value


DRY DOCK SUBSIDIES
Mr. Me GARRY:: 1.	What are the names of firms, individuals or corporations in the maritime provinces receiving subsidies from the government under The Dry Dock Act?
2.	What was the amount of annual subsidies received by each of such firms, individuals or corporations?
3.	What is the total amount of the subsidies received by each of such firms, individuals or corporations to date?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	The Montreal Trust company, trustees for the St. John Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company, Limited.
2.	$247,500.
3.	$5,769,173.89.
2.	(a), (b).
Men's
Combinations	
Shirts	
Shorts and drawers	
- Ladies'
Combinations	
Vests	
Panties and drawers	
Children's
Combinations, shirts and vests, panties and drawers and knitted sleepers	
Production in dozens for D.M. & S.	Civilian
1943 17,806 208,745 235,593	1945 Estimates 4,000 80,000 70,000	1943 374.591 239,556 376.592	1945 Estimates - 373,000 276.000 367.000492 420	2,500 4,700	5,917 230,359 936,983	5,478 224,000 1,003,000806,409	1,043,0002.	(c) Exports: (statistics obtained from the Dominion Bureau of statistics do not segregate exports except as between cotton and wool).
Exports
Cotton underwear	
Woollen underwear	

1943 (to Oct. 31) $199,013	$93,534
58.040	39.698

Questions


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-RECIPIENTS BY PROVINCES
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	How many families are in receipt of family allowances in each province of Canada?
2.	What is the total amount paid to recipients in each province?


Brooke Claxton: 1 and 2. For the month of October, 1945, the information asked for is as follows:
Number of Total families amount paid
Prince Edward Island	11,877	$ 180,724Nova Scotia	74,146	1,065,667New Brunswick ....	57,264	914,078Quebec 	365,987	6,160,887Ontario 	434,218	5,584,078Manitoba 	84,621	1,103,908Saskatchewan 	103.006	1,470,796Alberta 	100,535	1,367,858British Columbia ...	102,101	1,187,474Northwest Territories and Yukon 	820	15,5021,334,575 Note-Figures for the month	$19,050,972 of November
are not yet available.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-PRINTING OF CHEQUES IN FRENCH
Mr. GAGNON:: 1. How many family allowance cheques, printed in French, have been distributed to recipients residing in each of the provinces of Canada during (a) July; (b) August; (c) September; (d) October; (e) November?


Brooke Claxton: Family allowance cheques printed'in both French and English have been issued in the province of Quebec as follows:
(a)	July	
354,881(b)	August	
349,062(c)	September	
388,853(d)	October	
366,080(e)	November	
408,749


James Angus MacKinnon: Month	of
Ms-rch, 1938 Permanent <&
Department	Temporary
No.
Agriculture	 2,926
Archives	 74
Auditor General	 226
Chief Electoral Officer	 6
Civil Service Commission		230
External Affairs	 185
Finance (Main department) ....	293
Comptroller of Treasury		1,034
Gov't contracts supervision....	-
Royal Canadian Mint	 115
Supt. of Bankruptcy	 13
Tariff Board	 20



LOANS UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

Mr. HAMEL:: 1.	By provinces, what is the number of loan* authorized under the National Housing Act, 1944?
2.	By provinces, what is the amount of loans authorized under this Act since its coming into force?


Mr. MAYHEW:: Loans
1. Prince Edward Island ..	-
Nova Scotia	 54
New Brunswick	 21
Quebec	 464
Ontario	'	 2,271
Manitoba	 629
Saskatchewan	 92	.
Alberta	460
British Columbia	 635
4,626
Amount
2. Prince Edward Island . .$	-
Nova Scotia	 242,820
New Brunswick	 92,000
Quebec	 2,902,580
Ontario	 9,945,905
Manitoba	 2,742,260
Saskatchewan	 393,340
Alberta	 2,058,260
British Columbia	 3,099,980

CIVIL SERVANTS-1938 Mr. STEPHENSON:
1.	How many civil servants did the government employ in the year 1938?
2.	What was the total salaries paid by the various departments for the year 1938?
Expenditure on Salaries for Fiscal Year ended March 31, 1938
Permanent &	Non-E numerated	GrandTemporary	Classes	TotalS	S	S5.027.231	901,415	5,928.646137.647	-	137,647422,619	-	422.61915,870	-	15,870306.345	-	306.345373.349	-	373849466.668	-	466.6681,751.260	- .	1,751.2604,794*	-	4.794198.088	-	198,08827.379	-	27.37971.729	-	71.729
Questions

Month of March, 1938 Permanent &
Department	Temporary-
No.
Fisheries	 301
Governor General's Secretary..	12
House of Commons	 568
Insurance	 54
International Joint Commission.	6
Justice	   1,044
Labour (Main department) __________ 157
Dom. Unemployment Relief..	87
Library of Parliament	 25
Mines and Resources:
Departmental Administration	63
Immigration	 587
Indian Affairs	 1,047
Lands, Parks, Forests, Surveys
and Engineering	 949
Mines and Geology	 460
National Defence	 1,306
National Research Council	 185
National Revenue (Main Dept.)	4,523
Income Tax Division	 1,261
Pensions & National Health:
Pensions	 1,776
Can. Pension Commission_______	213
Health	 259
Pensions Appeal Court		12
Veterans' Assistance Comm...	28
Post Office	 12,122
Privy Council	  18
Public Printing and Stationery..	635
Public Works	 4,027
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	100
Secretary of State	 324
Senate	 143
Soldiers' Settlement Board		307
Trade and Commerce	 1,607
Transport (Main Dept.)	 4,725
Board of Railway Comm		91
Grand Total	 44,144 *
Expenditure on Salaries for Fiscal Year ended March 31, 1938
Permanent. &	N on-Enumerated	GrandTemporary	Classes	Total$	$	$589.489	448,380	1,037,86932,715	-	32,715451,784	-	451,784123,035	-	123,03531,489	-	31,4891,624,276	-	1.624276272,061	137,863	409,924171,372	-	171.37256,636	-	56,636143,623	143.6231.060.808	31.649	1.092,4571,008,538	-	1,008,5381.757.276	1.757.2761.019.796	93.058	1.112,8541,593.259	675,497	2 268,756386,640	' 	386.6408,055.615	6247	8,061,8622,025,769	2.025,7692.639,173	2.639,173435,004	-	435.004487,930	73,540	561.47041.348	-	41,34873.796	-	73.796IS,846,427	13,228,583	32,075,01045.635	-	45.6351.155,022	-	1.155.0224.026,868	1,355.977	5.382,845140,139	2,472,595	2.612,734586:193	-	586.193152.994	-	452.994579.704	117 .	579,8213,241.125	197,733	3.438.8584,977,670	1,840.858	6.818.528243,140	186	243,32666,886,328	21,463,698	88250,026
*April-Aug.
Note-Non-enumerated classes are seasonal help and the numbers change from day to day. They are not included in the first column showing the number of employees.
A special survey of these employees was made in September, 1943. and. the number totalled 30,700.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
SERVICE PERSONNELr-CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR'S LEAVE
["I wish for only two or three minutes to voice my opposition to this bill. It is the very same bill in a new form as was proposed before, giving vast powers to the governor in council. As hon. members know, under the original War Measures Act and bill No. 15 the courts of this countrythe high courts, the county courts, and the magistrates' courts-have before them cases to decide and give decisions based on the powers herein of the governor in council.\nAfter the dominion-provincial conference which met last week some of those persons who spoke to the newspapers described bill No. 15 as the Donald Gordon plan. This new plan gives the governor in council powers to look after the maintenance of the armed forces of Canada, all trade and commerce and so on. In fact, it is the identical style of bill with the identical powers.\nThey have abolished these controls in Australia, and the President of the United States has practically eliminated them in that great country. Let me point out that under section 2 there is no doubt that people will be summonsed to court-police courts and other courts of competent jurisdiction-to answer to the same irksome control offences. Is this Liberalism as we have it in this country to-day? Is this what you call Liberalism? -control over the lives of every person, control over every man, woman and child in Canada, and the abolition of statutes which for 200 years have protected the liberty of the subject and of all reference to the law courts who have no control? Everything in the bill is removed from the controls of those courts. They would not stand for this in the United States. Why, we have a regular small standing army of officials in that country. The government knows something of what is going on. That standing army would reach from here to Lansdowne park. The expeditionary force we have over there should learn something of what is being done in that country to abolish all controls. But they have learned nothing.\nOver there they have abolished controls. Under section 2 of this bill the small and large businessman would be put out of business. The difference between the new bill and the old one is the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. That is the only difference between these two plans.\nUnder paragraph (a) the governor in council has power to provide for and maintain the armed forces of Canada during the occupation of enemy territory; it has power to facilitate the readjustment of industry, and also other powers. Small and large business, and every manufacturer in the country have been asking for the removal of these irksome controls. How does the government expect war-time economies to be turned into peace-time economies of large and small business when we have these irksome controls placed upon individuals?\nQuestions", 'The people whom we have been giving credit < for the formulation of this new plan will be glad to be free of it, when they see how unpopular it is throughout the country. I know something of the way in which these irksome controls have operated during the war years and the effect they have had on business generally.\nSection stands.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. CHURCH:: What Christmas and New Year's leave will be arranged for personnel of the armed forces, navy, army and air force, this year (a) for those now serving in Canada or adjacent territory (b) those overseas?



Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	How many men have been demobilized in Vancouver and Victoria who did not enlist in the province of British Columbia?
2.	Will the Minister of National Defence refrain from demobolizing any more men in British Columbia who did not enlist in that province, or whose dependents are not now residing there, until such time as the employment situation in British Columbia is relieved?

British Import Licences


CHICOUTIMI AND ARVIDA MILITARY CAMPS
Mr. GAGNON:: What was the total cost of the construction of military camps (a) at Chicoutimi; (b) at Ar vida ?


ST. HONORS, QUE., LANDING FIELD, ETC.
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	What was the total cost of the purchase and construction of the landing field, camps and equipment of every description at St. Honore, county of Chicoutimi, Quebec?
2.	How long have these camps and landing field been used for military training purposes?
3.	How many servicemen were stationed there in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945?


BRITISH IMPORT LICENCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement in answer to a recent question by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Eraser).
The question of the hon. member touches on a matter that has been of great concern to this government for some time and has been the subject of repeated consultation with United Kingdom representatives both here and in London. The situation with which we are now faced is one which was foreseen and one which both governments have hoped to avoid. Unfortunately, that has not been possible. It was anticipated that these questions would arise after the termination of mutual aid and lend lease and, accordingly, plans were laid for discussions with the United Kingdom to follow immediately on the conclusion of the United Kingdom-United States talks which we expected to be finished early in November.
The Washington discussions have continued much longer than was anticipated, and of necessity our talks with the United Kingdom have not yet taken place. Because of the magnitude of the problems involved, it would have been quite impossible for us to have any productive discussions with the United Kingdom until the results of the United States talks were known.
On the matter of the import policy which the United Kingdom is pursuing, I am now able to give the house a statement that we have received from the United Kingdom government:
The stringency of Britain's external financial position resulting from the war, has left the United Kingdom government with no alternative but to restrict by licence for the time being, the United Kingdom's imports of manufactured
goods. Until her industry can be reestablished, and her export trade developed to a level substantially in excess of pre-war, the United Kingdom will have an adverse balance in her overseas payments. This means that she must forgo, for the present, many articles which she would like to import. Thus, essential supplies of foodstuffs and raw materials have, for the present, to receive priority, and in the case of manufactured goods, import licences have perforce to be restricted to such goods as are urgently needed to supplement home production and quicken her economic recovery.
This, however, is an interim policy only, dictated by present necessities. As Britain's external financial position improves, there should follow a progressive relaxation in import controls. It is the aim of the United Kingdom government that this relaxation should be as rapid as possible, but it is difficult to make any forecast as to the rate of relaxation since this will depend on many factors, particularly the extent of such financial assistance as may be forthcoming from abroad, the improvement in United Kingdom exports, and the reduction in the United Kingdom's expenditure on external commitments consequent on the war. The United Kingdom government hope, however, that it may be possible to proceed to a more definite policy before very long.
In the meantime, certain Canadian firms have approached the United Kingdom government for facilities to establish production in the United Kingdom. I am informed, however, that it is not the policy of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom to use the import licensing system to bring pressure on Canadian firms to do so.
This is the end of the statement by the British authorities. I wish briefly to supplement this statement. It is gratifying to make public . this assurance that the policy which the United Kingdom finds itself forced to adopt is an interim policy only and is subject to reconsideration in the light of changing circumstances. It is our hope that the conclusion of the Washington negotiations is not far distant, and I can assure the house that - immediately the results of those discussions are known, we shall proceed to examine these with United Kingdom representatives and discuss with them arrangements for formal discussions between the two governments which we would hope to hold shortly.
Apart altogether from the statement by the United Kingdom which I have just read, I should like very briefly to draw the attention of the house to a matter which may serve to illustrate the reluctance of British authorities to discriminate against imports from Canada and of their desire to safeguard our traditional place in the British market, in so far as present circumstances permit.
The house is aware that we have been in consultation with the British authorities on a number of important individual cases. The British austerity programme has dictated the continuation of the general policy of a four-page newspaper. But as the result of Cana-
Prince Rupert Dry Dock

dian representations that have been made, assurances have now been received from the United Kingdom that Canada will supply a fair part of the reduced British consumption of newsprint.
Other representations made resulted in the reinstatement of orders for agricultural implements which the United Kingdom authorities had cancelled some months ago. The Canadian export board of my department estimated that these cancellations alone would have amounted to more than 31,600,000. Continuing representations are being made on other matters, and I cite two cases simply to illustrate the general British attitude and their desire to cooperate as much as their circumstances permit in acceding to our representations.
Personally I do not in any way question the assurances that are given from time to time by leaders of the United Kingdom government with respect to the principles that will guide the future trading policies of Great Britain. I recognize, however, that the time which may elapse in giving them full effect is a matter of the utmost concern to individual Canadian companies that have relied heavily upon the British market, and to our own national trading position in the great British market.
I need hardly add that I realize that it is of importance that we press on as quickly as possible with our discussions with the United Kingdom authorities, having in mind that we must reach the earliest possible solution of our United Kingdom-Canada trade arrangements which are so vital to our whole trading position.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he give a statement on future Canadian National construction in the Canadian national dry dock at Prince Rupert? The men are being laid off and are worried, and so are the business men.


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: The hon. gentleman was kind enough to send me notice of the question, as well as a telegram which has been received from the Prince Rupert industrial development committee. The dry dock at Prince Rupert is owned and operated by the Canadian National Railways and I have asked the officials of that company for a report both on future shipbuilding and on the present

position of employment. -I am informed by the Canadian National that 622 shipyard workers were in employment at Prince Rupert on November 24. This staff will be reduced around the end of January to between 400 and 450, when the first vessel will be completed, and will be further reduced to about 250 by the end of February, when the second vessel is expected to be completed. Normal pre-war employment at Prince Rupert has been between 90 and 100. The management of Canadian National Railways is proceeding with the preparation of plans for the design of one or more vessels for the west coast service of Canadian National Steamships, and it is exploring the possibilities of making arrangements for such vessels to be constructed at Prince Rupert. The plans are not yet sufficiently advanced to permit the management at this time to make any definite statement.


ATOMIC BOMB
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction. On Monday there appeared on the order paper this question:
What was the total cost to Canada in connection with the discovery and production of the atomic bomb?
The minister replied:
I would not care to answer the question in its present form. . .
On November 5 there appeared on the order paper a question of mine as follows:
What share did Canada have in the cost of discovering and producing the atomic bomb?
On that occasion the minister said-


James Horace King: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said:
If the hon. member would like to know what Canada has spent, we shall be glad to tell him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I must remind the hon. member that' when the Speaker calls "order" he should resume his seat.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not resuming my seat, but I did mot know you were standing, because there was a noise in the left-hand corner. The question I would ask the minister is this: why can he not answer my question as it appeared on the order paper on Monday? That is the form in which I understood he wanted it, and the question has been on the order paper for four weeks.

R.CA.F.-Plastic Surgery


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: There was a question on the order paper asking for the total expenditure for atomic energy, and we are prepared to answer that. The objection to the other question was that it asked how much we had spent in manufacturing atomic bombs. We have not manufactured atomic bombs, we have no intention of manufacturing atomic bombs, and therefore I should not like to have it suggested that any great sums of money have been spent in that occupation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand from the minister's department-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -that there has been an expenditure of at least $25,000,000 for research.


James Horace King: Order. The minister's
reply is not debatable.


CIVIL AVIATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFBNBAKER (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply in connection with the rate war that was recently declared by Pan-American Airways. Have there been any new developments in connection with that matter, and has anything been done with a view to ensuring uniformity of rates on the Atlantic?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am informed that all air lines operating across the north Atlantic have reached an informal agreement that, pending another meeting of the International Air Transport Association and Picao, all air lines will charge a rate of $375 for a one-way crossing.


LEGAL SERVICES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS' POULIOT (Temis-couata): May I be permitted to refer to pages 2448 and 2828-9 of Hansard? I have been sailing against contrary winds and bucking the tide to secure some information about refunds of the Borden firm to the treasury, and what I regret, sir, and I say this on a question of privilege, is that the question that was called on Monday, when I was not in the house, was not well understood. I did not ask for a new photostat copy of the cheques for the
amounts that were returned. What I wanted was a copy of the photographs that were made of the cheques when they came in, because I am under the impression that the minister found that the remittance was so admirable that he had these cheques photographed as.soon as they came in. It is one of these copies that I wanted.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I wish to direct a question to the minister for air. It is of immediate concern to a very small group of airmen who are certainly deserving of the utmost consideration in this house and in the country. In the R.C.A.F. plastic surgery ward at Trenton-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. gentleman is not permitted to make a statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Sinclair: I will put it in the form of a question, although in this case the house should have given me this opportunity. I will ask the minister whether he will give consideration to keeping those dozen airmen who are at present in the plastic surgery ward at Trenton, which is being closed, in uniform instead of being discharged as civilians for civilian treatment, until such *time as their facial plastic surgery is completed.


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: I had an interview last week-end with some of the patients from the plastic surgery ward at Trenton and I visited Trenton on Sunday. Under the ordinary routine, if a man is no longer fit for service he is demobilized and transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs. When he is demobilized from the forces he no longer has the privilege of wearing uniform. Many of these plastic surgery, cases are badly disfigured, and they find it embarrassing to appear on the streets in civilian clothes because the general public does not know they received their injuries on service. I am having the regulations examined to find out what arrangements can be made, and if it is possible-and I think it will be possible- arrangements will be made to permit these men to continue to wear their uniform during the period they are undergoing treatment for facial injuries.
National Emergency


NATIONAL EMERGENCY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of bill No. 15, to confer certain powers upon the governor in council during the national emergency following the war.
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last night I had just concluded a few general remarks on the stand we take with respect to this bill, and was about to consider the principle of the bill itself. I realize that there' is a duty on all members to be as brief as possible ip. these discussions, and I should like to assure you, sir, and through you all hon. members, that I shall endeavour to carry out that duty. In order to make my case coherent, however, I should like merely to outline again the stand which we take, and then develop our case against the principle of this bill.
First, we are very much concerned with the constitutional safeguards which protect the rights and freedom of parliament and the rights and freedom of the individual. We are particularly concerned with the supremacy of parliament in the legislative sphere.
Second, this bill-and indeed any measure which seeks for whatever reason to take away those safeguards and give to the executive powers and privileges which rightly belong to parliament and are assured to parliament by the constitution-is, on the face of it, a bad measure. If it'infringes the constitution it should be resisted. However, it must be admitted, and it has been admitted by us without reservation, that in an emergency situation there is justification for a greater or lesser departure from the strict rules of constitutionality. In this particular case it is the contention of the government that in order to maintain the economic structure of the country and to secure an orderly transition from war-time to peace-time economy, emergency powers are necessary. We are therefore prepared to make certain concessions; but in view of what I have said with regard to the way we feel about the supremacy of parliament and the sanctity of the constitution, we are not prepared to make, further concessions than are absolutely necessaiy to accomplish the objects the government has in mind.
When we saw bill No. 15 as it was originally printed and distributed, the second reading of which is now before the house, we considered it wholly bad, inasmuch as it asked not for the delegation of powers, but for a complete abdication, a complete denial of

constitutional principles. The situation has been confused by the circulation of the new bill 15. With the permission of the house I should like to refer briefly to that bill. I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) will permit me to congratulate him on some aspects of the new bill, inasmuch as it does show a certain willingness to concede, and for that we are extremely grateful. But the bill still goes a great deal too far; therefore, in view of the way we feel about the constitution, the bill is still bad. We are encouraged, if I may put it that way, by the generosity of the Minister of Justice in maknig the concessions which he has made, and knowing that the Minister of Justice listens to representations made when the subject matter under discussion is the constitutional right and the rights and liberties of. the individual, I feel encouraged to discuss the bill. I should like the minister to make further concessions, and . those concessions can be indicated in the discussion of the general principle of the bill.
Our objection to the bill as it stands is that the powers sought by the government are still far too wide. They are so wide as to constitute an unwarranted attack on the constitution, and to involve an unjustifiable violation of the principles of the liberty of the subject; therefore we are unable to accept the principle of the bill.
The main basis on which we say this bill is still too wide is to be found in clause 4, which reads as follows:
The orders and regulations made under the War Measures Act or pursuant to authority created under the said act in force immediately before the day this act comes into force shall, while this act is in force, continue in force and effect. . .
It has been conceded by government speakers, and was conceded last night, that many of ,the regulations and things done under the War Measures Act were,'strictly speaking, un-[DOT] constitutional. It was conceded that although justifiable in time of war, they were not justifiable in time of peace. It was further conceded that it is desirable to curtail these powers on the part of the executive and to discontinue them as soon as possible. The strongest possbile case for that position was made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his speech last night.
In both the original bill 15 now before the house and the new bill 15 which has been circulated with proposed amendments we find that it is desired to continue in force all those acts and things done under the War Measures Act. The effect of section 4 of the new bill, which is section 5 of the old bill, is that we are asked to give, sight unseen, assent to a number of measures the content and effects of

National Emergency
which are unknown to us. I submit to the minister that it is not fair to ask this house, it is not fair to ask any members of this house, so to endorse provisions, the content of which we do not know and the effects of which we do not know. It is not necessary; therefore, it is bad. As it is such a vital and integral part of this bill, it constitutes a valid ground for objection to the principle of the bill.
I have said,' Mr. Speaker, that it is not necessary to seek this blanket endorsement for all that was done under the War Measures Act. In substantiation of that statement I should like to refer briefly to the bill recently introduced in the British house, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) bill. In the first place this confers no new power on [DOT]the government to make regulations, as does bill 15 in this house. In the view of the British government they have sufficient power already under the defence regulations to do everything required during the transitional period from war to peace. They do regard it as necessary to continue certain of those powers; but instead of asking for a blanket continuation the British government has adopted the proper constitutional method and defined the four categories of powers which they require for the maintenance and the orderly regulation of the economy of their country. They have defined those powers and then have said, "The only regulations we are going to ask this house to continue are the specific regulations falling within these four categories." Here is the relevant portion of the British act, which is found in section 1:
If it appears to His Majesty to he necessary or expedient that any defence regulation to which this section applies should have effect for the purpose of so maintaining, controlling [DOT]and regulating supplies and services. . .
Then they define the four categories within which those regulations may fall, giving the four heads under which they need power, and go on to say:
.... he may by order in council direct that the regulation shall have effect by virtue of this act. . .
In other words the regulations already existing must deal with one or other of the four subjects; in the second place the regulations must have specific consideration and extension, and in the third place the regulations will be reviewed and adapted to meet the needs of the moment. In elaboration of this I should like to read some extracts from the British Hansard for Tuesday, October 9, 1945. On that date the home secretary, Mr. Ede, brought into the British house this bill to which I have referred. In moving second reading he said, at page 111:
I want to make it quite clear at the outset that the government intend to retain only those war-time powers which are desirable in the public interest.
Then at page 115, referring to the orders made under the British Defence Regulations Acts, he said:
Those acts will now expire on the 24th February next. We have decided that we will not ask the house to continue them beyond that date.
In the first place only those powers necessary were being sought. In the second place none of the others would be asked to be continued beyond that date. Then at page 119 he went on to say:
. . . except for a limited period in respect of
?riee control, the bill confers no power to make resh regulations for the purpose of the transition period, but only a power to make any of the existing defence regulations contained in parts III and IV of the defence (general) regulations . . . applicable to the new purposes of the reconstruction period . . .
And further down on that page:
The existing regulations which will be continued will have to be justified to the house.
And finally.
These orders in council, bringing the defence, regulations into the scope of this bill will have to be laid before both houses and will be subject to annulment by resolution of either house.
There, I submit, is the proper constitutional method to follow: first, to define the categories of the powers you require; second, to say that only those existing regulations which fall within those categories will be continued; third, that even those you seek to continue will be brought into this house and the need for them and their relevancy to this act explained, and then they will be continued in force under this act; finally, that all these regulations, even those we continue, should be subject to annulment by resolution of either house, not as in this act by this house alone. That, I submit,' is the proper course and is all that is required to give the government sufficient power. It is the course which should be followed here.
In the preamble of the new bill it seems that this is the intention of the government. At line 21 of the preamble I find these words:
. . . and whereas in the existing circumstances [DOT]it is essential that certain acts and things done and authorized and certain orders and regulations made under the War Measures Act be continued in force . . .
1 That would seem to imply that only certain specific regulations and orders were asked to be continued; but, as I have pointed out, that is not the effect of section 4 of the bill.
National Emergency

Therefore I would ask the minister to see to it that the implications contained in the preamble of this bill, and the provision contained in the British bill, are actually incorporated in the bill now before the house. The principle of the bill would then be far more acceptable to all hon. members, and, I am sure, - also to all the people of the country, because they would know what regulations would affect them. It is a well-known principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse for any offence which may be committed, but I defy anyone to know what is the law when that law is contained in ninety or a hundred thousand orders in council and regulations. I think that is one of the strongest possible cases that could be made to require the government to tell us w-hat laws, what powers, what orders in council are being continued by virtue of this present bill.


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. gentleman will permit a question, does he not realize that of the great number of orders in council adopted, the vast majority contain no laws whatever but are orders approving contracts and appointments, and so on? That has been stated time and again in this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the force of what the minister has said; and if there are large numbers of orders in council of the nature he has outlined then of course there can be no objection to continuing them. But is it too much to ask each department of the government to go through its own orders in council and find out the ones which are applicable, the ones under which they are still acting, and consolidate them and then bring them into the house so that we may see them?	-


Brooke Claxton: I can assure my hon. friend that every department is working steadily at that.	[DOT]


Edmund Davie Fulton: If that is the case I can only say that this statement is most inconsistent with the statement of the then acting Prime Minister (Mr. Usley) that it was not in accordance with government policy to table the orders in council passed since September 6 of this year. I am trying to present a case to the minister, and so far I have tried to avoid appearing unduly critical. I must say, however, that suspicions are aroused. We should like to regard this bill in the best possible light; we should like to believe in the intentions of the minister and of the government, but suspicions are aroused when we are denied access to the information we seek as to what has been done by order in

council, and in the second place when we are asked to approve, sight unseen, everything that has been done.
I am content to leave my case there, because I think it cannot fail to commend itself to the Minister of Justice. A great deal of work may be involved, but surely it is worth that to see to it that the people of this country know what are the laws which bind them.
That, Mr. Speaker, is our particular objection to the bill as it now stands. I should like to conclude by making a few remarks on the general principles governing the whole situation, which I feel must be said before this measure can be allowed to pass. What I shall present now is the larger application of the particular remarks I have just made.
We oppose this bill on a question of principle, in the belief that it is an excessive infringement of constitutional rights. We oppose it because it goes farther than it, has any right to go. Liberty is perhaps-no, I will say liberty is certainly-the most precious possession of our heritage, the greatest privilege guaranteed to us by our constitution; and therefore the features of the constitution which guarantee it are most vigorously to be fought for. No features of our constitution are so surely protective of liberty as the freedom and supremacy of parliament and the right of the subject to the protection of the established law of the land. In the pursuit of liberty we have just concluded a war; we should be willing to spare no effort to secure and maintain liberty now in Canada. Therefore we say: Let no man, let. no government dare lightly to ask us to agree to a surrender or even to an infringement of either of these two rights given us by the constitution. While we are ready to agree to the handing over of powers and the denial for the moment, of the rule of law and. the supremacy of democratic processes, in order to attain certain specific ends, and within certain specific limitations, we are justified nevertheless, in taking the strongest possible issue with the demand, such as we find here, for the wholesale and abject surrender of these rights.
As hon. members know, many of the powers vested in the governor in council-and these are legislative powers we are dealing with- powers the property of parliament, not executive powers properly vested in the cabinet- are, when embodied in orders in council, given such form as to limit in a most drastic manner the liberty of the subject. T have in mind such things as taking away from a subject the right of resort to the courts, denying a person the right of appeal from the acts of the controllers, and provisions that where investigations are being made into the con-

National Emergency
duet of Canadian citizens under certain regulations, such citizens shall be deprived of their right to counsel, deprived of their protection under the criminal code, and then made liable to prosecution as a result of anything they may say during that investigation.
It is realized that in war the delegation of powers to controllers is necessary. The delegation of powers to make regulations is also necessary. But as I have indicated, this system, when carried out, is full of dangers to the liberty of the individual. That is why we object to any delegation of legislative powers which is not Essential.
In support of what I have said I would read from the report of the committee on ministers' powers appointed by Lord Chancellor Sankey in Great Britain in 1932. Dealing with the new principle of delegating legislative authority, the eomniittee made certain observations which I now quote with approval. I would refer first to page 5 of this report, which states:
Between liberty and government there is an age-long conflict. It is of vital importance that the new policy,-
That is, the policy of legislation by delegated authority-
-while truly promoting liberty by securing better conditions of life for the people of this country, should not, in its zeal for interference, deprive them of their initiative and independence which are the nation's most valuable assets.
And again at page 6:
It cannot, we think, be denied .that prima facie this involves an infringement of that rule of law which is "a characteristic of the English constitution." In this context we may quote a statement of the ideal of justice which should always be an aim of British statesmanship:
"Amid the cross-currents and shifting sands of public life the law is like a great rock upon which a man may set his feet and be safe, while the inevitable inequalities of private life are not so dangerous in a country where every citizen knows that in the law courts, at any rate, he can get justice."


Mr. MITCHELL:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is that the same Lord Sankey who recommended the socialization of the coal industry in Great Britain?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have been reading from the report of the committee on ministers' powers. Lord Sankey did not make the report: his committee made it, and that portion which I have just read was taken from a passage in Lord Hewart's book, with which I have no doubt the minister, who is so well aware of the ideals of British justice and statesmanship, is familiar.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not hear what the hon. member said. I think he said it under his breath.
Mr.' BOUCHER:	It is worth reading,
anyway. .


Humphrey Mitchell: I hope the Hansard reporter was more successful in hearing it than I was.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot hear the minister. Mr. Speaker, I see the time at my disposal is running out, and I shall have to conclude my argument.
It is a principle in our constitution, one which has remained inviolate from at least the seventeenth century and which has been the envy of all those who at various times have suffered from tyranny, that no man should be denied the right of access to the courts, and further that the judiciary must be independent of the executive. Thus liberty of the individual is assured. And when we find, as we have found in investigating many of these orders in council, not that they take issue with the courts or try to dictate to them, but that they tell the subject that he shall have no right of appeal to the courts, then I say an attack is being made upon the very foundations of our liberty. It is because that sort of thing has been done, under the War Measures Act, because it is sought to carry over into this measure all the things that have been done under the War Measures Act, and because we see in this measure no suggestion of safeguard for the principles and rights of which I have spoken, that we are justified in opposing the principle of the bill.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have received several letters expressing strong disapproval of this bill. I will quote only the objections made by the League of Montreal Property Owners:
Dear Sir,
Since October 11, 1941, the League of Montreal Property Owners has informed you of its grievances against the rent control set-up and suggested means of improving the sad lot of its members.
Bill 15, as amended, is now before^ the house. We earnestly beg that a clause be inserted in the bill providing that property owners be restored the rights to which they are entitled and which were suspended during the war, in order that their property may afford them more profitable earnings.
Hoping, dear sir, that you will give this request, your best attention, please believe me, Yours very truly,
(Signed) Arthur Lussier, Secretary.
This letter speaks for itself. There is no need for me to comment upon it since its request is based on a most elementary principle of justice.
National Emergency

Is the bill now before the house necessary, is it even advisable? Under the National Resources Mobilization Act which affects both manpower and materials, all power is vested in the government, and the latter has availed itself, in fact still avails itself fully of its authority. It is free to extend or curtail controls or restrictions in due course, as is evidenced by the following extract taken from page 148 of the 1945 Recapitulation Issue of Canada at War:
Since the end of the war in Europe some restrictions on the production of civilian goods have been removed altogether. The Department of Munitions and 'Supply and the Wartime Prices and Trade Board have both announced a policy of gradual relaxation of the controls as soon as the supply situation justifies.
A state of war still exists in Canada. Here is a quotation taken from page 2 of the 1945 Recapitulation Issue of Canada at War:
. . by and with the advice of Our Privy-Council for Canada . . .
Now Therefore We do hereby Declare and Proclaim that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed in Our Dominion of -Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939."
I am not aware that the National Resources Mobilization Act, affecting both manpower and materials, has been repealed. Therefore, I find this bill altogether useless. Are more extensive powers sought? That would be detrimental to the prerogatives and privileges of the provinces that have already been bled white.
Here is a further extract taken from page 135 of Canada at War:
The planning -and execution of the federal government's war-time programme of income taxation h-as been greatly facilitated by the withdrawal of the provincial governments from the fields of personal and corporation income taxes for the period of the w,ar. This withdrawal was effected in 1941 by formal agreement between the federal and each provincial government. The provinces have been compensated for the -loss suffered by repealing their own taxes.
Did the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) wish to imply in the house a couple of days ago that the provinces would agree to the clauses and conventions set out in the bill? If such is the case, I advise the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) without further ado, that I am willing to accept the clauses of the bill now before the house; otherwise, however, I would have to oppose the measure in the interest of the respective provincial prerogatives and jurisdictions.
At the close of hostilities the government's first duty should be to recognize the efforts made by the Canadians by restoring the prerogatives of parliament. The time has come
to abolish the restrictions and controls which paralyze agricultural, commercial and industrial development. Otherwise the process of reestablishing the members of our arm-ed forces in civil life will be an exceedingly slow one. Canadians who have fought valiantly in this war expect the party in power to give them new directions which will enable them to take an active part in restoring Canada's economic life. Young people, whose career has been interrupted by the war, are entitled more than\ anyone else to employment and social welfare. We should find an immediate solution to the problem of employment in civil industries. The people are demanding, that production of several essential articles be resumed. Sometimes there are delays which the people are at a loss to explain in view of the abundance of raw materials and labour in this country. We have no right to refuse for the achievement of peace similar sacrifices to those made for the prosecution of the war. The reestablishment of soldiers in civil life must be carried out with diligence and method. Do you think it is fair that in a country like ours veterans who are returning to Canada should find themselves without a dwelling? What good is it to a soldier to be a Canadian and to have sacrificed everything for his country if he cannot even find a place to live?
For years, boards which are not responsible to the people have been daily encroaching on the privileges and on the mandate of duly elected members of parliament. Now that the .war has come to an end those boards should be abolished and parliament's supremacy restored. Those wartime boards have already lasted long enough. We must abolish those states within the state and reestablish responsible government. Canada has sacrificed everything so that liberty and democracy may triumph. The existence of wartime boards which are not responsible to the people of Canada is a challenge to liberty and democracy. For everybody's sake it is time that this dictatorship be eradicated.
In a recent speech in the . British House of Commons, former Prime Minister Churchill stated as follows:
Whatever may be our views on socialism and free entarprise it would be in the general interest that we set in motion the large, -as well as the small wheels of 'life and industry. And fo-r this we need men.
In attacking the Labour government's demobilization plan as inadequate, he stated that it was "the source of our national difficulties".
And he added:
While we are keeping men and women in the armed forces without sufficient reason, there can be no speedy reestablishment.

National Emergency
Thousands of Canadians are not alone in demanding demobilization and the abolition of those boards which are not accountable to the people. Former Prime Minister Churchill rightly claims that failure to do so is the chief cause of the difficulties experienced by his country. He has been urging the British government to demobilize men and women in larger number in order that they may help restore production in all fields. Who can question the experience and the sincerity of the former prime minister? Like England, Canada feels the scarcity of goods. The time has come to promote civilian industry. Let us give back to industry, trade and agriculture the help which they require.
Finally, the abolition of controls, the repeal of the mobilization and conscription act and the granting of an amnesty to defaulters and deserters would enable our young men to devote their energies to the economic reconstruction of Canada. Useful jobs are awaiting them. Why deprive the country- of the contribution which they are in a position to make through their initiative and their efforts?
In support of my contentions, I quote these further statements by Winston Churchil, which appeared in La Presse of Montreal on October 22, 1945:
The regrettable shortage of goods will continue. The government cannot allow the people to spend their savings lest an undue increase in prices take place. Shortages will be invoked ito justify the continuation of controls and the latter will prolong the scarcity of goods.
He asked the government to release the men from the services and to "set in motion the machinery of economic life". He stated that he would be ashamed to bear the responsibility of the government's statement on demobilization.
The moment has come to bring back to the country the men who have conquered, he stated, and no acute unemployment is to be feared. All industries require workers and there are numerous useful and fruitful tasks to be accomplished.
Since Mr. Churchill urges the return to England of British soldiers and their demobilization, are we not entitled to urge the repatriation to Canada of thousands of our soldiers and the demobilization of our men who are occupying Germany and the conquered countries? Has Canada not played her part in the achievement of victory? To paraphrase a sentence made famous by the former British prime minister who said: "Give us the tools and we will finish the job", I say to the government: Give our youth the tools necessary to achieve and win the peace.
'Let us make no mistake about it, peace exists in appearance only.	-


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Liguori Lacombe: Certainly.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Does the hon. member want the policy of the Canadian parliament to be directed by the former prime minister of Great Britain?


Liguori Lacombe: The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane is misinterpreting my statement. I fail to see by what right he distorts the arguments I am developing in this house. However, his question does not deserve any answer. I simply quote the statements of the former prime minister of England and apply them to Canadian politics as anyone might do in similar circumstances. I will therefore ask my hon. friend to feel no anxiety on this score.
I was saying that peace is only apparent at the present time. Europe is, to a certain extent, dominated by communism. A system which is worse than the dictatorship crushed by the united nations rules over the liberated countries in the name of justice, Christianity and right. The Atlantic charter, the Yalta resolutions, the war objectives of the allies are trampled under foot. Soviet Russia is causing its whole weight to bear on nations which it is its mission to revive and not to overrun. Religious authorities of Lithuania and the Slavic states have protested against such brutal treatment.
Let us beware lest, under cover of the critical times which Canada will experience, subversive elements might spread through the land. Having won the war would be of no avail were we to lose the peace. True peace is not attainable through the violation of other peoples' rights. The respective jurisdictions of the provincial and federal authorities are clearly defined. Under war-time measures, provincial rights have been encroached upon time and again when they have not been positively ignored. What was unwarranted in time of war is unjustifiable in time of peace. Why attempt to delay the proclamation of peace for the sole purpose of maintaining a bureaucratic, system which has replaced the elected representatives of the people? The time has come to return to normal living and do away with restrictions, boards and controls.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the government is endowed with all the powers to that end, but I repeat what I said a few moments ago. If the provincial premiers, at the recent federal-provincial conference, have approved the clauses and conventions contained in the present bill, I am willing to uphold them, otherwise, I shall oppose them.
National Emergency

(Text).


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of this group stated a week ago Friday, we did not think that the government should seek such blanket and absolute powers as those put forth in sections 3 and 5 of the bill. We therefore stated that when the bill reached the committee stage we would move certain amendments. However, the government now intends to move a new bill as an amendment in committee stage. This new bill apparently has come into being largely as a result of the conference which took place between the federal government and the provincial premiers, and also no doubt as a result of consideration of the various criticisms which were made in this houje when the bill was first introduced.
The new bill is certainly an improvement on the old one, but the powers of control are still very wide. I think we all agree, however, that certain controls are essential at this time and will continue to be essential for several months; and therefore it is concerning these controls which are essential that I wish to say a few words at this time.
I think people across Canada from one end to the other are looking forward to the daj' when these controls will be just an unpleasant memory. They are fed up with being at the mercy of the whims and the tyrannies of a bunch of bureaucrats. It is a strange thing that when you give some people a little bit of power it seems to have about the same effect on them as when you give some people a drink of liquor; it goes to their heads, and. from being just ordinary likeable individuals they become a great big nuisance, a headache to themselves and everybody concerned.
On the other hand, while recognizing the needs for these controls in war time, the people are demanding that they be eliminated at the earliest possible day. Obviously controls cannot cease upon the day of victory. Conditions arising from war will continue for many weeks and months after the war, and until those conditions have been removed, controls will have to continue, unless of course we are prepared to face consequences which might very well be chaotic. If that comes about, I would say, it will not be the wealthy people of the country who will suffer but the people in the lower income brackets, and especially veterans and their dependents who will be trying to start life anew. They would be the main sufferers from any chaotic state of affairs that might ensue such as existed at the conclusion of the war 1914-18.
In addition to price controls certain controls are needed in connection with transport-

ation in order to expedite the repatriation of the troops from overseas; and m,any of the benefits and preferences awarded to the veterans to-day having been passed under orders in council adopted by virtue of the War Measures Act, should the War Measures Act cease, those benefits would largely go out of existence.
Practically all war-time conditions requiring controls arise from a shortage of consumer goods and services. It is well to remember that during the war approximately fifty per cent of the production went for war purposes, and in spite of very heavy taxation during the war, billions of dollars of savings were accumulated in the form of bonds, war saving certificates and refundable taxes, so that these savings would become a very active demand for the class of goods' which the people were not able to obtain during the war and which are still in short supply. Therefore until we complete the '[DOT]reconversion of industry from a war-time to a peace-time footing, it will be necessary to curtail the demand for that type of goods.
We have also of course a heavy responsibility in regard to the devastated areas of Europe and other parts of the world as a consequence of the war. Unless we want to witness wholesale starvation in those areas we, along with other nations that have not been devastated as a result of the war, will have to make large contributions to those areas; and that of course is bound to reduce the amount of goods available for distribution in this country.
Again, certain imports have been scarce during the war owing to lack of shipping and to the fact that the countries from which we obtained those imports in the past were overrun by the enemy. I point this out to show that the answer to all these questions is the expansion in production of consumer goods and services. Therefore the question which the government must ask themselves is whether their policy is one that will bring about the most rapid expansion of production, thereby making it possible to eliminate these controls in the shortest possible time. For instance, what assurance is being given industry to-day that not only will there be an immediate demand, but a continuing demand, for their total output? What assurance is being given industry to-day that when the accumulation of savings, causing a demand for goods, has been spent, other demands will take their place? And again, what assurance is being given industry that when the devastated areas have been rehabilitated, when they have rebuilt their industries and are once more in a position to export their goods in payment for imports,

National Emergency
we shall be willing to accept those goods without the danger of their flooding the market and causing unemployment in this country?
That assurance and that guarantee can be given industry only if the government intend to adopt a sane financial policy that will maintain in Canada at all times an effective demand against our production. Is the government prepared to give industry the assurance that it will underwrite an effective demand in this country, so that there will be in Canada a ready market for our total production or the production of other nations for which our own production can be exchanged? If this is not done, then it will retard our production and considerably delay the time when these controls can be lifted, because no industry can continue to expand production unless it has at the same time an expanding market.
The next important point is this: What effect is the government's taxation policy having upon production in this country, upon the secondary industries, upon primary industry and upon labour? I think the answer in every case must be that their taxation policy has retarded production. I know that is certainly true so far as agriculture is concerned. It is true in regard to mixed farming, grain farming, and the production of live stock. Again, as the production of this country expands, is the government prepared to reduce drastically the taxation on the people in the lower income brackets so as to help to maintain an effective demand?
I would say that unless this government intends to deal very rapidly with the points I have raised it is also bound to delay the day on which these controls can be removed. Yet, on the other hand, I would ask this question: How can the government hope to underwrite the full development of the resources of the country and at the same time reduce taxation without plunging us still further into the morass of debt? Unless of course they intend to adopt a sane financial policy such as that outlined by the Prime Minister in 1935, when he said that currency and credit would be made available in terms of public need to meet the domestic and social requirements of the Canadian people, it cannot be done.
It may be said that the government have done that in the war. To a certain extent that is true, but you must remember that it was done by expanding the national debt by over ten billions, and no one would suggest that this can be considered a sane policy for peace time. While therefore we want a policy that will make sufficient money available to maintain effective demand against the production of our country, we want it done on a 47696-187
basis that will not at the same time expand our debt. Notwithstanding anything I have sa_'d, I am not suggesting for one minute the elimination of all controls. Some controls should be considered a permanent part of government policy for all time; for example, the control of foreign exchange in order to prevent gambling in foreign exchange, in order to prevent large-scale foreign investment abroad, which can only result in one of two things: either an unbalanced trade or a lower standard of living for the Canadian people.
We definitely favour a degree of price control in primary products in order to guarantee the farmer a fair share of the national income, so that the farmer's income may bear the same relationship to the national income as the farm population does the national population. Therefore we favour at all times a floor under primary products, and it should be based on parity prices, thereby helping to bring about a fairer distribution of income as between the primary and secondary industries.
I would emphasize this. Because ever since 1935 we in this group have consistently, year in and year out, advocated a degree of price control, and that was one of the main planks of the platform of the Social Credit party in Alberta in that year. We hear a lot of talk about free enterprise and free markets. I would point out that this condition has not existed in this country for as long as I can remember. It ended with the coming into being of combines, trusts, cartels, trade unions -and I am not attacking trade unions-and fixed overhead debt charges. Every one of these resisted the operation of free enterprise, therefore we need controls to prevent its abuse. The idea of free enterprise and markets was based on the understanding mat there should be no government interference in prices; that prices were governed by the laws of supply and demand; that when supply, exceeded demand prices would fall until the balance was restored and vice versa; that when demand exceeded supply, prices would rise and absorb the difference. AVhat has happened? Does anybody suggest for one minute that that is what has happened in the past? When supply exceeded effective demand, whilst the prices of primary products fell, the prices of the secondary goods, although registering a slight fall, were quickly stabilized by the secondary industries reducing production in order to meet the reduced buying power. That was done instead of reducing prices. Therefore it is nonsense to suggest that we have had free enterprise in operation in this country. Had the purchasing power of the people been maintained so that there

National Emergency

should be an effective demand against production, prices need not have fallen and production need not have been reduced. Therefore, so long as the government maintains the present system price, controls will be essential in order to assure a parity living cost between the primary and secondary industries of this country, and, consequently, labour.
Generally speaking I believe the government have made a good job of maintaining controls during the war. I want to be fair in making that statement. Of course we all know that mistakes have been made, but considering the circumstances they might very easily have been far greater. I find that the main demand for the removal of all controls does not come from the great mass of the people but from the heads of certain corporations who want freedom to exploit the people. The people of this country endured the inconvenience of those controls during the war because they recognized they were essential. Surely it would be better to put up with them for a few more months than prematurely to lift them and cause a chaotic state of affairs in the country. Again I want to emphasize the fact that if that happens it will not be the wealthy people who will suffer, but mainly the veterans and their dependents and the people in the lower income brackets. Nevertheless I say that it is important for the government to realize that the people will not tolerate the extension of those controls for one day longer than is necessary.	.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, parliament is now being asked to give through or by legal status almost what amounts to blanket powers of control over what in the end will mean the lives and destiny of the Canadian people. I have listened with considerable interest to the observations that have so far been made in this present debate, and many valuable points have been brought out both in favour of and against the measure. I find that those who seem to be in favour of the measure base much of their argument on the fact that because of certain present circumstances for which we cannot be responsible, it is advisable to grant the government an extension of time in matters of control. On the other hand I think I can say that those who desire to argue against the bill argue on the basis of the principle which is involved, and it is upon that basis that I should like to argue to-day.
It is all very well for those of us of the opposition to be asked: "What would you do if you were in power?" Perhaps that is a reasonable question, but the fact remains that we are not in power. The fact remains that

under our parliamentary system we are not members of the government, but members of His Majesty's most loyal opposition. As members of that opposition it is not our duty to say what we would do if we were in power. It is our duty to bring out the weaknesses of His Majesty's loyal government and to seek to peruse and investigate every detail of legislation which His Majesty's government proposes, bring out its weak spots and warning the government and the people of Canada of the dangers we see in it. I believe that is what we are here for. The argument, what did you do under certain circumstances, was made last night. The Conservative party were referred to, and certain legislation which they passed when they were in power was quoted. I am certain that we could refer to the (Speeches which were made at that time by the present Prime Minister, who was then leader of His Majesty's most loyal opposition. I wonder what he would have said at that time about such legislation as this. Overnight I have not been able to make an analysis of all those speeches; I have not even looked at the index of Hansard to find out where they appear, but I am certain that the present Prime Minister did not attack it as he would if he had been in power. If he opposed the bill he opposed it because he had a duty to perform as leader of His Majesty's opposition.
I shpuld like to discuss the measure on the basis of what I believe to be the principle involved. In the first place I suggest that the government is asking for almost omnipotent power. It is Canada's responsible government which is asking for this power, and I feel impelled to ask, to whom is the government responsible? Is it responsible to big business? Is it responsible to some unseen backstage powers, or is it responsible to the people of Canada? Technically, of course, the answer is that; it is responsible to the people of Canada, but in practice it seems to me that it assumes it is responsible to a government which is more responsible than it is, namely, a government of a mighty financial tyranny.
I am going to refer to something that was said the other day. I cannot quote from Hansard because it was during another debate, but I recall that at the time a little argument was going on between someone on this side of the house, the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). They were talking about coal, and the Minister of Labour described the economic cost factors involved in the mining of coal in Canada as compared to the mining of coal in the United States. Then he went on to say that when conditions eventually reached a normal state the price of coal-and I want

National Emergency
hon. members to get this-then would be the determining factor, that it would not matter very much where it came from. To him the question was very complex, and it seemed that he was alarmed because at the very moment he was speaking we could buy coal from West Virginia for much less than we could buy coal from Nova Scotia. Then I recall he made this remark, because I made a little note of it; he said, "That is an alarming situation, and you cannot wish yourself out of a jam like that." He hoped the coal commission would have an answer.
What was the principle involved in that? The principle was that the money system, with its complex construction of cost factors, trade and so forth, was his master; that there was an unseen government inherent in the present financial system which did not leave this government free to do what it wanted to do; that the present monetary system controlled the policy of the government. Now, what am I getting at? I am simply saying that a government which is already controlled now is asking parliament to give it power to operate under a system which is more powerful than it is. As members of the opposition we can take to task a government which has not received power from us; but when we give it the power and it in turn becomes subject to a higher power, where does it leave parliament? To my mind that is the principle involved. There is an unseen power of financial circumstance, and in the past the government have refused to face the physical facts squarely and then apply the remedy. Rather they have listened to the voices of proteges of the big bosses of finance; and because they have listened to those voices they have become grooved, rutted, bogged in the mire of financial circumstances inherent in the imminent breakdown of a faulty financial system.
The principle involved is this: that to make the system #ork they must have power to apply some force; and under the terminology of controls, shall I say, they are seeking power. Let us not fool ourselves on this. They do not say they want controls; they want power. They want parliament, the representatives of the people, to delegate power to them. The whole scheme abroad, not only here in Canada but throughout the world to-day, is a scheme to force the present financial tyranny to work. Therefore governments need power. What do they want power for? Do they want power to change the present system? I doubt that very much. They want power to fall in line, to keep in step with all other governments under the same financial tyranny; power to make it work, instead of power to change 47696-187J
the system. Last evening the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was talking about nerve. Well, it does not require very much nerve for a clerk in a store to tell his understudies what to do.- It does take nerve for that same clerk to say to his boss, "You are wrong; you are stupid; you are a crook, and I am not going to do the thing you want me to do because there is a principle involved." That is the kind of nerve the government should have.
The minister said quite a lot about nerve. Well, during the war I think the government did have some nerve, but it was of a different kind. They had nerve when they put over a plebiscite on this country and then did not put into operation what the country told them to put into operation. That was pretty nervy. It went beyond nerve; it was cheek. They certainly had nerve to fire their minister of national defence and then the next day turn around and do what he had told them to do. That was nervy; it was cheek. I will tell you what the government can do if they want to show their nerve. They can tell their financial advisers, whom I sometimes call intellectual dry-rots, that for once in their terms of office they are going to face the physical facts and change the present system to fit those facts. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in connection with legislation already passed by parliament and legislation still on the order paper, if we could only take a little peek behind the scenes we would discover that much of it is being passed at the circumstantial dictates of a power much greater than the government who now sit in office.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: That is nonsense; just twaddle.


Ernest George Hansell: Does the minister say it is just twaddle?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just twaddle.


Ernest George Hansell: The circumstances prove it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member cannot prove it.


Ernest George Hansell: And the minister is throwing out a bit of a challenge.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do challenge the hon. member to prove it.


Ernest George Hansell: We will. There is enough legislation to come down upon which we can show that this is happening. And if it is not so, I shall ask one or two questions. How is it that, with the same government in office, and with production piled sky high in Canada, the government could not distribute production to the people who needed it?
National Emergency


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Don't ask that; it is an embarrassing question.


Ernest George Hansell: They could not do it; they were helpless. There must have been some reason why they could not.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: And they were stubborn too; they would not listen.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps they did not have enough nerve.


Charles Edward Johnston: They have lots of that.


Ernest George Hansell: Or perhaps there were some financial circumstances which would not permit their doing it. That is what I am talking about, and it is not twaddle. Because, believe me-and I do not talk about this very often-I was one of those who, even in my profession, had to go to the city fathers, bow down on my knees, put my hands together in prayer, and say: "Will you please give me something, so that my little family will not starve?" Yes, sir, I was one who had to do that.


John Horne Blackmore: And that was in Canada!


Ernest George Hansell: I regard the Minister of Veterans Affairs as a friend of mine, because he has done a lot for me. I do not believe I have ever taken a case to him in which he has not taken the utmost interest. When I have been in his office, discussing cases with him; I have thought sometimes that he must certainly have taken me for a Liberal. Yes, he is a good friend of mine; but I want to tell him that what I have just said is no twaddle, believe me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just plain twaddle.


Ernest George Hansell: I had not intended taking up this much time; but the big idea is that the whole move is toward centralizing power in the government in an effort to force the present system to work. If they do not change the system, then all they can do is force the people to obey the system now in use. I believe my logic is sound.
We in this parliament cannot give something away that we have not got. And when the government asks us to give it power, surely we must have the power to give. Once a thing is given away, one has not got it; that is all there is to it. If the government gets the power, then we have not got it- and that is the principle involved in this bill.
The only redeeming feature, as pointed out by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) is that there are certain circumstances which must be faced. The redeeming feature is- if it may be so described-that the govem-

ment is asking for this power for only one year. Parliament is to meet again in the spring. At that time the government will have the power; we shall not-have it. We must remember that. We can only talk then. And at that time the Minister of Veterans Affairs might well look toward us and say, "Twaddle, twaddle!" It will be twaddle then -because they will have the power, and the only power we shall have will be that of hollering our heads off. That is the principle involved, and that is what I oppose. I do not know which way I am going to vote. I suppose I shall have to keep my eye on the leader of this party. And let no hon, member misinterpret what I have said as meaning that the leader of my party has power over me, because he has not. I shall speak with an independent voice. I vote independently, if I wish to.
I do desire to be fair to the government, and to all concerned. I am not saying that under the circumstances the government have not done a fairly good job. I am not saying that any other government which might have been in office, facing similar difficulties, would not have had to do the same thing. I am simply saying that a principle is involved. The government are asking for more power. I do believe that by a proper system of parliamentary procedure, of bringing down legislation from time to time, the government could devise some means by which any request for such power would be unnecessary, with the result that the same power would remain inherent in parliament.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. LUDGER DIONNE (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words to justify my attitude in regard to bill No. 15. Having received letters from many people in my constituency who do not approve this bill, I should like to point out publicly the reasons why I am in favour of it.
Before going any further I admit that I do not like any more than anybody else these orders in council which give or delegate powers to a bureaucracy who are not in any way responsible to the people. On the other hand, everybody will admit that we are facing a situation which has practically no precedent. The present session is getting near its end. We cannot expect the members to stay in continuous session to take care of any emergency which may arise from time to time. So

National Emergency
authority of some kind must be delegated to some body to deal with the matter in the absence of the members.
I shall confine my remarks on the bill to its essence or spirit, without going into the details of the sections. At present, as everybody knows, there is such an acute shortage of goods not only in this country but all over the world that if there were no controls at all, prices would reach a ceiling never thought of. What would happen then? The poor people would be deprived of the necessities of life. What I have said regarding prices of goods applies as well to wages.
It has been said in this house that this bill No. 15 jeopardizes the rights of the provinces. But if we had to wait for the provinces to take action in the matter and control the situation it wrould certainly take a long time, during which the people of this country would suffer.
I will admit that drastic legislation such as that outlined in this bill is not agreeable to the people of this country, but action must be taken to protect the people, even if they do not like to be protected. It is the duty of the authorities to do it. When a person has to undergo a surgical operation he does not stop to think whether he likes it or not; it simply has to be done. I consider that the government has to perform a surgical operation presently for the benefit of the people of Canada, and if the government did not take the proper means to do it, it would not be justifying the confidence which the people have put in their representatives.
I would respectfully draw the attention of hon. members of this house to the fact that these remarks of mine are against my own interest. If I had my personal interest in mind I should vote against the bill, because the foreign markets are interested in buying certain goods that are made in Canada, and I could dispose at a premium of the goods which are produced in factories in which I am interested. As a matter of fact I could sell in the United States and South American countries many times the quantity of goods which I manufacture and of which the export is now prohibited. This goes to prove that it is against my own interest to favour legislation such as is outlined in bill No. 15. But I understand that as a member of parliament I must forget my own interest for the benefit of the public at large. That is the reason why I shall vote in favour of bill No. 15.
Before taking my seat I am proud to pay a tribute of admiration to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) for acting in such a virile manner in presenting this bill under such adverse circumstances.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly unfortunate that the government should have waited until the last days of the session to introduce this most important bill, the passing of which may entail very grave consequences from a constitutional standpoint. Now that we have to sit from eleven o'clock in the morning to eleven in the evening, besides having to attend committee sittings, it is obvious that we cannot devote to the study of this measure all the attention which its importance demands. It will perhaps be said that the bill has been on the order paper for a long time, but everyone knows what that means, since it has been decided that consideration of some measures which had been put on the order paper would be left until other sessions. A bill can only be discussed when it has been introduced in the house.
At all events, I do not intend to prolong this debate too much and I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible in the few remarks I have to make. Besides, I believe that the speeches delivered by the hon. members for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), for Beauhamois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) and for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) have covered the various aspects of the problem we have to solve.
I have also listened with deep interest to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage). Of course, I cannot agree with most of what he said, but he has also made a particular remark which has my entire support, and I think it is proper that I should quote it. The hon. member for Montmagny-LTslet said, as reported on page 2919 of Hansard.
I do not feel that the people of my constituency gave me a mandate merely to pass that mandate over to the government.
I am in perfect agreement with the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet on that point. When I had the honour of being elected to represent the electors of Charlevoix-Saguenay, it was certainly not for the purpose of handing over to the governor in council all the powers devolved on the government of this country.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the matter which is now before us is most important. It is important because it affects the very basis of the confederation pact. Indeed, I think I am justified in adding that in the past, when differences arose between the provincial authorities and the dominion government, it was almost in every instance upon the interpretation of sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. Now, this bill involves those two sections; in other words, it is intended to transfer within the powers of the
National Emergency

dominion parliament certain provincial rights and powers defined in section 92 of the B.N.A. Act. Hence, I contend that the matter is very important, I repeat, it may have far-reaching and altogether disastrous consequences. Instead of bombastic speeches of the type made last night by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), I should have preferred sounder and more weighty arguments in support of the government's point of view. Among the few principles set forth by the Minister of Agriculture, one of them stood out more prominently than the others; I refer to his quotation of a business man's opinion on the matter. At this point, Mr. Speaker, let me state the viewpoint of Mr. Burton, President of the Robert Simpson Company of Toronto, another business man well known all over the country. According to Le Devoir of October 12, 1945, Mr. Burton said, in relation to bill No. 15:
At present, Ottawa is devising the collapse of reconversion, and Canada's future is at stake. Bill 15 sets forth emergency powers more extensive than those vested in cabinet during the war.	'
Controls, instead of being curtailed, are extended to new fields. Now that hostilities are over, the privileges sought in the bill are no longer necessary; in fact, they would entail a severe menace. The act is to continue in force for a period of twelve months, but this type of legislation is usually renewed from year to year.
Civil liberties and property rights are imperli-led, and if bill 15 is passed, the provinces will be stripped of their constitutional prerogatives. The freedom of every Canadian citizen is thus affected.
I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that if the matter discussed in the house for the past couple of days had been thrashed out before a fair-minded court, the arguments submitted by the hon. members for Stanstead and Beauhamois-Laprairie would have won hands down over those set forth by the hon. members sitting on the right.
Personally, I wish to point out only a few specific features of the bill now before us. Incidentally, if in so doing I have the good fortune to reflect the opinion of the electorate in the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay, well and good; some people may claim that I am making an election speech, but that is irrelevant, for I shall have the satisfaction of knowing that I have done my duty. Therefore, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that national unity is endangered by this bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Frédéric Dorion: Not that some menace with which we are usually threatened when we claim for example, as we did in the past in the house or elsewhere, the rights of an ethnical

entity of this country when they are usurped by the other entity. I say that such is not the menace with which we are threatened at present, but the present menace may be more dangerous because it attacks the Canadian confederation in its very foundation. We are threatened with a conflict between provincial autonomy and the federal government. In order to mitigate the consequences of the bill, it is often said and contended that it is but a transitional measure which would grant powers to the governor in council for a period of one year only. This is not accurate. If one examines section 6 of the new bill he finds that the powers granted to the governor in council will extend until next session; it is therefore evident, from the text of the bill itself, that the said powers are given to the governor in council for more than a year, at least for one year and three or four months. But how long the bill remains in effect is not important. The situation would still be the same were the powers granted to the governor in council for a few months only. A principle is involved and not a question of time. I submit that it is exclusively a matter of principle and it is in that light that we should look at the bill which is now before us. On the other hand, the principle, the basis of that bill has been the subject of earlier discussions in the house. For instance, this happened during a debate when, during * the second special session of 1930, the Bennett government having just attained power, a session was called in order to authorize the governor in council to spend $20,000,000 to ward off the disastrous results of unemployment which prevailed at that time. If I refer to the House of Commons Debates for the special session of 1930, I find certain statements which I believe should be remembered diming the present debate. For instance, on page 178 I note the following statement:
Last night in speaking to the resolution on which this bill is based he said that we had no right to ignore the needs of suffering humanity. May I tell him in a spirit of absolute sincerity and humility that there are many of us on this side of the house who through birth and struggle have probably a better appreciation of the struggles of the labouring people of Canada. Let me tell him that he has no right to assume that because we are here protecting the fundamental rights and privileges of parliament he has any monopoly of sympathy with the sufferings of humanity.
Those words were uttered 'by the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) during the special session of 1930.
Further on, the hon. minister stated:
The leader of the government knows as well as anyone in this house that the struggle for responsible government in England since the
i

National Emergency
days of Edward I has been the struggle on the part of the people's representatives to secure full and final -control over every cent of money expended. Further, the hon. gentleman knows quite well that as a result of the constitutional struggle of 1910 in the old land the final financial control of the House of Commons was completely established. The same principle holds in Canada.
As reported on page 258 of Hansard of that same 1930 session, he went on:
My plea to the -house is this:	Leave the
authority to parliament. Having been sent here by the Canadian people, we have obligations and responsibilities to them. It does not matter much which party claims our allegiance; the people who sent us here have placed certain obligations upon our shoulders. iSo far -as I am concerned, therefore, not even to protect any industry in the country, not even the fruit industry of British Columbia, shall I stand for the infringement of the -rights of parliament and for.delegating to any cabinet, even the almighty, all-powerful Conservative government, the power which belongs to parliament.
And he continued :
To me this is not so much Tory legislation as it is Soviet control in the Dominion of -Canada.
I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will not add to the poverty of their argument the intolerance of interruption. Let me assure them that I stand for the fundamental rights of parliament *as established through centuries of struggle in the old land, and I suggest to the Minister of National Revenue that if he will consult the debates engaged in by the fathers of confederation when they were building up the fabric of our Canadian constitution he will not find any delegation by them to the executive council of parliament's right to supreme control over the system of taxation in this country. For these reasons, I agree with the hon. member -for Edmonton West (Mr. -Stewart) that section 4 is -absolutely vicious -and iniquitous in principle, -and I object, therefore, to the legislation before the house inasmuch as it deprives parliament of -its fundamental rights.
Some hon-. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Amen!


Frédéric Dorion: Those are the words uttered in 1930 by the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Veterans Affairs. Further, in considering the many vicissitudes which befell this much talked about bill No. 15, I find that there may have been a recollection of those past statements of policy. Indeed, if the events which preceded this bill are looked into, it is noted that it was submitted with some hesitation even in its second form. In fact, the first inkling that such a bill would be introduced was contained in the speech from the throne when His Excellency the Governor General said:
You will be asked to approve a measure to extend certain specified emergency powers to meet emergency conditions in the period of -reconstruction.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder what happened since the day on which the speech from the throne
was read by the governor general, a speech in which the -bill now before the house for granting the government certain powers was announced? What could have happened between this day and the 23rd of November when bill No. 15 was introduced in the House of Commons?
The speech from the throne was prepared by the cabinet, for we all know that this body is always called to pass upon this document before it is read. It is probable that, after having learned that the government intend to request certain limited powers, these gentlemen we call bureaucrats and controllers objected to it. Indeed if the government had introduced a bill as was forecast in the speech from the throne it would have meant that these gentlemen would have been deprived of the dictatorial powers they have enjoyed for too long. I do not doubt that in the interval between the reading of the speech from the throne and the introduction of bill No. 15, representations were made by the controllers and other powers such as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) mentioned this morning, to ensure that the measure would be properly amended.
At all events, I claim that explanations should be given to the house concerning the change of policy, on the part of the Canadian government, which occurred between the reading of the speech from the throne and the introduction of bill No. 15 in this house. In any case, on November 23, the first draft of bill No. 15 was submitted to us and we all were surprised to notice that, after a brief discussion, the debate was suddenly adjourned. During the following week, the measure which had been presented to the house was submitted to the prime ministers then gathered here, in Ottawa, for a federal-provincial conference.
We evidently do not know what happened at this interprovincial conference when bill No. 15 was submitted to the gathering of prime ministers from the various provinces. However, we may surmise from what the Prime Minister had to say, on December 3, that, evidently, the members of this conference objected strenuously to the measure. I quote the words of the Prime Minister on that day, as reported in Hansard:
My hon. friend has referred to certain -important amendments which have been considered and which the -minister will -be prepared to propose when the bill comes before the house in committee. During the sittings of the coordination committee of the dominion-provincial conference some of the provisions of -the bil-1 were under discussion. There were certain objections by some of the premiers to powers that were being requested under the bill. The government undertook to consider the objections that were raised. That has been done, -and important
National Emergency

'amendments have been drafted which we believe and expect will help to meet the objections that have been raised, and incidentally help to meet objections that otherwise might have been raised by hon. gentlemen opposite.
By way of digression, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that in his statement the right honourable the prime minister perhaps said too much, but certainly did not say enough. He mentioned the objection raised by a few prime ministers. Now, inasmuch as the matter has been referred to the prime ministers of the nine provinces of the dominion and since it was the right honourable the prime minister himself who gave that information to the house of commons, we should, I think, havre a right to know who are the prime ministers who raised objections and who are those, if any, who agreed to bill No. 15 in its original form. Is it fair that only the right honourable the prime minister and the provincial prime ministers should have that information? Did the prime minister of Nova Scotia accept the bill? Did the premier of Ontario accept it? Did the prime minister of Quebec accept it?


Mr. LANGLOIS:: Ask your leader.


An hon. MEMBER:: Your leader does not waiit to say anything about that.


Frédéric Dorion: It was the right honourable the prime minister of this country who brought the matter up in the house and we have a right to ask him to enlarge upon that statement and to tell us, in all fairness, who were those, among the prime ministers attending the dominion-provincial conference, who approved the bill and who are those who opposed it. A few days ago, we heard that the prime ministers had returned home on Thursday or Friday of last week. Three days after the conference had ended, that is on Monday, the government introduced the new bill No. 15, which had been revamped and was called a transitory bill.
Now, one question first comes to mind. Since the dominion government decided in the first place to submit this bill for the consideration of the provincial prime ministers at the dominion-provincial conference, we are now entitled to know whether the new bill No. 15 has been submitted to the same prime ministers and whether it has been approved or opposed by them. Parliament did not ask the provincial prime ministers to consider bill No. 15; the government decided to bring it up durihg that dominion-provincial conference. If the new bill has been submitted to them, we are entitled to know whether the same prime ministers have approved or opposed it.
As regards the new bill, Mr. Speaker, I must say, in passing, that I wish to abide by the

ruling you gave yesterday, when my colleague the hon. member for Chicoutimi had the floor, and I am willing to admit that the measure now before the house is the original bill and not the reprinted one.
The statement was made Monday by the Prime Minister, that the government takes upon itself to submit to the house a recast piece of legislation. According to the declarations made last night by the Minister of Agriculture, I think we should, in order to gain a fuller understanding of the whole matter, take it for granted that the first bill as well as the amended version are now submitted for our consideration. If I look into it-


James Horace King: I must advise the hon. member that if I allowed the Minister of Agriculture and an hon. member seated on the left to quote from the bill as reprinted, it was merely that the preamble might be discussed, since other hon. members had already quoted it in the house. I would therefore beg the hon. member not to refer to the sections of the bill as reprinted.


Frédéric Dorion: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to comply with your wishes. I will confine myself to the Prime Minister's statement which I quoted a short while ago. I should like to say that the bill as amended, which was submitted to the house afer the Prime Minister said that he had agreed to incorporate certain changes at the request of the provincial premiers, is, in some of its features, even worse than the first draft.
In fact, if we examine bill 15, I think I am justified in saying that it has a dual purpose. The first seeks to grant the governor in council, through parliament, powers which, under section 92 of the British North America Act, belong by right to the provincial legislatures. The second asks parliament to abdicate all control it may be entitled to exercise over the affairs of the country and to vest these rights in the governor in council.
The powers of the first category were clearly set forth recently by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) when he introduced the bill to the house. The following excerpt is quoted from page 2452 of Hansard:
One of the important questions for the consideration of the house is this question of fact: Is it or is it not true that some matters normally of provincial jurisdiction have 'aspects at this time which are other than their normal aspects as dealt with in the subsections of section 92 of the British North America Act?
And a bit further on:
Are we still in a condition of national emergency such as to affect the distribution of legislative powers between the dominion and the

National Emergency
provinces, and, as a practical proposition, such as to affect what should he the distribution of legislative functions as between parliament and the governor in council?
Well, these are the very questions to which the members of the government have not replied satisfactorily. In fact, the Minister of Justice quoted in support of his argument a ruling made by the Privy Council when the case of The Manitoba Free Press Company was referred to it; this ruling, as reported in a speech by the Minister of Justice, appearing in Hansard of November 23, states the following:
Where an exact line of demarcation will lie in such cases'it may not be easy to lay down a priori, nor is it necessary. For in the solution of the problem regard must be had to the broadened field covered, in case of exceptional necessity, by the language of section 91, in which the interests of the dominion generally are protected.
Therefore, it is apparent in the ruling quoted by the Minister of Justice that only in case of exceptional necessity, may we strip the provinces of the rights conferred upon them under section 92 of the B.N.A. Act.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that no weighty arguments and no sound proofs have been given in support of the contention that these really exceptional needs do exist. The bill in its present form, as introduced in the house, should have been first submitted to the provincial governments, for, at a time when the federal authorities are seeking the cooperation of all provincial legislatures in its attempt to reorganize our economic system, if parliament passes legislations on matters of such vital interest to the provinces as those contemplated in the present bill, the procedure adopted in this instance is a lack of confidence and, I might say, an insult to them, and this is not the proper way to promote cooperation on the part of the provincial bodies. Therefore, as a matter of justice, and in the interest of negotiations which are to be pursued between the federal and provincial governments, I claim that, as the federal authorities wish to be successful in implementing the policy they have expounded, it is necessary and appropriate for them to submit such projected measures to the provincial governments.
As to the assignment of powers we are requested to approve, it is purely a surrender of our control over certain matters into the hands of the governor in council.
I say that in the present circumstances we have no right to do so. I contend that it has not been satisfactorily proven to us that we have the right to grant to the governor in council the powers requested by bill No. 15. And, as a consequence of this claim, I say 47696-188
that if this bill is passed by Parliament, the law will be ultra vires and may be annulled at any time by courts of justice. Should a dispute arise as a result of this measure, I say that we may well see a repetition of what happened in 1935 and 1936 when several laws enacted by the Bennett government in 1934 and 1935 were set aside by the Privy Council.
It has been repeated time and again during the present debate, that we must admit in spite of all that there is a great necessity of maintaining certain controls and certain regulations passed under the War Measures Act.
I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that the whole structure set up in the past few years through orders in council and measures of all kinds should be demolished at a single blow, but I say that there are constitutional means of remedying this situation. If we had asked the provincial premiers last week to legislate on matters within their jurisdiction in order to maintain certain controls, I believe, if I judge from the atmosphere which prevailed at that conference, that we would have been supported by all the provincial premiers who would have agreed to legislate in the special cases within their own jurisdiction.
As for the second category of powers which I mentioned a while ago, if we had been called upon during the present session to approve definite and specific legislation dealing with the continuation of certain controls and regulations during the reconversion period, I am almost sure that no objections would have been raised in the house, because nearly everyone recognizes that some of the present controls should be maintained.
(Text).
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to sum up my remarks as follows: My contention is that the bearing of this bill is twofold, or should I say that there are two categories of powers provided in this bill. First, the government is asking for authority to deal with matters pertaining to provincial powers. Second, the government is asking parliament to authorize it to make legislation by orders in council.
As regards the first category, now that we know the government has thought fit to submit to the provincial premiers the project of this bill, we ought.to know if this new bill No. 15, as reprinted, meets with the approval of the premiers. The government should give us the evidence that the premiers of the provinces have agreed to this new bill; otherwise. in all fairness and equity, and I may say, in all decency, the proposed amendments should not be presented.

National Emergency

As regards the second category of powers, my contention is that this parliament does not possess the right to authorize the government to govern this country by orders in council. I believe this bill, should it become law, would be ultra vires of the powers of this parliament, and I do not hesitate to state that in a judicial case emanating from this law, our courts would come to the conclusion that it is ultra vires and illegal. One may reply that, even if we admit this point of view, we must also be aware of the fact that some of the measures adopted under the War Measures Act cannot easily be rescinded immediately I am ready to agree to that, but I suggest that this bill is not at all a proper remedy for this situation. What the government should do would be to ask the provincial governments to pass the necessary legislation dealing with the problems pertaining to their constitutional authority; and from what we were told about the interprovincial conference I believe the premiers would be willing to accept this suggestion.
As regards the first category of powers already mentioned, I would suggest that the government submit to parliament special and precise legislation which would cover the needs of the present period, but nothing else. Therefor, my contention is not only that this bill is ultra vires, but that we do not need it; and there is only one way out, which is by way of the following amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chicoutimi:
That in the motion now before the house the word "now" be left out and the words "this day six months" added at the end of the question.
Mr. GEORGES H. HEON (Argenteuil) (Translation)-: Mr. Speaker, as the majority of the hon. members do not speak French, I shall speak in English.
(Text).
Victory over the enemies of freedom having been won by our people, Mr. Speaker,, at an untold price in lives and sacrifices of all kinds, every Canadian worthy of the name has become tremendously interested in the preservation of his political liberties and the democratic processes of government which he has come to cherish so dearly. The average Canadian believes, rightly or wrongly, that the institutions he fought for and for which his sons died will cope with the problems arising out of this complete but costly victory; and he has faith in his elected representatives, feeling that the difficulties arising within the immediate post-war period will be settled to his satisfaction, according to his conception of responsible government. Even to superficial thinkers it must appear abundantly clear that this parliament is faced with vast and

complicated problems, weighty and huge, growing in immensity as new conditions arise. The bill before this house transcends party interests and immediate political advantage, and I for one would not care to consider this bill in the light of political colour. This bill, more than any other measure brought before this house during the present session, (including the flag question on which we could not even agree in principle) shows fully the varying trends of thought in this country, the difficulty of interpreting our constitution in time of war or economic stress, and how very finely balanced is our confederation. All of us here are sworn to serve the best interests of our country, and only those of bad faith would dare question the sincerity of their fellow members. We are all seeking to attain the same end, a united, prosperous, sovereign Canada; yet each of us may in all good faith differ from his fellow members as to the means of attaining that end.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not at all scandalized by the speeches which have been made on this bill, whether they came from my personal friend, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon); whether they came from the batonnier general of the Quebec bar, the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), with whose speech I entirely agree; whether they came from the hon. member for Beau-harnois (Mr. Raymond), who offered a very strong indictment against the bill; whether they came from the hon. member for Beauoe (Mr. Dionne), whom I had to persuade all morning to make his maiden speech in this house, or whether they came from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who, as "the old reliable", made a laudable effort to try and convince this house that this country has a good government. All these speeches show that we are breathing freedom, that we are living and working toward democracy. Ever since Lord Durham's report there has been a conflict of political thought in Canada; yet our country has prospered and developed almost progressively with this conflict of thought. Personally, and I say this with all due respect, I attach as much importance to the speeches and gestures made by Papineau and the grandfather of the present Prime Minister as I would attach to those of Sir John Colborne and his lieutenants. Their actions might have been diametrically opposed, yet they were directed toward the same end; and to those factions we owe the responsible government we are enjoying to-day.
Our struggle for responsible government has been long, arduous and costly. This bill is just another measure which literally throws back into the laps of legislators the responsi-, bility of maintaining responsible government.

National Emergency
Shall we have economic control or shall we have economic freedom? That is the question. To all true lovers of liberty, urgent as this bill might appear to be, the underlying principle is repugnant, if I may use that word. Those who have sacrificed loved ones on the altar of liberty in the hope that the price paid would not be too high, attach great importance to that one attribute which establishes the difference between democracy and dictatorship, between free men and chained men. To those of us who worship at freedom's altar this bill is a dark and overwhelming question mark. Yet we must face hard facts, Mr. Speaker. Our economy is dangerously unbalanced. We have switched from agriculture to industry as a major occupation, and all our old theories as to supply and demand, freedom of enterprise and endeavour, have gone by the board. Let us admit it. Our participation in this war has given our economic skeleton, if I may use that expression, a terrific shock from which we may not soon recover. This house now is being asked to sanction a measure conferring upon the governor-in-couneil transitional powers during the national emergency arising out of the war. We are not told by what yardstick Jhe transition will be measured, nor are we informed of the scope and extent of the emergency. If we were asked to sanction specific controls, fully described and demonstrated, I think it would be easier for all of us to accept the measure.
Unfortunately this bill is uncertain in its portent, like many other bills which have been presented during the present session. No one in his senses will deny the necessity of certain controls, but every disciple of freedom will challenge an unlimited mandate to the governor-in-council to legislate without consulting in advance the elected representatives of the people. If we are, and we are, a government of the people for the people, we cannot for any reason, however weighty it may appear, surrender our vested powers to any other authority, however respected it may be. This is a time as never before to reestablish the supremacy of parliament over an irresponsible bureaucracy which this war inevitably created and which the might of our war effort may have justified. I want to be fair about that. The more this parliament surrenders its powers to a bureaucracy which is not responsible to the people, the more this parliament will lose the respect of those same people. After all, it was not the bureaucracy which stood the last general election ; it was all of us here. The old civil service did more than its share during the war, without any addi-47690-1884
tional wages. It is that new bureaucracy which came in to win the war at any price that we should guard against.
Edmund Burke, that great English parliamentarian, speaking on conciliation with America, made this statement which I would ask h'on. members to bear in mind:
As long as you have the wisdom to keep sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever our chosen race and sons of our country worship freedom, they will turn their faces toward you . . . Deny them this participation of freedom and you break that sole bond which originally made and must still preserve the unity of our empire. It is the spirit of the English constitution which, infused through the mighty mass, feeds, unites, invigorates, vivifies eyery part of the empire, even down to the minutest member.
Another delicate question, Mr. Speaker, is involved in this bill, namely the conflict of federal and provincial powers. I know of no province more willing than my own to cooperate with the federal authorities. Yet, because of its racial, linguistic, economic, geographic, social and even sentimental peculiarities, the province of Quebec is justifiably jealous of its autonomy and justifiably worried as "to the loss of its essential powers. On this subject I want to state further that the influential and much respected English-speaking minority in my province has expressed itself as sharing the1 same views, since it feels that well enough should be left alone.
May I give a word of warning, to the house? Broken friendships, must not lie ahead if we are to become more united; and no province or group must look hopelessly to the future feeling that it has been betrayed. Controls have weighed very heavily upon our people, and I want to accentuate that there is a general desire that these controls should disappear, unless urgency demands that they be maintained. On the principle that the preamble to this bill, instead of extending the freedom which has been promised ever since war was declared, further strangulates that same freedom, I cannot accept it. But I wish to make this reservation:	I shall gladly, however,
vote for any specific measure of control, if its necessity is demonstrated.
These are my last words: Canadians were not born to be controlled. Our forefathers came to this country because they were searching for freedom. Our fathers fought to maintain freedom, and our own kith and kin fought in this war to save it. I am prepared to go on record as stating that I still prefer to rely upon the qualities of recovery inherent in all true Canadians rather than upon a state-controlled economy conceived and directed
National Emergency

by irresponsible bureaucrats. And, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to go to the polls tomorrow on that sole issue.


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I- believe this debate could have been shorter. Basically there is very little in the bill to which objection could be taken.
One has to have a thick skin to listen to all of the pleas for democracy and all the condemnations against dictatorships coming from people who, when war came along, opposed any idea of control of profits, while calling for all sorts of control of labour and wages. These same people, when it comes to the problem of tariffs and protection, are willing to have all sorts of government interference so that they may have sufficient profits. However in a matter which affects all the people, all of a sudden they become great defenders of democracy, as they understand it.
At present we are in a state of emergency so far as the problems of peace are concerned. There are many difficult problems, and hon. members in all quarters of the house-I have heard it from the start to the finish in various speeches from hon. members-realize that there is a peace emergency, a problem of finding jobs for people, a problem of creating work, a problem of making sure that there will be houses for the people, a problem of controlling prices and of wages.
I am sure hon. members who are opposed to this measure would gladly have a control of wages, but they would not like the control of prices-that is, they would agree to some controls, but not to others. I hold in my hand a letter which seems best to express the reason why there is so much opposition to this measure. This letter was received this morning from La Ligue des Proprietaires de Montreal -the league of proprietors of Montreal-and is as follows:
Bill 15, as amended, is now before the house. We earnestly beg that a clause be inserted in the bill providing that property owners be restored the rights to which they are entitled and which were suspended during the war, in order that their property may afford them more profitable earnings.
In a few words this letter tells us that we must see to it that the bill contains a section guaranteeing proprietors greater income. That is, it must do away with rental control and the freezing of leases, so that they may throw people out when they want to. All this despite the fact that there is *a shortage of houses in Montreal. But this is what they want to have done so they may raise rents a little higher. And let me assure hon. members that, despite rental controls, rents are high in Montreal.
[Mr. Heon.l
Someone told me recently that as much as S60 for a furnished room has been asked in that city. Without controls they would ask a rental of $100 or $150. They are very much interested in freedom, as they understand it- a freedom to fleece people, and take their last penny away from them.
I realize there have been abuses, and many of them. Small business men have come to me and told me that they could not get cloth, when the big business outfits had cloth. Used car dealers have told me that they were told they would have to close their yards in which they were selling second-hand cars, because they did not have shops to carry out repairs. Substandard wages have been frozen. No doubt there have been many other abuses. But basically we must agree that some measures are necessary at the present time.
Let no one dare to raise the constitutional problem. That problem has been raised again and again against the interests of the Canadian people. Some say, "Oh, you must not overstep the provincial rights of the provinces." What do they mean? They mean jvtst this: "Leave us alone and we will handle problems in the interests of a few wealthy people." Every time the federal government wishes to do something, those people in the provinces take this stand: "We will soon block them by the holler of provincial rights and constitutional rights." We hear lots of that in Quebec. I know that the premier of our province is one of the loudest in those statements. He has also told the proprietors at their conferences that he is opposed to all controls, and 'believes they should be able to charge all sorts of rates. That is what they have in mind. It is property rights in which they are interested-not the rights of the people. When they raise the cry of constitutional rights it is because they are thinking of the few, not of the people. In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and urge other members to support it.


Mr. PARK MANROSS (London):: Mr. Speaker, it is a little unexpected that I should be taking part in this debate on bill No. 15 because I saw by this morning's paper that bill No. 15 is virtually dead, but as the house is still debating it I shall join in the post mortem.
Bill No. 15 has been discussed by a great many members, especially members of the legal profession. One hon. member said yesterday that this bill controlled everything except going to church. He missed one thing. It does not take over control of the law business in Canada. It may be because the bill was drafted by a lawyer; I do not know.

National Emergency
But I think that those of us who are laymen, not legally-minded, should examine the bill from a layman's standpoint, because as you know, Mr. Speaker, the legal profession probably has the lowest batting average of any profession, for half of its members lose their cases.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: But this half is absolutely right.


Park Manross: This bill is to endorse and continue the wartime controls and government by order in council. To that we take strong exception. We admit that controller-ships were necessary during the war, but undoubtedly they provoked a lot of animosity, and they will provoke more if continued in peace time. I have been thinking about a controllership right in this house. I moved down to this seat from the back row because there were three shadows on my desk and I could hardly see a thing. I saw the whip, the controller of lighting, and the Sergeant at Arms. I think we need a "shadow"' controller to fix it .up. However, with all the discomforts of my seat it is not nearly as uncomfortable as the seats of hon. members will be who vote in favour of this bill.
The house has discussed controllerships at length, and I shall not take up much time on that. We have discussed housing, which is run by boards and bureaucrats. Somebody had the idea that the veterans should be put on an acre of land instead of becoming city citizens and being assimilated in the general citizenship of Canada, and so they bought a lot of farms and established soldier settlements. That all comes from having too many controllers, each one trying to run his own department.
I do not necessarily represent any party in speaking about controllers. The people I am thinking of are the people of Canada, the business men, the farmers, the labouring men. There is no use telling the Canadian working man that he is better off than the Russian or Australian or British worker, because the Canadian working man wants to be better off than the Canadian working man. More power to him! He wants his own lot to be better. It cannot be better under a bill of this kind, because on whatever other subject you may legislate you cannot legislate human nature, and this bill diametrically opposes human nature because it kills incentive and initiative. "Controllers" remind me of the lighthouse-keeper on the coast who had been keeping the light for thirty years, with the fog horn sounding every two minutes. He woke up in the middle of the night when the fog horn had suddenly stopped sounding, and
said, "What was that?" Some of these controllers do not know that the guns have stopped firing; they do not know that the war is over; they do not know that these temporary buildings are not permanent buildings.
My objection to a bill of this kind is that it lends itself to creating more bureaucrats, more boards and more controls. Not long ago the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin) said, at page 913 of Hansard:
As I have said, I have always felt that we have too many boards.
He went on to say:
I hope they go forward with the legislation that is on the statute hooks and not appoint a lot of boards.
But on that occasion he was talking against somebody else's resolution. Under bill No. 15 we are bound to have more boards and more controllers.
It is an old story that governments make their worst mistakes when they assume infallibility on their own part, or assume a lack of interest or ability on the part of the public, and endeavour to reduce parliament to impot-ency. Nothing is more important than to recognize our form of government and that the representatives of the people shall understand that a responsibility rests upon them to protect not only the rights and liberties of the people, but the institutions of sound representative government that have been slowly and painfully worked out over the years.
Another thing that this bill does through establishing bureaux and controllers and boards is to absorb too large a share of manpower working for the government. That takes more taxes from the people to keep this thing going, and the people could spend that money themselves much more wisely than in paying taxes for boards and controllers. Of course, I know that these orders in council lend themselves to schemes that appeal to certain groups, which if submitted to the people themselves would be quickly turned down.
We have discussed in this house collective bargaining and union security when speaking of the rights of labour. That is all right. But how about collective bargaining with the provinces? The provinces met with the dominion government last week, and the provinces have certain rights which they quite properly feel should be respected. This bill I understand has been amended because of representations that were. made by the provinces, but still the bill now 'before us seems to contain nearly everything objectionable ,that was in the original bill. The hon. member for Kindersl'ey (Mr. Jaenicke) said that he was going to support the principle of the

National Emergency
bill but would offer some amendments later. If you were going to build a house you would not build the house and then decide that you wanted the kitchen on the other end. You would make your changes in the blueprint. This bill is in the blueprint stageThen why not amend it and bring it in right? Why bring it before the committee of the whole to have the amendments made there? There are a lot of people in the government service who could draft a simple 'bill to cover what is required.
You have to use your imagination as a layman. I have no personal hates. If you spend ten hours of your life on personal hates you would be much better off dying ten hours sooner. I used my imagination on this bill when it was introduced last week. I can visualize things just by thinking a little, and it seemed to me that the minister came in carrying a bouncing baby. He mentioned bread and milk and butter. In other words the baby needed bread, milk and butter. And to get bread, milk and butter for the baby we are to have all these boards and controls continued. That was carrying the baby on a political platform and asking the people to vote for it.
The Social Credit party have spoken on this bill and stated that the government was asking parliament to set aside the constitution and to continue controllers and boards. Everybody took the same attitude on the original bill," so naturally when I came back from Montreal yesterday I expected to find a short one-page bill before the house. However, I did not find it. I agree also with the thought expressed not very long ago by the minister who introduced this bill. He is a gentleman whom we all like and for whose ideas we have a good deal of respect. He wap talking about another resolution, and he said something to this effect: To pass this resolution in the terms in which it is drawn would be an abdication of the rights and privileges of this house. He was-speaking of some other measure, but I agree with what he said, because we should preserve the rights of this house, and this bill No. 15' is a complete abdication of those rights. To me it looks as though you are just selling out our freedom, and I agree with what was said by an hon. member sitting to my left, that the principle of the thing was to give the government the power, and from then on we would not have any power ourselves. It is too much power to put in the hands of a few.
I have not the least idea, Mr. Speaker, that these ministers would exert all these powers, or take advantage of them; but why give the power to them?-because anything can happen

to people. These ministers might go out in a bus and fall in the river and get drowned. That is not wishful thinking. Anything can happen. Someone else might crawl in and get their power; someone else, regardless of what party he belonged to, might succeed to the throne or the power behind the throne and take advantage of this act. I do not think we should resign all our power, to be used, perhaps by undiscriminating people; and it must be remembered that politicians and governments are not permanent. I might drop over myself. Don't get optimistic; I feel fine. Surely, if this parliament is to have 245 members, that is not too many in whom to vest the power of parliament, because that conversely is equal representation of the people of Canada, and hon. members on our side and on the other side can judge as to what are necessary controls, and do so just as well as the government. We do not need to put all these controls in the hands of the cabinet.
This parliament represents the people. There are only 245 of us, of whom half are usually here, but that is none too many to have charge of these things. The faster we get rid of these controls, or determine that we shall get rid of these various boards and controls, the sooner we can proceed with reconversion. I do not agree with the government that reconversion cannot take place until 1948. I think we should resolve that we shall be reconverted next year. We might not make it, but let us try it. Not long ago a minister told us that the reason the 1948 figures were selected was that that was thought to be the first year in which we could safely estimate that there would be full conversion from war to peace. If you make the date 1948 you will probably reach your objective by 1950, because they cannot keep up to schedule. The war is over, and I think it is time to pass a little more authority and freedom back to the provinces, the municipalities, and the public.
We have been fighting a war many years. Nothing matters in war; human privileges are discarded in face of the enemy; you have to spearhead the attack by asking, by pleading, by forcing people to go one way, to do the job and carry on the fight. But now the enemy is beaten, and it behooves us to look at the people behind us. What do they expect? Why did they send us down here? What do they want? Do they want to be controlled continually as they were during the war? Do they want to be "run", to be told where to go, what to do, what they can have and what they cannot have; or do they want to return to some semblance of the democratic freedom they had before the war? To

National Emergency
get the answer to those questions one has only to turn to those who had boys overseas who fought and died, and to those who, having come back, expect to return to .a free Canada.
It seems to me that the government's function now is to unfetter the individual, to let him go to work and use his initiative, and he will do something.
I am not trying to condemn anybody particularly in connection with this bill, but I believe this is a time when all parties and all hon. members should be united for once. So far this session, it seems to me, the only thing on which we have been united is being disunited. That may be an Irishman's way of putting it. Here is something on which we all agree in our hearts; I am sure we do. What do our people want? They want to return to civil life and get on with their jobs. Well, jobs are not created by boards, except jobs for the controllers; they come from ideas. What is an idea? Well, I was concerned with one myself not so very long ago, when the electric refrigerator was a new idea. In 1920 I stood in the Toronto exhibition, and people looked at the exhibit and laughed at me and said, "It makes ice!" I was associated with the pioneers of the industry. They had to go to it and find money and help, build a factory and launch a business. It was a new idea, a new venture, but 860 of us had employment in that industry during the depression, when other fellows were out because they did not have ideas.
Now there are new industries coming along. I know of one United States corporation whose representatives came over to the London district about a month ago and looked over some property; they went to Ottawa, and examined the tax structure and the possibility of getting standard profits under the existing controls, and then gave up the idea of putting up a factory in Canada. I do not think this bill encourages industry, and I would say to my hon. friend to my left who took me to task one night that I do not mean the kind of industry which exploits labour.
An hon. C.C.F. MEMBER: There is no other.


Park Manross: The hon. member and
those who think as he does should let the workmen of Canada know that jobs cannot be created under a government-controlled plan, because government control kills all incentive and creative desires. We must get rid of war-time control and dictatorship, which I admit is necessary during war. The working men do not mind making more gadgets in eight hours than they ever made before if
they receive more for eight hours' work, because this enables them to get more out of life.
I do not say that we should take off every control to-morrow morning. 1 agree that we should continue a measure of price control, which means prices of services or goods, rationing of goods in short supply, and foreign exchange, but I do not think we should let it go beyond the point where it checks inflation and ensures a fair distribution of scarce goods. Parliament itself is just as well able to handle these controls as any board or cabinet. Incidentally the sooner we get back to sane thinking on these controls the better off we shall be.
I was inclined to be against this beautification scherpe for Ottawa when I heard about it, but if Doctor Greber will go ahead and take down these temporary buildings as the first part of his job, and so get rid of would-be permanent guests, I should be more in favour of the scheme. I was down in Washington on one occasion for three days with a gentleman who was connected with the Department of Munitions and Supply. The morning we got there a headline appeared in the paper, "President Roosevelt asks parasites to leave Washington." We did not know he saw us come in. I am not implying that these guests in the temporary buildings are parasites at all; they have worked hard, and done a grand job, but the longer you leave them there the less they will be needed, because their work is going to run out; so let us not encourage them to remain too long.
I am not necessarily speaking for my party, and I try to be non-political in my thinking. I have said that I have an imagination, and as I look down at my desk I seem to see my riding; I see London with its approximately
100,000	people. I do not represent the Progressive-Conservatives alone-at least I do not feel that I do. It is my job to come here as the representative of the constituency. I represent all parties, the voters and the non-voters, the women and the children. They want what they believe in and what they fought for-freedom to choose and freedom to live their lives, and I think we should make every effort-for all ridings are the same-to look after their interests and to do what they would like done.
Hon. members on the other side, if they vote against.this bill, are not going to defeat the government or cause a general election. On the other hand I would hesitate, regardless of what part of the house I sat in, before I would vote for this bill, because if I were on the government side, and not in the cabinet, it would seem to me to be a declaration to my
National Emergency

constituency that I was a weakling, not capable of handling the affairs of my,constituents or of taking their just part in government by a free parliament.
It seems to me that this is an opportunity for all hon. members to show their constituencies that they have their interests at heart, to assert that members have the stuff and stamina that they claim to have and that the people, when they sent them here, believed they had. and therefore voted for them. It would show their constituents that they are not frustrated, that they are 'not being run by the government, that they are not afraid to speak for the people, and that the will of Canadians will be done and a free parliament shall prevail. '
I do not believe that hon. members will desert the public opinion of their ridings. I am confident that if they realize {he principle involved, the principle of representative government and a free parliament, when the question is put there will be a thundering of "nays".


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: I should like to associate myself with some of the remarks expressed this morning by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). One of his remarks was that members of the opposition, when we criticize and when we vote on any bill, we act more from the point of view of principle than from any technical viewpoint. I agree with that, and I am quite sure that is the way the people outside this house will interpret the vote of the opposition on this bill. Certainly previous speakers on this side of the house, opposition speakers, have made it clear that they at least are supporting or opposing the bill, one or the other, as a matter of principle, and I think I can say, in fact I know I can say, that this bill will have the support of all those who believe in state control and state planning. Well, I do not believe in either of those things, and neither do the people who sent me here, though I should say of course that I do not mean that everybody who votes for this bill necessarily believes in socialism. I am not saying that, but I do say that all those who believe in socialism will support this bill.
Some members have said that those who are opposed to the bill are taking orders from or studying the interests of those whom they call big shots. Let me say that I take my orders and my instructions only from those who honoured me with their confidence and their votes. I take orders from no one else. In that regard I have received several resolutions and a number of my constituents have instructed me to speak and oppose this bill to

the limits of my power. Nobody who wants me to support the bill has been good enough to tell me so, and therefore I will listen to those who have taken the trouble to write and tell me what they want. For these reasons I cannot support the bill.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, we had first of all a bill which we might call the original presented to parliament, and in connection with that bill the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke), speaking for our group, agreed with the principle that some powers which the government was seeking should be extended for a certain period of time and that we would vote for the measure on second reading and move certain definite amendments when the bill came into the committee stage. Subsequently the government undertook to amend its own bill and has presented us with a second bill which, as amended, is greatly improved over the original. Unfortunately the original bill is still before the house. It is a pity that the government did not withdraw that bill and present its amended bill as the measure to be discussed on second reading. That has not been done. However, I may say that when I vote on the second reading of the original bill, I am in fact voting for the amended bill even if it is not technically before the house, because that is the bill which will be discussed in committee.
The next point is this. The six months' hoist has been moved. That of course does not solve anything. It ignores what I think almost every hon. member has mentioned as a problem. It throws that problem into the waste-paper basket for six months. There is hardly a member who has spoken who does not admit that the situation is such that any government, no matter which government, must have certain powers to enable it to tide the economy of the country over the next six or twelve months, and to vote that the bill providing such powers be given the six months' hoist at this late hour in the session is to invite chaos. I certainly cannot vote for the six months' hoist. I am speaking of course for myself.
There are one or two things I should like to say. As I have just suggested, there are very few members who are willing to leave our unsolved problems without at least giving the government some opportunity to deal with them. That has been pretty well conceded. It has been suggested by one hon. member that the government has not the power anyway, that it never did have the power, that the government is being dictated to by some sinister, invisible force behind it. If that is so, then I think there is all the more reason

National Emergency
why this parliament should act. That hon. gentleman did not seem to be quite clear as to whether the government should go to those invisible and sinister forces and ask them for power or whether it should come to parliament for that power. In my opinion there are certain sinister powers in all nations which seek to influence governments. Those powers had pretty full sway in Canada after the last war, and they made a sorry mess of it. It is necessary that any government should have enough power to check that sinister force.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) in particular spoke of the very loyal opposition and the hon. member who preceded me in this debate spoke in a similar vein, as if every hon. member who happened to sit to the left of Mr. Speaker is, by virtue of that position on the floor of this house, in the official opposition. I do not so regard my position here. In all the years that I have been in parliament it is true that I have not had the good fortune to sit on the government side of the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And you never will.


William Irvine: I am not sure that I shall not be there before my hon. friend. If I am not it will be a bad thing for Canada.
Mr. ROSS (Souris)': The wish would not be father of the thought?


William Irvine: I have never regarded my position here as that of a member of the loyal opposition. I regard myself as a representative of the people, free to measure every issue on its merits and to exercise my right as a member of parliament to vote on that measure whether it is moved by the leader of the official opposition or by any member of the government. In that connection I should like to read a passage from a speech of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, now Lord Bennett, delivered when he was Prime Minister of Canada. On that occasion, when he was addressing the house, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who was the leader of the opposition at that time-


An hon. MEMBER:: Loyal opposition.


William Irvine: Loyal, very loyal opposition! -had spoken in such a way as to indicate that all hon. members to the left of the Speaker were members of the opposition. The then Prime Minister said:
I was somewhat surprised at the ease with which he attached to his party all those who now sit to his left. He included them in those opposed to the government, but I had always believed that many of them gave to matters
brought before this parliament that measure of impartial consideration warranted by the merits of the proposals enacted.
I think that is a fair statement at least of the viewpoint which I hold with respect to the relationship of the group to which I belong to any measure which may be brought before this house, regardless of which party or group may move it.
I was surprised that the hon. member for Macleod who had discovered such a marvellous principle, and such a sacred one in this bill should not have been so attracted by this great principle which he had discovered that he would have known exactly how he was going to vote on the matter. But the principle, great though it appeared in his eyes, did not seem to have impressed him deeply enough to enable him to say whether he was going to vote for or against it. That does not seem to me to be a very great principle, but I noticed that he, like some others of his party, always manages to come back to the nest of his pet theory-there is an egg there, you know. He reminds me of a clucking hen who is trying to hatch out an infertile egg. While it cannot be hatched out, it can get bad. I think it has got quite bad.
Another hon. gentleman says that this bill is dangerous because it is going to give power, and power corrupts. He says that absolute power is absolute corruption. Well, Mr. Speaker, in that case the sooner this parliament gets rid of power the better. We do not want to be absolutely corrupted. If that were true I think we might well let the government have the power and it would get corrupted, and so badly corrupted that the official loyal opposition would become the government. It might be a good idea to do that. It is all nonsense to talk about power corrupting absolutely, because all the power which this parliament has to give comes from the people of Canada themselves. If they are going to be corrupted by power then just what are we doing aboutr-


Mr. JACKMAN:: Nonsense.


William Irvine: Hon. gentlemen who talk like that should not be here, because they are exercising that portion of power which properly belongs to the riding which they represent.
I know that there are always dangers in delegating powers in our hands to governments and individuals, but if we do not do so here we are going to leave the problems in the hands of people who represent nobody but themselves and who have only their own bank accounts to think about. Although I am not a
National Emergency

Liberal, and vote against them nearly every time I get the chance, I would rather entrust power to the hands of a government which in one year from now can be thrown out because of what they may do with that power, than to leave that power blindly and stupidly in the hands of a profit-making bureaucracy, which is the most damnable kind of autocracy which ever existed in this or any other country.
I repeat that it is absolute nonsense to associate bureaucracy with a government organization when we know that the worst types of it exist in the very hearts of those organizations which do not wish any controls, which do not wish anything to stand between them and their so-called sacred rights of making profits.
All power comes from the people. The power is in our hands; I have a little bit of it because I represent the constituency of Cariboo. I recognize that in the terrific problems which now confront the people the government must have power to deal with them, and to the extent that I have the right to vote that little bit of power which has been entrusted to my care by my riding I vote that to a responsible and representative government. If that government misuses the power which I conceive it to be necessary for them to get, then I will be the first to kick them out for doing that, if I can. But they must have powers other than those ordinarily exercised by government in order to meet the situation now confronting the country. For that reason, sir, I shall vote for the amended
bill.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to say a word or two before the vote is taken. My chief reason for speaking at this time is to reply to some remarks made by the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross). If he were an older member, perhaps my language might be stronger than I intend to make it at this time. It ill becomes an hon. member of this house to rise in his place and say that any member on this side who votes for this bill is a weakling. If he looks into the records of the house and also of public life I think he will change his mind about being weaklings. I shall take my chance with the people of New Westminster, as I have done in the last twenty years.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: You will not be voting the right way this time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He always has.


Thomas Reid: Ever since this bill came up for discussion we have had wishy-washy statements from time to time from the other side of the house. They have said that this is a

weak-kneed government. They also say, "Oh, yes, we want a little control, but we don't want this bill." In heaven's name let them get up and say what they do want, because it is my opinion that if we do not have this measure of control for at least a year there will be anarchy in this country. Let them get up and say that the farmers should not be assisted with subsidies, that the national labour code should be done away with, that regulation and regimentation regarding price control should all be abandoned. If that happens within the next year there will be anarchy, I say, that the poor people of this country will not be able to procure goods because the wealthy, which includes many of those who sit on the other side, will be getting nearly all. It is the voice of Toryism we are hearing to-day. Let them look to the last war and the years following it. When did the disaster of inflation overtake this country; was it during the war? No; the high prices, the inflation and all the other terrible things took place after the war. The Tories liked that, and so they want a repetition of it.
I am going to vote in favour of this bill because I want these regulations maintained for at least a little time. But let me say that if the first bill had been proceeded with I would have voted against it, and I am not just making this statement because the bill has been amended. All the opposition or suggestions did not come from the provincial premiers. There are men on this side who have the guts to speak out against the government; there are more of them here than I have witnessed in the opposition in my sixteen years in this house. I wish to refute now and in advance any suggestion that I am voting for this measure just out of weakness. I am going to vote for it because I think it is in the interests of the common people, in whose behalf I have not heard many voices raised from across the way.
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency): Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty to make a few comments in regard to the controls which are administered by the wartime prices and trade board under the Minister of Finance, who is in charge of the whole Canadian economy. I wish to make these few comments especially in connection with the production and distribution of goods and building materials. The controls were established to check and limit private enterprise in order to permit full production for necessary war purposes. Clearly, then, to my mind the removal of certain of these controls would stimulate an increase in production so as to take care of existing unemployment. It is not

National Emergency
possible right now for a citizen of this country who was not engaged in business or industry in 1941 to obtain quotas of materials or goods in order to set up a new industry or business. Therefore these controls have the immediate effect of protecting the monopolies and large industries which existed in 1941 and which are only too glad to eliminate any competition.
It is free enterprise which will develop production and increase employment in this country. The establishments of the armed forces and auxiliary services were increased to
784,000	during the war, while the various branches of industry concerned with national defence, but not including agricultural pursuits, provided work for 1,055,000 men and women. Therefore there were some 1,839,000 jobs, which number has been decreasing from day to day since the end of the war and most of which will be completely eliminated in the not far distant future. Such is the situation now that peace has been restored. Of course not all those who held the 1,839,000 jobs in our wartime economy will be laid off. The land, sea and air forces will not be completely demobilized, and it is likely that the peace-time establishments will be larger than they were in 1939. It is certain also that a large number of men who left farms, industries, businesses or financial institutions to join the armed forces or to work in war plants will return to their former positions, in which in many cases they were not replaced. When munitions plants closed down undoubtedly large numbers of women returned to their homes or to domestic service. Having regard to these circumstances, it is felt in official quarters that the creation of some 900,000 more jobs than existed in 1939 would offer a satisfactory solution of the unemployment problem. Further provisions have to be made each year to find jobs for about 60,000 young people who reach the age when they are expected to earn their own living. Naturally to attain this purpose the banks must make money available to industrial and business enterprises in order to create jobs. To my mind, inflation is used chiefly as an argument in favour of the continuation of certain of these controls. For my part, I believe the true and sole reason the government wishes to maintain control is to keep money in the banks in order to ensure more readily the success of their future loans, a motive which of course they will not admit; but the more we continue by this system of control to curtail production, the more unemployment will increase in the country. It is money that creates production and thereby prevents unemployment, and by controlling production or
limiting the distribution of goods produced to those who were in business in 1941, unemployment is deliberately brought about.
The government should free itself as rapidly as possible from those bureaucrats by whom it is surrounded. Of course it is necessary to retain certain controls. I believe that some should be kept for a short time to deal with the chaos resulting from the war. Without a doubt, if we defeat this bill it will mean the cancellation of all controls and throwing the whole economy of Canada into the hands of large cartels and trusts, to the detriment of the masses of the Canadian people. Further, now that the war is over, I believe it is urgent to hand back to the provinces the control over trade and industry of which they were deprived for war purposes. The prerogative of the provinces cannot be indefinitely trifled with, without touching off the spark which will destroy our national structure and will contribute more than anything else to the destruction of the unity which is essential to a country such as ours.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this bill is necessary, but with some limitation on its application; and I trust the government will apply its provisions in very few cases, and not beyond the one-year term set out in the bill.
(Translation): I have listened attentively to the speeches delivered by the hon. members for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon), for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) and for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon), and I have read, a few moments ago, the amendment whereby the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay moved that bill No. 15 be considered this day six months. I have heard the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay say that he was in favour of certain controls, that some of them should be maintained. I have also heard in this house a similar statement from the hon. member for Argenteuil and many other hon. members. Now, Mr. Speaker, if some controls are to be maintained, if some are necessary, how can we maintain them if we nullify bill No. 15 by our vote and our attitude? In voting against this bill, in giving it a six months' hoist, as proposed by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, we shall immediately plunge this country into chaos, an unavoidable consequence of the war policy that was followed and against which I always voiced the strongest opposition. This chaos now exists and it has resulted from the war. This chaos must be averted, and care must be taken not to hand over to the true dictators of this country the control of our national economy. The worst
National Emergency

dictatorship which we now have to face is the dictatorship of capitalists, of cartels, and of the Tories who sit in this house, because they are quite dangerous.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that controls cannot last indefinitely. But are we going to leave our whole economy in the hands of the people whose shadows haunt the lobbies of the House of Commons and who are bent on defeating bill No. 15? Are we going to let those who control finance in this country starve the common people by depriving them of their means of subsistence? That is what will happen if this bill is rejected.
I believe that any one who votes for this bill will show that he is imbued with sincere patriotism and is anxious to act the part of a true Canadian. It should not be thought that I am infavour of controls; on the contrary, I have always opposed them, but, in this case, we have to prevent our goods and our whole production from falling into the hands of powerful cartels, which want to crush the common people of this country.
There are to-day in my constituency many industrial centres where, owing to the existing controls, tenants can continue to pay the same rent as formerly; but for those controls the increase would have been exhorbitant. If such controls were left in the hands of some landlords, whose business principles are well known, they would at once evict from their houses a great number of the people of this country, or compel them to pay an exhorbitant rent. Those landlords would derive a great advantage from the present housing shortage.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if there are some controls which must remain, owing to the unusual conditions with which we are confronted, we should disregard partisanship and support the government's courageous policy which the honourable the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) did not hesitate to present in its true light.
(Text).


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members have listened with keen interest to the speeches in the debate thus far. It is a matter of personal regret to some of us that we could- not follow fully all that is said by some hon. members; but whether we can follow them or not, we give them credit for holding sincere views. We will read what they have said when the translations appear in Hansard, and consider them with every respect for those who have spoken.
I rise at this time to discuss two things. First, I should- like briefly to comment on the situation in which the house finds itself as a result of the introduction of bill No. 15, 
and the suggestion that in committee of the whole certain amendments will be made. I wish also to state, as briefly as I can, our position with respect to bill No. 15, to the amendments it is suggested will be proposed in committee, and to the general question as to the unusual powers, if any, the government should be given in the period of transition between the war and a more normal time of peace.
We have before us bill No. 15, which is known as the national emergency powers bill. It was introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) about two months ago, and the minister moved its second reading about two weeks ago. This is the bill upon which we are asked to vote. I am aware that as a result of certain criticism in the house, and perhaps also in the country, and in the , dominion-provincial conference which met a few days ago, the government has reconsidered the matter, and has made certain suggestions as to amendments that it is willing to have incorporated when the bill reaches the committee stage. I concede all that. The fact remains, however, that the bill upon which we are asked to vote is bill No. 15. It was introduced, as I said, two months ago and discussed by the Minister of Justice on second reading some two weeks ago.
To that bill, in its present form, we are entirely opposed. We are opposed to it for several reasons. We are opposed to it because of the unnecessary extent to which it invades the field of provincial jurisdiction. We are opposed to it because of the unnecessarily wide delegation of powers it confers upon the governor in council. We are opposed to it because of the wide powers the government seeks in connection with the entry of people into Canada, and the exclusion or deportation of people from Canada, and in connection with the question of the revocation of nationality. We are opposed to it because of the wholesale approval it requires us to give of the thousands of orders in council passed by the government under the War Measures Act, many of which we have never seen.
Having said that we are opposed to these wide powers as set out in the bill, let me say one thing more. We are not opposed to this government's having whatever powers are necessary to meet the emergent conditions of these post-war days. We are in favour of granting the government whatever powers are necessary to regulate prices, wage ceilings and the flow of essential goods in short supply.
I Personally, I am in favour of granting the government whatever other specific powers it can show to be necessary to meet the conditions ahead.

National Emergency
One hon. member, the member for Charle-voix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), has moved that the bill be given the six months' hoist. If carried, that motion would mean that the bill would be thrown aside and that no action would be taken. We could not support that failure to act. It would leave the government in the position of continuing the present War Measures Act. We take the position, Mr. Speaker, that the powers given in either act should be cut down and limited, and I am sure that members on all sides of the house agree with that view. But we are not in favour of taking away from the government all powers, nor are we in favour of leaving the government with excessive powers in its hands.
I think I have made our position clear. We are opposed to this bill as it stands, for the reasons I have given. The suggested amendments will no doubt be moved in committee of the whole, thus filtering down some of the objectionable features of the bill. But the amendments as now proposed do not remove the objectionable features. While we are opposed to the bill itself, and while we are opposed to giving it the six months' hoist, we think that in committee of the whole members on all sides of the house ought to come together to see how much we can further limit the autocratic powers which both this bill and its successor give, and yet enable the government to carry on and meet the problems of these days.
With all deference to the government, I think it has followed an entirely improper procedure. When the government reached the conclusion that important changes were so desirable in the bill as to warrant the printing of a new bill before the second reading of the original bill was proceeded with, they should have withdrawn the original bill completely and introduced a new one. That is the only course consistent with parliamentary procedure. As it is now, we are asked to support a bill to which members on all sides of the house are opposed. We are asked to support bill No. 15, the very bill which has been so severely censured in this house, and outside by the dominion-provincial conference, the very bill which the government itself is proposing to amend. Yet when we vote to-night, that is the bill we shall be voting on.
Bill No. 15 is, in our opinion, a most objectionable piece of legislation to be presented to this parliament. Should it ever become law in its present form, members of parliament might almost as well have packed their bags and started for home, because it would have clothed the government, in time of peace,, with full autocrat ic and dictatorial
power. This country would then be in the position of having an omnipotent government and an almost powerless and frustrated parliament.
It had been _our intention to oppose this bill with all the strength at our command. The fact that the government now proposes to amend it in considerable degree is highly complimentary to those members on all sides who have so strongly opposed certain sections of the bill, and it is the severest kind of criticism of the government by the government itself. The very fact that the government is proposing changes is an indication that considerable changes are necessary.
The general position of this party was placed before the house by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) a few days ago in a speech that many have admitted to be an able and complete statement, many portions of which have been approved by speakers on all sides of the house. Our criticisms of the bill were several in 'number. I shall refer now to only four of them, because there is no need to occupy the time of the house much longer since members wish, I am sure, to come to a decision on this matter.
Our first criticism is that the bill proposed a most serious invasion of provincial powers and gave reason to the provinces to fear ever-widening encroachments on their autonomy. The proposed amendments also in our judgment involve a substantial invasion of provincial jurisdiction, although less than in the original proposal. It is important that this house should know, before second reading is given, the extent to which the provincial premiers have approved the amendments proposed in this piece of paper that has been handed to us.
The second objection is the blanket and unlimited delegation of power to the governor in council. An example of this is to be found in the clause which enables the governor in council to make orders for the appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property. That is clause 3(l)(f). What a situation that would create-that a government in peace time should have the power to appropriate or forfeit property without due process of law!
Our third objection is to the pernicious clause which would enable the governor in council to make orders in respect of-I am now quoting from the bill-"entry into Canada, exclusion and deportation, and revocation of nationality." No clause more dangerous to national unity has ever found its way into a bill in this parliament. Hon. gentlemen opposite-and in this I agree with them-have made great political capital in
National Emergency

western Canada over the provisions of the Wartime Elections Act and the disenfranchisement which occurred therein of Canadians. I agree with that criticism, but this bill is subject to the same kind of criticism to an even greater degree in the form in which it is presented. So far as the official opposition is concerned we would resist to the limit the passage of that provision.
Our fourth objection is the wholesale approval and legalizing of all orders in council passed by the government under the War Measures Act during the last half dozen years. This parliament has never even seen some of those orders in council. Most members have seen very few of them, and some of the orders we know nothing at all about. Many of the orders in council passed under that legislation parliament knew nothing about, many have been tabled though all have not, and many we have never heard of; yet we are asked to legalize, and to approve all that has been done by the government under those thousands of orders in council during the last six years.
The government now indicates its willingness that some of these objectional clauses be removed from the bill. That is all to the good. But the fact remains that certain of the provisions which it proposes to retain, as well as certain of those which it proposes to substitute, are still of too sweeping a character. The particular powers which the government requires can be given in specific legislation if parliament is asked for them specifically. That would be much better than for a democratic assembly to give to any small group of men the sweeping powers sought, under this bill, even with its amendments.	.
In the five subclauses of the proposed section 2 many of the objectionable features are still retained by the sweeping language used. What the government proposes to do is to abandon the blanket delegation of authority proposed in this section of the bill and to redraft these specific clauses which were contained therein. But in redrafting these clauses the government still proposes to make them so wide in the authority conveyed that they are in effect almost as all-embracing as the blanket clause in section 3 of the bill before us.
Take, for example, paragraph (b) of section 2, subsection 1:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things ... as he may . . . deem necessary for . . .
(b) facilitating the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace.
(Mr. Bracken.]
This paragraph could not have been drafted in any broader or more sweeping terms. It conveys almost as unlimited power as section 3 of the bill before us. The fact is that no one with less wisdom than a Solomon or less ingenuity than a Philadelphia lawyer can define what limitation of power, if any, the paragraph actually contains.
Take another example in the same main section, paragraph (e) of the suggested amendments:
(e) continuing and discontinuing in an orderly manner, 'as the emergency permits, measures adopted during and by reason of the war.
This paragraph, read in conjunction with section 4 of the suggested changes gives the force of statute to all orders in council made under the War Measures Act, and permits the government, without the control of parliament, to continue in full force and effect the sweeping controls at present operating. [DOT]
What is the effect of all this? The effect is that we are asked to give parliamentary sanction-the full force of statute law-to all orders in council and to some orders in council which this parliament has never seen.
As I understand it, two classes of orders in council passed under the War Measures Act have not been laid before parliament:	First,
those orders in council the publication of which has been withheld for security reasons. In this category are included orders in council the publication of which is omitted or deferred under the authority of the secret documents (non-publication) order of 1941. Parliament does not know and has no means of knowing what orders in council may fall in this category. Second, there are some orders in council, even of an administrative nature, which have not been tabled. The government itself decides by itself what ones are of an administrative nature. There is nothing in the War Measures Act which requires this government to table these orders in council. Certain offers have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and by the government to table them, and many of them have been tabled, but there is no obligation to table them, and in answers to questions and motions in this house it has been admitted that some of them have not been tabled. The house knows that certain ones have not been tabled until, by misadventure, they have come to light. We do not know and we have not been able to find out what orders in council in this category have not been laid before parliament. What we do know is that parliament is being asked to give the force of law to all these orders in council, known and unknown, some of which at least we have never seen..

National Emergency
Another objectionable feature, not of the same nature, as I have mentioned, I shall refer to.
A highly objectionable feature of the government's proposed amendments is the indefinite date of the termination of the measure. The government's new proposal provides that if parliament meets in November or December next the measure shall expire on the 31st day of December next, but it provides also that if parliament does not meet during November or December the measure shall only expire fifteen days after parliament first meets in 1947.
It is well known that the summoning of parliament is entirely within the control of the government. If they decide not to call parliament in November or December next year they can postpone the calling of it until at least the middle of April, 1947, at which time the government would be under the necessity of calling parliament in order to secure additional money to carry on. In those circumstances this bill would not expire until the end of April, 1947. The government and the government alone have the power to decide when parliament will be summoned, and they can postpone its summoning if they wish, in which case this bill would remain in . operation, as I have said, until April, 1947. In my opinion, this bill should not be operative for longer than a year, and the indefinit-ness and uncertainty of the present clause should be eliminated.
From what has been said in the debate, it is clear that the government has retreated from certain provisions of bill No. 15. They have not, however, eliminated all its objectionable features. This house has become accustomed this session to government retreats from established positions. One notable occasion was when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) withdrew the proposed tariff increases which were included in the budget resolutions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Bracken: Am I not in order, Mr. Speaker?
With these self-made precedents before them, I hope the government will not hesitate to make still another retreat so that this bill may be finally passed in a form in which all could agree.
As I have said, certain unusual powers we think the government should have in this transitional period between war and what we might think of as more or less normal times. These we are agreeable to giving it. I refer particularly, as I did before, to the right to regulate prices and wage ceilings and to regulate the flow of essential goods in scarce supply,
and such other essential powers as the government can point out it needs. But this bill goes much farther than that, and even the government has suggested amendments. We shall try to get in committee of the whole a further Iiimtation of the wide powers given. We are opposing the motion to discard the bill altogether. We are opposing the bill in its present form, and we think in the proposed amended form it is going too far. We shall have to oppose it on second reading. When and if it gets to committee of the whole we shall try there to have certain other wide powers eliminated. That in brief is our position with respect to this measure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before we finally vote on this measure, I think there are two or three observations it would be fitting to make.
I should like to know, and members of this group would like to know, to what extent the provincial premiers in the conference recently held in Ottawa agreed that the stipulations of this bill were acceptable to them. If the provincial premiers were satisfied with this bill as it stands, that would go a long way toward reassuring the members of this house.
We are living in an age in which centralization abounds. I believe in the British North America Act. I believe that power should be decentralized into the hands of the provinces and that guarantees should be placed in our legislation which would safeguard those powers in the hands of the various provinces.
I have noticed that many hon. members who have spoken on the measure have objected to it on the ground that it infringes provincial rights; hence the reason for my question regarding the attitude of the provincial premiers. I feel that one suggestion would be worth while for the government. They are of the opinion that they require extraordinary powers to meet an extraordinary situation. With their attitude in this respect I sympathize. I believe, however, that in future, in their endeavour to gain the power which is necessary to meet exigencies, they should take the provincial governments more into their confidence.
I do not see any serious objection to such an approach as this: Let the dominion government, through parliament, pass a' resolution that it would be expedient that extraordinary powers should be vested in the hands of the governments of Canada to meet an extraordinary situation, and calling upon the provincial parliaments to pass such measures as might be necessary to be put in the hands of the provincial administrations authority to
National Emergency


James Horace King: Amendment (Mr. Dorion) negatived. Mr. St. Laurent moves, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, that the bill be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On division.
Motion agreed to on division; bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, with respect to section 1 I should like to ask an hon. member to move that the word "transitional'' be added before the word "powers" in that section.


Ernest Bertrand: I so move.


John George Diefenbaker: Probably this affords an opportunity for a general discussion and the asking of certain questions with regard to this bill and a comparison of it with the bill that we may call bill No. 15 (1). With the exception of the change in the terminology which has been suggested by the amendment that has just been moved by the Postmaster General, and the removal from bill No. 1 the power to legislate by order in council respecting the entry into Canada, the exclusion, deportation and revocation of nationality, I fail to see any material difference between the bill as introduced and the bill which has been placed in circulation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Does the hon. member not think that the discussion would more conveniently come upon section 2? Perhaps
section 2 might be called and then a motion made to replace that section by that which is contained in the reprint. On that section the whole matter would be open for discussion. I feel that it will be difficult to discuss the particular principles that the hon. member wishes to deal with on. section 1, without duplicating the discussion when, we come to the proposed new section 2. I would undertake to see that any discussion that would have been relevant on section 1 will not be objected to on section 2.


Mr. HEON:: May I ask the minister
whether the word is "transitory" or "transitional"?	[DOT]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: "Transitional" is the word that is suggested.


John Bracken: Would the minister explain to the committee just what prompted him.to use that word? What advantage has it in the measure?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The word is taken from the title of the United Kingdom bill which was introduced and passed for a period of five years. It is felt that it will more clearly indicate that no attempt is being made by parliament at this time to declare that there is any other emergency to be dealt with than the emergency arising out of the war. There was uneasiness felt in certain quarters at the suggestion that parliament could declare the existence of an emergency not connected with war, pestilence or famine, or as was the motive in the decision in the Russell case, general drunkenness; and since there is no point in having an academic discussion on whether it would be proper or improper for parliament to declare the existence of a national emergency arising out of any other circumstances, there is no point in having that discussion at the present time, because the emergency that it is proposed to deal with is clearly one that arises out of the war, and the powers that it is suggested should be granted are merely for the transitional period and for a relatively short period of time. Although there was no acceptance by anyone attending the dominion-provincial conference of any of the language in the bill, those of us who attended the conference representing the federal government had the feeling after the discussion that it would be helpful if it were described as a transitional emergency.


John Bracken: While this change in the name of the bill does not alter its substance in any respect, I wish to commend the government for the change, because I think it removes from the minds of some the fear that
National Emergency

the bill as introduced might be a precedent for the introduction of similar bills giving the government wide powers under conditions not related to the war.


Mr. POULIOT:: Before the section is carried, I have just a few remarks to make on one specific matter. I have great admiration for many of my new colleagues, who come from all over and who sit on all sides of the house, but some of them labour under handicaps. They can make the finest speeches; they can talk like angels, but their party will not benefit. I say that especially to my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party. Yesterday we had an illustration of this, and I refer to that in the best possible spirit. Of course there are many unfortunate occasions when we cannot maintain our friendships just because we are in public life, for the friendships that exist between men in private life cannot always be the same in public life. There are the old icons which have been hung on the wall of the council room of the Conservative party, Tory icons; and as long as they are kept there and worshipped, as long as there is a candle burning before them all the time, I do not see what results they can hope to achieve. In the party opposite are some very bright hon. gentlemen for whom I have the deepest admiration, who work hard and want to do something; but eventually they will come to the great divide, to the time when they will have to break the tie. They will reach the cross-roads and realize that the earth is turning and that those who have inherited power and might from others who have been elected by the people, as well as those who have never succeeded in getting elected by the people, should be completely discarded. There is another class of individual who must be discarded as well. It includes those who never took the risk of running in a riding. They are in a class by themselves. I will not classify them as birds of prey; I name no one, but there are two main categories, those whom the people did not want and those whom the people would not want if they went before the people. I will tell the committee the story of an experience I had in January, 1942, and of the result which was achieved in February of that year. Here in the house I objected to the person who was running in York South as a Progressive-at least as a Conservative, and I do not know what the qualifying word was.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: He was a plain Conservative at that time.


Jean-François Pouliot: A Tory coat with a Conservative lining. Of course I do not know if

that election is still remembered, because many things have happened since then, but I was particularly interested. I made just a few remarks about it in the house, and mentioned some facts that belong to history. I do not want to be cruel, and I never will be cruel to a man who remains in private life. That is his own business, his own domain; he is the master of his private life. But when a man goes into public life his actions as a public man belong to history.
Very early last session, I think in No. 7 of Hansard for the session of 1942, I quoted some things that had been done by a former leader of the Conservative party. I did so without offence, without recrimination and .without passion. I did so in a cold-blooded way in order to express my deep regret and sorrow that the magnificent parliamentary efforts of some bright men were handicapped precisely on account of the fact that they did not throw these Jonahs overboard and did not keep themselves distinct from those people who had outlived their usefulness, if they ever had any. It is pitiful; it is a matter that inspires compassion when I see bright young fellows come to the house full of ambition, meaning well- and I give them credit for that-and have their wings clipped by the affection they maintain for other people who do not happen to be loved by the Canadian electorate. The leader of the C.C.F. party and the Minister of Agriculture were very cruel in using the ad hominem argument, which could not have been used against those honourable and bright colleagues if they had broken the tie and left in the ditch the glorious icons of the past, which do not get a single vote for anyone in this chamber who represents the Progressive Conservative party. I say that in the best possible spirit, to help them in future. I tell them definitely and categorically that they will never meet with success in public life, although they may be elected here and there, and the Conservative party will never come to power as long as they keep those people as advisers, as glories about which they still boast when nobody believes in them.
Now I want to practise what I preach. I will not mention the ciphered telegrams that have been sent by a former leader-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Order. We are on section 1, which is the short title, and I would ask the hon. gentleman to keep
his remarks relevant to the section under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you. I tell the committee only this. It was only yesterday that both the leader of the C.C.F. and the Minister of Agriculture made excellent

National Emergency
speeches by using ad hominem arguments against the brightest debaters in the new generation of the Progressive Conservative i parly. Their speeches were remarkable-on both sides.
But what I am giving now is some friendly advice to those colleagues whom I admire in order that in future nobody may use ad hominem arguments against them by quoting what Arthur Meighen. R. B. Bennett, or anybody else who has been discarded by the people as leader of the Conservative party, might have said. That is my point. It is just in order to be helpful that I say this. Moreover, I shall be thankful to them if they will reciprocate by offering their own suggestions or advice, and I shall take those suggestions or advice in the best possible spirit. Perhaps there may be some occasion when they might do so, and I hope they will.
I believe I can say in a sentence or two what I dislike in the bill. I am opposed to these controls. We may try to do something to prevent future evils, but perhaps we shall have to do so in a different way, and it is my hope that at the next session of parliament a committee will be formed of hon. members belonging to all groups who will see if we in this chamber cannot find a solution to prevent future trouble.
I am definitely and categorically opposed to approval by this chamber of orders in council. The government has its responsibility in that regard; we have none. As a member of parliament I am not prepared to assume responsibility for orders in council passed by all controllers, and we are not going to ratify that sort of thing. I cannot ratify by my vote orders in council which I reprove in my mind. I hope I have, made myself clear, and if I have not I am ready to answer any questions.


Mr. McMASTER:: I hasten to accept, the offer of the hon. member for Temiscouata. I find this title somewhat-well, I was going to use the word "incongruous". It is hard to understand, because any emergency I have ever known was always ahead of me; it was not behind. Yet this is supposed to be a bill for a transitional period, and we find that it is to be known as an act to confer certain transitional powers upon the governor in council during the national emergency arising out of the war. My suggestion is that the words "emergency" and "transitional" have entirely different meanings. If the bill is to be upheld I would suggest that the word "transitional" weakens it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have one word to add. During the election in York South a copy of Hansard was taken from house to house by two persons. One was a returned soldier, and the other his wife-both charming people. They offered precisely the edition of Hansard for Friday, January 30, 1942, when canvassing the constituents against the Conservative party's nominee, and attention was directed to two matters. These are expressions of a state of mind which are not in accordance with the declarations of freedom and thought which were expressed by some of my colleagues opposite last night.
Efere is the famous ciphered telegram:
Winnipeg, November 30, 1917. Robert L.
Borden, Ottawa, Ontario.
Would like one thousand soldiers' votes at laTge for Manitoba, of which 300 for Selkirk, balance divided between Provencher, Macdonald and Springfield, or same proportion of division, no matter what our allotment may be.
Arthur Meighen.


John George Diefenbaker: That has been
denied.


Jean-François Pouliot: And there was another very important matter too.


The CHAIRMAN:: We are dealing with section 1, and I think I should read it. An amendment has been made so that the short title would read, "The National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945."


Mr. COLDWELL:: That was an emergency transitional period.


John George Diefenbaker: It is all very well to read into the record things of that kind. Arthur Meighen occupied a position high in the public annals of this country. The telegram which has been read has been denied. There has been no proof of it, and my hon. friend would not make outside the house the statement that he makes here. At least the ordinary proprieties should be observed in connection with outstanding Canadians, that we do not malign them by statements which must, to the knowledge of the person reading them, be untrue.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a question of privilege-


William Henry Golding: I would draw the attention of the committee to the regulation which states that speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. May I point out that we are now discussing the short title of the bill.


Mr. GREEN:: Six o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish in the first place to rise to a question of privilege.
National Emergency


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Six o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have said absolutely
nothing offensive about the character or personality of Mr. Meighen. I have only said that he did not enjoy the confidence of the people. We have only to ask the director-general of elections to bring the returns in all the elections he lost, and what I have said will be-confirmed. That is a public fact.
The hon. member for Lake Centre is not at all justified in putting in my mouth words I have never said.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I regret very much to have to continue with my question of privilege. I was interrupted at six o'clock, and I cannot leave it at that. While we were discussing bill No. 15 in committee I read a telegram which bears the signature of Mr. Arthur Meighen, dated November 30, 1917, and afterwards the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) rose and used language to which I am not accustomed. I took some notes when he spoke, and in part, he said this:
At least the ordinary proprieties should be observed in connection with outstanding Cana-_ dians, that we do not malign them by state' ments which must to the knowledge of the person reading them be untrue.
Meaning by that, that what I had said was a lie. The hon. member went pretty far, and I say that for two reasons. In the first, place, the telegram was read in the house on January 30, 1942, as appears at page 179 of Hansard, and when it was read one of the deans of the house, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), said:
It is on Hansard.
He meant by that, that when I read the telegram it had appeared on Hansard previously and that that was where I got it from.
There is another matter that is beyond me, namely that on that occasion, on January 30, 1942, the hon. member of the opposition who spoke immediately after me did not lodge a protest similar to the one that he made around six o'clock to-day. The only thing that he said, in reply to the reading of this telegram and another one that I shall read afterwards, both of which are in Hansard, was this:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre): As I listened to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) it came to me once more what
'Mr. Pouliot.]
democracy in this empire and this country means: That in the midst of war, when all of us are worried and concerned, an hon. member may rise in his place and make the type of speech he made to-day. That is freedom of speech-the opportunity to express one's view in parliament.
The only sentence that he added to that was this:
I .am not going to endeavour to follow the hon. member m what he has said.
If the telegram was denied by the man whose name appeared at the bottom of it in Hansard, how is it that the hon. member did not protest two years ago? How can he remember now a thing he never thought of two years ago? Then afterwards he used abusive language with regard to an hon. member of the House of Commons who tries to act as a life-saver for himself and his party.
That being done, sir, I have just one word to add to the discussion that is now before the Chair. It is that the question of freedom and the question of the rights of parliament are both matters of tremendous magnitude, and no member of parliament can disregard those vital questions.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Those who say "hear, hear" will have first to hear, hear, because something has to be told to them.
There are precedents which are good and which must be followed, but there are others which are bad and which cannot be followed by a body composed of men who are supposed to be the defenders of freedom, not only their own but that of others also, and for all mankind if possible. The greatest encroachment that was made on the liberty of man in Canada was made by a parliamentarian some years ago, and that precedent must never be followed in the future. I hope that no government, whatever it may be, will ever dare to imitate the action of that person. Here is the text of a document which appears in Hansard of January 30, 1942, and which reminds me of Nero, Diocletian and all the persecutors of the past. That document scandalized me the first time I heard of it, so much so that I never thought a man living in a democratic country could do a thing like that. That is at page 199 of Hansard of January 30, 1942. What was written then surpasses what Nero and Diocletian ever dreamed of, or Hitler, or Mussolini-all of them. It was dated June 17, 1919, and it was a telegram from Mr. Arthur Meighen to Mr. Andrew. Listen to it:
Notwithstanding any doubt I have as to the technical legality of the arrest and detention at Stony Mountain (penitentiary) I feel that

National Emergency
rapid deportation is the best course now that the arrests are made, and later we can consider rectification.
The hon. member for Lake Centre will be well advised to drop the icon of Arthur Meighen on the floor and break it, for the sake of his party and for his own sake.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
' Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Continuation of national emergency.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I should like to
suggest that some hon. member move this amendment:
That there be substituted for clause 2 as printed in the bill a new clause 2 in the form of the reprint with proposed amendments, and to obtain also this correction:
At line 26 of the proposed amendment substitute the word "or" for the word "and" between "continuing" and "discontinuing," and insert a comma after the word "discontinuing."
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


John George Diefenbaker: I have read over
the amendments and compared them with the original section which is to be amended, and with the exception of one or two subsections, I submit that this new section incorporates all the objected items to which I made reference when I spoke on the introduction of the bill. The only objected item which has been removed is "entry in Canada, exclusion and deportation, and revocation of nationality," a section which was nefarious in concept and would have resulted in untold hardship to Canadian citizens. That subsection has been removed. Then, too, the government has seen fit to follow one suggestion which was made, namely, that all orders in council passed under this act should be laid on the table of parliament, giving this house an opportunity of annulment within a reasonable period. But subsection 3 of section 2 does not remove the major objection that we on this side of the house took to the original bill, because in section 4 provision is made that:
The orders and regulations made under the War Measures Act or pursuant to authority created under the said act in force immediately before the day this act comes into force shall, while this act is in force, continue in full force and effect subject to amendment or revocation under this act.
In other words, no provision is made whereby parliament will be placed in a position that it may annul orders in council which were passed during the period of the war under the War Measures Act. The only power which is given to parliament is the power to annul orders in council passed on and after the date this measure comes into effect. Our major objection to this bill in so far as the order in council feature is concerned in general was that parliament was being asked to approve all the multitude of orders in council passed during the period of war, without knowledge of their contents, in many cases without those orders in council having been brought before parliament. The only provision now, under section 4, is for amendment or revocation, but not for annulment within the meaning of section 2, annulment being an act of parliament in consequence of the machinery being set in operation by a member of this house; amendment or revocation, an act which only the governor in council * may follow. We on this side of the house intend to press to have every order in council which was passed during the period of the war under the War Measures Act laid on the table of the house, giving to hon. members an opportunity to repudiate those which ought to be repudiated.
I come now to the sections. A few days after the opening debate the dominion-provincial conference met in the city of Ottawa. Many felt that the premiers and attorneys-general of the provinces had been consulted and that as a result of the consultation a new bill had been prepared in place of the old. To-day, however, the Minister of Justice quite frankly states that such is not the fact, that all that took place was a discussion, that notes were taken of the discussion, and that in certain cases the suggestions of the provincial representatives were accepted.
These sections as now constituted actually embody, with the exception of the one dealing with naturalization, all the subsections that were objected to by us on this side of the house. For instance, we raised strong objection to controls over production, manufacture, trading, exportation and importation. It was pointed out that with that power in the hands of the governor in council the government placed itself in the position of being able to control all the business in this country. That subsection has been removed and in place of it has been substituted another section 2, 1 (b), providing for measures necessary for facilitating the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace. The only difference between that subsection and the new one is that new words have been used which no doubt it was believed would be more palatable than those that appeared in the original bill.
Again, we raised strong objection to the governor in council having power to take control over transportation by air, road, rail and water. There has never been an explanation by the minister why the government needs this power. Why does the government wish to take
National Emergency

control over transportation by road or by air, or water or rail? What is the purpose? The subsection was removed, but when you look into the amendment you find that it is hidden away in another section, in section 2 (c) which gives the government the same power it would have had under the original bill; for it provides that the governor in council shall have power to maintain, control and regulate supplies and services, prices and transportation. In other words, it was taken out of one subsection and placed in another with the identical powers remaining in the governor in council.
We raised strong objection, to the power which the government was asking for of appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property. We asked what the purpose of the government was in seeking power to forfeit in 1945, forfeiture meaning the taking over of land or personal property without compensation. That subsection has been removed and in place of it another has been brought in namely 2, 1, (c), which in different terms and terminology still grants the absolute power the governor in council had asked for under the original bill.
To the original bill have been added certain other powers. Section 2 1(a) provides for maintaining the armed forces of Canada during occupation of enemy territory, demobilization, and providing for rehabilitation of the members thereof. That was not in the old bill. I feel that' is necessary, because we are endeavouring to get the session over and there would be various matters in connection with veterans affairs which until the next parliament meets would have to be dealt with by order in council.
There is another subsection which grants the widest powers possible to the governor in council. It assists relief of suffering and the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's dominions or in foreign countries that are in grave distress as a result of the war. Power is now asked for greater than was sought in the first bill, whereby the governor in council will be empowered under a blank cheque to do anything that he feels is necessary anywhere in the world so long as he considers that it is to relieve grave distress as a result of the war.
When the government agreed to amend the original bill many of us felt that the amendments which it had in mind, having regard to press dispatches in advance, would actually remove the causes of objections that we were raising; but anyone reading these amendments must come to one conclusion only, and that is that the government, having to recede in

face of public objection, in face of objections raised in the house, in face of objections raised in the dominion-provincial conference, decided, instead of withdrawing the bill, to introduce a new one with as wide powers, except in the two instances I have mentioned, as were granted before, the only change being one of terminology.
But they did something else. They gave the bill a new face; they added the word "transitional". They found themselves in the position of having to save face, after having introduced a bill that shocked the sensibilities of the people of the dominion; and having found themselves in that position they followed the course of face-lifting, altering the face of the bill as it was originally. But the same tell-tale wrinkles are there, the same wrinkles that spell dictatorship in this country if we do not oppose the granting of these powers to the government. All that has been done, with the exception of the removal of the two subsections to which I have referred, is to reshuffle the deck, leaving in it the same cards but placing them in different positions and numbering them differently as compared with the old bill.
I think we have a right to ask at this time certain pertinent questions of the government, and the first is this: Are we not entitled to a complete summary of the degree to which war controls have been removed to date? Are we not entitled to know to what extent these powers are to be used as anticipated at the present time? Are we not entitled to know to what extent price controls are to be continued and to what extent they are to be removed, as they are being removed to-day in the United States? Are we not entitled to know now, before granting this power to the governor in council, the extent to which wages are to be maintained at their present level?
Are we not entitled to know the plans of the governor in council in reference to labour? Does the governor in council intend to continue the measures which were passed during the period of the war? Is selective service to be continued in its present form? To what extent are there to be releases from some of the controls which to-day are unfair to labour? We have a right to know these things before we place in the hands of the governor in council the powers for which he asks.
We can only rehabilitate this country if we restore to the small man the opportunity of going into business. It is true that during the last year some of the controls over a man going into a new business have been removed. Possibly they have all been removed; but the situation is this: while a man may open

National Emergency
business he cannot get supplies. All he receives from the wartime prices and trade board is a hunting licence enabling him to go hunting for supplies. But those supplies are denied him and the opportunity to go into business is denied him.
Under these powers to what extent does the government intend to assure that retailers shall v receive their fair and just share of the goods which are available? What is the situation with regard to clothing, woollens, footwear and the like? To what extent does the government intend to impose still greater controls with a view to assuring a fair and proper distribution of scarce 'materials? I believe we have a right to have an answer to these juestions at this time.
I point out this fact, while we in Canada ire asked to give the governor in council those tremendous powers, a change is taking place in the United States because of the fear of deflation. The Secretary of Commerce, Henry Wallace, said recently:
Higher wage rates must be given labour to cushion loss of the war's overtime and incentive take-home pay.	*
They have taken steps in that direction. The trades and labour congress has gone on record in Great Britain that controls on labour should be speedily relaxed. They say:
The congress recommendation is that workers over thirty be exempted from controls altogether and permitted to leave even essential industries in order to look for permanent peace-time employment. The congress officials feel that controls exercised against the will of the men are in fact a hindrance rather than a help to the food output, and that men would work much more willingly if allowed to choose their own jobs. I believe that the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour should explain these matters at this time for the benefit of the house and the country.
While we have received haphazard explanations from time to time from one minister and another, we have not yet found the over-all picture. I therefore ask the ministers and the government to answer these questions: What are your immediate present plans to maintain the purchasing power and the scale of expanding production capacity? What measures are being taken by the government now to do what the government of the United States is doing, namely, to combat possible deflation? Much has been said about inflation after the last war. There was inflation until 1921, which was followed by a serious period of deflation. The government must have plans to forestall deflation, and they should be made available to the house at this time.
In this connection may I say, sir, that a special committee of the United States house of representatives investigated federal agencies during the month of November. They brought down a report which I think is applicable to Canada at this time. In part that report read as follows:
The policy of adherence to rigid formulae has retarded reconversion, prevented production, especially in low-priced commodities, has restricted opportunity for full employment . . . It has compelled manufacturers to discontinue and abandon production of pre-war low-priced commodities they were skilled in making in great volume, and has permitted newcomers to manufacture such commodities at higher prices than were necessary to enable those already in the field to stay in business.
These words of the committee of the United States house of representatives may well apply to Canada, having regard to the similarity of our economic conditions.
We have [DOT] continued to preach the dangers of inflation, and I am not arguing that at the moment, i We have talked about the necessity of maintaining wage schedules at the present level, and of preserving price schedules; whereas in United States the President said in his speech in late October:
Wages must be allowed to be increased.
He indicated that higher wages are as vital to business and agriculture as to labour; for consumers cannot buy the products of industry and the farms unless they earn sufficient wages. He then used these words:
I am convinced we must get away as quickly as possible from government controls and get back to the free operation of our competitive system.
The United States is extending; it is not decontrolling unnecessarily fast, but it is working in that direction as speedily as possible, and toward the removal in part and in whole of some of those controls. I therefore ask that at this time the government give to the house and the country a full, complete and integrated statement of government plans; a statement as to the use it intends to make of the powers which parliament is being asked to give, to the end that we shall not be in the position of being asked to place our parliamentary rights ip pawn without realizing the security which the government is giving in return for these rights.
I have not received an answer to the suggestion that I made. We all want to cooperate in this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. members laugh because they have never learned the meaning of that. We are seriously endeavouring to
National Emergency

assist in this tremendous problem. I regard my hon. friends' sincerity most highly, and in return I ask the same consideration in a matter such as this, which concerns the future of this country. I know that all hon. members are anxious to get away, but we realize we are faced with a problem which is greater than anything we shall have to face at an}' time in the years to come. I again make the plea I made the other day. There are men in this house who have made a great success of their business; there are men who understand the ramifications of finance; there are men who are representative of labour and of agriculture. Let us take this bill and place it before a committee composed of such men. They can hear evidence, listen to the story of the controllers and ascertain from them exactly what they intend to do, and why they need those powers. As a result of securing that evidence we shall be in a position where we can intelligently discuss this problem.
The extradition bill was sent to a committee. That is an important bill, impinging as it does upon the rights and the liberties of Canadians, but in my opinion it is no more important-in fact it is less important-than this bill which concerns the welfare and the future of every man and woman in Canada. Why not give us three or four days in committee? Give us an opportunity of having those men before us. Let us ascertain from them why they made certain orders. Let us ascertain from the rentals controller why rentals controls are applied in certain villages where there is no shortage of houses whatsoever. Let us ascertain why it has been applied in certain other ways resulting even in petty tyranny. Let us see the picture. Let us endeavour to work together for one purpose, so that when we delegate these powers to the governor in council they will be utilized for the welfare of this country, which comes first and foremost. In all sincerity I make that appeal. We have an opportunity to make a tremendous contribution in that way, an opportunity to assure that parliament will have been supreme, so that instead of blindly placing these tremendous powers in the hands of controllers and the like, parliament will know why they have been placed there and how they are intended to be used during the next two or three months.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing some pretty extraordinary things for the last couple of days, and one of the most extraordinary is to hear them called "cooperation". I have been listening attentively to all that has been said in this

debate, and I have yet to learn whether or not the official opposition wants a 'bill passed. I will make an exception as to the very objective speech made this afternoon by the leader of the opposition. The hon. member who has just sat down says that the tell-tale wrinkles are still there. That is true; the tell-tale wrinkles are still there. We heard some extraordinary statements about this bill yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening. When we continued the debate this morning we seemed to be getting back on another plane, but we did not stay there very long. The tell-tale wrinkles are always there.
Some hon. members have made it quite clear that they do not want controls. The hon. member for Stanstead wound up his speech by saying that what this country needed was a government with nerve enough to take off the controls. Most of the other hon. members disagreed with that stand. One can understand a position of that kind. The hon. gentleman was supported by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains and by other hon. members. They are concerned with* the effect of these controls upon the owners of property and the exceptional opportunities owners of property are losing at this time because the controls are in existence. One can understand something of that kind. The hon. member says; Of course we are told there are dangers. Prices went up after the last war, and they would go up again after this war; but what of it? The price of sugar would rise from five cents to twenty-five cents. The price of butter would go from thirty-seven cents to sixty cents; but what of it? Shall that weigh against the loss of freedom that is entailed in the maintenance of these controls? In July, 1914, flour sold for $3.30. In the spring of 1920 it sold for $8.40. Sugar sold for $5.50 per 100 pounds in 1914; in 1920 it was $25. Butter was thirty cents a pound in 1914; in 1920 it was eighty-seven cents; but what of it? How does that weigh in the balance? Bacon was 254 cents a pound in 1914; in the spring of 1920 it was sixty cents. In 1914 milk was 84 cents a quart; in 1920 it was 154 cents. Coffee was thirty-seven cents in 1914 and sixty-two cents in 1920. Eggs went from twenty-seven cents a dozen in 1914 to eighty-eight cents a dozen in 1920; potatoes went from twenty-five cents a peck to $1.08 and fresh pork from twenty cents to forty-two cents.
Well, what about it? To some, perhaps nothing about it; but to this government it is a matter of considerable concern, and this government feels that it has behind it not only a majority in this house but a majority in this country. This government has not the nerve to take off controls and make oppor-

National Emergency
tunities for those who would derive benefit from those opportunities at the expense of the mass of the population. This government has not that nerve. If there are people in the country who want a government with that nerve, let them choose it from the other side of the house. When I proposed the second reading of this bill I said in so many words that whenever a government had to ask for powers of this kind it was always an opportunity for whatever party was in opposition to assert its attachment to constitutional and traditional rights, and to try to make out that the other party was departing from them. But I did not expect that it would go the lengths it has gone in this debate, and especially I did not expect that it would come with such violence from those who had supported and passed the legislation to which the leader of the C.C.F. party referred last evening and which is in the statutes of 1931.
It is regrettable that the circumstances are such that controls are required; but they are required, and this government has the nerve to come to the country and say it intends to see that they are maintained as long as they are required. La ligue des proprietaires, no doubt very respectable people, object to this bill because they are not allowed to use their property as they see fit and to get the better returns they mention in the representations they submit to members of parliament. Their position is much to be deplored, but there is a serious shortage of housing for the Canadian population at the present time, and that shortage would make for unduly enhanced rentals if there were not rental controls.
. Hon. members say that we are asking for extraordinary powers and for a blank cheque. How many days ago was it that this house passed, for the sixth or seventh time, an appropriation this time of $1,365,000,000, unanimously and without a word of dissent from the hon. member for Eglinton or any other hon. member on the other side of the house? Second reading of that bill was unanimously approved in this house on November 22; I need not refer to the page of Hansard. What are the terms of that bill, which hon. members quite rightly found it appropriate to pass because the country is not yet in a normal situation? The terms, which are identical in each of these bills since 1939, were these:
From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may he paid and applied, beyond the ordinary grants of parliament, a sum not exceeding one billion, three hundred and sixty-five million dollars less the amount provided for by the War Expenditure and Demobilization Appropriation Apt, No, 1, 1945, subject to allotment by treasury board, towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the
authority of the governor in council during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, 1946, for;
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
How wide is that; how broad is. that? Then:
(b)	The conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	the expeditious demobilization of the
Canadian armed forces;	[DOT]
(d)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Unanimously.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
-and
(e)	the carrying out of any measure deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the war.
Unanimously adopted by this house.


John George Diefenbaker: That is cooperation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And containing, moreover, the clause that:
(1)	The governor in council may make, from time to time, such orders or regulations as may be deemed necessary to give effect to the purposes of the War Expenditure and Demobilization Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1945, and of this act, and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, the governor in council may, by order or regulation:
(a)	make provision for the appointment of temporary civil officers, clerks and employees and determine their rates of compensation and conditions of employment;
(b)	determine the rates of pay and allowances of officers and men of the naval, military and air forces of Canada;
(c)	prescribe administrative practices with respect to contracts and agreements for the execution of any public work or for the acquisition of lands, buildings, equipment, stores, materials and supplies by purchase or otherwise, for the use of the public service of Canada;
(d)	provide for the utilization, control and disposal of equipment, materials and supplies; and
(e)	prescribe administrative practices with respect to the making of financial commitments, the taking of security for the performance of contracts and agreements, and the recording and paying of accounts.
(2)	All orders and regulations of the governor in council made under the War Expenditure and Demobilization Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1945, and this act shall have the force of law apd may be varied, extended, or revoked by any subsequent order or regulation, but if any order or regulation is varied, extended or revoked neither the previous operation thereof *nor anything duly done thereunder shall be affected thereby . . .


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Unanimously.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That was passed by this parliament-by you, gentlemen; you who were here sitting in this committee, without

National Emergency

a word of dissent, without a whimper that there was anything being done there that was going to tear down the traditional, constitutional institutions of this country. Where were hon. members opposite who are so scandalized when we come in now and say that because there is a continuing emergency arising out of the war there should be an orderly continuance or discontinuance of those measures of control which it was found necessary to have in force during the war?
Surely it is not the leader of the opposition. When I spoke about something similar a few weeks ago I was quoting from a speech he delivered on April 23, 1945, I believe it was, in which he said that of course no one could contest the necessity for having applied these controls during the war, and that they could not be expected to come off in one fell swoop after the war was over. He thought they would have to be unwound with care and due planning. But when we come to this house and ask it to provide us with the necessary power so to unwind them with care and due planning, some hon. members find an opportunity for raising a political hue and cry.
I do not suppose one should become indignant over it. I do not know what we would be doing if we were on the other side of the house, and they were here. I do think they would be doing what we find it necessary to do. And I think it is time now, when there are not so many days left in this session of parliament, to forget the possibility of there being some political advantage in speeches of that kind, and to get down to business and deal with the legislation before us.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister should take that to himself.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was for that reason I refrained from making any reply to the speeches delivered on the motion for second reading of the bill. I thought after the speech of the leader of the opposition it was desirable to get into committee and to consider these sections one by one, to see if they were now in proper shape; and, if not, to see if they could be improved upon, without their being cut down to the extent that they would not operate, or to find out if they might be put into a form which might perhaps be more palatable to all of us.
None of us likes provisions which go to great lengths. But even in the drawing up of the proposed amendments I had more than one long session with the officers of the law department in an effort to reduce the possible spread of the sections in the bill. But I did it with a view tc* retaining in the bill what might be necessary for the purposes and

effects the people of this country expect their parliament and government to attain for them, during this transitional period of reconstruction and reconversion. I was guided by their advice as to what might be necessary for that purpose.
One hon. member has said: "There is to be a provision in this that orders in council enacted under it will be brought down and laid before parliament, and may be dealt with within a period of twenty-eight days. But what chance is there for a motion of an hon. member getting consideration in this house? The record of this session shows how many of these private' resolutions were voted upon." I have discussed this matter with my colleagues, and I am authorized to say that if at any time an order in council tabled in the house is challenged by any hon. member the government will use its best endeavours to expedite the discussion of such a resolution, and bring it to a vote of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Would you put it in the bill?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I will not ask that that be put in the bill. And I do not think that there is a majority of members in the house who will think that after I have made that statement it will be necessary to put it in the bill. Perhaps the hon. member would require to have it in the bill, but I do not think the majority in the house would want it.
I will give the hon. member for Lake Centre another undertaking, if he wishes to have it. If at any time during the next session of parliament he wishes to bring in a bill to repeal any one of these measures the government will use its best endeavours to expedite the consideration of any such bill.
All that is intended and all that is wanted is something that will enable this government to carry out the responsibilities it assumed on behalf of the Canadian people when it went before them at the last general election.	-__
There seems to me something very unreal about this challenge as to there having been such dictatorial autocracy pushing people around in this country. If there was dictatorial autocracy in pushing people around, then we in the government are responsible for what was done, and we took that responsibility before the Canadian people-and it so *happens that we are sitting here, and hon. gentlemen opposite sitting there.
Someone asked the other night: What would be the impression of a traveller who would return to parliament from Mars after a stay there of fifteen or twenty, years? One would

National Emergency
almost think there were lots of those travellers in this house. They do not seem to have been anywhere near this country for the last several months.
Other hon. members say: It is alleged that there is an emergency situation in Canada, but you have not brought forward the proof of such an emergency. Well, is there any hon. member who has not spent fifteen or twenty years in Mars, who does not know what has been going on in this country and what is the situation in this country at the present time? Is there any hon. member who can be better informed by anybody than by his own observation of what the economic situation is in this country at the present time?


An hon. MEMBER:: Terrible.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: My hon. friend says that it is terrible. Has my hon. friend found no one who did not find there were conditons which unfortunately were terrible for him and which it was not possible to alleviate immediately? Does my hon. friend know of no one who is not in a position to find convenient and proper shelter in this country? Does the hon. member realize that everything possible since V-E day has been done to provide shelter? When I hear hon. members saying that if there was a shortage of housing it was because there had not been proper foresight, prudent looking ahead, I ask: Is there any hon. member who would, while the war was on, have wished the man-power or the resources of this country to be diverted to the building of houses instead of being devoted to fighting the enemy? If there is, I would . like to see him rise in his place in this house and say so and take the responsibility for that attitude before his countrymen.
There were many things said in the speech delivered by the hon. member for Stanstead yesterday afternoon. No one on this side would have ventured to go so far as he did in the praise he meted out to the government for what was done. Here is what he said at page 2921 of Hansard:
I do not criticize those who had the responsibility of enacting the legislation that brought these controls about. They were anxious to win the war. They had but one aim in view, and they have achieved that aim.
I would fully subscribe to that. The Canadian people had one aim, namely to win the war, and the Canadian people achieved that aim. So long as it was necessary to do that, they had but one thought in mind-win the war, and do the things necessary to win the war-and they were not thinking of slum clearance and of building houses at that time. But immediately V-E day came, the effort was 47696-189J
made to remedy the lack of housing and to overcome the inactivity in that field which the war had compelled for several years. It has been stated in this house that the target is the construction of 50,000 new homes within the space of a calendar year, and that target will be realized. But even with that, there is still a terrible housing situation, and there is still a situation which, if rental controls were removed, would give la Ligue des proprietaires handsome returns on their ownership of rental houses. It is necessary, most hon. members are agreed, to maintain some controls.
But some hon. members say:	Give us a
clear-cut plan. Tell us what were the orders in council that were made during the war period, what are those that are still in operation, what are those that you want to continue in operation, what are those that you are going to repeal, and so forth? That is very nice. There were almost, it was said, one hundred thousand orders in council and treasury minutes passed during the war. The clerk of the privy council has given me exact figures about that. I have read the terms of one of the war appropriation bills, and they were all in the same terms. Practically all the administrative orders might have been made under the terms of these appropriation bills. But at that time, rightly or wrongly, our whole thoughts were on winning the war, and there was in operation the War Measures Act, which had been passed in 1914 by a previous government of another complexion. That act was very broad in its terms and was sufficient authority for anything that the government felt it was reasonable and proper to do toward winning the war. For that reason the War Measures Act was in a very large number of cases expressly referred to in orders in council that would have been fully justified under other measures. There was a small number, practically less th an 3 per cent, of orders of a legislative nature. Hon. members have said that they did not know what those were; they never saw them. Well, if they did not know them, if they never saw them, it is because they did not take the trouble-it was a considerable trouble and I am not blaming them because I did not do it myself-of going over these six or eight volumes of war proclamations and orders that were put out as blue books and then the four volumes per annum, too, of Canadian war orders and regulations, four published each year with a .cumulative explanatory index every three months showing the effect of each upon the other.
Naii/mal Emergency

* It,is true: that we did not do that neatly as iit was done in the United Kingdom. I have begone me the 16th edition of the defence regulations. Evidently fifteen times prior to the 9th of May, 1945, they consolidated them and issued them in book form, numbered seriatim-a very convenient thing. The lawyers in the United Kingdom were in a more comfortable position to find out what the regulations were than were the lawyers in Canada, but there are not very many lawyers in Canada who have seriously complained of the fact that up to V-E day the government of Canada and the people of Canada were giving their whole thought to winning the war, and not to tidiness in the form * in which the regulations had -to be issued. I am not in a position to say to the hon. member for Lake Centre that this is the Series of orders in council that are in force and that would remain enforced under the proposed section 4 of this bill. I have been doing other things than compiling these orders for the purpose of giving that information to the hon. member, and I am not sorry that I did other things. I think the things I did were more important than would have- been the compiling of these orders to give the hon. member that information.
What this bill seeks to do now is to put, in a form which we think is apt to be more acceptable to some hon. members than was the previous form, an enumeration of the powers which it may be necessary to exercise. I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that from now on it will be possible to get along without exercising any of those powers for other purposes than for cutting down restrictions. But I am not in a position to guarantee that we are going to get through the next few months and maintain an orderly system of such controls as are necessary and an orderly decontrol without ever doing something new. I am not prepared to guarantee that that can be accomplished, and therefore I took the advice of the law officers as to the form a bill should have to make it possible to meet such unforeseen conditions as may arise in that process.
Much has been made of the terms of some of the subsections of bill No. 15, for instance section 2 (b):
facilitating the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace.
I am not much concerned whether that stays *there or not.


John George Diefenbaker: Hear, hear.
IMr. St. Laurent.]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That was taken from paragraph (c) of section 1 of the supplies and services (transitional powers) bill which was passed, for a period of five years, by the parliament of the United Kingdom.


John George Diefenbaker: To bring in
socialism.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If there is never any more socialism in Canada than this country will get from this government under this bill, the hon. member may remain perfectly undisturbed. The clause is in exactly the same form in section 1, paragraph (c) of this supplies and services (transitional powers) act. Quite frankly, it might be invoked, but I do not think it will be. I do not at the present moment see very well how it could be, but I am told that it might be of some use in doing something to the foreign exchange control regulations which are in existence and which the government intend to ask parliament to continue in existence under this bill. *
Then, the hon. member for Lake Centre said that there were many of these clauses which in other words would express power to which he had taken exception on November 23. I do not deny that. We are not trying to meet all the objections which the hon. member raised on the 23rd of November. It is not only for the sake of the hon. member for Lake Centre that we are asking that this legislation be passed; we are asking that it be passed for the people of Canada. In determining what we would retain in the bill we were much more concerned with what would be in the interests of the people of Canada than with what would meet the objections of the hon. member for Lake Centre.
The hon. member says that no one has suggested why in the former bill there was some reference to transportation by air, by rail, by water or by road. Did the hon. member never get any complaint from anyone about the restrictions to which he was subjected in the use of automobiles, or autobuses, or trucks on the highways because of the-at the time-deplorable shortage of rubber for tires, and of oil and gasoline, for motive power? Fortunately most of these restrictions have now been removed, but there are still in force a number of restrictions on travel by rail. Every time a shipload of returned men arrives at one of the ports of eastern Canada there is a general mobilization of rail equipment which is regulated and controlled in the interest, not only of the men who are returning, but in the interest of Canada, because Canada owes those men the best transportation it can provide for them when it is bringing them

National Emergency
home from the fields where they went and risked their lives for the institutions of this Canada of theirs.
These powers are expressed in language which is broad and which is intended to be broad. It is intended to meet contingencies which may arise. But, so that we would follow" another example set by that socialist government of the United Kingdom, we put into this bill a provision that anything the governor in council chose to do under it would be done upon the assumption that if it were to be done by legislation it w'ould have the consent of the Senate and of the House of Commons as well as of the crown. Legislation, to be enacted, requires the three branches of parliament. Under these special conditions we think that, for the sake of having expeditious action, it is proper that the governor in council have from the Senate and the House of Commons a delegation of power to be exercised on the assumption that whatever the governor in council does thereby has the implied consent of the Senate and the House of Commons; and we say that we shall bring down everything which is thus done at the earliest possible moment and lay it on the tables of parliament, and that if either house chooses to say by resolution that it should not continue in operation, thereupon it shall cease to operate. Does any hon. member think that the governor in council, the government advising His Excellency the Governor General, will take the risk lightly of putting through things which it will bring before this parliament and which this parliament will then resolve to annul?	.
Let us get down to earth. I think most hon. members want the situation that is going to unroll itself during the next several months to be properly taken care of; and any government which exercises these powers in view of the fact that it will immediately declare to both houses of parliament how it exercises them and for what purpose it exercises them, will be reasonably careful that it does not indulge in fancies which will be frowned upon by either house.
I have heard the question asked, why leave it to either house thus to annul something decided by the governor in council. Quite frankly that was put in there to safeguard the absolute right of this house, unfettered in any way, to disapprove anything that the governor in council might do. If members of this house prefer to have it that a resolution of both houses of parliament will be required to have the effect of annulling something decided by the governor in council, I know there are a great many on this side who will be far better pleased with it; and if, when we are
discussing that provision, ' it appears ' to be the desire^ of this house to subject its decision to a concurring decision from the other place, there will be no objection from the government to accepting a suggestion of that kind. But it was felt that it would not be respecting the full power and control of this house to have it otherwise than as expressed in the bill.
The section that is now under consideration provides, as the hon. member for Lake Centre so well pointed out, that the governor in council may do anything that he deems necessary or advisable because of the national emergency arising out of the war for any of the purposes enumerated in the five subparagraphs. The limitation is not on the objects which- the orders in council or regulations may deal with, but on the purposes for which he may deal with them. He may deal with them for any one of the purposes thus enumerated. Subsection 2 provides that the orders shall, for" the purpose of the Interpretation Act, be deemed to be regulations. That is merely for the purpose of avoiding having to repeat in this bill what is contained in the Interpretation Act, which applies to all enactments and which is a statute of some forty-two sections.	*
^ The third subsection provides that the orders shall be laid before parliament and that there shall be a period of twenty-eight days during which, in either house, a resolution may be moved to annul; and once more, if such a resolution is moved, the government will do its best to bring it to a decision at once, because it has no fear that the kind of things it will pass will not have the approval of the majority in this house, whatever may be the views of those who challenge the order in the resolution tabled. VThe government will have this further incentive to getting prompt decision upon it, that the psychological effect of these regulations on the Canadian public is now very satisfactory and has been built up over a period of several years; and if there were anything happening now to make those who are disposed to evade the provisions of the regulations feel that there had been any loosening up, it would be a considerable task to recreate by enforcement action the psychol-, ogy which is necessary if we are to have the whole of the public respect the regulations that are made in the interests of all. That is all there is in section 2.
I am not in a position to answer specific questions put to me by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I am not in a position to say which control will come off or when. I can say to the hon. member that this morning's papers announced the removal of controls on
National Emergency

construction permits. Of course that does not mean that it will be possible to build any more constructions than the material available will provide for, but it does mean that no one will have to get any other permit than the permits from the local authorities, to proceed when he can with any construction he chooses to undertake.
The hon. member said that he was not sure whether there were still permits in regard to the starting of new businesses. Personally I do not know; perhaps the Minister of Finance knows. But certainly there has been no removal of the quota system on the distribution of much of the material used in industry. There is still a shortage of that material. There was established and there is still being maintained a quota system whereby in many cases about eighty per cent of the material available is distributed on the quotas established during the period of 1941. There is about twenty per cent that is free for distribution to others than holders of quotas. Is that a good thing? Is it a bad thing? It is a thing which worked out very satisfactorily during the war. It is a thing which we think is good and which we are going to take the responsibility of maintaining because we think it is good so long as the reasons for it are apparent.
The hon. member asks whether price controls are to be removed. Price controls will certainly not be removed in the immediate future. Are wage ceilings to be done away with? Wage ceilings will certainly not be done away with in the immediate future. Is there to be any modification in those matters? That has been and is and will continue to be daily under active consideration for the purpose and to the end of lightening and removing these controls just as rapidly as the government feels that they can be removed and that it will still be respecting its responsibility to the Canadian public.
Reference has been made to what has been happening in the United States. It is not the place here to criticize what is happening there. I will make no comment. I will ask those hon. members who have had occasion to visit in the United States recently whether ,what is going on there is better suited to the needs of the majority of the public than what is happening here. I think I will leave it at that. We may be wrong, but we think that the manner in which the situation has been handled here has been more satisfactory to the Canadian public than had we duplicated here what has happened in the country of our very good neighbours to the south, and we intend to continue to apply the policy which we, with our advisers, consider is best

suited to the needs of the Canadian people. If we have to make any new regulations we shall bring them here, and we shall get the opinion of the members of this house upon them.	.
As to those which are now in effect, if this house accepts, as I hope it will, the bill with the proposed amendments that we have suggested here and maintains in effect-I do not care whether it be by virtue of the law or whether they say to us the governor in council may continue in force under this measure all the things in force on the day when it comes into operation-the regulations we shall be satisfied. We are not trying to get rid of any responsibility. We do not feel the burden of any responsibility is too great for us to carry. We carried it through the month of June and we are prepared to carry it forward to any other contest when it may have to be judged by the public. We are not asking anyone else to take any portion of it, and we are not prepared to give any of those who criticize it any part of the credit which gave us the result which was achieved at the last June election. That we are not concerned about. But if hon. members feel that they will be in an easier position; if they say, "Well, if you want those things which are now in force and which are operating in a manner which is generally satisfactory, to continue in operation, do not ask us to say that they should continue, but we will allow you to say so." That is a matter of indifference. What we shall ask this committee to do is to say that they shall continue or that we shall have the right to say that they shall continue because we think they are necessary, and if the committee says that we shall have the right to say that they will continue we shall not hesitate about saying so.
With respect to the other point raised, my understanding is now recorded. My colleagues will respect it. Whenever any hon. member chooses to introduce a bill to repeal any of those controls which he thinks should disappear and which we think should not yet disappear we shall facliitate as much as is in our power the taking of the opinion of this house upon it.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I thought when we came in this evening that we had finished with the debate that should have taken place on the second reading of the bill. I am not objecting to the speech that has just been made by the Minister of Justice. Indeed I believe his speech was long overdue and I am glad 'that it was made. I should like, however, to draw attention to one matter that he mentioned. He said he did not know what the Liberal party would be doing in this case if they were

National Emergency
on this side of the house and the Progressive Conservatives on the other. Well, I do, because I happened to be here when the Liberals were on this side of the house and the Conservatives on the other, and they were doing just the same thing as the Conservatives are doing to-day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only better.


Angus MacInnis: Well, I agree that the minister who was then merely the hon. member for Vancouver Centre did perhaps a better job then than he is doing now, although I am not reflecting on what he is doing now. He was a very vocal if not a very consistent member of the opposition. I suggest in all earnestness that such methods are not good policy to-day. I believe that that is the sort of thing which is bringing parliamentary institutions into disrepute, because people will no longer believe in the sincerity of parties which, when they are on the opposition side of the house act one way on a question, and when they are on the government side act another way on the same question.
I am one of the twenty-five members left of those who came here in 1930. During all the time that I have been in the house I supported every measure introduced by the government if it appealed to me as a constructive measure, regardless of the sneers I might receive from this side, and I supported the opposition when I thought it was in the right, regardless of the jeers I received from the other side. I am convinced that is the * only position a member should take to-day, because I am satisfied that the government cannot do anything in the way of good government without helping along the things that I want to do. I do not believe that the government can do anything wrong, or anything that is not in the interest of the people without adversely affecting the cause I have at heart. Therefore I repeat, if we wish to be taken as sincere people we must have the same point of view when we are on this side of the question as we have when we are on the other side of the question.
I believe that we should try to come to grips with this important issue. The hon. member for Lake Centre referred to the extradition treaty and suggested that it was an important issue. I believe that this is an immensely more important piece of legislation than the extradition treaty. I do not know if there is time to give.it to a special committee, but if there were time I would certainly advocate that because if we could get the hon. member for Lake Centre into a special committee I have the idea that he
would act in a much less partisan way than he does in the house, and consequently be far more useful in dealing with a matter of this kind.
I do not want the hon. gentleman to take offence at what I am going to say. He disturbs me, because when I see him in action I have the feeling that he is a man of great ability, great application, but yet a man of- if this is the proper term-tremendous ineffectiveness. He destroys the constructive effect of what he is seemingly attempting to do. I am not objecting because he aroused the Minister of Justice, but he destroyed the effect he should have had on the Minister of Justice, if, indeed, it was his hope to make the best of this bill, a bill which we all agree is necessary. He destroyed that effectiveness by the way in which he put forward his arguments. He would shake his finger and his head in protest. The result is that no cooperation is possible.
If we are sincere it should be a fairly simple matter to deal with this bill. When we start discussing the various sections of the bill, mot being trained in the law, I feel myself at a disadvantage. I think I can understand ordinary English and what words mean, but when I hear lawyers talk I am convinced that words do not mean the same thing to me as they do to the lawyers. I realize I am not the only person affected in this way. After long observation I have come to the conclusion that there is no finality to any lawsuit except that imposed by the financial resources of the persons concerned and the number of courts to which it can be taken. When either the finances or the courts are finished then the case is at an end.
I have received a great many communications in regard to bill No. 15 as it was first introduced, but I think every one of the letters and petitions had1 to do with paragraph (g) of subsection 1 of section 3. That paragraph is out, and another part of subsection 1 of section 3 is out also. That part may not seem important to the hon. member for Lake Centre, but to me it seems important. I refer to the words, "but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms." It seems to me that rather limits the application of what the hon. member says are the similar provisions in section 2 of the new bill. I would suggest that, as the hon. member for Lake Centre knows how to do legal drafting, we take up the bill section by section, and when he comes to one he does not like let him move to delete it or amend it to conform to his ideas of what controls are wanted.
National Emergency

Then we can compare the amendment with the bill and we shall have a bettor idea as to which should be maintained.
I am convinced that we shall never produce anything constructive if we continue in the attitude we have adopted so far. So, then, I would appeal to this committee either to refer the bill to a special committee, where we shall get it out of the atmosphere of this house and away from the galleries, and where we can deal with it quietly and in an orderly fashion to-achieve a certain end. Let us get down earnestly to business, each ^adding his quota of improvement to the bill ' which we are all convinced is to some extent necessary. Mention was made of the serious days ahead. Let us not delude ourselves that the days ahead will not be serious and that we do not want or will not need legislation of this kind. In my opinion it is not so much government control that is required as elasticity in government action so that it can deal with a situation as it arises or develops. That is what is involved, rather than control; it is elasticity of administration. And that, I believe, is what we should keep in mind in dealing with this matter.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I think I can quite truthfully say that I had not intended speaking on this matter, nor would I have done so but for the impassioned and, I say somewhat regretfully, the rather angry political speoch made by the Minister of Justice. I see that beside him and behind him that remark creates some amusement. I am very happy to note that he has as his cheer leader the unanimous Minister of Veterans Affairs, who sits immediately to his left. I was also happy to note that the greatest applause he received was when he ' struck high points of great humour. Those desks simply rattled when he informed the hon. member for Lake Centre that this bill was not being submitted for his benefit but for the benefit of the whole of the people of Canada. The boys simply went wild at that. What wonderful humour came from the lips of >
the minister, and what appreciation was sh'own by the gentle juiy which sits behind him! I know the Minister of Justice is one of the ablest lawyers in Canada-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I almost
equalled his applause on that one. For many years he has been a great ornament to our profession, but to-night .1 learned something about him that I never knew before. I always see his name as practising before many high courts, those about which the hon. member for Vancouver East was so worried just a

moment ago', but to-night I learned that at some time or another he had a police court practice which must have been carried on in very far places where the justice of the peace or magistrate did not know much about his business. The hon. gentleman's advocacy went so far to-night as to take this appropriation of $1,365,000,000 to which we consented-yes, unanimously-in order to get the civil servants of this country paid, as the Minister of Finance asked us to do; then he turned around and said, "Where were you that we did not hear a whimper?" That is not good practice in any court or any assembly.
Mr. ILSLEY; But, Mr. Chairman, the civil servants are not paid out of that appropriation


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Apparently
we have two cheering champions now. I am sorry I cannot hear some of those remarks; I know they must be good. I was not here last evening; may I say it was the first session of the house I have missed since I have been in Ottawa, but I am very glad the hon. member for Stanstead made his speech. As I'read the speech of, the Minister of Agriculture, and as I listened to ninety per cent of the speech of the Minister of Justice to-night, I discovered that if it had not been for what the hon. member for Stanstead had said both these hon. gentlemen would have been tongue-tied, because that was about all they paid any attention to.
' Now. Mr. Chairman, this is the only simple contribution I have to make. Let us endeavour to strip this thing of all the talking we have been do ing-	*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Leroy Smith: -and I
include myself, being just as foolish as hon. gentlemen who now applaud. But stripped to its nakedness, if I may use that expression, what does it mean? As the hon. member for Vancouver East so well said, we all realize that some control is still necessary in this country. No one, I am quite sure, will deny or has denied that. I think that is a simple and very fair statement to make. Occasionally one becomes a bit annoyed at someone else. Perhaps we are interrupted. I have not even heard the unanimous Minister of Veterans Affairs say in this house, "It was a dirty Tory trick'-, although I have been waiting for that remark. I have not heard that remark. I know it is coming sooner or later, because he has a copyright on that, and Hansard has been full of it for the last fifteen years. I have read it.

National Emergency
But does it not simply mean this: We say, "controls?-Yes, they are necessary." I do not wish to buy eggs at the price at which the Minister of Justice bought them a while ago, or bacon at the price at which he bought it. Those were terrific prices. That was done, I gather, because it was under an administration from this side. How would it be for all political parties in the house, from now on, to do this: Let them admit that occasionally they have been wrong. This business of parties knowing perfectly well that they were wrong twenty years ago, and trying to justify it by devious ways here and now is, to my mind, complete nonsense. The man who does not admit he is wrong is the man who will never learn anything.
My real point is this, that it seems to me that what we all seek is a measure of control to avoid inflation. None of us wants these controls to go to the extent that they will frighten investment or frighten business. I think those are simple problems upon which all of us can be agreed.
Now, then what happens? We who sit over here say that the ministers of the government who sit opposite, have a great deal of information. Tell us what you want. To what extent do you want (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), or whatever it may be? Tell us that, and then we will support you. Mainly what we have said is that this is too broad.
I do not think ministers of the crown are going to take our birthright away from us, or anything like that, by way of order in council. No, I do not think they are. But the fact that I do not think so does not alter the principle that if this bill is passed in its present broad form, parliament has given up its authority, for whatever time you may wish, unnecessarily. It may never be used. But it is neither here nor there whether it is used or not. I make this appeal: I know the people the minister has who can draw statutes. I think Mr. Varcoe is one of the ablest men in law I know, here or anywhere else. I know that he, in conjunction with the able people they have over there can say, "We are bringing down this bill. We will control prices there, and wages and exchange"-and the like. They may do that, for whatever time they say. Then surely all of those to my right and to my left and in front of me can all fall in line, because we believe in the same thing.
What are we doing? We seem to be quarreling about things which perhaps are not of major importance. We are getting off into the by-ways. But the fact remains that 47696-190
this bill should not be permitted to assume this authority, except without the greatest struggle that we over here can possibly put up.


Mr. MACDONNELL:: I wish to add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for Calgary West. I had not intended to speak either, and perhaps the reason I am speaking is that I felt the minister had scolded us like rather naughty boys-though one never know3 just how much of what a trained lawyer says he really means, and how much he just says because he is a very good counsel, and is acting for his client.
But I wish to say this, that the minister at some length, and I must say with a considerable degree of warmth, argued that we were being unreasonable and uncooperative.
I am not going to waste the time of the committee by saying that we consider that it is hon. members opposite who are being uncooperative. But I wish to say this-and this is chiefly a repetition of what my colleague to my right has said-that we have no reason to doubt that a great many people throughout this country are greatly exercised about the powers conferred by this bill. One might often be mistaken about public opinion. One may get letters from people whose views are all cockeyed. But it must be clear that there is endorsation of our view. Unless reports are all wrong, when the provincial premiers were here, if we can believe reports, which appear to be credible, there was extraordinary unanimity among them-and let me add that they were not all of our stripe of political opinion- that this bill did need revision.
We then hoped that it was then going to get revision. Quite frankly I hoped that it would, and that it was going to meet the situation. But I am bound to say that as I listened to the hon. member for Lake Centre this evening, and as I read the extremely wide provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c), it seemed to me that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and that, as the hon. member for Lake Centre said, the new words are about as wide as the old. If I am right in thinking that there is a very strong public opinion in this matter, and if I am right in thinking that the provincial premiers had that view, then surely we are not very unreasonable in asking that some reasons be given to us.
Why, [DOT] for example, do we have all these controls over transportation by air, rail and water? Are they necessary? I must say that this evening for the very first time the minister began to take some trouble to tell us why these powers were needed. Frankly I think that in that respect he has made only a

National Emergency

beginning. I was very much unconvinced by what he said about the railroads. I would need more persuasion that it needs this control to persuade the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to do what every citizen of this country wants to have done, namely, to have these priorities given to the soldiers. Let me repeat that that seemed to me most unconvincing.
I do not wish the minister to feel that we are being unreasonable. I wish him to feel that we want to cooperate. Whatever may have been the opinion two months ago, I say that, despite the fact that hon. members opposite smiled when the hon. member for Lake Centre said he was willing to cooperate, no one should doubt our desire to cooperate. Unless we are unwilling to believe that the people of Canada are not sincere in their apprehensions, then I suggest that the hon. member for Lake Centre was not unreasonable when he asked that we should have a fuller explanation from the Minister of Justice. I say to him that he should go on and finish the job, because as these words appear in the bill they go away beyond what we think is needed.
The minister referred to a speech which had been made by the leader of the opposition. I wished afterwards that he had gone on to deal with that speech. However, he was so attracted, as was the Minister of Agriculture last night, toward dealing with the speech of the hon. member for Stanstead, because it happened to contain some praise of the Liberal party-we are generous people-and I do not mean the present Liberal party-that he failed to do so. But it seems to me that we would have spent our time more profitably if the minister had-dealt with the definite points upon which the leader of the opposition agreed we needed control. He might have got an advance copy of the speech, as the Minister of Agriculture did last night in respect of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Stanstead. Had he done that, he would have known exactly what was in it.
I am really endorsing what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East. It seems to me that if we start in that way; if the minister would take those controls to which the leader of the opposition agreed, and if he would draft the bill, starting from that point, we- might _find agreement before we knew where we were.


Mr. HACKETT:: Mr. Chairman, I have been absent from the house, but if reports are true, then neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Minister of Justice have lost much time in my praise.
CMr. MacDonnell.]
I am not given to explaining, much less to complaining. I should, however, like to tell hon. members opposite, when they pound their desks-and I am relying upon what I read in the press in Toronto this morning

and cheer the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and of my Hibernian friend the hon. member for Vancouver East, that this bill is right up their alley. It is a bill which enacts the very legislation that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and those who share his views would enact in permanency, did the people of this country in their wisdom ever call those hon. members to office.
So, when hon. members opposite express approval of the remarks of these hon. gentlemen, I would ask them to recall that there is a difference between the principles of government-in so far as they have any-professed by hon. members opposite and those of the hon. members for Rosetown-Biggar ahd Vancouver East.
I should like to draw this to the attention of the Minister of Justice. He said, as I came into the chamber a few moments ago, that the administration of the controls and the enactment of bill No. 15 were in conformity with the wishes of the great majority of the Canadian people and would have the approval of the great majority of the Canadian people. I suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite that statements of that kind show just how remote the government is from popular sentiment in this country, and if they have any doubt about it I suggest that they refer this matter to a committee and let the people of Canada come before that committee and tell them what they think of controls. If they do that and can convince themselves after they have heard what the people of Canada do think of these regulations and how they long to be freed from them, there will be no further opposition from at least one member of this house.
I should like to know where all these bedtime stories come from, stories of the terrible perils and the dire penalties and severe trials that await the Canadian people if the federal cabinet do not continue these controls. It would be of interest to know the source of these stories, to know their origin. We were given the story by h'on. gentlemen opposite, and I do not question their good faith, but I submit that they are too busy with their duties of office to be in very close touch with the people at large, and I suggest to them that if they will take the time to inquire, they will find out that every little person and every big person in Canada, every housewife, every grocer, every merchant, every mechanic,

National Emergency
every workingman are seeking liberation from the intolerable scourge of control that has been upon us for so long a time.
The hon. member for Vancouver East entered into a homily, as did the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, about the iniquities of the Conservative party in days gone past, but I would draw this to the attention of the committee that, whatever may have been the controls that were exercised by that party, it was during the') period of emergency, and when the period of emergency was over the cabinet control ceased. That is what I ask, and nothing more.


Mr. JAENICKE:: When I spoke on this bill when it was before the house in its original form I voiced three objections, two of which have been cured by this amendment, and the third objection I think has been pretty well met in subsection 3 of section 2, but there is one passage on which I entertain some doubts and of which I should like an explanation from the minister. It is this phraseology:
If either the Senate or House of Commons within the period of twenty-eight days . . . resolves that it be annulled . . .
I think the word "parliament" should be substituted for either house. A resolution to annul an order in council sucR as these would be in the line of legislation, and according to our constitution legislation can only be passed by parliament, which includes the Senate and the House of Commons.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This clause is taken almost verbatim from the act that was passed by the parliament of the Ignited Kingdom.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Their act says "parliament".
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, either house of parliament. I will send a copy of the act over to my hon. friend and he will find that section 4 reads, starting at line 31 on page 3:
. . . and every order in council made under this act. shall be laid before parliament as soon as may be after it is made; and if either house of parliament, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such order in council, order or instrument is laid before it, resolves that it be annulled, it shall cease to have effect, . .
The reason it was expressed in this form, that if either house of parliament resolves that it be annulled it shall cease to have effect, is not because the resolution is regarded as legislation, but because the order in council is regarded as legislation on the assumption that the crown had the consent of both houses of parliament. If either house within the period of twenty-eight days from the time the 47696-190i
order in council is placed before it expresses itself by resolution to the contrary, then the order ceases to have legislative effect.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Would the resolution
have to have the endorsation of the other house?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. But if it is preferred that it should be a resolution of one house concurred in by the other, that would be quite acceptable to the government. The government in making this proposal felt that it should not put this house in the position where, if it resolved that an order in council should not operate, the resolution should be subject to concurrence by the other house before it brought about the cessation of the operation of the order in council. But if the members of the house feel that it is preferable that there should be a resolution of both houses in order to bring about the cessation of effect of an order in council, that would be quite agreeable to the government.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I think that would be the proper procedure, because I doubt very much whether under our constitution either house could pass such a resolution, which has the effect of passirig legislation because it repeals any order in council which is the law.


Mr. LESAGE:: The Minister of Justice said that it was an assumption of the governor in council when an order in council was passed that both houses would approve the order, which is legislation. It may be answered that if both houses adopt bill No. 15, we are surrendering to the government our legislative powers in given matters and that therefore there is no need of this assumption by the governor in council. As an hon. member on the other, side of the house said, when parliament wants to withdraw or to annul an order in council, it is new legislation, and I submit very respectfully that, under our constitution it should be by both houses.
There is another argument, which arises from a practical point of view. Decontrol will be a very difficult thing. Why take the risk that one or both houses would study the matter rapidly, and in supposedly taking off the price ceiling on one commodity, risk a crumbling of the whole economy of control? I think it will be quite easy to add, after the word "annulled" in the fifth line of page 3, the following words, "and the said resolution is concurred in by the other chamber, after formal notification by the initiating chamber," then "it shall cease to have effect." I offer this for the consideration of the Minister of Justice and members of the committee.
National Emergency


Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct two questions to the hon. the Minister of Justice. Does he consider that the powers requested in bill No. 15 as reprinted are less extensive than those that were set forth in the original bill? That is my first question; if the minister will kindly answer it I shall ask him the second one.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, I consider that the powers requested in bill No. 15 as reprinted are less extensive than those set forth in the original bill.


Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: In that case, may I ask the honourable the Minister of Justice whether, when on November 23 he moved the second reading of the original bill No. 15, he was asking for powers more extensive than those which the government needs to deal with the emergency which it claims it has to face?
Mr. ST. LAURENT; The hon. member is a past master when it comes to asking questions which he thinks are disconcerting, but I may say that they do not disconcert me at all. I shall tell him quite frankly that what was requested in the bill introduced on November 23 implied things that are not asked for at this time, but which we have not forgone and will request from parliament through other measures.


Maxime Raymond: I am not at all trying to embarrass the Minister of Justice. I am just seeking information. On November 23, a bill was submitted to us asking for powers that seemed too far-reaching to me, and now, a new measure, a second edition of bill No. 15, is introduced and the minister acknowledges that the powers sought are not so extended. May I not conclude that, when the government submitted the first draft of the bill, they were seeking more extensive powers than warranted by the urgency of the conditions alluded to?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member may draw that conclusion if he wishes, but it is not logical to do so.


Maxime Raymond: Everyone is at liberty to appraise facts and circumstances as he sees them.
(Text.)


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The minister indicated that he would have no objection to changing the wording of subsection 3 so that the resolution to annul must be passed by parliament. The hon. member who spoke a moment ago has suggested some amendment, but I think the whole matter can be cleared up by strik-

ing out the words "either the Senate or House of Commons" and by substituting therefor the word "parliament". I move:
That subsection 3 of section 2 be amended by striking out the words "either the Senate or House of Commons" as said words appear in lines 39 and 40, and substituting therefor the word "parliament."


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Yes. What about "twenty-eight days"? It is too short.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think the hon. member will get from that what he really wants, because if he substitutes "parliament" that would have to be formal legislation, which would require the three branches of parliament; that is to say, the governor general representing His Majesty, the senate, and the commons. So that if it were a resolution of parliament and that resolution were not concurred in by the governor general, it would not become effective. I think it should be "the houses of parliament", because there it is not something which should require the consent of the governor general on the advice of the government to deal with something that the government itself had already dealt with.


Mr JAENICKE:: I am just worrying about the question of constitutionality under the British North America Act.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the result would be achieved by saying, "and if the Senate and House of Commons within a period of twenty-eight days . . . resolve."


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Yes, I think that would meet it. '
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That would mean that the two houses would have to pass the resolution, but that the governor in council would have no right, by refusing assent, to prevent the resolution of the two houses from being effective. If it is the wish of hon. members that that be substituted for the amendment as suggested, the government would have no objection.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I think that if that change were made it might be well also to change "twenty-eight" to "forty"-


Joseph Arthur Lesage: It may be that the senate will not be sitting: that is the trouble.


George Hugh Castleden: -so as to allow sufficient time, as is the case in the British house.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There would be no objection to that. What the government wished to do by that clause was to say

National Emergency
that whatever it did was going to come before the houses of parliament and they would have an opportunity of saying whether they thought it was right or wrong. If hon. members feel that it is better to have two concurring resolutions there is no objection, and if, as is suggested, in order to have two, you should have forty days, there is still no objection. Will the hon. member for Kindersley move that?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I move that thd word "or" in line thirty-nine be struck out, and the word "and" substituted.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That the word "either" be deleted, that the word "or" be replaced by the word "and", and that the words "twenty-eight" be replaced by "forty".


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And the word "resolves" by the word "resolve".


William Ross Macdonald: Does the amendment to the amendment carry?


John Bracken: I have had no opportunity to give much consideration to the suggestion which is made, but I should like the committee to know that we are not asking that that be done. We see no reason why, if the House of Commons wants to oppose some of these regulations or orders in council, we should be prevented from doing so if the other house should object; and if we' are willing to accept that privilege for ourselves, perhaps we cannot ask that it be denied others. We suggest that this action be not taken because we think it would limit our powers in this chamber of dealing with these matters.


George Hugh Castleden: The act as it stands
permits the other place to annul legislation without reference to this house.


John Bracken: Why not make a motion then that they be not given that power if that is what is wanted? Why limit us in the way the proposed amendment would do, just in order to curtail the other place.
Amendment to amendment agreed to on division.	t


George Hugh Castleden: It seems to me that
the debate over the past couple of days has arisen not over the use of powers granted in the bill but rather over the abuse of those powers, and it is against such abuse that hon. members wish to guard. It seems to me that in the past one of the difficulties of members has been the fact that while the house has
not been sitting, orders in council were passed by the hundreds. We did not know what they were and when we arrived in the house they were tabled and that was the end of it. I am particularly pleased to note in the bill now before the house in its transformed state that there are certain provisions which permit annulment if this house so decides. But with regard to the other matter, that members of parliament when the house is not sitting do not know what is happening, it would be well if there were in the bill a provision whereby members could be notified and so make themselves conversant with what the government is doing by order in council. I suggest, therefore, that in this section we might easily provide to that effect. I suggest tfiak another amendment be made to the section to provide, in subsection 3 of section 2, that there be inserted the following words after the word "sitting" in line 38: "shall be published in, the current issue of the Canada Gazette and laid before pai Lament." The clause would then read:	.
Every order in council made under this act shall he laid before parliament within fifteen days after it has been made if parliament is then sitting, or if parliament is not then sitting, shall be published in the current issue of the Canada Gazette and laid before parliament within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
I move that amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Perhaps it would
suit the hon. member's purpose, if, instead of being published in the Canada Gazette, they were published, as in any,* event they will bt. published, in the war orders and regulations now called statutory orders and regulations. That is the publication which contains all, these orders in council as , well as, all orders, made by controllers, by the wartime prices and trade board and so forth. It is intended that, they shall be published, but .perhaps the hon. member prefers that this be put in the bill. They will be published'whether parliament: is sitting or not, and if the hon. member wishes to have something in the bill to that effect, I may say that I had prepared a subsection 4 requiring that these orders be published forthwith in the statutory orders and regulations.	,	,.


George Hugh Castleden: How often is that
published?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Every week. It is
a collection in which all these orders and. regulations appear; there is published with each number a table showing the correlation between them; and every three'months there

National Emergency
is a correlated table published so that it is a more convenient place in which to find such matters.


George Hugh Castleden: I am willing to withdraw- the motion if the minister substitutes his subsection 4 and if that takes care of the matter.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Would this satisfy the hon. member, that subsection 4 read:
Every order in council made under this act shall be published forthwith in statutory orders and regulations.
That is the name of this publication now by reason of the order in council which was tabled the day before yesterday.


George Hugh Castleden: I am agreeable to that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I so move.


William Henry Golding: Mr. Mackenzie moves that the amendment be further amended by adding an additional paragraph to subsection 4 as follows:
Every order in council made under this act shall be published forthwith in statutory orders and regulations.
Amendment to amendment agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to refer to paragraph (b) of subsection I of section 2:
facilitating the readjustment of industry and [DOT]commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace.
That is a very wide power, and there has been no explanation in anything that the minister said in his lengthy disposition on the subject this evening that, I submit, -would justify the granting of that power at this time. As a matter of fact, he indicated that it was so comprehensive a power that so far as the government, is concerned it would not press for its inclusion, and would have no objection to its exclusion. The only reason the minister gave for its inclusion was that it appeared in the British act which was introduced by the Attlee government. Therefore
1	move, seconded by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario:
That paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of section
2	be deleted and that the subsequent paragraphs be renumbered accordingly.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know of anything that would be done for that purpose that could not be done for some of the -other purposes enumerated in paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e), but the law officers feel it might be preferable to have it there. We shall have to table anything that is done. It will have to be for one of those purposes, -and it is suggested that there might be some-
IMr. St. Lament.]
thing under the foreign exchange control regulations that would not be for one of the other purposes enumerated in this section. The judgment of those sitting around me is that it would be safer to leave it there, and that no possible harm can come of it.


John Thomas Hackett: Before we go any farther may I ask the minister if now, or later, I may ask a question about paragraphs (a) and (d) pf subsection 1 of section 2? Would the minister rather deal with it now or dispose of the item before the Chair?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It would be preferable to dispose of what is before the Chair.
Amendment negatived.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The question I should like to ask is confirmed particularly to paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 2, and has to do first of all with the demobilization of the armed forces. Can the minister explain what he has in mind, in view of the fact that extensive powers have already been given to the government up to the end of March, 1946, by bill No. 172, at which time I presume this house will again be in session?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: But at which time the whole of the Canadian troops will not have been demobilized. It is felt that the orders made in that behalf should be such that they can continue to operate as long as there are men being demobilized. These appropriation bills have to deal with the fiscal year; there are a great many things which are done and which have been done, and possibly there may be some more which will have to be done, dealing with the maintenance of the armed forces during the occupation of enemy territory and also with demobilization. The regulations dealing with demobilization are continuing regulations. I think we can probably bring most of them, if not all of them, under the terms of the Militia Act; but during the war we had one act that we could always fall back on. If the Department of Justice were asked if such-and-such an order in council could be made and there was nothing else turned up to justify it there was always the War Measures Act that permitted its being done. I think most of what would be done, for demobilization purposes could be enacted under the Militia Act, but there may be something that has not been foreseen under the Militia Act. Then there is also the rehabilitation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was not asking a question on that. The feeling I have in mind, if the minister will permit me, is that the Department of National Defence has undertaken

National Emergency
to announce the terms of service in the permanent forces by March of next year; and while I appreciate the minister undertaking to table any order in council made under this bill I believe that it might be more practicable if all those terms and all those orders and regulations which affect the armed forces, and which may possibly be of a permanent duration, were made under the terms and regulations governing- the permanent forces, and brought down at that time instead of being regarded as temporary measures under this bill and tabled within twenty-eight days or so after they are made.
I should like a little further explanation of the reasons why it should not be excluded from this bill. At present there is power in bill No. 172, and presumably when it expires there will be power under whatever act or regulations are brought in governing the armed forces. Some better reason should be given why it should not be done then and left out of the present bill.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Anything done under this bill will remain- in force only while the measure itself is in force, and anything that will require t-o have a permanent character will be done under some other provision. It is felt that it may be necessary, in the course of demobilizing the armed forces, to do something which is not sufficiently provided for in the Militia Act. If this were to be permanent legislation, perhaps we should be more careful not to have it overlap something else, but it is for the purpose of facilitating the demobilization of the armed forces, something which will be in force for a period which is said not to be very definite because there is no assurance as to when parliament will meet toward the end of 1946 or the beginning of 1947, but after all it is a relatively short period.


John Thomas Hackett: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question about section 2 (1) (d). I have been unable to find in the War Measures Act or in the first edition of bill No. 15 the equivalent of this paragraph.
I wish to ask the minister first if its equivalent does exist in the War Measures Act or the first edition of the bill and, if it does not, why it is included in the second edition.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think it existed in the first bill, nor do I think it existed under the War Measures Act except in an implied way. Of course under the War Measures Act things were done to relieve suffering in foreign countries. Military relief was provided as part of the military operations, and that was paid for from money appropriated under the war appropriation and under powers conferred by the war appropriation and the War Measures Act. But this is something looking to the possibility of having to do these things during this future period. Of course it does not authorize the governor in council to use any money not appropriated for such purposes or not appropriated in a way that is broad enough to include such purposes. This is the clause that would be relied upon for the purpose of rationing meat or any other rationing that might be imposed to -make greater supplies available for relief purposes. The terms in which it is drawn were taken verbatim from the British bill. The way in which it came about was exactly that. The question was put, where is there here anything that would authorize the rationing of supplies in Canada for the purpose of making greater quantities available for the relief of distress elsewhere? and we were somewhat puzzled as to where we would find the appropriate clause in the bill. We had before us the British act, and we copied that clause word for word.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one question in connection with section 2 (I) (c), which has to do with maintaining, controlling and regulating transportation. Is it a fact that at the dominion-provincial conference the provinces raised objection to any control over road transportation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They questioned the advisability of there being anything in the bill submitted to parliament dealing expressly with road transportation, and wanted to know if it was the intention of the federal government to take over the licensing of automobiles, trucks and other light vehicles. They were assured that there was no intention to interfere with their regulations in connection with motor traffic. But there was in force and there might have to be put in force certain regulations with respect to the use made of the rubber employed in tires for motor trucks and so forth.


John George Diefenbaker: Would that not
come under the control and regulation of supplies?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. One of the regulations had to do with the distance a vehicle might travel. There was a regulation which limited taxis to a certain radius. That would not come under supplies. The question arose as to whether it would not be services, but there was doubt as to whether it would be included in services.


John Thomas Hackett: And bus service, where there was parallel rail service.
National Emergency

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Mr. HAZEN:: Subsection 3 of this section provides for the annulment of orders in council. Has any consideration been given to the amendment of orders in council, which is not provided for by this section?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. What is provided here is that an order in council may be annulled, but it is not provided, that an order in council may be amended by resolution of the house. However, if the temper of the house was that an order in council should be in slightly different form from that in which it appeared, and the house annulled it for that reason, that would be an indication to the government of the kind of order that would meet with the approval of the house; and the house can always deal with these matters by legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The government has assured us that it is not seeking any powers it does not absolutely require, but I cannot escape a feeling of anxiety about the powers it now has. It has powers under two separate acts until March 31, 1946. If hon. gentlemen opposite will read the provisions of the war expenditures appropriation measure they will find that in section 5 the government has practically all the powers for which it asks under the present bill, until March 31, 1946. Since there is provision in bill No. 15 for the tabling of orders in council passed under it, would the minister be prepared to give any assurance that orders in council passed concerning the powers given under this bill will be passed under this bill, so that they will be tabled in the house, rather than under the other act, in order that we may not know what is going on?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think I can give the hon. member any assurance in that regard. The powers in the appropriation act are for the expenditure of the money that has been provided by that act, and I could not give any assurance that when an order in council is passed for the purpose of dealing with some of the money voted in that measure a reference will be made to this bill for the purpose of bringing it before the house. There has to be an accounting of the money that has been expended under the other act; and if this measure was not before the house at all the terms of the other legislation would still be there. If it was felt proper to pass the other bill in the form in which it has been passed I do not think a suggestion should be made at this time that we are going to get powers here but we are going to try to avoid tabling what we do under those powers. We will,

so long as I have anything to say about the matter, try to avoid using these emergency powers-because I do not like them. I think that in the Department of Justice we should endeavour to have done whatever is being done under the permanent legislation. That will be the attempt, so long as I am in that department. When we are consulted, we will try to find a legal way under the permanent legislation of doing what is required.
But of course when it will come to legislating or making new legislation by orders in council we may have to use these provisions. There are some other statutes under which the governor in council is given power to legislate, and the war appropriation measure was a statute of that kind. But it contemplates regulations only to deal with the money that is provided by the statute, and those regulations must not go beyond what is to be paid for out of money provided by statute. It cannot be used mainly for the purpose of making the regulations. The regulation must be incidental to the expenditure of the money.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think, with due respect, the minister has missed my point. I am asking whether orders in council made covering these subjects will not preferably be made under the present measure, rather than under the war appropriation measure. As the minister may recall, at the time that act was before the house objection was taken by the hon. member for Lake Centre and myself to the wide powers given the government to make orders in council, and practically to legislate in that fashion. We objected particularly to the terms giving the governor in council power to do anything he may deem advisable for the security, defence, peace, or welfare of Canada, under that particular appropriation. We said then that we felt that what was done should be done with the authority of parliament rather than by order in council. The minister at that time pointed out, in answer to our objections, that there would very shortly be introduced into the house the emergency powers bill we are now discussing, under which certain specific powers would be asked for, and that that measure would meet the objections we were raising.
What I now ask is this: Will the minister carry out that undertaking and exercise the powers under the present measure, under which he has said he will table orders in council so that we may know what is being done, rather than under the previous measure to which we objected? In order to carry out his undertaking then given, he should agree to see to it that those things are done under

National Emergency
this measure, so that they will be tabled in the house and we shall have full knowledge of what is going on.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not remember the incident. Has the hon. member the page of Hansard where it occurs?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall get it before eleven o'clock.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not remember that. I am sure the hon. member will feel that the Minister of Finance will see to it that any undertaking he gave is carried out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was the Minister of Justice to whom I was referring. When the former measure was under consideration the hon. member for Lake Centre and I objected to the wide powers being given to the governor in council in connection with the security, peace, defence and welfare of Canada. In his reply the Minister of Justice said that our objections were untimely-I believe that was as strong as he put it-in view of the fact that there would be this subsequent bill introduced, and that under it certain specific powers would be asked for. Can the minister give an undertaking on behalf of the government to see that that is done?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not disposed to give any new undertaking on behalf of the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not a new undertaking.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. member did refer to an undertaking on behalf of the government. I am not disposed to give any new undertaking, and I do not remember the incident to which the hon. member refers. He will no doubt call it to our attention. But if any undertaking was given it will certainly be carried out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what I wanted to know.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I say it is not in order to discuss on this measure bills which were previously passed at this session. That is to say, we cannot refer to debates in connection with bills which have been discussed previously at the present session. We are now discussing bill No. 15, and previous debates on any other subject are not in order.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish for only two or three minutes to voice my opposition to this bill. It is the very same bill in a new form as was proposed before, giving vast powers to the governor in council. As hon. members know, under the original War Measures Act and bill No. 15 the courts of this countrythe high courts, the county courts, and the magistrates' courts-have before them cases to decide and give decisions based on the powers herein of the governor in council.
After the dominion-provincial conference which met last week some of those persons who spoke to the newspapers described bill No. 15 as the Donald Gordon plan. This new plan gives the governor in council powers to look after the maintenance of the armed forces of Canada, all trade and commerce and so on. In fact, it is the identical style of bill with the identical powers.
They have abolished these controls in Australia, and the President of the United States has practically eliminated them in that great country. Let me point out that under section 2 there is no doubt that people will be summonsed to court-police courts and other courts of competent jurisdiction-to answer to the same irksome control offences. Is this Liberalism as we have it in this country to-day? Is this what you call Liberalism? -control over the lives of every person, control over every man, woman and child in Canada, and the abolition of statutes which for 200 years have protected the liberty of the subject and of all reference to the law courts who have no control? Everything in the bill is removed from the controls of those courts. They would not stand for this in the United States. Why, we have a regular small standing army of officials in that country. The government knows something of what is going on. That standing army would reach from here to Lansdowne park. The expeditionary force we have over there should learn something of what is being done in that country to abolish all controls. But they have learned nothing.
Over there they have abolished controls. Under section 2 of this bill the small and large businessman would be put out of business. The difference between the new bill and the old one is the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. That is the only difference between these two plans.
Under paragraph (a) the governor in council has power to provide for and maintain the armed forces of Canada during the occupation of enemy territory; it has power to facilitate the readjustment of industry, and also other powers. Small and large business, and every manufacturer in the country have been asking for the removal of these irksome controls. How does the government expect war-time economies to be turned into peace-time economies of large and small business when we have these irksome controls placed upon individuals?
Questions

The people whom we have been giving credit < for the formulation of this new plan will be glad to be free of it, when they see how unpopular it is throughout the country. I know something of the way in which these irksome controls have operated during the war years and the effect they have had on business generally.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, December 6, 1945.