1950-09-09

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Montreal Gazette this morning has a front page story stating that members of parliament want payment for a session rather than a per diem allowance. The paragraph to which I wish to draw attention particularly states:
This fight for more than the $25 per diem now allowed members for attending this special session was really begun by some C.C.F. members, one of them urging that a sessional indemnity of $4,000 be somehow provided.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is aware of my view that if the session is adjourned and not prorogued, payment of the indemnity should be suspended during the recess and that the balance should be paid when the session is completed after it resumes next year. However, I believe it is just and fair that members who have been put to inconvenience should receive the usual per diem allowance of $25 when this short session ends; and if the government feels that members should receive an allowance for a few additional days, when they responded to the call to Ottawa and arrived before the session began, I think there could be no objection to that. But I want it to be quite clear that no C.C.F. member has approached me urging payment of a full sessional indemnity for the present session, a suggestion to which I am opposed.
My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has stated in the house that during this period of crisis the house should be adjourned, but he has also stated to the Prime Minister that he agrees with him-that is, with the Prime Minister-that this should not involve payment of a full sessional indemnity for this short session.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: With your consent, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to raise the question I have in mind at this point. Hon.
members came here for the purpose of assisting, expediting and furthering whatever might be done to enable us to play our part in the common task of preserving peace. On previous occasions the question has been raised as to the necessity of meeting at eleven o'clock in the morning at this stage of the proceedings. In the first place it had not been intended that we should meet so soon to discuss these questions. Probably we should have met much sooner, but the fact remains that the government had not so intended. Now we are being pressed forward as though there were some urgent deadline that we must meet. Today we are being called upon to consider two extremely important measures that will have a wide influence upon the whole economic life of our people. These bills were handed to the members who were fortunate enough to be on hand to receive them-and I emphasize that-just before ten o'clock today. I therefore suggest, through you, sir, to the Prime Minister, in view of the importance of the measures before us, that with the consent of the house we rise until three o'clock this afternoon. That would be the minimum period within which we could possibly give consideration to these bills and to the implications of measures which will have such sweeping consequences in the daily life of all our people.


Major James William Coldwell: The
protest made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is one with which we have sympathy. If the house is going to rise, however, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister that we resume earlier than three o'clock, say perhaps at two o'clock. This would give us more time to consider these measures.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to add any extensive remarks to what I have said, but I strongly urge the Prime Minister not to becloud the discussion of a very important subject at the beginning by any vigorous argument in answer to our contention as to the impropriety of dealing with these bills on such short notice.


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I am sure no one would wish to have measures of this kind adopted without adequate consideration. On the other hand the suggestion that the house rise at this time to meet again at three o'clock this afternoon would disturb some tentative plans

Business of the House
which we hoped might be realized. I understand that there is a possibility the other place will have considered before 12.45, the bill concerning the defence forces, and that in the course of the morning there might be a letter delivered to the Speaker from Government House informing him that the Deputy Governor General would be present to give the royal assent to that measure at 12.45.
Would it suit the convenience of members, if it is felt that there should be time to consider the terms of these bills-though they are very much in the terms of the resolutions which preceded them-to adjourn and return here at the call of the Chair, but not for anything more than the purpose of proceeding to the other place for royal assent? Then we could meet at three o'clock this afternoon to deal with the ordinary business of the house.


Mr. Knowles:: Was it the intention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to make a speech on moving second reading of Bill No. 5?


Mr. Howe:: No, Mr. Speaker; I have nothing more in the way of a speech than the one I made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My reason for asking that is obvious, because if he were going to make a speech we might have it now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would it meet the convenience of all members to meet at the call of the Chair for the purpose of proceeding to the other place, and then meet again at three o'clock this afternoon?


George Alexander Drew: That would be satisfactory.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Then I would move-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the house would care to proceed so far as calling the orders of the day at this time?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to appear to be pressing the point, but these measures are of the utmost importance. Those who are going to be called upon to deal with them, and accept their parliamentary responsibility in doing so, have an obligation to examine the terms and consider the effect of the words that are used in relation to those two subjects. If we proceed now to the orders of the day I believe, sir, you will realize that we might be engaged for some time in discussions that are not related to these subjects.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) if the arrangements now being made with regard to the sittings mean that we are coming back here to remain until eleven o'clock tonight? Last night the leader of the

house said that these two bills would be considered this morning, and if we got through with them some time this afternoon or this evening the house would adjourn for the remainder of the day.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: That is right.


Clarence Gillis: I appreciate the difficulties of the leader of the opposition so far as he is personally concerned; but there are a lot of other members who, accepting the schedule set out last night, have made other arrangements outside of this house. Personally I would much rather go on with the business now, and carry out the arrangement that was made last night.
I know these bills are serious and important, but there is nothing new in them; they are a modified arrangement of what this country has previously experienced. Unfortunately the leader of the opposition was not here in 1939, 1940 and 1941, but I repeat that there is nothing new in these bills and I am quite prepared to discuss them now. 1 do not want to sit tonight from six until eleven o'clock. The arrangement that suits me best is the arrangement that we go ahead now to complete this business, and then have the evening free.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am just as anxious as anyone to have a respite, but I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will agree that parliament ought not to be required to pass bills faster than the government can print them.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, having raised this point I do not want to inject any feeling into the discussion. I must, however, express some surprise than an hon. member who is usually so practical in his approach to matters in the house should make such utterly impractical comments. He may not be aware of the fact that, although 1 was not here during those years, I can read. I am aware of the discussion which took place, and for that very reason I am anxious, as I think every other member should be anxious, to compare the wording of these bills with the previous wording and have some regard to the legal decisions which have an effect upon the interpretation that is to be placed upon those words at this time. After all, I for one am seeking to accept the obligation of making decisions in this house with knowledge of the effect of the measures we are called upon to discuss.
Without saying more at this moment, I suggest to the Prime Minister that it would be an affront to parliament and to the people of Canada to deal with these measures at this moment when most of the members have not had a chance to read the bills. Many of those

who are expressing concern about going ahead so fast have not yet even seen the bills.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, only because I have a better suggestion to make than anyone has yet made. My suggestion is that we accept the evident willingness of the Prime Minister to adjourn now until three o'clock, subject only to the call of the Chair for the purpose mentioned; and, since it is quite clear that we have to be here next week anyway, there is no reason why the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and other gentlemen who have made agreeable arrangements for this evening-I am only sorry I am not one of them-cannot also carry out their arrangements by the simple expedient of the house adjourning at six o'clock.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: After hon. members have had time to read these bills and to compare them with what has been said, I hope that by six o'clock the arrangement outlined last night by the leader of the house can be carried out.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that we now take recess and meet again at the call of the Chair?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 11.30 a.m. the sitting of the house was suspended during pleasure.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 12.45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, September 9, 1950
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 9th of September, 1950, at 12.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to a bill.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act respecting the Canadian forces.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



RAIL CONNECTION TO BORDER BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, based on a news dispatch appearing in this morning's papers quoting a statement by Senator Magnuson of the state of Washington. It reads:
The United States state department has told the Canadian government it wants to start discussions this month on proposals that a railroad be built through Canada to Alaska.
Can the minister give the house some indication as to how far those discussions have proceeded?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The information which I have at my disposal at the moment does not quite bear out the accuracy of that report. I should like to look into the matter and give a more considered reply on Monday.


Gordon Graydon: There is something in it?



PASSPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Mallais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, arising out of a dispatch appearing in yesterday's newspapers stating that there are a number of young Canadians in Russia for a certain purpose. I should like to know whether passports were issued to those young Canadians. I refer particularly to Guy Caron, of Montreal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice -of his question, and I had some investigations made. The newspaper report which has been mentioned refers to six persons as being members
508	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of a group who had proceeded to Russia. I may say that no passports have been issued by my department for the purpose of facilitating travel to the U.S.S.R. by the group of six which the hon. member mentions. Our records show that four of this group were issued passports in 1948, 1949 and 1950. Those passports were issued in the normal way for travel to all countries; there was no specific mention of any particular country. We have no record of two of the six having been issued passports. The man mentioned, Guy Caron, did apply for a passport, valid for all countries, on May 31, 1950.


Gordon Graydon: In view of the discussions which took place in the external affairs committee last session I should like to ask if the government has given consideration to tightening up the passport privileges with respect to persons such as those who have been mentioned here and other well-known communists so that they cannot go behind the iron curtain at will?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Active consideration is being given to that question at the moment. There are obvious difficulties in the way of having restrictions of this kind on passports. There is also the fact that a refusal to issue a passport does not mean that the man who wishes to go to Russia cannot get there. The whole question is under consideration at the moment in an effort to see what we can do, if anything, to prevent this practice of communists leaving Canada to go to the U.S.S.R. for subversive purposes. [DOT]


Major James William Coldwell: Does a Canadian citizen require a passport'to leave? Is it not the option of the country which he desires to enter whether he shall be admitted without a passport?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is one of the difficulties. A Canadian citizen does not need a passport to leave Canada. A Canadian citizen needs a visa from a foreign country to get into that country, but that is quite different.


Gordon Graydon: Is there not a sort of official imprimatur when a passport is issued to a Canadian citizen which might well be misrepresented by him?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not interpret the issuance of a passport as granting to the holder of the passport any special privileges or special status. However, we are looking into the whole question.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: As
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is not in


his seat at the moment, may I ask his parliamentary assistant if the report of the unemployment insurance advisory committee tabled yesterday will be printed and distributed?


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: I shall take up the matter with the minister to see if that request can be met.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked me whether a report had been received from the international joint commission with respect to flood control in the Red river valley. Perhaps I may be permitted to answer his inquiry now.
While no such report has as yet been received, I might take this occasion to make a brief statement on this matter. On June 29 of this year the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) informed Premier Campbell of Manitoba that the government was planning to have the Department of Resources and Development undertake engineering studies with regard to reduction of flood hazards in consultation with the international joint commission, the government of Manitoba, and local authorities. This arrangement has now been completed and I understand that the Department of Resources and Development have begun the surveys and investigations. Arrangements have been made so that the closest contact between the Department of Resources and Development and the Canadian section of the international joint commission may be maintained in the planning and execution of the investigations and studies which will be undertaken. All the information resulting from the Canadian study will be made available to the Canadian section of the international joint commission for the use of the Canadian members when the commission is discussing the international aspects of the matters which were referred to it by the United States and Canadian governments in 1948.
There has been the closest and most active liaison between the agencies concerned. The most recent meeting was held in Winnipeg last week end with representatives from the international joint commission, the diking board, the provincial government and the Department of Resources and Development.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask if there is any liaison between the Department of Resources and Development of Canada and whatever department is its opposite number in the United States, other than through the international joint commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that liaison is maintained exclusively through the international joint commission.



CANADIAN MARITIME COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I ask the Minister of Transport whether printed copies of the annual report of the Canadian maritime commission are available? Earlier in the week he tabled a typewritten report, but I believe it is of sufficient importance to have a distribution made of printed copies at the earliest possible moment.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The printed reports are not available yet. I hope they will be available by next week, when they will be delivered to hon. members.



ESSENTIAL MATERIALS (DEFENCE) ACT PROVISION FOR CONTROL AND REGULATION OF PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF ESSENTIAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES

Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 5, respecting materials and services essential for the purposes of defence and national security.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the hours this house now sits, it becomes most difficult to consider properly and debate effectively the matters of bewildering complexity now coming before us. A bill is produced at 10.51; parliament meet at 11.00, which of course makes it impossible to discuss the bill in an intelligent way. Yesterday we had an explanation by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), but the bill itself, amplifying his views expressed at that time, has been before us for only a very few hours. Having regard to its importance, and indeed to the importance of many of these measures, if parliament is properly to discharge its functions and members of parliament are not to be mere rubber stamps to certify what the cabinet wants done, more time should be given for deliberation and consideration. But, a majority in parliament has spoken, and we must proceed in accordance with the dictates of that majority. In discussing this bill,
Essential Materials (Defence) Act however, in view of the fact that such discussion must be in general terms I feel that some latitude might be given, since these are new and novel sections which in their purport and result will effect tremendous changes in our economy.
I have asked on previous occasions during the last few days what is the over-all plan of the government. Is it to be manpower? Is it to be industrial production? Is it to be the expansion and development of our resources? Or is it to be all three? What are our responsibilities under the Atlantic pact and under the United Nations charter? Invariably the answer given in parliament has been that as yet there is no decision oi determination concerning those matters. But, Mr. Speaker, from time to time statements emanate from Ottawa, from so-called unofficial but authoritative sources, unnamed or incognito; and these sources invariably indicate the attitude of the government by way of anticipation. About August 19 an unofficial but authoritative report from Ottawa suggested that Canada's role in building up North Atlantic defences may be to concentrate on the production of equipment for the European members of the pact. In its issue of that date the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix says we may be pretty sure-
-that the report is true. For it fits into the mosaic of official statements and conferences of the past few weeks, including the meetings of the council of North Atlantic deputies in London and the joint industrial mobilization committee in Ottawa.
Then the editorial had this to say:
Against the striking force which Russia has available, western Europe has twelve divisions at most, and less than 6,000 aircraft.
Again quoting from the London Economist:
Apart from the American lead in the manufacture of atomic bombs, a weapon whose effect upon the strategic course of a war with Russia is quite unknown, the west is as inferior in front line strength in relation to Russia as it was in 1939 in relation to Germany.
The same editorial goes on to indicate that in the mobilization of this country for total defence and the discharge of our responsibilities under various pacts, what will be accentuated will be the priorities necessary to assure the production of the instruments of defence and of war. At this time I feel that Canadians as a whole-and though this has been said before I believe it bears repetition- in the interests of survival are prepared to sacrifice greatly in material ways; but they are asking that in this mobilization, of which this measure is a part, there be the strictest economy in the matter of government spending on public buildings and so on. Indeed, one of the finest discussions on the subject of what should be done was by Bernard M.
510	HOUSE OF
Essential Materials (Defence) Act Baruch in a speech delivered before the senate banking and currency committee at Washington last July. He first pointed out our danger, and said:
All of us-in this country and abroad-would have had to live at the point of a gun.
That is, had the United Nations not acted.
America has taken its stand against aggression and international blackmail. Whatever the cost, I feel sure the American people will see it through- provided they are told what is expected of them and why.
Then he went on to point out some of the things that must be done, and said:
No more effective move to achieve economy in government can be taken than to stop inflation- now. At a time like this, all postponable government expenditures should be eliminated. Each day that prices rise the real value of every dollar appropriated by congress shrinks. More billions will have to be voted to buy the same things, the national debt will mount needlessly.
Inflation is the Pied Piper that draws to their destruction the people supporting it or permitting it. Mr. Baruch concludes by making his suggestions, which are so applicable here in part-the organizing of all-out mobilization; the elimination of profiteering. How necessary that is today! I repeat what I have said on previous occasions, that the Combines Investigation Act should be used against those who, at a time like this or at any other time, would take advantage of the people of this country to the detriment of the nation as a whole.
Mr. Baruch then refers to the postponing of less essential expenses. A reading of the public accounts would show-and I could deal with this matter at length-that unnecessary expenditures in connection with travelling and other allowances must be eliminated. The promise to do those things next year does not meet the demand of the day.
Finally, he says that we should strengthen the United Nations by co-ordinating our efforts with it in common defence of peace. There should be speedier assistance in the rearming of those nations which are ready to resist aggression.
In general that represents the situation with which we are faced today. I know, sir, that in the interests of what is called efficient government-I would put that word "efficient" in italics-parliament is often bypassed. During the last ten days I believe parliament has shown that it is effective, that it is efficient, that it is willing to act if given the opportunity to act and the leadership requiring action. As I read this bill, my mind goes back to the transitional powers acts beginning in 1945 and continuing until 1949. Tremendous powers, under order in council, were placed in the hands of the government.


No one says that they are dictators at heart, but the power to dictate, when it is an unlimited power uncontrolled by a vigilant parliament, is an invitation to ask for greater powers.
Only a few months ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce asked for powers to enable him to control in large measure the production and requirements for defence purposes. Now we come to a further bill, and in its request for unlimited powers it goes further than any other legislation that has ever been brought before this house. It starts off with a noble manifesto as a preamble, but without the usual declaration of an emergency which is necessary if the courts are to declare the right of parliament to invade provincial rights. But you see, Mr. Speaker, the government could not declare an emergency in this preamble. So far all its legislation has been predicated on the assumption that there is not an emergency now. It is only after we wait for ten months or longer that the situation may worsen so as to amount to an emergency. The leisurely way in which the government intended to call parliament together, until the strike took place, indicates that it did not regard the situation as emergent.
We come now to the powers. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I shall refer in general to the sections with a view to founding the argument I intend to place before the house.
According to the bill, "defence purposes" means the purposes of ensuring the availability and use of essential materials and services to meet the requirements of the defence forces of Canada and to ensure national security. "Essential materials" means such materials and substances as are designated from time to time by the governor in council under section 3 as being essential for defence purposes. Section 3 says:
The governor in council may from time to time
(a)	designate as essential materials such materials or substances as in his opinion are essential for defence purposes:
(b)	designate as essential services the carrying on of such commercial activities, ... as in his opinion are essential for the adequate production, storage or distribution of essential materials . . .
The power contained in that section is an absolute power-the power to control production, storage and distribution of any commodity that the government in its wisdom decides to bring within the ambit of this bill. In our opinion, sir, that is- too wide a power. It conveys as well the meaning that the agricultural production, of this country, such as wheat for instance, may be declared an essential material for defence purposes. Once that has been done, the minister has

uncontrolled power to require any person who produces, processes, deals in or has in his possession or control any essential materials, to sell or dispose of them at whatever price the minister may declare. Now, that places in the hands of.a minister of the crown power and control which, unless they are surrounded by clauses that will define them, are too great.
We are prepared, and the nation is prepared, to grant powers to the government to act. But surely that power should be defined in far from the general terms that are set out in section 4 of the bill. The general terms require a person who supplies any materials, produces or processes it, to do what he is directed to do by the minister who prescribes the circumstances and terms. Finally, as though those powers were not sufficient, the minister is empowered to do such further things in regard to production, supply, and distribution of essential materials or essential services as may be authorized by order or regulation of the governor in council.
This indeed constitutes a complete control by the government of all the natural resources of the nation, with one minister of the crown having the absolute power to determine when, where, at what price, and under what circumstances the materials which have been designated as defence materials shall be disposed of. That is a tremendous power, and we believe it should be restricted; it should not be unlimited. Some will say to me: In days of stress and difficulty, must we not be prepared to give up parliamentary rights? In reply I say: Yes, in the nature of things parliament and the people as a whole must place many of these democratic powers in the hands of the executive, as a pawn, as it were, for security. But, as has been said in the British House of Commons, parliament must see to it that absolute power shall not be placed in the hands of any one person.
Through the years the power of the cabinet has grown, and this has been particularly so since 1914. We have had two wars in a generation. The cabinet today is more powerful than it was during the days of Walpole. Many of the prerogatives and privileges of parliament have been abdicated, either intentionally or unconsciously, through the years, until today parliament too often is in the position described by Professor Dawson, in his work "Democratic Government in Canada", in these words:
The House of Commons would thus seem to have degenerated into little more than a ratifying body for cabinet proposals, a representative chamber which the cabinet uses as a convenient screen to hide its exercise of supreme political authority. The
Essential Materials (Defence) Act
cabinet has apparently ceased to be responsible to the Commons; the Commons has to all intents and purposes become responsible to the cabinet.
While this is an oversimplification and an exaggeration of the actual condition, it contains a substantial amount of truth.
These are not my words; they are the words of an outstanding professor of political economy.
I mention another outstanding professor who on more than one occasion in this house has been quoted as an authority. I refer to Professor Lower, of Queen's university. Indeed, on one occasion the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) quoted from him to answer an argument that I advanced. In a memorandum submitted to the special committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms on June 6, Professor Lower said this:
The all-powerful modern executive: I have suggested above that we have arrived at a point where the executive has become exceedingly powerful and in some respects irresponsible. Many people might wish to challenge this point of view, but there is no space here to debate it at length. However, my view is that under modem parliamentary conditions, the executive, that is to say the cabinet, represents such an extreme concentration of power that it is able for most of the time to impose its will not only upon the individual member, but on parliament as a whole. Moreover the executive is so removed from the average voter that the idea of responsible government becomes considerably watered down. It has been said, and, I think, well said, that what we have under our system of government in Canada is the election every five years of something resembling a dictatorship.
Fortunately for us in Canada, the dictators whom we elect do not have many qualities that normally come with dictators; therein lies our liberty.
Then he says this:
The man in office invariably wants more power; he always wants a sharp sword to cut through the difficulties of the moment, and it is only human nature that he should do so. It is often difficult to advance good reasons against some measure which will result in an increase of efficiency. But those who are accustomed to view such measures in social and historical terms know very well that efficiency can easily be the death of liberty.
By granting the powers asked for in this bill, parliament will be abdicating to the minister and to the government complete power over production and distribution of everything produced in this country that is necessary for defence. Such powers should be examined.
Such powers should be carefully delineated; for over the years we have seen the use of power in our country in such a way as to be detrimental, on occasion, to the rights of the individual and to this country.
Realizing that we have a responsibility to make sure that those in authority may act in an emergency, we feel that instead of provision being made for power which is wide, uncontrolled and untrammelled, there should be reasonable restrictions to its use, or at least

Essential Materials (Defence) Act to its abuse. The only control that we shall have will be that every order or regulation made by the governor in council under sections 3, 4 or 10-
-shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette and shall be laid before parliament within ten days after publication thereof, if parliament is then in session, or, if parliament is not then in session, within ten days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
There should be some provision under which an opportunity would be provided in the House of Commons for a motion, to be considered at any time after parliament opens, for reconsideration of any powers used under this act. In other words, as the matter stands today, all that we have will be knowledge. What we shall not have in the House of Commons is the power to say that the rights we have thus granted have in fact been abused.
The minister was not even satisfied with having such widespread powers. He went even further in this bill. Regulations of course are made by departmental officials and, in general, are approved by order in council. But in order to get around the necessity of regulations being made, there is here a provision that again extends to the minister too great powers. Section 4, subsection 2, reads as follows:
Subject to the regulations, if any, the minister may by order, as he deems necessary for the purposes of this act, . . .
In other words, if there are regulations, he will be controlled by them, but if there are no regulations, he can simply act by his own order, regardless of any other consideration than his whim and his authority.
All of us want to make sure that there shall be a maximum of power to act in an emergency. All of us on this side of the house have contended that there is in fact an emergency. But what we ask is that in this abdication by parliament of its powers and its control, the authority of the minister and of the governor in council shall be circumscribed to the extent that parliament shall know the commodities as to which it is intended to use this power. After the experience of the last few years I do not think that the farmers of the prairie provinces will want to see any parliament place in the hands of the government the power to sell their wheat at whatever price may be determined by the minister. We are empowering the minister to designate any commodity-and it could be wheat-to determine its price, to determine how it shall be produced, and where, and in what amount. Wheat and other foodstuffs are necessities of

war and of defence and could be brought under this act.
We feel that we have the right to ask what commodities the minister has in mind, instead of giving him blanket power to control all the industrial and agricultural production of our country-and he will do it without the right of parliament to do anything about it; all that parliament will be able to do is to learn the effects of that action after the implementation of the powers has been carried out. It may learn what has been done, but there is no provision, as there is in the British legislation, giving hon. members the right to move a motion for the purpose of withdrawing or diminishing the exercise of the minister's power in respect of any commodity. For these reasons, without going into further detail, and in order to show our realization of the need of powers but not uncontrolled powers, I move, seconded by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew):
That Bill No. 5 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that while this house is ready and anxious to adopt all appropriate measures which will prevent economic hardship and disorder on a national scale and provide for the necessary regulation of the production, distribution and use of materials and services for defence purposes, it regrets the circumstances connected with the introduction and prosecution of this measure, namely, that the government has failed to name and declare the national emergency upon which it seeks to base authority for this bill and has not specified the materials and services which are to be subject to the provisions of the bill.
By the authority given in this bill there is an invasion of the authority vested in the provinces under our constitution. Full consideration should have been given by the dominion-provincial conference to the question of the granting of some of these powers, with a view to arriving at that unity and co-operation which will assure that our defence shall indeed be the best available. We have a bill, without any declaration of an emergency, constituting in large measure the control of property and civil rights which come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, and at the same time failing to designate or circumscribe, or at least to delineate, the extent of the power being granted.
In the opinion of the official opposition, necessary as measures are, inflation proceeds apace; the cost of living mounts every day; the flames of inflation are being extended by borrowing and by unnecessary government expenditures. While these things are happening, what the government proposes to do is simply this. It will provide some few controls on credit, and finally under this legislation place in the hands of the minister arbitrary, uncontrolled and unusual powers to do whatever he deems to be necessary.

It empowers him to direct the price of farm products, to provide for their disposal and to provide for the control of industrial production. With all these powers, no provision is made for the necessary manpower to put into actual execution the high-sounding declaration of the preamble.
I therefore move the motion that I have placed before you, Mr. Speaker, hoping that the government, while seeking emergency powers at this time, will not ask parliament to give up all its authority in favour of the cabinet, and more particularly in favour of a minister, but that parliament will assure that while it is prepared to waive many of its traditions and rights in the interests of our survival, as we see it, parliament must remain the custodian of the people's rights. If can only remain so if in the legislation it passes it provides for controls over those who would control, to the end that the supremacy of parliament may be maintained.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: In rising to take part in this debate, which I had not intended to do until we had the great privilege of listening to the speech which has just been concluded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), I desire first of all to congratulate him upon the imposing edifice of argument he has erected before our eyes this afternoon. If I may be permitted to say so, I have never heard the hon. member in better form. The architectural beauty of the edifice is great; it is a very imposing one. The only fault that can be found with it is that in his preoccupation with the edifice itself he has not taken sufficient pains to construct a firm foundation for it, because he based his argument upon certain statements of fact and certain points of law, every one of which, if I may say so, is completely inaccurate.
To begin with, the hon. member said that the request for unlimited powers which is contained m this legislation goes further than anything in any act ever before passed by this house. In my remarks today I want to confine myself entirely to the legal aspect of this matter; I shall not deal with any of the substantial reasons for the passage of this bill, which were so convincingly delineated by my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). But, in so far as this legal question is concerned, I think it may be agreed that this government, acting under powers sought and obtained by the government of Sir Robert Borden in 1915, and under the War Measures Act-under powers immensely wider than those contained in the present measure-has conducted the affairs of this country in a way which has proven fairly acceptable to the people of Canada, and in 69262-33
Essential Materials (Defence) Act a way which has not destroyed the power of parliament. And although we have listened, as we all have had to listen from time to time, to the interminable arguments about the alleged abuse of powers under the War Measures Act, arguments advanced by hon. members of the opposition, and by none more volubly then by the hon. member himself, we seem not to have abridged in any way the powers of parliament.
My hon. friend suggests that parliament, by reason of the passage of this measure, would not have the power to question the orders passed by the government under it. Surely that is one of the weakest foundations of his argument. He must know that at a subsequent meeting of parliament, if there are any orders which this government have passed pursuant to these or the much broader powers under the War Measures Act, parliament can, by introducing an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, put out of office the government that has abused the powers delegated. My hon. friend must know that; it is the A B C of our constitutional practice-and, as my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) now reminds me, the same opportunity is available on the budget debate, and it is available on other occasions as well.
For the hon. member to get up and make the proposition, which I should have thought any grade ten schoolboy would have known better than to make, that parliament, having delegated powers, could not supervise by its control over the executive the exercise of those powers, seems to me to be a weak and unreasonable foundation upon which to build the imposing set of accusations he has brought against the government this afternoon.
My hon. friend says that these are very great powers, far more than have ever been granted by parliament on any previous occasion. During two world wars the government of those days-by orders in council wholly, and not by a statute directed specifically toward a certain subject matter or a certain problem as we have here today- created a great body of law which imposed control of every sort and description over-the whole of our economy.
They did it under a statute passed by parliament in 1914, at the instance of the Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden, and couched in language in which I think no statute could be wider in its terms.


John George Diefenbaker: You are speaking of the War Measures Act?

Essential Materials (Dejence) Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. And this is what the relevant section of the War Measures Act says:
The governor in council-
I would ask my hon. friend to listen to these words, which apparently he overlooked entirely, in view of the argument he made-


John George Diefenbaker: No, no.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It says:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations as-
As to what? -essential materials? Currency and credits? No. Much more than these subject matters.
-as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
Under the War Measures Act the governor in council may order as he pleases, as he deems necessary. But my hon. friend has made his argument in relation to a bill in which we provide-I shall read this relevant section as one of the sections he did not read, -the section which states the purpose of the present bill:
4. (1) The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he deems necessary-
Period? No.
-for the purposes of this act to control and regulate the production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition or use of essential materials or the supply or use of essential services.
In other words, the powers taken by the government under this measure, or proposed to be taken by the government, are not completely unlimited, as they were under the War Measures Act. On the contrary they are confined solely to essential materials.
If I understood him correctly, my hon. friend would have us believe that because "essential materials" is defined to mean-
-such materials and substances as are designated from time to time by the governor in council under section 3 as being essential for defence purposes-
-the government can arbitrarily and irresponsibly designate any kind of material as essential material. Now, my hon. friend must know, if he has any appreciation of responsible government under the British system-


John George Diefenbaker: That is what we are trying to preserve-responsible government.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -that the governor in council, under powers of this sort, has to carry on these powers with some sense of responsibility. If my hon. friend has any doubt
IMr. Diefenbaker.]
whether this government carried out those duties with a sense of responsibility, then he has only to go back to the long record over the years in which, with infinitely wider powers, we showed such a sense of responsibility that the people of Canada a year ago last June gave some indication that they did not regard our actions as those of a government seeking to demolish the rights of parliament.


George Alexander Drew: What a pitiful performance!


Mr. Abbott:: I have seen some worse recently.


George Alexander Drew: You are quite right; we heard you.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I don't think we should complain about my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. After all, we are very grateful to him as one of the biggest assets the Liberal party has in this country.


George Alexander Drew: Politics all the time!


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now, the hon. member for Lake Centre was inaccurate enough, in all truth, in his oral presentation today; but it is not until he indicates his stand in black and white that he really gets up to the peak of inaccuracy. He brings before the house an amendment to this effect:
That Bill No. 5 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that while this house is ready and anxious to adopt all appropriate measures which will prevent economic hardship and disorder on a national scale and provide for the necessary regulation of the production, distribution and use of materials and services for defence purposes, it regrets the circumstances connected with the introduction and prosecution of this measure,-
And listen to this!
-namely, that the government has failed to name and declare the national emergency upon which it seeks to base authority for this bill and has not specified the materials and services which are to be subject to the provisions of the bill.
Now I say this in response to the interjection a few moments ago by the leader of the opposition about always playing politics: that ' even in times like the present, and in a matter of great essentiality to this country, my hon. friend from Lake Centre seeks to drag into this discussion the subject of provincial rights, and allege that because we have not declared an emergency we have invaded provincial rights. In addition to that argument being highly irrelevant and, if I may use the word, rather mischievous, it also happens to be completely inaccurate from the standpoint of the law, because we have not been under any necessity of declaring an emergency in this matter.
If we had been seeking all those great powers which my hon. friend accuses us of seeking, what would have been more simple

than to invoke the provisions of the statute passed by Sir Robert Borden? What would have prevented us from declaring that we were in a state of apprehended war? It would not have been unreasonable for us to avail ourselves by order in council of all the powers which that statute gives us. But instead of doing that-and we might just as well have done it for all the credit my hon. friend gives us, because he attacks us for doing the very thing that we leaned over backwards not to do-instead of doing that, we took this action.


John George Diefenbaker: There should have been a declaration that the situation was serious and emergent.
Mr. Gar son: I listened to my hon. friend with great interest, and I hope he will reciprocate. I would have thought that a perusal of the preamble of this bill by an eminent lawyer like the hon. member for Lake Centre would have disclosed that it was not based upon the declaration of an emergency or a state of apprehended war, but was being introduced for the reasons made very clear by the preamble. I think a reading of the preamble will make clear the constitutional basis for this statute; he who runs may read. It is as follows:
Whereas, the United Nations, of which Canada is a member, has found it necessary in the interests of world peace to take action to repel unprovoked aggression and to avert war;
And whereas the parliament of Canada has approved action by Canada, in discharge of its obligations under the charter of the United Nations, to assist in the measures taken by the United Nations;
And whereas effective action by Canada in order to safeguard the national security and to assist the United Nations in accordance with its obligations make it necessary to provide for defence preparations on a greatly increased scale;
That is a simple proposition. We have been going over it and emphasizing and discussing it. That is the very thing my hon. friends have been discussing so vehemently and at such great length in this session. The preamble continues:
And whereas steel and other materials and electrical energy and other services will be urgently required for such defence preparations and it is expected that the supply of such materials and services may be insufficient to meet such requirements together with the requirements of normal trade and commerce;
How many times have the members of my hon. friend's party been stressing the facts that are recited in this preamble? It goes on:
And whereas, in order to avert possible disruption of such defence preparations, to lessen the resultant disruption of normal trade and commerce and to prevent economic disorder and hardship on a national scale it is essential in the interest of Canada as a whole to provide for the control and regulation of the production, distribution and use of such materials and services . . .
In drafting this bill it was not in any sense necessary for us to think of infringing in 69262-33i
Essential Materials (Defence) Act any way upon those subject matters which are reserved to the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces. We are legislating fairly and squarely within the specific provisions of section 91 of the British North America Act, which set out clearly the powers of the dominion parliament, namely, trade and commerce and defence. That is the foundation of parliament's authority and that is the solution to-this great mystery that seems to puzzle my hon. friend as to why there is no recital of an emergency.
As I have said, if we had been anxious to take unto ourselves great powers under the present circumstances we could have done it under the other legislation. If We had attempted, as the hon. member seeks to insinuate, to invade the jurisdiction of the provinces, what simpler device could have been used than to declare there was a state of apprehended war? We have not done that. I think any reasonable person will agree that the measures taken are no more than are-necessary to deal with the serious situation with which we are confronted; and the powers, we are asking are much less than the powers which on the previous occasion we exercised with excellent judgment and excellent discretion, and which exercise of powers has been approved, not only by this parliament but by the people of Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the argument of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) with a great deal of interest. It is perfectly true that this is an important bill. The preamble states that the bill is made necessary because of an emergency with which the country is now faced in the realm of defence. We know that legislation of a similar sort, as has already been pointed out, was enacted during the two wars under the War Measures Act of 1914.
I can quite understand why the government did not proclaim the War Measures Act again because it would involve the recognition that there is a state of apprehended war. To declare that we are facing a state of apprehended war at this time would give an entirely erroneous impression to the people of Canada and indeed to the people generally across the world. I think therefore it would be a mistake to proclaim that act at the present time when we still hope to prevent war.
At the same time I am in agreement with the hon. member for Lake Centre when he says that action of this sort should be taken under a comprehensive statute. Such a statute should have been passed because throughout this short session we have been talking about
5IS	HOUSE OF
Essential Materials (Defence) Act an emergency. It seems to me that we should have been asked to pass an act of a somewhat different nature to the War Measures Act but one that recognized there was an emergency under which the government must be given certain statutory powers outlined in the legislation.
If our supreme court declared that the rent control legislation was valid because there was an emergency in the field of accommodation, and if the judgment of Lord Simon of a few years ago, concerning the Canada Temperance Act, recognized something else as an emergency, surely there is an emergency at the present time that would have justified the government in passing an act under which they could have taken power by statute that they are now seeking to take piecemeal.
The Minister of Justice has said that he thinks the house in granting the powers asked for in this bill should consider the record of the government because of the fact that after having taken wide powers under the wartime emergency legislation the government was again endorsed at the polls in 1949. But I am going to remind my hon. friend that subsequent to the election last summer the confidence of the people of Canada in the government, perhaps in the minister, was undermined when he concealed the report on the milling industry. I draw that to his attention because of the manner in which he placed himself and the government on a pedestal of righteousness, which I do not think they wholly deserve.
The powers asked for in this legislation are indeed wide. I am not going to deny that the government needs wide powers of this description at this time. As I listened to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), I wondered how these powers could be given to the government and how at the same time the house could place limitations upon those powers. It seemed to me that suggestion would be difficult indeed to carry out in legislation. After all, as has been said already, by this legislation parliament is giving authority for the use of which the minister and the government will be answerable to parliament when it meets. In other words the government must report to parliament and must submit to investigation into what they have done, if parliament so desires. That might be done through one of the appropriate committees or a special committee of the house; even, as I suggested the other day, by the establishment of a committee somewhat similar to the war expenditures committee. That would provide means of going into the use made by the government of these powers. Ultimately, of course, there is the appeal to the people, though I am quite willing to agree 

with the hon. member for Lake Centre that our elections are rather far apart. Sometimes at the end of five years some issue may arise, and, with a powerful press behind a political party, the attention of the people may be entirely diverted from any delinquencies of which the government may have been guilty in the earlier part of that five-year period.
I quite admit that wartime and periods of uncertainty such as we are living in at the present time demand quick decisions that parliament of itself cannot make. I think we must all face that fact. Parliament cannot make those quick decisions that must be made. If we need evidence of that all we have to do, I think, is look back over the last couple of weeks, to see how slowly we have arrived at decisions that were of vital importance to this country. Consequently authority has to be given to make those quick decisions parliament cannot make. So I say we have to grant the government powers such as those contained in this bill. But I would much rather have seen an emergency powers act, or something of that description, as the basic statute under which specific powers could be exercised.
My hon. friend speaks of the very wide powers that are implied. On the other hand, while I understand that the preamble is not part of the legislation, still the preamble and the clauses of the bill themselves do suggest some limitations. Steel is mentioned; so is electric power. Apparently the intention of the government is not to go very far beyond that power. I do not suppose that under this act they would presume to take control of all the farm produce in the country, for example. Conceivably they might have power under this bill to do so, but I do not think the government would make use of that power. I want to say however that before many months have passed it may be that the farmers of this country will be glad indeed that we have some plan of national marketing, some international agreement concerning the marketing of our grain. If I may digress for a moment, in spite of the fact that I do not think the farmers of the prairies were given the just return they expected under the "having regard" clause of the British wheat agreement, none the less I am certain that their overwhelming desire is for a continuance of orderly marketing through a board. I should like to see that board more representative of the producers themselves; nevertheless they do not want to see a return of the chaotic conditions we once had in the marketing of grain on the speculative markets of our country and of the world. When I make that statement I am sure I am saying what the

bulk of the farming community of western Canada, regardless of political affiliations, would wish to have said.
So I say I do not think it is the intention of the government to exercise powers of that description under this legislation. My quarrel with it is rather different. I do not believe it goes far enough. Here the government is taking power to control certain essential materials, steel, electricity and so on. They are taking power to control the raw materials of industry. That may create further shortages. I should like to have seen the government bring down legislation to ensure that the ordinary people of this country could get their supplies at reasonable prices. Already we have suffered from a tremendous inflation in the cost of living; and at this session of parliament, with the cost of living approaching 170-168-5 was the figure for July, and we are told that prices are still rising-we have not done a solitary thing to protect the people in this time of emergency. So my quarrel with this legislation is that it is piecemeal and apparently only to be used for certain types of industry, whereas this nation cries aloud for some protection from the high prices of consumer goods that have developed in the last year or two. If I may repeat this, some two years ago the minister said the cost of living would probably level off at about 145. Today it is 168-5.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wonder if my hon. friend will permit me to interrupt, as I did once before. The statement which has been referred to was made during the course of a press conference upstairs three years ago, when I came back from England. The expression I used was that I thought we would be fortunate if it levelled off at between 140 and 145. That was, I said, a hope; I never intended to make and did not make a firm prophecy as to that or any other figure.


Major James William Coldwell: I accept the correction, of course, and am glad the minister has made it; but I am giving that as the minister's opinion at that time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: And the minister has confirmed that he expressed that opinion then. I do not think it makes very much difference whether he gave it at a press conference or elsewhere.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I expressed the hope.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that when we saw that statement we shared that hope. And may I say further to the minister that I think it was the duty of the government to
Essential Materials (Defence) Act try to make it something more than a hope, and to give the people of Canada some protection in this time of need. It has been said this afternoon that Canada's part in this defence emergency may be very largely economic. I have no quarrel with that at all, because I think in all probability we are better equipped and more remote from the scenes of possible devastation than most countries, and that our share must be largely economic. But if we are going to contribute efficiently, well, and continuously in the economic field, then we need to prevent unrest, disorder, strikes, discontent and all the rest of it. Already, as hon. members on all sides of the house know, there is a rising volume of discontent at the high prices, and a growing demand for increased wages. Increased wages mean increased costs of production; increased costs of production mean increased costs of commodities; increased costs of commodities mean more wage demands, and so on. You are in a vicious circle. I believe it is the duty of the government to break that circle by intelligent and democratic controls.
May I say to the government that I am reliably informed by people in this city that already in the past few weeks retailers and wholesalers have found it very difficult indeed to place orders for forward delivery of such things as boots and shoes, textiles, and other commodities. There is a feeling prevalent that the price level is uncertain. Manufacturers believe that the prices will rise, and consequently retailers find it difficult to place orders for forward delivery of some commodities. What I am saying to the government this afternoon, because one can do it on this bill and it may be the last opportunity of this sort that will arise, is that I am disappointed that nothing has been done so far this session to protect the ordinary family from the tremendous increase in the cost of living; that is the government's great failure this session. We have supported every measure the government has put forward in the way of defence expenditures; in the way of defence plans; in the way of supporting aid to the United Nations forces in Korea. We shall continue to do that in spite of our dissatisfaction with the lack of the government's concern for the welfare of the family man and citizens generally who are suffering from the high cost of living.
This bill only gives the minister powers to do certain things for our defence. What we should have is a comprehensive bill laying down by statute what the government can do. I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre in that respect. At the same time it should give the government the authority
518	HOUSE OF
Essential Materials (Defence) Act to do what it should do to protect the people of this country internally as well as externally. We would support that but the government has not initiated such a bill. Unfortunately under the rules of our parliament no other party in the house can initiate such a bill, because it would involve the expenditure of public money. That is what I rose to say, Mr. Speaker: that we will support the legislation because we believe the government needs these powers, but must be held accountable for them to parliament. The government has failed the people of Canada in that it has not given protection to the people under comprehensive legislation, of which this might have been a part, to ensure that profiteering may not develop; that high prices may not go higher; and that the standards of living of the Canadian people may not be jeopardized because we are engaged in a great effort for the freedom of the world.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment or two to make a general statement with regard to Bill No. 5. We detest this kind of legislation, and we always have. The reason is that it does place too much power in the hands of one person, or a small group of persons, so that there can be virtual dictatorship if that inclination were ever to arise. We feel, however, that in times of difficulty such as this the executive council requires powers to deal summarily with anything that may arise to cause danger or threaten the peace and security of our people.
We realize, Mr. Speaker, that the hearts of men have not yet changed to the point where they will give full voluntary co-operation in connection with matters that have to be dealt with quickly toy the government. Until they do change so that the government can expect the full voluntary co-operation of the people in imposing upon themselves austerities and restraint, this government must have these powers. I am not one who would fear that any particular member of the executive council would arrogate unto himself dictatorial powers. I never have subscribed to that point of view. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has been accused of wanting such powers. Those who make the accusations must know him better than I do.


Major James William Coldwell: Or not know him as well.


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps that is true, but I take comfort out of this crystal-clear fact. Although we do delegate great powers to the executive council under this bill, yet parliament's powers remain unimpaired. So long as parliament's powers remain unimpaired we can, in due time, bring to account any minister, or for that matter all ministers


who have abused or misused the powers that may be granted to them under such legislation as we now have. We have always been jealous of the powers of parliament. We have always sought, in everything we have done, to preserve inviolate the powers of parliament. We shall continue to do so because that is the very foundation of democracy. But at the same time we recognize that in periods of stress and difficulty, like the one we are experiencing now, we have to hand over to the executive council the right to do things quickly, even if the things they have to do or think they have to do may go beyond what the ordinary man in the street may feel to be the limits of their authority.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me just say, without repeating what has already been mentioned on the floor of the house this afternoon, that the danger we see in the sort of legislation we are dealing with is that, although we are not at war technically, and it is only assumed without stating it in so many words that we are in a state of emergency, we are asked to give such sweeping powers to the government that we fear this may possibly become a pattern for economic controls at times when there is no war, and when a state of emergency exists only in the minds of the people who form the executive council at that time. That is the only thing I really fear in the legislation. I do not think there has ever been a time, so far as I can recall or from my reading of history, when a government has asked for such sweeping powers when there was not a declaration of a state of emergency. Therefore, in this period of twilight, as it has often been called, or as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) called it the other night when delivering his budget, a time when we have reached a steep hill in our climb to peace, we are apprehensive thait the government may perhaps wish to use powers of this kind without real, fundamental reason for doing so. That is the only fear that I have. We feel, however, that we would not be justified in fighting against the legislation at this time. We recognize the fact that this situation we face today is most unusual. We are put in much the same position as that in which aggressors have been putting nations in the past several years, namely in the position of having to fight a war although no war has been declared. We are in that position. We do not know what is going to happen in the near future.
We are assuming that if difficulty arises we must give the government of the day sufficient authority to act in the interests of the nation, and we are assuming that the members of the government will use discretion and restraint in the application of any of

the provisions of the bill. If they do not, we can assure them that we will do all we can to impeach them in the only way in which impeachment is possible in this day; and that is to give them a hoist out into the street when the opportunity is presented to us. That is not a threat; it is a promise. While, as I say, we detest this kind of legislation, we are not going to fight against it at this stage. We are prepared to support the government in getting ready to do a job.
There is just one thing I should like to mention finally, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. My friend the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) stated that the legislation does not go far enough. I would not put it quite that way. I think it goes plenty far. But while it gives to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), or to anyone in the government who is designated for this particular job, authority to impose price controls on anything which the government might declare to be essential, it does not give to the government the authority to make use of subsidies, for instance, for the purpose of assisting the people of the country in the matter of price control and the cost of living. We regret that fact.


Angus MacInnis: It therefore does not go
far enough.


Solon Earl Low: We believe that that power ought to be given to the government or at least that it ought to be taken by the government at the same time, whether it is done as part of this bill or some other one.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with the hon.
member.


Solon Earl Low: I think that should be done.
It seems to me that authority is important in the interests of a good many thousands of our Canadian people, more particularly those in the fixed income class such as old age pensioners, those on retirement from active service in industry and otherwise.


Mr. Bryce:: And civil servants.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, and civil servants. We
think they should be protected by the government having some authority to impose subsidies in order to assist in reducing the cost of living. We appeal to the government in some manner to take that authority before this session closes.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I propose to deal with two points that have been raised in the amendment that is before you. First, however, I wish to refer to the general purposes of the bill. On second reading we are considering the principle of the bill; and basically the principle is to give to the government
Essential Materials (Defence) Act certain extremely broad powers for the purpose of meeting any situation which may affect our economy as the result of our defence preparations.
From the day that this house began to discuss the international situation and the steps that were being taken or not being taken to deal with it, we have sought to emphasize the fact that there is an emergency on a scale which has not been accepted or recognized by the government in any statement that has been made in this house. With all the large sums that are now approved by this house in the form of the bill dealing with those provisions, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) sought to convey the impression that the limited and slow expansion of our defence forces, based upon a system which has already demonstrated that it is unsatisfactory to meet the conditions with which we are faced, is in keeping with the events we have before us at this hour. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) sees the situation as a hill on the path to peace. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) feels that, because of our great productive capacity, we can absorb our defence activities in the general life of our people. Where at any point, in any single statement that we have heard from the ministers of the crown who have presented' to us the measures which are to deal with this situation, have we heard one ringing call to the spirit of the people of this country asking them to tighten their belts in order that they may meet one of the greatest tests our people are ever going to be called upon to face?
We hope that the steps that will be taken will be of such a positive, vigorous and comprehensive nature, both here in this country and in the other free countries, that the demonstration we give of the willingness to use all our vast combined powers will deter the men in the Kremlin from further acts of aggression and will preserve the peace for which all persons pray in their homes today. We have sought to emphasize that view. Unfortunately, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) stated all too clearly the point of view which has been expressed by some of the members of the government or at least the impression which has been conveyed by what they have said, when in Vancouver on August 1 he said, "We want the public to carry on as usual."
It is the duty of every responsible member of this house to say-and to do so without any hesitation-that the public of this country are not going to be able to carry on as usual under the very measures which are being put before us now. The people of this country

Essential Materials (Defence) Act are being asked to accept burdens and responsibilities which have as their purpose the preservation of peace and the laying of the foundation of our future security. To suggest, however, that we can make the efforts which are asked for now and which must be asked for on a greater scale in the year ahead, without any impact upon the daily life of our people, is not only to mislead the people but is to beguile them into a state of assurance which is not in keeping with the efforts which we shall all be called upon to make. We accept without reservation the proposition that it is essential that the government take those steps that are necessary to prevent economic hardship and disorder on a national scale. In that we have accepted the intention of the words in the resolution which preceded the introduction of this bill.
As I said yesterday, when the resolution was before us, the desire of every hon. member should be to ensure in every way he can that while we give such clearly-stated powers, as can be shown to be necessary to the government, we do not abdicate our functions as members of the supreme authority of the people of Canada, and as a parliament, we do not give a blank cheque to this or to any other government.
The leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) has said that he does not think this bill goes far enough. Without in any way reflecting upon his interpretation of the bill or upon his judgment, may I say I think that that remark may indicate some of the difficulty with which we are confronted in dealing so hastily with a measure of such great importance. This bill, as it now stands, makes it possible for the government to deal with every aspect of the economy and personal life of the people of this country. It is not limited to industrial production or electrical production and services, as might be thought from reading the bill. It goes infinitely farther than that. It defines certain of the subjects covered, and in defining essential services it says that essential services mean:
The carrying on of such commercial activities, including the generation and distribution of electrical energy-
-as is designated from time to time by the governor in council. But also in the defining section it says that essential materials which are covered by the act mean such materials and substances as are designated from time to time by the governor in council under section 3 as being essential for defence purposes.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that section 3, read with that definition, means that the governor


in council may give authority over any materials and substances of any kind which this country produces.
In the last war we learned that foodstuffs, minerals, forest products and many things of that kind, were essential materials and substances for the purpose of war; and under the general provisions of the War Measures Act many orders in council dealt with these as essential defence requirements. Therefore I believe this bill covers the whole field of production, and the activities of our people in connection with that production.
From a reading of the bill I am certain that it does make it possible to control the type, the scale and the prices that will be paid for agricultural production once it has been declared to be an essential requirement for the defence of this country. I am also satisfied that control of wages and the direction of labour are covered by the powers in this bill, along with other matters. My position, and as I understand it the position of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), and those who support the views we are expressing, is that if the subjects are to be dealt with, then they should be designated. If these subjects are to be covered by this bill, then it should be clear that they are the subjects that will be dealt with, and we should know whether it is intended to deal with price control, with inflation, and with the other related matters, or whether it is not.
I submit that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to say what the government may intend to do under this bill as it stands at the moment. Of course the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said in introducing it that he hoped not to be called upon to use it. He wants it as a power, which will make it possible for him to make certain arrangements, with the gentle suggestion that he has powers to enforce them if they should not be complied with.


John George Diefenbaker: The way he controlled the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) in connection with the combines report.


George Alexander Drew: I do not think that was gentle.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is gratuitous too, I think.


George Alexander Drew: We thought that it was gratuitous at the time, but it produced results.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I meant my hon. friend's comment.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Let us get away from these big words.


George Alexander Drew: We have urged that the steps that are taken in this house should be taken in keeping with the seriousness of the times through which we are passing. Among the

many things that have been said over the radio and have been written, I think it should be almost compulsory to read the record of the speech given last Sunday night by Mr. Ross Munro over the C.B.C., and also an article which appeared in Life magazine, and which was republished in the Ottawa Journal of September 2 under the title: "The Battle of No Name Ridge". This was an article written by James Bell, who described the things that he had seen in the desperate struggle for one of the ridges which are so critical to the outcome of the battle which is taking place in Korea today. I was particularly struck with one expression that was used in the article. In relating the statements of one of the officers in regard to the situation it quoted an officer named Craig as saying this, after having referred to some of the tragic things he had seen:
We'll take this piece of real estate, but the cost is going to be terrible.
Mr. Speaker, he was referring to a ridge without a name in distant Korea. His men of the marine corps had already made their first assault and almost all of them had been lost. But he went on to say, "We will take that piece of real estate, but the cost will be terrible."	[DOT]
I think all of us might for a moment consider what that "real estate" means to each one of us. It is not land in Korea that is in issue in the struggle there. What is in issue in that struggle is a great principle, a principle which has been given practical expression for the first time in history, when free nations will stand together to preserve their freedom. Never before have we seen joint action of this type under an organization such as the United Nations.
Only yesterday the Secretary General of the United Nations spoke of the importance of what is taking place there. While I am not quoting his words exactly, their import was that if we succeed in Korea a tremendous step forward will have been taken in restraining aggression anywhere else. He also said that if we had not taken joint action there we would have seen one move of aggression after another throughout the world. He might have added, in clear and definite terms, that if this effort to restrain aggression by joint action should fail-and God forbid that that should happen-then it would be extremely difficult to convince any of the other puppets of the Kremlin that it is dangerous to carry out their instructions.
Yes, there is real estate at issue in that struggle; but the real estate is not the real estate in Korea so much as it is the real estate which makes up the homes of the people in this and every other country
Essential Materials (Defence) Act throughout the world. What is being determined there is whether the very centre of our free life, the homes where our young people are brought up and are taught to face the future, is to be secure under a free and democratic system, or whether those pieces of real estate here and in other countries are to come under the vilest form of slavery the world has ever known.
That is the issue. The issue is whether some day we are going to see commissars coming in through the door and telling us how we shall live, or whether we are still going to be able to regard those homes as the places where freedom finds its full expression in the most decent terms.
That is the issue; and we must gauge everything we do to the imp'ortance and to the scale of that issue. The issue is not the fight in Korea, but is one which stands before us, throughout the whole world. We have urged, and we urge again, that the government face that issue with a recognition of an emergency on a scale which has not been interpreted by the government. Having said that, let me add that no matter how much we recognize the emergency, and no matter how much we want it clearly defined, that should never be an excuse for supporting bills which disregard the basic principles of parliament, bills which disregard the responsibility of members, bills which in any way depart from the constitutional authority and responsibility of parliament.
Certain things have been said about the bill not declaring an emergency. I am not going to deal with the statements made by the speaker who followed the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), because they are not worthy of further consideration; but I am going to refer to a bill adopted by the government in 1945, a bill which was passed and became the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. That was the measure which laid the foundation for wide emergency powers on a basis similar to that we are now asked to approve. The words used were quite similar in many cases.
In that bill the nature of the emergency was both stated and declared in the preamble which, after reciting the general faot that certain orders in council had been passed under the War Measures Act, used these words:
And whereas the national emergency arising out of the war has continued since the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan and is still continuing; and whereas it is essential in the national interest that certain transitional powers continue to be exercisable by the governor in council during the continuation of the exceptional conditions brought about by the war and it is preferable that such transitional powers be exercised hereafter under
522	HOUSE OF
Essential Materials (Defence) Act special authority in that behalf conferred by parliament instead of being exercised under the War Measures Act.
This is on all lours with the measure now before us. The legislation has been whittled down year by year so that there are only four continuing powers remaining under it. The very government which now presents this bill to parliament, asking for similar but much wider powers than those conferred under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, saw fit then to state and to declare the emergency upon which that measure was based.
This is not something to be dealt with in the manner in which an attempt was made to deal with it. This is not something put forward only for the purpose of seeking to raise issues of one kind and another. May I say again, however, that every member of the house has a right to resent the suggestion that when he makes an argument regarding a measure of this kind which does not happen to conform with the stated views of the government, there is some sinister or hidden purpose behind the argument he makes.
This bill is one which recites the events that have taken place; it recites the fact that parliament has approved of the action of Canada in the discharge of its obligations under the charter of the United Nations; it recites the fact that Canada, in order to safeguard national security and to assist the United Nations, is making certain defence preparations; it recites the fact that steel and other materials, electrical energy and other services will be urgently required; but it does not state in any way that the situation described there creates an emergency or a situation which necessitates the abandonment of our ordinary constitutional allocation of authority.
If the mere recital of events, important though they may be, is sufficient at any time to support the statement that it is desirable for the dominion government to do something, if that is good in law, then I submit that our constitution has become a mere scrap of paper. It is only necessary to recite events, to state that it is desirable that certain things be done and the dominion government can then step into any field, whether it is covered by section 91 or section 92 of the British North America Act or by the broader residual powers contained in that act.
It seems to me that it is most unfortunate to introduce a bill with the broad applications of this bill just before the time when the dominion government is meeting representatives of the provincial governments to


discuss joint dominion-provincial affairs, because this bill does not attempt to specify those subjects which can be dealt with under the bill. I hope no one will suggest that it is not possible to specify the materials and services which are to be subject to the provisions of the bill because the government under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act of 1945 did specify the subjects which could be dealt with under the wide powers therein conferred. Section 2 of that act reads:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may, by reason of the continued existence of the national emergency arising out of the war against Germany and Japan, deem necessary or advisable for the purpose of
(a)	providing for and maintaining the armed forces of Canada during the occupation of enemy territory and demobilization and providing for the rehabilitation of members thereof;
(b)	facilitating the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace;
(c)	maintaining, controlling and regulating supplies and services, prices, transportation, use and occupation of property, rentals, employment, salaries and wages to ensure economic stability and an orderly transition to conditions of peace;
(d)	assisting the 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 the result of the war; or
(e)	continuing or discontinuing in an orderly manner, as the emergency permits, measures adopted during and by reason of the war.
If it was possible in 1945 to specify the subjects, materials and services which were to be covered by the terms of an act of this kind, it is equally possible now and may I suggest that it is infinitely more important because we are now going back to something which we thought only a short time ago we had abandoned. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has expressed his disapproval and dislike of controls. We now have before us a bill providing for the widest measure of controls over all aspects of our daily life and the economy of our country, but without specifying what is to be done or the subjects that are to be covered. That is something which we think calls for -careful definition and careful drafting.
Of course the Minister of Trade and Commerce did say that if this bill were passed he would regard it simply as a stand-by power. That expression is often used in regard to power of other kinds. The suggestion is made that if the gentle suggestion of the minister is not -acted upon quickly enough the power will be connected. You can visu* alize a more ready response to his suggestion by any person who feels that power operating.

The minister says that this power is to be something in the nature of a club to get results.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Your words, not mine.


George Alexander Drew: I am giving a simple and clear interpretation of what the minister means. The minister means exactly what he says, that he wants behind him power of this kind so that he can say to anybody he deals with, "You do this, or else." That is not what I understand to be the rule of law, either in time of emergency or otherwise. I think in a time when the main issue is the difference between two systems, one a free system and the other a slave system, we should make sure that government is not conducted on the basis of "you do this, or else."
I am not using that term as a term of offence so far as the minister is concerned. This is a bill that we are being asked to put on the statute books to become operative for any minister who may occupy that position. If we take the assurance that it is not intended to put this bill into effect then what we are being asked to do is to pass a bill which is not to be operative as law even though it is on the statute books. The Winnipeg Free Press of August 26 contains a report of a speech delivered in Toronto by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in which he is reported as saying:
_ Those who believe that we are plunging headlong into the controlled economy of those years-
That is, the war years.
are mistaken. Those who are hoarding, those who are raising prices in anticipation of a controlled economy, are doing a disservice to themselves and to the communities in which they live.
All will agree with the latter part of that statement, but the general substance of what the minister said was summed up in a heading in the Winnipeg Free Press of that date in which they said that the Minister of Trade and Commerce denies controls are coming. If that is so then it does not improve the situation in dealing with this bill. It simply means that instead of government by law we are going to have government by blackmail. That is exactly what it means. You are not going to say, "Here is the law, which we have laid down in clear and understandable terms." People who produce, whether they be farmers, industrialists or anyone else, are going to be told, "If you do not do what we tell you, then we will pass an order in council that will deal with it, under our wide and almost unlimited powers." That is absolutely contrary to the basic principles of the rule of law and the responsibility of parliament for the type of law it enacts.
Essential Materials (Defence) Act
Yes; we want those measures which will hold down the cost of living, prevent inflation, and make it possible for the minister to deal effectively with the requirements of our defence preparations. We not only say that without reservation; we urge that effective steps be taken. Saying that, we also urge that the bill this house passes should be consistent with our traditions, with the experience of the last war, and with the frequent statement by the minister himself that he wants our people to know what controls there will be. For that reason we urge most earnestly that this bill be not now read a second time, but that the government review the matter and bring in a bill which will clearly state what the government considers to be the emergency and declare that emergency, as it did in 1945 under a similar bill. We urge also that it specify, just as it did under section 2 of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act in 1945, what the subjects, services and materials are with which it proposes to deal.
We wish to support effective measures. We hope, however, the government will remember its own statements in regard to its experience with controls, and that in this case it will be prepared to review its decision and bring in effective legislation which will enable it to deal with the emergency which does exist, but which will still retain the authority of parliament over laws and establish the rule of law within this country.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, will support this bill. I am not nearly as alarmed at the prospect of giving to a government elected by the people necessary powers in a time of emergency as is the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew). I feel that under our democratic system it becomes necessary to entrust emergency powers to the government for use in a time of national crisis, and that so long as that government has to go back to the people for re-election, and so long as its policy has to secure the support of a majority in the house, we are not endangering democracy by giving that power.
I am not surprised to hear the speakers for the opposition oppose these controls. As a matter of fact I was a little surprised to hear the leader of the official opposition state so unreservedly that he was in favour of controls which would curb the rise in prices and assist in the production of those goods necessary for war. Especially was I surprised in view of the way he and his party voted a few days ago on our subamendment, which asked for these controls and subsidies for the express purpose of curbing the rise in the cost of living. For three years here during the war I listened to Conservative opposition

Essential Materials (Defence) Act to any controls that were brought into operation by the government. I listened to their oratory, and to their pleas to the government to decontrol the moment war was over. All their opposition to controls and their appeals for decontrol did them no more good in June, 1949, than our support of controls did us. They were just out of step with the public. Whether or not we were also out of step is not clear. This much is certain, however, that it was not the general public who were crying for decontrol immediately after the war. As late as 1947 a Gallup poll showed that seventy-six per cent of those polled were in favour of the retention of those controls which had helped keep down prices during those years. The cry against controls did not come from wage earners, housewives or the ordinary people of this country. It came from those sections of society that stood to gain most by the removal of controls. That demand was voiced by the official opposition and by that section of the press which supports it. Certainly there were people who groused about controls during the war. Businessmen groused about the amount of red tape, and I have no doubt there was more red tape than was necessary. But the people who groused most were not the common people, the wage earners, the housewives, those who make up the majority of our population. Wartime controls, I think it is generally agreed, were beneficial to our war effort, and certainly were in the best interests of the people of this country.
There is a fear on the part of some people that controls exercised by a democratically elected government will deprive us of our freedom. I can think of only one freedom that will be jeopardized by such controls; that is the freedom of those in positions of power and influence to raise prices and exploit their fellow men to the limit the traffic will bear. I feel it is the duty of a government to protect that large part of our population which is at the complete mercy of those who would exploit them. We speak of the present high prices being due to increased wages, the low productivity of labour, scarcities, and so on. Certainly when we have a scarcity, whether it is genuine or whether it is artificially created by those who control any given commodity, prices rise. It is not a question of the cost of production. It is simply a question of what the traffic will stand. We see that today manufacturers are refusing to quote prices on goods for future delivery because prices are rising. Within two weeks' time they may be able to put up the price, not that the cost of production within those two weeks has increased; it is not a question

of relating it to the cost of production, it is just a question of getting what the traffic will bear.
I want to deal briefly with this theory that the high cost of living today is due to high wages and low man-hour productivity. That is the theory which the press that supports the official opposition, and the press that supports the government, has been building up recently. It is a great line of propaganda built up by those who are paid to build up that type of propaganda to leave that impression in the public mind. Actually those receiving the wages and salaries are today receiving a smaller portion of every dollar that business spends than they were receiving in 1938, one year before the war. The dominion bureau of statistics reports, in the national accounts of income and expenditures, that in 1938 36 cents out of every dollar that was paid out by business and industry across this country was paid in wages and salaries. In 1948, and I do not think the picture is very different today, only 35 cents out of every dollar paid out by business and industry went into wages and salaries. In other words, wages and salaries today are receiving a smaller percentage of every dollar that is paid out by industry and business than was received in 1938.
On the other hand, in 1938 corporation profits amounted to 7 cents out of every dollar paid out by business. In 1948 corporation profits received 11 cents out of every dollar paid out by business. Today wages are receiving 1 per cent less of every dollar paid out by business and industry than was received in 1948. In 1948 corporation profits were receiving about 4 per cent more.
I want to take a second example from the dominion bureau of statistics figures. From these figures I am trying to show that the rise in wages and low productivity is not the main cause of our present rise in the cost of living. If we take 1938 as represented by 100 in each case, wages and salaries for 1948 reached 302 or just about three times what they were in 1938. On the same basis corporation profits in 1948 reached 468, nearly five times what they were in 1938. The average of all expenditures made by business and industry, putting 1938 at 100, amounted to 312 in 1948. Wages, at 302, were slightly below the average, whereas corporation profits were much above the average.
The effect of controls during the early forties is clearly shown in a table set forth here by the dominion bureau of statistics. Wages and salaries during the early forties, the years that are known as the controlled years, hovered around the four billion

mark. In 1942, 1943 and 1944, they were either just below or just above the four billion mark. In 1948 they were just above the six billion mark, or an increase of one-third over 1938. Corporation profits during these controlled years, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, hovered around the one billion mark. In 1948, they went over the two billion mark. In other words, the total amount of corporation profits in 1948 as compared with 1938 was more than doubled. Wages and salaries in 1948 as compared with 1938 were just about one-third higher.
Here is another example taken from a table issued by the Bank of Canada and entitled "Profits, Statistics for 450 Companies, Summary Statement". For the 450 companies the net income after taxes had been paid during the controlled years 1941, 1942, 1943. and 1944, ranged from $235 million to $263 million. It was rather steady for those four years. In 1949 the net income was up to $499 million, more than double what it was during the controlled period. From these statistics it is quite evident that business and industry stood to gain more from decontrol than wages and salaries. In the same statistics there is given a break-down by classifications. Here are a few figures from that break-down. In the industries dealing with food and food processing, the stockholders had to be content, under control during the early forties, with from $7 million to $8 million a year net income. In 1948 and 1949 they managed to get just over $13 million. Then let us take the primary textile industries. During the years when there were controls, they had to be content with somewhere between $3 million and $4 million a year. In 1949 they received $10 million. I find that the pulp and paper industry, which is probably enjoying tough times during war, had to be content in 1942, 1943 and 1944 with net income ranging .from $9 million to $12 million. In 1948 they received $64 million and in 1949 they were still up to $54 million. The iron and steel industries, under control, which had to be content with from $12 million to $13 million, received $25 million in 1948. The electrical equipment industry which had to be content with $8 million during the control years received $21 million in 1948. These are the net incomes received by shareholders of those industries. In the non-ferrous metal industries the amount received in net income rose from $70 million in the forties to $111 million in 1948. Then here is a remarkable case, namely the retail trade and service industries. Those were the industries with assets over $200,000. They are not the little corner grocery stores; they are not the small independents; they are the chain and departmental stores. Under control they had to be
Essential Materials (Defence) Act content with $6 million net income each year; but in 1948 they were able to get up to $16 million.
I submit that an important part of the rise in the cost of living is to be found not entirely in the rise in wages or the drop in the productivity of the worker but rather in the income that has been siphoned off and charged up to consumers. I think one fact that we must keep in mind i9 that the Canadian consumer pays those profits just as directly as he pays his taxes to this government. Those profits come out of the consuming public just as much as do the taxes which are paid to the Canadian government.
I therefore submit in closing, Mr. Speaker, that the main factor contributing to the rising cost of living is not the rise in wages or the low man-hour productivity. Unless the picture has changed in 1950 from what it was in 1948 and 1949, wages and salaries today are still taking less of every dollar paid out by business and industry than wages and salaries were taking in 1938. There is no doubt that these statistics show, on the other hand, that corporation profits share of that dollar is, in practically every instance, twice what it was, not in 1938 but during the war years in which we had controls. They further show that the benefactors of decontrol were not the wage earners and the salary earners of this country; they were the shareholders of the corporations.
As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has said, my quarrel with this bill is that it does not state explicitly enough-in fact, I do not know whether it states it at all-that the minister is given power to control prices right across the board, if necessary. The leader of the official opposition told us that this bill empowers the minister to do just that. I hope it does. But I would like the bill much better if the minister could stand up and give us the assurance that it gives him power to control prices across the board and thereby to check the rising cost of living which today is eating more and more into the pay envelope or salary cheque of every worker in this country.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have
said very little, Mr. Speaker, during the present session of the House of Commons. In fact, my attendance in the house has not been good for reasons which 1 think might be obvious to everyone. We members do not, however, need to worry so much about that because the correspondent of the Globe and Mail has taken over responsibility for the morals of members having regard to attendance in the House of Commons,
526	HOUSE OF
Essential Materials (Defence) Act and he puts your name in the paper when you are not there. In order that he may have complete information as to last Saturday, I should like to say that I was at the football match between Ottawa and Hamilton and enjoyed it greatly. I repeat that I was there on a Saturday afternoon.
I shall not discuss any other than one detail of the bill which is before us, and I shall discuss that with the idea that I am being helpful to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Garson), who no doubt is responsible for the legislation which is brought down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And also the Solicitor
General.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I know, but he is the fellow who lets you out of jail when you should stay there. He is the man who runs that kind of show.
I agree with the leader of my party that this bill gives the widest of powers to the government by order in council. I have read it very carefully, and I have looked up the odd authority. 1 intend to give the house the benefit-perhaps that is the wrong word to use-of my views as to what the law is with respect to matters of this kind. However, before I do that may I say that this bill may have some indirect benefits that are not contemplated by us at the present time.
For example, under this legislation the minister will have the power to pass regulations to take care of a strike against the people of Canada. He will have power to settle another problem which has been agitating us for a long time, namely, the settlement of the freight rate discussion, the most futile and foolish thing that I know of, that has been going on. It has been a great thing for some lawyers, but it has accomplished nothing for anyone else. There is now an appeal before the Privy Council of Canada, which is the most nonsensical kind of appeal that I ever heard of. I attended one of them more years ago than I care to remember. What happens is this: One day you will have Jones and Smith-I have promoted myself to the cabinet rather quickly, I know-in attendance. The next day you will have Brown and Robinson, and Jones and Smith will not be there. They will not be there for good reasons. They will be looking after their departments, and looking after the business of the country. Therefore these appeals from the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada to the Privy Council of Canada are, to my mind, the most futile and even nonsensical methods which could ever be adopted to try to settle any problem.
In other words, the railways need a certain amount of revenue. They can only get it


from rates. Why in the world we cannot settle what that amount is, find out what it costs to run a railroad, give them their percentage of profit and work out some scheme of that kind, is beyond me. I mention these two things because in our discussions with respect to the strike we accomplished nothing in connection with the great broad problem of solving deadlocks in labour matters.
I do not wish the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) any ill, but now he has an opportunity to take care of situations of that kind. I am sure that if he were to consult me I could give him some excellent ideas with respect to what this House of Commons should do. I think it might be an excellent idea to get the rule of law operating just a little bit in connection with these matters. No one would be harmed very much, and we might find some finality. But he seems to welcome problems, and a couple more of the kind I have mentioned will be handled by him expeditiously at least because I am sure the minister is expeditious. Whether he is right or wrong is an entirely different matter. Perhaps his greatest quality is how quickly he does things. That is not a bad quality because when he is wrong he finds out quickly, and I am sure his colleagues will be of great assistance in putting him on the right track once that has been demonstrated. But his mind is such that you need the demonstration; you do not need just arguments with respect to it.
On this bill I confine myself to one point. I said a moment ago that I am taking this position to be of assistance. No one has denied or will deny what we need in this time of emergency-let us not be afraid to use the word. That is the only reason we are here. We were called to an emergency session, a special session.
I spoke of the Minister of Justice, and I speak to him now with the respect and deference that is due to his high position. I say that in my judgment this bill, from a constitutional point of view, is not worth the paper it is written on, and will be upset if anyone cares to attack it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A curbstone opinion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Horseback is a better expression to use. But it may be that a reading of the Canada Temperance Act case will support everything I say. If the minister wants some light reading here it is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: However, you do not get paid for the opinion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: He who is without hope is finished. Since the minister is going to control all these things I will be around with my little bill looking straight at him.
*

Essential Materials (Defence) Act
I lay this down as a basis. The fact that obligations are international has not altered the basic law of this country one single bit. That was held by the privy council and there is no doubt about it whatever. The year was 1937, and that has not been altered. I say this. The law has gone so far that the only way this parliament can interfere with or abridge the rights of the provinces is that there must not only be a state df emergency, but you must in your statute declare that emergency as a matter of fact. Here surely is the position. What the privy council did in the Canada Temperance Act case was virtually to say that if the parliament of Canada said, as a fact, that an emergency existed, then any argument to the contrary, that there was no emergency, was futile. Perhaps it was not put just as simply as I have put it, but that is the law in Canada today.
In his speech the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) prided himself and his department on the fact that they had found another method of interfering with the powers of the provinces. The minister shakes his head.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He shakes his head horizontally. I do not want to seem to be agreeing with my hon. friend.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Well, I think if your head had a little more shaking in other directions it might improve your appearance. It is my humble opinion that there is no way in which this parliament can interfere with the jurisdiction of the provinces except by expressly saying that they are doing so in an emergency. If we did say that, that we are taking action because of an emergency, there would be no question of anyone coming along and arguing successfully that there is no emergency.
That is what the privy council has said, and that is the law of the country. I say this -and it is not said in a partisan way-that this statute of ours is based upon there being a national emergency. If so, why do we not say so? Why are we all afraid to say that an emergency exists?
I said I intended to try to be helpful. If this legislation is to stand up anywhere, then I think the government must go as far as I have said. It is not sufficient to deal with it as it is dealt with in the third paragraph, which states:
And whereas effective action by Canada in order to safeguard the national security and to assist the United Nations in accordance with its obligations makes it necessary to provide for defence preparations on a greatly increased scale.
As a matter of law they might have been dealing with butter, leather or anything else.
But it does not alter the fact that, to have our legislation stand up, we must be explicit. Of course orders in council do interfere with the rights of the provinces. I submit once again-and with this I conclude-that there is no way I can find where parliament has power to abridge the jurisdiction of the provinces, except for the one reason of an emergency. If that emergency exists parliament must say so, not as a matter of law but as a matter of fact.
If we say that as a matter of fact, then the government can do almost anything it wishes to do. I ask the minister to accept my suggestion, not because I have any reputation as a constitutional lawyer. I have not. After all it seems to me the expression "constitutional lawyer" is greatly exaggerated in this country. The constitutional cases are very few indeed; one could read them all in an evening.
We are now seeking to do improperly what we can do properly by the method I have suggested. We are seeking by indirection to do something which we do not care to do by the simple and direct method. I do not want anyone, particularly the minister, to be offended by my use of a word, but I must say that what this measure does is to try to do by subterfuge what could be done directly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is it his impression that this parliament has the power to pass laws regarding defence, and regarding trade and commerce?


Arthur Leroy Smith: With regard to trade and commerce?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And defence. Has not parliament the power to pass laws with regard to defence and with regard to trade and commerce?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Oh yes. But just let us add this-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is all right; you have answered my question.


George Alexander Drew: No, he has not.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will help you shake your head in the other direction. This parliament has power to do that in certain specified and limited ways. It has power over duties. It has power over railroads. But it cannot go to the steel company at Hamilton and say, "We want your plant." That is where the provinces come in. The province can take my house away from me and give it to you, but the dominion cannot. The province

National Defence-Korean Campaign has the right to take a business concern away from A and give it to B; but the dominion cannot.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is Calgary law, I think.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is Calgary law; and I do not know why it has concealed itself for all these years from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because' it is also the universal law of the whole British empire. However, I was glad to hear his interruption, because I had some fear for him at one time. Now he has shown that he is not too old to learn, I think perhaps he should cease taking his intimate reactions from the Minister of Justice, when it comes to questions as to how he can intervene in and abrogate the powers of the provinces.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house is concerned with the engagement of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), that we all wish him well, and that the last thing we would hope to do would be to interfere with that engagement. Therefore I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Howe the debate was adjourned.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, by virtue of section 32 of the National Defence Act, as amended by the bill enacted today, an order in council was passed this afternoon which hon. members would wish to have placed before them at the earliest possible moment. It is P.C. 4365 dated September 9, 1950, and it reads:
In order that officers and men of the Canadian forces, not exceeding 15,000 in number at any one time, may most effectively participate in action undertaken by the United Nations to restore peace in the republic of Korea, the components of the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian army and Royal Canadian Air Force that are referred to in the National Defence Act as the regular forces are hereby placed on active service.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: On Monday we will continue the debate on Bill No. 5 and then proceed with the second reading of Bill No. 4. If those matters are completed, we will resume the debate on the budget.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m.

Monday, September 11, 1950