1950-06-14

Mr. Jean Francois Pouliol (Temiscouala):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am indifferent to the praise or slurs of the press, but there are times when a member of parliament must rise to protest against false insinuations. I would not have paid much attention to an article appearing on the editorial page of the Winnipeg Free Press of May 9 had it not been reproduced by the Free Press Weekly of Winnipeg, the Moncton Daily Times, the Fort William Daily Times Journal and the Woodstock, Ontario, Daily Sentinel Review.
The article to which I refer is entitled "Isolationist". It was written by one of those bloated and narrow-minded colonials who have an inferiority complex with regard to imperialism, and who try to forget it by going to the other extreme and trying to have the superiority complex of internationally-minded people.
In the editorial they describe me as being "highly intelligent". This is not a compliment, because when a man is intelligent it means only that he is normal. I remember saying that one day about the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret), and everyone applauded. I said it was no compliment to his illustrious predecessor.
But, sir, I come to the issue:
Mr. Pouliot is a highly intelligent man, but his instinctive isolationism often warps his judgment.
In the latest edition of Funk and Wagnalls dictionary, published in 1949, I find this definition:
One who advocates an isolated condition, especially of a nation or country, as regards alliances and relations with others.
This is not my case. But I believe in the sovereignty of Canada, and I do not believe that we should be under control of any so-called great nation.	That is why the
Atlantic pact is much superior to the United Nations organization. I remember, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should state his question of privilege.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir. I remember that two years ago I was abused, with the leader
of the Social Credit group, and my late and lamented friend, Mr. T. L. Church, for having said that the United Nations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has now stated his question of privilege. It would not be proper for him to go back to what happened two years ago.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir; but I have been vindicated this week. I said at that time that the United Nations could not guarantee the future of the world. No later than Monday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said in Montreal that the United Nations could not guarantee the security of any country. It was late; I had said it two years ago, and it is such a long time ago that everybody has forgotten I said it then.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Hallon) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 304, for the relief of David Allan Ferguson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Ann Louise Fuller Brais.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Helen Leola Davidson Hunter.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Have the electric slide detector fences on the Canadian National Railways lines, Ashcroft subdivision, between mile 93-7 and mile 94-0, been rebuilt following damage done to them this past winter?
2.	In how many cases since the initial installation of the fences have the block signals been caused to be placed at the danger position due to rocks or slides striking the fences?

Questions


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	The slide detector fences have been repaired and were restored to service on April 5, 1950.
2.	There were twenty-three occasions on which the signals were placed in the "stop" position by the slide detector fence mechanism, when it was in normal operation. On seventeen of these occasions no evidence was found of any rocks having struck the fence. On three occasions small rocks were found in the ditch beside the slide fence, and on three occasions there was a large enough rock fall or slide to obstruct the track.



* CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many employees or officials of the Canadian National Railways, upon retirement, have been given lump sum retirement allowances (a) of more than $25,000, but less than $50,000; (b) of $50,000 or over, since January 1, 1930?
2.	In what years were such lump sum retirement allowances made?


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to answer this question orally. It is obvious why the question is being asked. The subject matter was discussed at some length in the committee on railways and shipping, and after a statement had been made by the president of the Canadian National Railways the committee accepted that statement and felt that it should not insist on additional information. However, since then an hon. member of this house asked a similar question, to which I took objection on certain grounds, as may be found in Hansard. Later he moved a motion in which he asked for production of the amounts of the cheques that the Canadian National Railways had paid over a period of time, but that motion was negatived. I do not think it would be fair to answer this question when the hon. member has not been successful in getting the information. I suggest that the hon. member may feel like withdrawing the question.


Mr. Knowles:: May I point out that the minister has already answered a similar question covering the brackets below $25,000? If it is possible to get that kind of information, I think it should be provided in these particular brackets, and the question should be answered.


Some hon. Members:: Dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot require the minister to answer a question to the satisfaction of the hon. member who has asked it. The minister

has given an answer. It may not be satisfactory to the hon. member, but so far as I am concerned I shall have to declare the question answered.
ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN, QUE., WHARF Mr. Courlemanche:
1.	Were repairs made to the wharf at St. Charles de Caplan, Bonaventure county, Quebec, in 1947, 1948 and 1949?
2.	If so, what was the cost of such work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.
1947-	48	
$11,901.851948-	49	
12,992.841949-	50	
12,537.60Total	
$37,432.29


Mr. Couriemanche:: 1.	Between January 1, and May 1, 1950, did the Department of Public Works construct protection or wharf facilities at St. Charles de Caplan, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, in front or in the vicinity of the Henri Leblanc property, or Manoir St. Charles?
2.	If so, what amount was expended?
3.	Who was the foreman, what daily salary did he receive, and how long did he work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	$2,999.81.
3.	(a) Henri A. Leblanc; (b) $8; (c) December 15, 1949 to March 31, 1950.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received from the council of the city of Winnipeg a copy of a resolution dated May 29, 1950, urging the federal government to set up an engineering group to bring in recommendations and remedial measures to prevent a future Red river flood, and urging the federal government upon receipt of such recommendations to undertake the design and construction of the work so recommended?
2.	If so, what reply has the government made thereto?
3.	Is consideration being given to the request set out in such resolution?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Letter of acknowledgment was sent to the Winnipeg city clerk dated June 8 informing him that the matter was being brought before the government.
3.	Yes. The question of action which might be taken to prevent a recurrence of flooding in the Red river valley is under consideration by the federal government in consultation with the government of Manitoba.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Murphy:: 1.	What are the names of the contractors engaged in the construction of the whole or any part of the Canadian National freight sheds at Point Edward, Ontario?
2.	What are the names of those who submitted tenders for each contract, and the amount of each tender?
3.	Was any contract awarded prior to the tenders being opened?
4.	Was the lowest tender accepted? If not, for what reason?


Lionel Chevrier: This again is a question affecting the Canadian National Railways. It relates to the internal operation of the system, and it has always been the view of the management that it is not in the interests of the railway that they give information which falls within the category of ordinary business transactions and which their competitors or any other business organization would not be required to produce. For these reasons I would ask the hon. member if he would consent to withdrawing his question.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


Mr. Fraser:: Under protest.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT


Mr. Noseworihy:: 1.	How many employees has the Department of Transport at Gander, Newfoundland?
2.	What kind of work do they perform?
3.	How many hours a week do they work?
4.	What is the hourly rate of wages in the several work categories?



COUNT JACQUES DE BERNONVILLE

Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Does the file relating to Major de Bernonville contain any evidence or information supplied by Jean Bradley, of Montreal?
2.	Is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or the Department of Immigration, or any other agency of the federal government, in possession of any information on the said Jean Bradley?
3.	If so, when was he admitted into Canada?
4.	Is Jean Bradley his real name?
5.	What is his nationality by birth?
6.	Was he a member of the Red brigades during the Spanish civil war?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Murphy:: For a copy of all contracts for the construction of the whole or any part of the Canadian National freight sheds at Point Edward, Ontario.
Motions for Papers


Lionel Chevrier: The information sought by
this motion is the same as that asked for in the question on the same subject that has just been dropped. Therefore I submit with deference that it should not pass, and perhaps the hon. member will consent to its withdrawal.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



S. S. &quot;KINGSTON&quot;

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence in the possession of the government relating to the sale of the former S.S. Kingston; also all correspondence relating to the refitting of this boat, also relating to any plans for putting it in operation again, including a copy of any correspondence protesting against putting this boat in operation again.


Lionel Chevrier: The Department of Transport has no information on file regarding the sale of S.S. Kingston. If the ship had been sold, there would be a transfer of registry in the department, and there is no such transfer or no indication of a transfer. The information I have, and I cannot control it, is that the vessel at present is being broken up for scrap. Under the circumstances perhaps the hon. gentleman will withdraw his question.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



NIAGARA DIVERSION TREATY


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification, without reservation, of the Niagara diversion treaty between Canada and the United States of America, signed at Washington on February 27, 1950, and do approve an agreement between Canada and Ontario with respect to the said Niagara diversion treaty, signed at Toronto on March 27, 1950, and that this house do approve same.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, a situation has arisen which affects the privileges of and is a matter of great concern to all members of the house. The motion just moved, concerning which the minister will be explaining the subject matter to the house, is one of considerable importance, because it is more than just a question of the diversion of power water at Niagara. It relates to a proposal that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has very properly been pressing, the development of international power resources generally. In addition to this extremely important question, the next order of business involves probably the most important legislation that has been presented to the house during this session. Five committees are meeting today, three of them this morning. Without raising
3602	HOUSE OF
Niagara Diversion Treaty any question at the moment about the circumstances which have led to this congestion of business, I submit that, while in respect to certain matters coming before' us it is relatively easy to allocate to a limited number of members the task of dealing with them, the two resolutions I have mentioned are of such importance that every member should be permitted to be in the house to hear the explanations of the ministers concerned, and to take such part in the debates as may be regarded as appropriate.
With three committees actually called to meet at the present time, namely, banking and commerce, public accounts and radio broadcasting, and with others to meet later today, I submit that on subjects of this kind it is almost an affront to our responsibility as members that we should be called upon to leave the chamber when discussion of them is about to take place. Therefore I hope the house will concur in the motion I present that meetings of all committees be suspended until this afternoon.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I have no objection to the suggestion, but it is a matter for the committees themselves. We have no authority in that regard. We would be ready to agree to it.


George Alexander Drew: There may be certain technical problems in connection with the chairmanship of the committees, but I should imagine that the chairman would recognize the wish of the house if the government is prepared to consent to such a motion.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I have no doubt the chairmen of the committees are present in the house, and that they will sense the desire of the house. I would hope that when then-respective committees meet they might adjourn for the forenoon, as suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).


Mr. Speaker:: It will be unnecessary for me to read again the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). We will proceed with the motion moved by him.


Mr. Cleaver:: Before the matter is dealt with, as chairman of one of the committees I should like to say that we have witnesses from out of town attending our meeting who are here after notice. I think perhaps the public accounts committee might excuse the leader of the opposition from attending their meeting.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: They would be pleased.


George Alexander Drew: Since I made the motion, I am not going-


Mr. Maybank:: Mr. Speaker, who has the floor?


Mr. Speaker:: Are we dealing with the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Ralph Maybank: I wish to speak to the motion that has been moved by the leader of the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member does so, I think I should allow the leader of the opposition to make another statement.


George Alexander Drew: I simply want to say that I have no intention of dealing with the remark that was made, which I think was inappropriate to the manner in which I presented the suggestion. I would say, however, that while witnesses may have been brought here, the question of their not being heard until this afternoon is not comparable with the necessity of the elected representatives of the people of Canada hearing two of the most important discussions that will come before the house during the current session.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that every member of the radio committee would desire to be present during the discussion that is about to take place in the house. Certainly I would desire to be here. After considerable discussion a special witness from Toronto has been brought before the radio committee, a citizen who urged the committee to hear him. That was arranged, and the committee began to sit at ten o'clock this morning. It adjourned for the purpose of allowing members to come into the house for the orders of the day. Judging from the way the evidence of this gentleman has gone so far, in my estimation it is impossible for the examination of the witness to be concluded in a short time. Therefore I feel that, while every member of the radio committee would certainly like to be present in the house, it is their duty under the circumstances to attend the radio committee, and I feel it is my duty to be there. That is the situation confronting a good many members. I do not know whether there is any divergence of opinion between the leader of the opposition and myself on this point, but I think that Liberal members of the radio committee at any rate have enough confidence in their colleagues to trust them with the handling of the matter now before the house.


Mr. Picard:: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the public accounts committee I think I should be permitted to say that, in answer to the demand generally expressed by the house that the committee should carry on its work in a thorough manner this year, we have held quite a number of meetings. We sat earlier this morning and adjourned at eleven o'clock with the intention of resuming our sitting as soon as orders of the

day were taken up. We have witnesses before us. I know they can -be called on another day, but the number of days before the end of the session is limited. We have undertaken to examine a certain matter thoroughly, and we are doing it. Therefore I do not think it would be fair to the committee if we accepted the motion of the leader of the opposition. Furthermore, this afternoon a meeting of the public accounts committee is being held to discuss its first interim report on a matter that has occupied fourteen meetings of the committee. The present session is nearing an end, and it is desirable that the report of the committee should be prepared and presented.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to suggest that a simple solution of the problem would be for the government to agree to defer the debate on the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and the debate on the defence supplies bill until a time that might be arranged by agreement among the various parties. There is plenty of work to do today in committee of supply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is nothing further that I can do about this matter. The house has heard what has been said by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the committee chairmen. We will now proceed with the consideration of the motion moved by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in submitting
this motion to the house for approval I should like to make a brief statement concerning it. I think it can be brief, because on February 27 I made a statement to the house with regard to the Niagara Diversion treaty, on the occasion of its signing in Washington, and I have not very much to add to what I said then.
Hon. members will recall that the purpose of -this treaty is to provide for the permanent regulation of the diversion of water from the Niagara river for hydroelectric power, and to ensure the preservation of the scenic beauty of the Niagara river and Niagara falls.
The earliest regulations for the diversion of water at Niagara for power were contained in article V of the Boundary Waters treaty of 1909. By this treaty the United States was permitted to divert 20,000 cubic feet of water per second, and Canada 36,000 cubic feet per second. Although Canada was thus allowed to use more water than the United States, exports of power from Canada
Niagara Diversion Treaty have resulted in a fairly equal division between the two countries of the use of Niagara water.
The growing demand for power during the second world war made additional diversions of water necessary. Canada was accordingly authorized to use a further 13,000 cubic feet per second, and the United States a further 12,500 cubic feet per second. These authorizations were made on a temporary basis only. Canada also undertook to divert 5,000 cubic feet of water per second into the great lakes system from the Albany river watershed through Long Lac and the Ogoki river, and was accordingly authorized to use this additional 5,000 cubic feet per second at Niagara. After the war the demand for hydroelectric power kept increasing. A permanent agreement on the use of Niagara river water was needed to permit the maximum development of power consistent with the preservation of the scenic spectacle of the falls. Discussions which were held in Washington last December resulted in the preparation of the Niagara Diversion treaty which was signed on February 27, 1950.
Previous agreements on the use of Niagara water simply specified the total amount of water each country could divert. Any water remaining would flow over the falls. In this treaty the procedure is reversed. Article IV reserves definite quantities of water for flow over the falls and through the rapids; and article V authorizes the use of all remaining water for power purposes. This method of approach provides for the most effective use of whatever water is available at any time, and for an appropriate division of that water between scenic and power purposes.
Article VI provides for equal division between the two countries of the water available for power purposes. This does not apply to the water that is added to the great lakes system through the Long Lac-Ogoki works; this water will still be used exclusively by Canada. Since Niagara water is for the first time to be divided equally, the United States government has been informed that when facilities have been constructed in the United States to make use of the full United States share of water, Canadian export licences then in effect will not be renewed unless circumstances existing in Canada at that time make such a course desirable.
Since the volume of water in the river fluctuates from time to time, and since definite amounts of water are reserved for scenic purposes, it is impossible to say just how much more water this treaty will make available for power generation. It is expected, however, that both countries will normally have the use of more water than before.

Niagara Diversion Treaty More important for Canada, perhaps, is the fact that the existing temporary arrangements are being superseded by a permanent agreement. This will make possible the construction of new power plants of the latest design, making more efficient use of the available water. For these two reasons this treaty is expected to result in a substantial increase in the supply of power at Niagara.
A thorough study of the scenic aspects of Niagara falls was conducted some years ago by a special international Niagara board, established by the United States and Canada. In its final report, in 1929, the board recommended the construction of remedial works to enhance the beauty of the falls by distributing the waters so as to produce an unbroken Crestline on the falls. Some of these works were built during the war. Article II of this treaty provides for the completion of the works when suitable plans have been drawn up by the international joint commission and approved by the governments of the United States and Canada.
This treaty is of primary interest to the province of Ontario, and in its preparation we were greatly assisted by experts from that province. The chairman of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the chairman of the Niagara parks commission participated in the discussions in Washington, and helped us to conclude a treaty which meets with the approval of the government of Ontario.
On the Canadian side, the object of this treaty is to provide more power for Ontario, and it has been recognized by the province that any financial commitments that may be involved should be met by Ontario. The agreement between this government and the government of Ontario, which was signed on March 27, accordingly provides that Ontario will construct and pay for the Canadian share of the remedial works and satisfy any valid claims arising out of damage or injury to persons or property in Canada in connection with the construction and operation of these works. The government of Canada undertakes to consult the government of Ontario before giving approval to the recommendations of the international joint commission as to the nature and design of the remedial works. The government of Canada also promises to authorize the government of Ontario to divert the water made available to Canada by the treaty when it comes into force.
It is our hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Niagara Diversion treaty will be ratified in the near future by the United States, in order that the redevelopment of the power facilities at Niagara may be started as soon as possible.
[Mr. Pearson.!
I wish to emphasize, however, that this redevelopment at Niagara will not in any sense take the place of the power that we expect to obtain from the St. Lawrence river. We must have additional Niagara power now, and St. Lawrence power as soon as we can get it. For that purpose we should all be glad to see appropriate and early action taken in Washington in regard to the St. Lawrence power development scheme.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the business of the house might have been so arranged that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), who has had wide experience in matters having to do with power development, and particularly in connection with this scheme, could have been here to make some observations which I am sure would have been interesting and helpful with respect to the resolution that has been presented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). At this time I have no intention of doing more than indicating the approval of our party of the proposed resolution.
I should like to re-echo the hope expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) from time to time in his addresses in the republic to the south, and reiterated by the minister of external affairs this morning, that the United States government will make a concerted attempt to see that the St. Lawrence waterway is developed in the near future. This should be done not only from the standpoint of the power needs of the provinces which would be contiguous to that development, but also because of certain other considerations which need not be mentioned at the moment but which are of vital importance to both nations in this critical period in international affairs. I believe it should be indicated that not only is the government anxious that the St. Lawrence seaway be proceeded with, but that it is the unanimous wish of this parliament that that should be done. I believe it is time we indicated to our great friends to the south-and they are great friends-that that is the wish of our people, not only in our own interests but in the interests of both countries, working toward the common goal of peace.
I have no intention of taking up the time of the house further in this connection, because the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), who has made a close study of the matters which are mentioned in this resolution, will make some observations with regard to them. I shall therefore terminate my remarks at this point and leave the discussion of the subject, so far as our party is concerned, in the capable hands of the member for York West.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this is another of those occasions on which there is not an opportunity to put questions to the minister. Once this motion passes at this stage, that is the end of it. I believe the minister does have the right under the rules of the house to speak at the end of the debate, and if I ask a few questions while I am speaking I hope the minister will take advantage of that opportunity to answer those questions, along with others that may be put by any speakers that follow.
Generally speaking, I want to indicate our support of this treaty, and I also want to add my word to what has already been said concerning the St. Lawrence river power development. I should like to express the hope that the voice of Canada in this regard is being heard by our friends to the south, and that it will not be too long before that project is undertaken. I could not help but wonder while the minister was speaking -and this is one of the questions I shall put to him-whether, had the St. Lawrence power project been undertaken, it would have been necessary to get this additional power at Niagara. I should be glad if the minister would deal with that when he speaks. Would it have been necessary to get any additional power under those circumstances, or might it still be necessary to get additional power but not to the extent as now seems to be required?
In connection with a matter of this kind we laymen have to take the word of the experts. I have in mind in particular the balance that I take it is being sought between the power needs and the preservation of the scenic beauty of the falls and the Niagara river and rapids. One can only hope that balance is being achieved by the figures that are set out in the treaty. When I read, for example, that there is to be reserved for the daylight hours, for a period of seven months of the year, water going over the falls to the extent of 100,000 cubic feet per second, I should like to know the present rate of flow in cubic feet per second. In other words, could we be given some idea of the extent to which the flow is cut down if the flow is reduced to the minimum figure suggested in this treaty? As I say, we have to take the word of the experts that they have found this to be a proper balance between these two aims. We certainly need the power, but I think all members will agree it would be a tragedy if our interest in and need for power were to lead us to the point of spoiling in any way one of the greatest scenic wonders in North America.
Niagara Diversion Treaty
Is it so that under the terms of the treaty the reduction to 50,000 cubic feet per second can be made during the hours of darkness for the seven months referred to and for twenty-four hours per day during the other five months? I should also be interested in knowing whether or not plans have already been made to make use of the water surplus to the 100,000 cubic feet per second during the time specified, and whether power developments have been made for the use of the water surplus to the 50,000 cubic feet per second to which the flow can be reduced during the five winter months as well as during the hours of darkness in the summer months. The house should also be told how much additional power will be made available by the use of that extra water. What is the relationship between that additional power and the amount of power now being developed at Niagara?
I do not wish my questions to be interpreted as indicating that we are against this treaty. We are in favour of it, but it is only proper that we should indicate our concern that the balance referred to will be achieved. After all, it is our responsibility as members of parliament to be concerned about these matters. By asking these questions I believe I have indicated the difficulty with which we are faced when presented with a resolution which goes through only one stage. I hope the minister will solve that problem for us by answering the questions when he closes the debate.
With that, Mr. Speaker, and with my own endorsation of what has been said about securing early action on the St. Lawrence project, I wish to indicate our support of this treaty.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fitting that this resolution should be introduced today because, as I understand it, today marks the opening of the Tunnel power plant. I believe the first two units will be put on the line today. The Des Joachims power plant, which is nearing completion, is, next to the Niagara power plant, the largest development in Ontario. It is not as large as the Shipshaw but it is the largest single plant outside of Niagara on the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission system. I think the significant thing is that this house should realize what this means. The Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario have under construction not only the plant at Des Joachims but several others which will be put into operation this year or early next year. I will not go into the details as to the size and the number of kilowatts, because they are all given in the hydro electric power commission's report and

Niagara Diversion Treaty
have been frequently commented upon by Mr. Saunders, the chairman of that commission. The significant thing for this house to realize at the moment is that, despite the full utilization of all the power plants now being constructed, the province of Ontario and the central part of Canada will again face a power shortage in the year 1957. Less than seven years from now all the available power in Ontario will be fully used, and unless our development in the central part of Canada is to be arrested, steps must immediately be taken to begin the construction of the St. Lawrence power project.
I want to deal briefly with the Niagara situation. The resolution does two things. First of all, it preserves the beauty of the falls. By a series of underwater weirs the flow of the falls at Niagara is made continuous from one edge of the river to the other. The geological history of Niagara falls has been that a great volume of the water was concentrated in a comparatively narrow trough, and the edges of the falls were beginning to be left a little bit bare. This had an unfortunate effect, in that as the volume of the water over the narrow trough increased, there was erosion of the central part of the falls. The centre part of Niagara, particularly the Horseshoe falls, was eating back at the rate of many feet a year, and intensifying the percentage of water which went over the narrow central trough. For that reason alone the work envisaged by this resolution is desirable, because the work to be done will not only stop the increased erosion but will preserve the beauty of the falls from now on. For that reason alone it is important.
There is, however, another reason. With the desperate shortage of power that there is at the present time, or that there will be in the comparatively near future, the efficiency of Niagara must be increased. As hon. members know, the head at Niagara itself is approximately 167 feet, whereas the head at Queenston, farther down the river, is 305 feet. In other words, the efficiency of a cubic foot of falling water is in the ratio of 167 to 305; or it produces at Queenston almost double the amount of electric power that it produces at Niagara falls. That fact in itself is an important consideration.
One of the unique things about the Niagara system is the evenness of flow. I have not before me the figures for the maximum and minimum flow, but the variation of flow in the Niagara river and in the St. Lawrence river-which is of course part of it-is about fifteen per cent to twenty per cent from the maximum to the minimum. The mean flow is about 300,000 cubic feet per second. The flow is amazingly constant. Those doing the

work can count on this constant flow, and the engineers can design the structure with a great deal of accuracy. On other rivers, or on the average river, the flow in the springtime, in the freshet, will be sometimes ten, fifteen or twenty times the normal low water flow. To give you a small example of the variation, the Amazon, over a length of I think about 250 miles, where the river is a minimum width of 17 miles, rises sixty feet over the distance in the flood season.
As to the destruction of the beauty of Niagara, there is no possibility of that through this resolution. There is, however, something which I think must be emphasized. As I have mentioned, we are facing a power shortage of considerable magnitude in Canada today, despite the tremendously important new works which have been recently constructed. The St. Lawrence deep waterway is an integral part of the whole great lakes system, and the discussion of this resolution must also involve consideration of the St. Lawrence waterway and power project.
It is estimated that some 800,000 horsepower will be added to the Niagara system by the more efficient use of the water, as set out in this resolution. That, I suggest, gives some idea of the importance of electric power. At the same time however there is at this moment 2,200,000 horsepower going to waste on the St. Lawrence. Despite the fact that we have utilized the water in the purely Canadian Beauharnois section of the St. Lawrence, there is still between 2,000,000 and 2,500,000 horsepower going to waste on the St. Lawrence.
I do not want to introduce the other question specifically, but I have on the order paper a resolution which, I believe, I should read at this time. It is as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of approving the application of the state of New York and the province of Ontario to proceed with the construction of hydroelectric works on the St. Lawrence river, with the proviso that such works be constructed in such a manner that should agreement between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada ever be reached on the deep waterway, navigation facilities could be subsequently installed without interference with the continuous generation of electric power; that furthermore the design of structures would permit the continuance of the present 14-foot shallow draft navigation, the cost of such works to be met by the state of New York and the province of Ontario.
In the submission of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario to the international joint commission the agreement for continuous navigation was made by the Ontario Hydro Electric, who were willing to see to it that the structure should be such that the present 14-foot navigation would continue.

In the opinion of the engineers it would not be difficult to construct generating works so that the installation of a 27-foot or even 30-foot navigation would be comparatively simple.
I do not propose to discuss the navigation issue at the present time; but I do want to say that, despite the tremendous addition of power, we shall be forced to consider generating electricity by coal and by steam unless the St. Lawrence deep waterways project can be proceeded with in the comparatively near future-and by that I mean this year or next year. It is estimated that a kilowatt-hour can be produced on the St. Lawrence deep waterway system for 2-58 mills, whereas the cost of producing and delivering the same killowatt hour by coal would be 7.7 mills. In other words the cost of generating electricity by coal is approximately three times that of generating it by water.
If our industry is to be able to compete with industry in the rest of the world, then the one thing we must have is cheap electric power. To burden our industry now with an increase not of fifteen or twenty per cent but of possibly one hundred per cent, is going to level a very crippling blow against the whole Canadian economy. I emphasize this because hon. members should realize how tremendously important and serious this question is.
I have studied the manner in which this question has been handled by the United States Senate over a period of some years. Every president since President Hoover, and every major political party at every national convention, has gone on record as approving of the development of the St. Lawrence river. This was stressed by the late President Roosevelt, and was adopted at both the Republican and Democratic national conventions the year before last. Up to the moment it has been a major point in President Truman's policy. However, despite the overwhelming pressure for this development the political machinery of the United States Senate makes it virtually impossible to get this measure through. I do not want to be a pessimist, but I do feel that a small group in the United States Senate can and will hold up the development of the St. Lawrence deep waterway project, and the electric power resulting therefrom, for a considerable period of time. With the political complexion of the United States we must realize that there is no likelihood of having this development approved before we are faced with a major power shortage. There is no use waiting another two or three years, because we are going to need more power in seven years, and it takes from six to eight years to carry out the construction. Our time is running out.
Niagara Diversion Treaty
I suggest to the government that they take this stand with regard to the development of the St. Lawrence deep waterway: If by such and such a time, setting a definite deadline, ratification is not forthcoming, the Canadian government will approve the development of this great project by the state of New York and the province of Ontario. The problem is not one that we can afford to let go much longer; the problem is one of immediate and pressing urgency.
Today Ontario has enough power, but witn the increasing acceleration of the load caused by industrialization that power will run out about 1957, or possibly before. The generation of electricity by coal costs three times as much as it does by water. If the new iron ore discoveries and our primary steel industry are to be developed, we shall need even more power, I believe, than we estimate at the present time.
This is not only a matter of commercial importance; it is something that affects the economy and virtually the security of the North American continent. If we are to have a great steel industry it must be situated where it will be safe from enemy attack. We cannot afford a long ocean voyage for cargoes such as iron ore. I envisage the great developments in Quebec requiring the smelting be done in the upper lakes, and that would be impossible unless the St. Lawrence waterway is proceeded with. The whole development of that iron ore will be in jeopardy unless it can be transported to the upper lakes.


Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: Send it to Nova Scotia.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am not going to speak about the Nova Scotia industry and the great difficulty in obtaining ore from Newfoundland.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to me the hon.
member is getting out of order.


Agar Rodney Adamson: An hon. member mentioned Nova Scotia. I do want to emphasize the importance of the government taking action in the near future. This proposed development will produce 800,000 additional horsepower, but that will be used up in seven years. The development of additional power and the provision of navigation to the great lakes should be proceeded with immediately. Having observed the strange method by which a small minority in the United States Senate can block legislation, not for one or two sessions but for twenty years, it seems to me that there is not much likelihood of this measure getting approval. I suggest to the government that they state definitely that we in Canada want this scheme to go through,

Niagara Diversion Treaty and that if we are blocked continuously we propose to act with the state of New York and the province of Ontario and proceed with the development of the St. Lawrence.


Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, as I represent one of the areas most vitally affected by the treaty before us today, I should like to express approval on behalf of the people on the Niagara frontier of the great development that is to take place in this area. As the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) has said, this development will not detract in any way from the beauty of Niagara falls; in fact it will enhance it. This fact must be kept before us, because many tourists come to this area, and we should continue to develop that tourist business.
We should develop all the power potentials in this locality. More power is needed in Ontario, particularly along the Niagara frontier. In the past few years we have known of power shortages. We are told that we shall have more in the future. We need the power that will be developed by reason of this treaty. Since 1939 the area which I represent, and in addition the county of Welland and the area extending as far as the city of Hamilton, has experienced a great industrial development, possibly greater than any other part of Canada. In the years to come we shall be able to make use of the additional power that can be developed at Niagara.
I have read the treaty which is under discussion today, and my interpretation of it is that there will be no diversion of water for power purposes between Niagara falls and lake Ontario. In the district in which I live the opinion seems to have been formed that a diversion will take place somewhere near the village of Queenston in order that the flow of water may be used twice-in the Niagara river and in a diverted stream. It may be there are some technical difficulties in the way preventing this policy from being carried out. I am sure that many citizens of Canada, particularly of the Niagara area, would be interested to know whether there are technical difficulties, or what the reason is for the provision that no diversion shall take place between Niagara falls and lake Ontario. I am sure that the development at Niagara can be proceeded with immediately, and in addition to the great power development that will take place along the St. Lawrence river. We need both projects.
I desire to commend the stand taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the great efforts he put forth in Washington to bring about the treaty.


Mr. F. S. Follwell (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, as I am chairman of the utilities
[Mr. Adamson.)
commission of my home city at the present time, and have had a great deal of experience with power shortages during the last few years in the province of Ontario, I feel I should be remiss if I did not rise at this time and congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on the way in which he, on behalf of the government of Canada, has proceeded to bring about this treaty between the Dominion of Canada and the United States.
We were told that the power shortages were due to lack of water, but apparently we are not going to lack water from now on. From what has been said I understand that all the water will be used, other than what is necessary to retain the beauty of the falls. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, that will provide a great deal more horsepower for the use of the people of Ontario. I should like to congratulate the government and the minister, and I sincerely hope that the treaty will be made effective at the earliest possible date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be unanimity in the house as to the desirability of the treaty. There is little that I need add to what I have already said, but one or two questions have been raised, and possibly I should try to answer them before approval is given.
The hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) was good enough to bring his expert knowledge to bear on the matter, and I think he has dealt with some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The hon. member asked whether in the opinion of the government the treaty would have been necessary if we had been able to carry the St. Lawrence waterway negotiations to a successful conclusion. As has been indicated already by the hon. member for York West, the answer is yes; in our opinion it would have been necessary, not only because the power would be necessary irrespective of the other development, but also because the primary purpose of the treaty is to preserve the scenic beauty of Niagara falls.
As to the power aspect of the question, one must remember that if and when-and I prefer to emphasize "when"-the St. Lawrence negotiations are carried to a successful conclusion, the 5,000 cubic feet per second which are now diverted from lake Ogoki into the great lakes system, and which can now be used

by Canada, would have to be given up under this treaty. We would lose that quantity of power resources. It would also be desirable in other ways to have both treaties.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre expressed the hope that the treaty under discussion would not do anything to prejudice the scenic beauty of the falls. I can assure him-and other hon. members have already so stated-that this will not be the case. We hope the contrary result will be achieved, and that the treaty will make more secure and enhance the value of what is after all a great national asset in which all Canadians take pride and from which we also derive some profit-the scenic beauty of Niagara falls.
The hon. member also inquired as to the present flow of water. I am informed that it is between 110,000 and 115,000 cubic feet per second after existing diversions are taken into account, depending on the season and the level of the lakes. It will of course be known to hon. members that article IV of the treaty deals with the question of the flow of water over the falls and its relation to scenic beauty. The period from April 1 to October 31 is the main tourist season at the falls, and for this reason the flow over the falls and through the rapids is to be
100,000	cubic feet per second in the hours of daylight. This is the flow which the special international Niagara board in 1929 considered to be the minimum essential for an adequate spectacle by day in the tourist season. In this treaty we have attempted to safeguard that position. Less water is needed at night because the beauty of the falls when artificially illuminated does not depend to such an extent on the volume of water as long as the flow is fairly evenly distributed across the width of the falls. From September 16 to October 31 the hours of daylight are appreciably less, and consequently the flow may be reduced at 8 p.m. instead of 10 p.m.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also asked me whether plans had been made for the use of water in excess of 100,000 cubic feet per second in summer or 50,000 in winter. The answer is that plans have been made by the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario which will presumably use as much of this water as their plants can take at any one time. At this point I might express again the government's appreciation of the co-operation which we have received from the commission in the negotiation of the treaty.
A question was asked, and indeed an answer was given, as to how much additional power would be made available by
Niagara Diversion Treaty the treaty. It has been suggested that it might be as high as 800,000 horsepower. I would not like to be as definite as that; I should think the answer will depend in part upon the plants the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario decide to build, and in part upon the level of water in the Niagara river at any given time. One estimate I have heard is 500,000 horsepower, somewhat lower than that of the hon. member for York West, but in my statement I said that in our opinion there would be a substantial increase, which may be somewhere between those two figures. We hope it will be as great as possible.
In the discussion of this resolution it has been suggested that we as a government should once again bring to the attention of the United States authorities the very great political and economic importance to our two countries of proceeding with the St. Lawrence development. Certainly there does not seem to be any difference of opinion in this house on that matter. Personally I think that political and economic developments in recent years have made this matter of greater importance than ever before; and if any such assurance is needed I can assure the house that this government has taken every possible step to urge the government of the United States that action be taken without delay. At this time I do not think I need go into the details of this urging, because they will be apparent to hon. members. We still feel that way about it, and we hope that our feelings -and by "our" I mean not merely the government but this parliament and I believe this country-will be appreciated in Washington and action taken. I am not as pessimistic in that regard as the hon. member for York West. We hear a great deal these days about international point four programs for technical development, and they are important; I hope Washington will very soon show a realization of the importance of this point one program in the economic and political relationships between our two countries, and that action may soon be taken.
The hon. member suggested that if such action is not taken within a reasonable space of time we might indicate to the United States authorities that we should approve a power development alone on the St. Lawrence between the state of New York and the province of Ontario, to be carried out in such a way as not to prejudice any later navigational developments which it might be possible to bring about. As I have said, I am not as pessimistic as the hon. member in regard to action being taken on the larger scheme and I doubt whether it would be wise formally to take that stand at this time. I would remind the house that even if we did,

Canadian National Railways that would not remove the obstacle, if it is an obstacle, of federal authorization and approval by Washington of any action the state of New York might wish to take with the province of Ontario. I understand the state of New York has already approached the United States federal authorities with regard to this matter, and has not yet been able to secure their approval for a state-provincial power development alone on the St. Lawrence. Therefore unless approval could be obtained by the state of New York from the federal authorities in Washington, any expression of opinion on our part would be more or less academic.
Before resuming my seat I want to reiterate the importance we attach to the larger scheme, and our feeling that in ratifying this Niagara Diversion treaty we are not in any way minimizing the importance of the other scheme. As a matter of fact this gives us an opportunity to emphasize the great importance, politically and economically, we attach to the St. Lawrence seaway development.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to correct one statement by the minister, if I may. It is not the government of the United States that is holding up the St. Lawrence deep waterway. It is a group of-I hesitate to use the word- "maverick" senators who have continuously blocked this development, and apparently are prepared to go on doing so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There should not be any doubt as to what I meant on that point, because it is a matter of our relationship with the United States. Whatever may be the position behind the scenes, the fact remains that the Senate of the United States, which is an important part of the government of that country, for reasons which in its own opinion may be very good, has not yet seen fit to ratify the agreement.
Motion (Mr. Pearson) agreed to.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to issue securities not exceeding $24,582,489 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1950; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $24,582,489 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet
[Mr. Pearson.1
such expenditures and indebtedness; with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system and to authorize the Minister of Finance to place at the disposal of the national company or the Trans-Canada Air Lines, such amounts as may be necessary to enable them to pay operating and income charges if at any time before the first day of July, 1951, the available revenues of the national railway system or the Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries, respectively, are not sufficient to pay such charges: provided that all such amounts shall be reimbursed to the minister from the recipients' annual revenues in so far as such revenues are sufficient, any insufficiency to be provided for by subsequent deficit appropriations by parliament.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: My understanding is that this will be the Canadian National Railways bill-


Alphonse Fournier: This is only the formal stage of the resolution.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My understanding is that this is in the ordinary form, so we shall reserve any comments we have until the next stage is reached.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion before the house is not debatable; it is that the house go into committee of the whole at the next sitting to consider the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, if I may have consent to revert for a moment to motions, I should like to table a summary of the orders in council passed from May 1 to May 31.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
1949 STOCKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries whether the investigator sent to Newfoundland to ascertain the quantity of 1949 salt codfish still on hand has reported, and, if so, what is the position.


Mr. J. W. MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: The
group of experts sent to Newfoundland to gather information as to the quantity of salt codfish left over from the 1949 catch and other relevant information have returned.

They have not yet been able to put their information in the form of a report for the prices support board, but they are working on it at the present time and probably it will be ready in a day or so.



DEFENCE SUPPLIES


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the second, reading of Bill No. 302, respecting defence supplies and projects.


Mr. Green:: Is the minister not making a statement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made a complete statement on the introduction of the resolution, and have nothing further to say at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which is to be known as the Defence Supplies Act, was described by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the other day as a peacetime bill. The suggestion was made by opposition members that perhaps this bill was being introduced because a condition of emergency existed for Canada. Several times during the discussion, however, the minister denied that was so. I propose to refer to two or three of his statements to that effect.
One statement will be found at page 3480 of Hansard for June 12, 1950, where the minister interjected this remark during the course of a speech by the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell): "It is a peacetime bill." On page 3489 of the same volume of Hansard he said:
If there were an emergency, we would not be passing this bill.
Incidentally, he indicated that in the event of a war being declared the government would bring down some other measure which it has in reserve. On the same page the minister said:
. . . we believe that peacetime is restored to the extent that wartime powers should now be given up and replaced by peacetime powers.
On the next page, 3490, he said:
But I repeat that what is before parliament now is a bill to govern peacetime purchases.
There cannot be the slightest doubt that the minister, on behalf of the government, presents this bill as a peacetime bill, and it must be considered as such. In doing so he claimed that instead of taking powers which were excessive, the bill divested him of power. When this particular minister starts to divest himself of power that will be a day that should be proclaimed a national holiday.
Defence Supplies
There will be a blue moon in the sky. The very fact that he made that statement, having regard to the way in which he has accumulated powers during the last few years just as a ship accumulates barnacles, is sufficient to make the members of the opposition stop, look, and listen, and give careful study to the bill in order to ascertain how it happens that this minister is presumably divesting himself of any power.
The minister claims that this great divesting is of powers given to him under the Department of Munitions and Supply Act. Let us look at that act for a few moments. It was originally passed in the short war session in the fall of 1939. Members of this house who were here then will recall that we thought the bill, whoever was to be the minister, gave extremely sweeping powers. Even the government realized that, because a provision was written into the act that it should only be in effect for a period of three years. It was a wartime measure and nothing else. No legislator in Canada at that time believed that drastic powers of this type should be given to any government except under war conditions. The act was not actually proclaimed law until about six months later, on April 9, 1940.
In the fall session of 1940 an amendment was made to the act giving wider powers than those contained in the original bill, but again the restrictive time limit of three years was retained. In 1943 further amendments to the Department of Munitions and Supply Act were presented, and at that time the time limitation was wiped out. There is not the slightest doubt, however, that even in 1943, in the midst of the war, this measure was still regarded as a purely war measure.
It should be pointed out that the department of munitions and supply was in reality a part of the war department of Canada. The Department of National Defence gave the lead in one part of our country's war effort, and the department of munitions and supply co-operated with the defence department. I suggest that actually the defence department had the dominant role, quite properly, and the department of munitions and supply was merely helping the former department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was really three departments.


Howard Charles Green: Yes; the Department of National Defence had three ministers at that time. The position is entirely different today. The Department of Trade and Commerce has not the same relationship to the Department of National Defence in any way, shape or form.

Defence Supplies
Then, let us trace what happened to these drastic wartime powers which were given to the department of munitions and supply. In 1944, when it was obvious that the war was drawing to an end, further power was taken by the government for the reconstruction period. This power will be found set out in the Department of Reconstruction Act, which was passed in 1944. Again that act was to be in force for a limited period. One of the sections defines the reconstruction period as the period from April 1, 1944, until some time in the year 1949, depending on the date on which the house was called into session during the latter year. The same minister who is now the Minister of Trade and Commerce and is introducing the bill we are debating was named minister of reconstruction in October of 1944. Speaking of powers, he was given powers under this act which are worth looking at today. In section 5(b) we find that he had this power:
(b) to co-ordinate the actions of other departments and agencies of the government of Canada for the purpose of ensuring that the transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy shall be effected as quickly and as smoothly as possible.
He was made a superminister at that time, and continued also with his powers as minister of munitions and supply.
In 1945 the department of reconstruction and supply was set up under another act. The new minister was to have these powers under section 6:
The minister shall have and may exercise and shall perform all and every of the rights, powers, duties, liabilities and functions which were, immediately prior to the coming into force of this section, by any act, order or regulation, vested in, or required to be exercised or performed by the minister of munitions and supply or the minister of reconstruction.
The same minister was sworn in as [DOT]minister of reconstruction and supply on January 1, 1946. The department of reconstruction and supply continued until last fall, when it was abolished and the Department of Resources and Development set up, with powers more in line with what is proper in peacetime. In the meantime, on January 1, 1948, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce was appointed to that portfolio. Powers under the Department of Munitions and Supply Act were then no longer being used for current transactions. They may have been used to clean up old war transactions, but they were not being used for current transactions. Instead, for the last three years or more a government company known as the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been doing the buying for the Department of National Defence. When the minister spoke the other day he explained that position in his statement which
(Mr. Green. 1
is to be found at page 3490 of Hansard. Referring to the setting up of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, he said:
It was established about 1943 for the purpose of assisting foreign governments to purchase in Canada. It was not until 1946, I think, when the minister of munitions and supply-
Which was himself.
-was attempting to wind up his department; and, as this agency was working efficiently, it seemed logical at that time to transfer responsibility for the purchase of military materials from the minister of munitions and supply to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I emphasize the fact that the minister himself then stated that the work of the department of munitions and supply was being wound up. In 1947 an amendment was passed to the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, giving that corporation power to act as a defence procurement agency. These powers given under the Department of Munitions and Supply Act to purchase defence supplies have therefore not been in use. The minister himself said that the other day, as reported at page 3489 of Hansard, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), referring to the Department of Munitions and Supply Act:


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has it been availed of recently?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not been invoking it recently.
Nobody ever intended that those powers should be used in peacetime. Nobody in this parliament or in the last parliament had any idea that those drastic powers were being used; and as a matter of fact they have not been used for the last several years. Hence this talk by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of divesting himself of powers under this bill is misleading talk, because those powers have not been in use.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But the wartime powers have still been there. They have still been in the statutes since 1939.


Howard Charles Green: But they have not been in use. The question whether or not they have been in use is the main point. For the minister to try to justify the bringing in of this present bill with these far too drastic powers, by saying, Oh, there is an old law on the statute book and therefore I am giving up a lot of my powers, but I am taking on these new peacetime powers, is just evading the whole issue and is deceiving the house and the Canadian people.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The statute is as dead as Queen Anne.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that so?


Howard Charles Green: For over three years the Department of Trade and Commerce has been the

procurement agency of the Department of National Defence, and apparently the work has been done without any difficulty. There has been no indication that there has been any inefficiency in this method and nobody can have any quarrel with the Department of Trade and Commerce doing the buying for the Department of National Defence. But now this government in peacetime is asking for powers which are excessive, unreasonable and dictatorial.
Just look at the powers taken under this bill. I am referring now to the government, because the government must stand behind this bill, although actually all those drastic powers are placed by the bill in the hands of this minister alone. There is the power of priorities. Where the government has a contract with a firm in Canada the minister can step in and say to the firm:	Here, you may
have a contract with somebody else, but you have got to break that contract with the other Canadians and supply the Canadian government first. There is the power to require the delivery of supplies that is contained in section 3 (l)(f) of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It might be better if the hon. member did not refer to the sections at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Very well, Mr. Speaker. But there is power taken to force anyone in Canada to sell defence supplies to the government; and defence supplies are so defined that they cover practically every kind of goods produced in Canada. There is wide open power to step in and force anybody in Canada to supply goods. Then there is power to get information, to go to any business firm in Canada and say:	You must give us full
information about what supplies you have and everything in connection with those supplies.
Then to cap it all, just in case something has been forgotten, in the last paragraph of this particular section there is power to-
-do such further things as may be authorized by the governor in council in regard to the procurement and disposal of defence supplies and projects.
There is power both to acquire goods and to sell them. The minister is taking the power to buy goods and then to turn around and sell them again-to buy and sell-governmental powers unheard of in peacetime in Canada. As I have said, they are all exercised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to finish with this point now if I may. These are not powers for a short period. These are permanent powers, to remain on the statute books of Canada indefinitely. They will remain there until there is a new government which will repeal
Defence Supplies
them. It is not a question of temporary powers; and all these powers I have mentioned are quite outside any control by the Department of National Defence. That department has no right whatever to interfere with the exercise of any of these powers.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when the house
took recess at one o'clock I had been pointing out our objection to this defence supplies bill, on the ground that the government is seeking excessive, unreasonable and dictatorial powers which are to be exercised largely by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I had concluded that phase of my remarks by pointing out that the exercise of these powers was quite beyond any control by the Department of National Defence. I should like to go on now and place before Your Honour and the house several other serious objections to the bill.
I believe the Department of National Defence should either be in control of or at least associated in the exercise of any powers granted under the bill. Instead of that this war department is treated as though it were of secondary importance and merely incidental. We found in the resolution preceding the bill that the first powers mentioned were those far-reaching powers to be given to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, without any reference at all to the Department of National Defence. Then there was this further provision:
Also to empower the minister to buy or otherwise acquire defence supplies and construct or carry out projects required by the Department of National Defence.
In the bill itself this same treatment is meted out to that department. We find that after the chief powers have been set out in the bill, section 4 gives the Minister of Trade and Commerce exclusive power to do all the buying for the Department of National Defence. In effect the Department of Trade and Commerce, by reason of this bill, emerges as the supreme authority in connection with all defence purchases. It may be that that is one reason why the estimates of the Department of National Defence are worded in such an indefinite way this year. Perhaps the poor unfortunate Minister of National Defence does not know yet what the Department of Trade and Commerce is going to spend in buying defence supplies or erecting defence projects. The very fact that those estimates are worded in such a wide and indefinite way means that there is just that much

Defence Supplies
wider power given to the Minister of Trade and Commerce to spend money being voted for the Department of National Defence.
Another grave feature is that the bill is built around an individual minister, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. That, I suggest, is both unwise and dangerous. The House of Commons should not enact legislation based upon the character and qualities of any one individual minister. Permanent legislation of this kind should not be concerned in any way with the personality of a minister. Yet this bill is obviously drawn for the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. Those powers are not given to him because he is Minister of Trade and Commerce; it is not because he holds that office; they are given to him because he has been exercising dictatorial powers for a long time, and that is the type of power he always requires to carry on business.
There will not be a future minister of trade and commerce who will want to have powers of this type in the purchase of defence supplies. Only a minister who had exercised wartime powers would ask in this time of peace for the powers contained in this bill.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Or would have the nerve to ask for them.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, or would have the nerve to ask for them. The Minister of Trade and Commerce showed his attitude when he was speaking as reported at page 3473 of Hansard. At that point he was praising the Canadian people for having co-operated so well during the war. He said they really did not need much compulsion, but then went on to say this:
Nevertheless, even with the best good will and co-operation on all sides, circumstances may still arise where some mandatory powers are needed.
In other words he wants to have a whip, and this bill provides him with that whip.
Not only is there unreasonable interference with the Department of National Defence, but this bill also enables the Minister of Trade and Commerce to interfere with the business of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). Hon. members will notice the wide powers given by the bill to deal with the construction and even with the repair of ships. That is the business of the Minister of Transport; he is responsible for shipping and shipbuilding policies. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has no business to step into that field at all. Yet, here he is getting into it, in just the same way that he retains control over Trans-Canada Air Lines. That air line should not come under his department at all. It is a subsidiary of Canadian National Railways; yet while the Minister of Transport is responsible for the railway, we find

the Minister of Trade and Commerce hanging on to the power over Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Another very serious matter is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is the minister of elections of this government. He is the chief of staff of the Liberal party. In this bill we find him being given arbitrary powers over thousands and thousands of businessmen in this country. With the minister holding such power, naturally those men will hesitate to do anything which would offend the government. It is giving the Minister of Trade and Commerce power politically which no member of any government should possess.
Already the Minister of Trade and Commerce has tremendous power. I need only mention that in addition to his department he has control of the atomic energy control board; Canadian Patents and Development Limited; dominion coal board; Eldorado Mining and Refining, Limited; the national research council; Polymer Corporation, and as I have already mentioned, Trans-Canada Air Lines, and goodness knows how many other branches of government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And doing very well.


Howard Charles Green: He seems to be responsible also for the administration of the combines act, or at least to think he is responsible. The next thing we know he will be telling the minister of external affairs what is to be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Probably he has already.


Howard Charles Green: Instead of divesting the minister of power, this bill in effect is nothing more nor less than a refusal to give up wartime powers which should have been given up long ago.
If there are to be in peacetime these wide powers of requisitioning, they should be exercised by the cabinet and not by one minister. I would refer hon. members to the provisions of the Public Works Act, section 36, which incidentally is one section that the minister partly gets away from by this bill. That section reads:
Whenever any works are to he executed under the direction of any department of the government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works, except in cases
(a)	of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest; or
(b)	in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department; or
(c)	where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.

Then there is another subsection which reads:
2. Whenever in case of any work tenders are required to be or are invited, the minister having charge of the department concerned shall submit all tenders received therefor to the governor in council and the contract for the work shall be awarded under the direction of the governor in council.
Those are the general provisions covering the letting of contracts by departments of the Canadian government. This bill gives far wider powers than are contained in the section I have just read. For example, the minister does not need to comply with that section of the Public Works Act if he thinks that a disclosure of the terms of a contract would be prejudicial to the interests of defence, or if the contract is to be exercised by one of the many crown companies, or if the contract is for the construction or repair of a ship; or-this is another blanket clause-the governor in council can say that any contract is exempt from these provisions.
The minister is also given powers under this new bill to enter into contracts on his own without any approval whatever by the government. For example, if he thinks a contract should be entered into immediately it does not need to be approved by his fellow members of the cabinet, or if the estimated expenditure does not exceed $15,000-hon. members will notice that the figure in the Public Works Act is $5,000-or if competitive tenders have been obtained and the lowest tender accepted involves an expenditure not exceeding $50,000. In those cases the minister is given this extra leeway.
I suggest that other members of the cabinet have a grave responsibility in connection with these defence contracts. They are not accepting that responsibility by allowing a bill of this kind to become law. Other members of the government are running away from their responsibility to the Canadian people.
By this measure the Canadian people are being asked to surrender part of their freedom in peacetime; at a time when the Minister of Trade and Commerce has insisted that there is no emergency. If we were in wartime or in time of emergency the attitude of the official opposition would be different. No matter what else may be charged against the Progressive Conservative party of Canada, no one can charge us with failing to stand behind every measure for the proper defence of this country. This is brought in as a peacetime measure, and the most serious aspect of the measure is that it takes away some freedom. During the war the Canadian people gave up their rights without question, but in peacetime the taking of these drastic powers is an unjustifiable interference with
Defence Supplies
the rights of the Canadian people. This bill goes a long way toward establishing dictatorship in Canada.


Mr. Mclvor:: Of the right kind.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Fort William says it is the right kind of dictatorship. He has been here a long time, and I have never yet seen him fail to spend most of his energies in the house in backing up anything the hon. member for Port Arthur, who is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, wanted to do or say. The hon. member even backed him up when it meant piping oil to Superior, Wisconsin, instead of to the lake-head in Canada.
This bill shows the arrogance of the present government. If the House of Commons were more evenly balanced the government would never dare bring in a measure of this kind. It is only because the House of Commons is so lop-sided that that is done. One reason for that situation is that during the election campaign the Minister of Trade and Commerce failed to tell the people facts which were facts, and several other ministers did the same thing. They got great support by reason of the misrepresentations that were made, or the failure to make any representations.
I repeat that the government would never have dared to bring in a measure of this type had the house not been so overwhelmingly Liberal. It is an indication of the trend toward a one-party state for Canada. One has only to read the speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) last Saturday before the National Liberal Federation to realize that he thinks that there is only one party in Canada. That is a dangerous frame of mind and bodes ill for the Canadian people. This measure can fairly be described as a menace to democratic government in Canada.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I have no apology to make for saying this was the right kind of dictatorship. The former minister of transport, the former minister of munitions and supply, the former minister of reconstruction and supply and the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) have given service to Canada that is second to none. This debate boils down to one thing: Can we trust the Minister of Trade and Commerce? We trusted him during the war, and he has grown since that time. At the close of his war work he could stand up in the house and defy any man to show where a dishonest dollar had been made, and that is the kind of dictatorship we want in Canada. Which is safer, Mr. Speaker, one man to buy for the Department of National Defence or

Defence Supplies
half a dozen men? There is no overlapping. If I wished I could give you an example of how the Minister of Trade and Commerce would not allow anybody to make a dishonest dollar.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) should say that we want any form of dictatorship. On the other hand, I was not surprised to hear the hon. member speak as he did because, so far as I can see since I have been in the house, his principal function has been to sing the amen chorus for the Liberal party. In rising to take part in the debate on this most important bill, I want to say before proceeding that I rise not only as a member of the house and of the C.C.F. group but also as a veteran who served Canada in the first world war, volunteered to serve in the second world war and who is willing to serve at any time in the necessary defence of this country.
Section 1 of the bill says that the act may be cited as the Defence Supplies Act, and the explanatory note reads as follows:
The purpose of the bill is to repeal the Department of Munitions and Supply Act and the earlier Defence Purchases, Profits Control and Financing Act, 1939, and replace them by the Defence Supplies Act restricted to provisions that are necessary for defence purposes in peacetime.
Parnell, the radical Irish leader in the parliament of Great Britain, when he rose to speak on one occasion on a bill in connection with the Irish question, had this to say: "I smell a rat. I see it hovering in the air. I will nip it in the bud." In brief that illustrates the attitude of the party to which I belong as to the bill now before the house.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Was it not Sir
Boyle Roche who said that rather than Parnell?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who is saying it now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think I am correct. What is the attitude of Canadians generally at this time? This is an important measure so far as they are concerned. I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). He placed great emphasis upon the powers given to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) under the bill. I am going to approach the bill from a somewhat different point of view, and I trust I will not repeat the arguments of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. The great majority of the Canadian people are most anxious to see peace in the world today. The great majority are loyal to our country, and if necessary would give their

utmost in its defence. The great majority of the Canadian people know that wars of the past were, and wars of the future will be, caused by one of two things or both of them, the struggle for power and/or the struggle for possessions.
I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) are men who seek and desire peace. I believe they sincerely hope that the United Nations will function, and that somehow or other we car develop peaceful relations betwen the two great opposing forces in the world today. Nevertheless I am sure that if they are going to convince a considerable number of sincere Canadians of their sincerity in this regard they have got to do certain things that have not been done to date, and that are not provided for in one instance in the provisions of the bill. In order to convince the Canadian people that the government is doing all it can to work for world peace, I believe it has to demonstrate more fully that it is working to secure the implementation of article 2 of the Atlantic pact. I also believe that for the government to convince the vast majority of the Canadian people that it is working for peace it must make certain that no one shall profit out of preparations for the defence of Canada in the future. What is the attitude of the party to which I belong?


An hon. Member:: You tell us.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will tell you. On January 31, 1949, my leader, when speaking in the house, placed on record the official policy of the C.C.F. with relation to the present international situation. At that time he had this to say, as recorded at page 92 of Hansard:
The C.C.F. however, insist that such a pact should be based upon the broad principle so clearly stated in the Brussels treaty. It must provide for the fullest possible economic co-operation, aim at a high standard of living and increasing democracy in all participating countries, and thus give the western world the dynamic democratic leadership which is the only real answer to communism.
Further on he had this to say:
The probable cost of the military and other commitments to this pact make more urgent than ever the immediate introduction of the C.C.F. policy to place the burden of taxation on those best able to bear it. It also emphasizes the need for measures of control over industry and production, which would allow for the effective planning and use of our resources to meet all our obligations and at the same time to develop a higher standard of living and social security for all our people. The C.C.F. affirms again that the best defence against communism and all forms of totalitarianism rests not on military might but on social justice.

On March 28, 1949, my leader had this to say, as reported at page 2074 of Hansard:
The proposed treaty, in article 2, pledges the parties to contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and wellbeing. They pledge themselves to try to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and to encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them. Indeed, in the opinion of the C.C.F., as it was of those who formulated the United Nations charter, plans for military aid and security are of little value unless based upon a determination to build by mutual agreement the positive social and economic conditions of peace which involve wide measures of international planning for the common good.
Every proposal to increase and distribute food supplies and other necessities of life is a proposal to remove the causes of discontent which, in turn, cause men to grasp the promises of dictators whether they are of the fascist or of the communist variety.
At page 2076 of Hansard for the same date he had this to say:
Then, too, because of our own geographical situation, our military preparedness would be a crippling burden to us. As a part of the North Atlantic fraternity both our danger and our burdens should be lessened. But whatever burdens in the field of defence are involved-and let me say this to the government with all the emphasis that I can give it-no one must be allowed to profit in the production of instruments of war. We urged before the last war that all munitions industries should be nationalized. We reiterate that now and demand that profiteering in related industries must be eliminated by every means at our disposal.
That is the attitude of the C.C.F. towards preparations for defence and the deficiencies exhibited in the bill. We are not alone in that; leaders of all parties have expressed their desire to see armament industries nationalized and to see the profits from the production of defence materials reduced. That view has been expressed by representatives of all great parties. The people of Canada have had experience in two major wars, and if this government is to convince them that we are sincere in our efforts to preserve world peace and that our preparations are purely on a defensive basis, in the opinion of this group we must do three things. First, we must do more to implement article 2 of the Atlantic treaty. Second, we must build social security in Canada more quickly. Third, we must take the profit out of preparations for defence.
Now I am going to quote some of the great leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties. First I am going to quote the late Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, the great Victorian leader of the Liberal party in Great Britain. I am quite sure that even the anaemic descendants of that party in this house will still pay some attention to the
Defence Supplies
words of that great statesman. I am quoting from the "Life of Gladstone" by John Morley, volume III, where Gladstone said:
. . . But one inevitable characteristic of modern war is that it is associated throughout, in all particulars, with a vast and most irregular formation of commercial enterprise. There is no incentive to Mammon-worship so remarkable as that which it affords. The political economy of war is now one of its most commanding aspects. Every farthing, with the smallest exceptions conceivable, of the scores or hundreds of millions which a war may cost, goes directly, and very violently, to stimulate production, though it is intended ultimately for waste or for destruction. Even apart from the fact that war suspends, ipso facto, every rule of public thrift, and tends to sap honesty itself in the use of the public treasure for which it makes such unbounded calls, it therefore is the greatest feeder of that lust of gold which we are told is the essence of commerce, though we had hoped it was only its occasional besetting sin. It is, however, more than this; for the regular commerce of peace is tameness itself compared with the gambling spirit which war, through the rapid shiftings and high prices which it brings, always introduces into trade. In its moral operation it more resembles, perhaps, the finding of a new gold field, than anything else.
Then I believe the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) referred to the debate on a bill which was introduced in this house in March, 1939. I want to quote in part what was said by the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie when introducing that bill, as it appears at page 1767 of Hansard for 1939:
The government is determined that in peacetime, where private industry must be utilized, there shall be the strictest possible regulation of profits both in the interest of the taxpayer and in deference to public abhorrence of profits made from products which involve destruction of human lives and misery among nations.
It is obvious that in introducing this bill minus the restriction of five per cent on profits the government has forgotten the words of Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie on that occasion. Then speaking in the same debate the late Hon. R. J. Manion, then leader of the Conservative opposition, had this to say at page 1774 of Hansard:
It is suggested I proposed that there should be no profits at all in the manufacture of munitions in Canada; but a remark of mine quoted by the minister showed that I was open to conviction in the matter, because I pointed out the danger of the idea not working out, and I left a door open. I do not believe that we could eliminate profits one hundred per cent; but if the personnel of the munitions board is well chosen and endeavours to carry out the provisions of the legislation along the lines indicated by the minister, eliminating all but five per cent-which is eliminating ninety-five per cent of profit-that should satisfy the people of the country to a large extent.
There the leader of the Conservative opposition, speaking for that party, indicated that it would like profits on munitions and defence supplies limited to five per cent. Now I come to a quotation from the speech made during

Defence Supplies
the same debate by the present socialist Progressive Conservative member for Van-couver-Quadra at page 1787 of Hansard:
Sooner or later we shall have to face the question of how we are going to obtain these armaments. I suggest to the government that before they proceed any further with the present policy they should reconsider the whole question. They should arrange to use the dominion arsenals as Australia and the United Kingdom have done. I do not believe the Canadian people approve reliance being placed exclusively upon private firms for our armaments, and I do not believe they will tolerate, let alone approve, armament rings and armament trusts, which are likely to spring up as a result of the government's policy. On the other hand, I have no doubt our people would be solidly behind a policy such as that adopted by Australia and the United Kingdom, even though this policy required in the beginning a heavier capital outlay than does the present policy; the government have at hand the means of raising the money under their new plan for financing capital expenditures on a ten-year basis. I suggest that in dealing with this very important problem the government show a little more of the foresight and initiative and courage of the individual Canadian.
Today the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra largely confined his remarks to a very justifiable criticism of the enormous powers given the minister, but I noticed that he did not suggest there should be some socialization of the armament industry or of the industries producing defence supplies.
Now I should like to conclude my references, and my support of the argument we advance in this connection, with a few quotations from an article that appeared in Maclean's magazine of August 1, 1931. The article is headed, "Salesmen of death. The truth about war makers, by Lieutenant Colonel George A. Drew." In this article I find the strongest arguments in favour of the C.C.F. approach to the munitions problem that have been given in printed form by a member of any other party in this country. The subheading reads, "A plain-spoken denunciation of an armament industry which makes wars to make money .	.	. 'this
Frankenstein monster must be smashed or it will smash civilization.' ". The article goes on:
Strangely enough, in all the discussions which have taken place in anticipation of the conference which is now but a few months away, the outstanding lesson of the last great Geneva-the naval disarmament conference of 1927-had apparently been completely ignored. That lesson, which is of the utmost practical importance in preparing for the next conference, lay in the disclosure that behind national competition in armaments and navies lies a vicious commercial competition of armament and shipbuilding companies which seek to promote international ill will for the purpose of preserving a ready market for the death-dealing equipment they produce. The lesson of that conference was perfectly clear; that private profit in the production of armament furnishes one of the most active sources of international friction, which can be

removed only by some form of national ownership which would eliminate the personal advantages resulting from sales.
It was only to be expected that a very definite limitation should be placed on the possibility of personal profit from this enormous national demand, and in 1915 all armament factories were placed under government control by the Munitions Act, and the public assured that the profits of the industry were strictly controlled by the newly created ministry of munitions which had been placed under the dynamic leadership of David Lloyd George.
It is vitally important, for the purpose of understanding the sinister possibilities of private interest in the production of arms, that the public know what an utter sham this' supposed control actually amounted to. True, the profits were controlled, but only to the extent that they were not to exceed twenty per cent, which was the average profit of the English armament companies in the years prior to the war. What this profit amounted to may be appreciated by remembering that the artillery ammunition alone shipped from England to France during the war had a value of over $4 billion. The profits on this one item amounted to something like $800 million. The story was very much the same in all the warring countries except that in the United States the percentage was even higher.
Who received the benefit of these enormous profits? Primarily, of course, it was men like Zaharcff who emerged from the war probably the wealthiest man in Europe. But this rich harvest was also shared by bishops, cabinet ministers, members of parliament, and men prominent in all walks of life. These were the financial results. What of the causes?
Further along the article continues:
Several years before the war, when Sir Frederick Borden, then minister of militia in the Laurier government, and Hon. Louis Philippe Brodeur who was later minister of naval affairs, were in London, they were lavishly entertained by officials of Vickers Limited. At dinner in the Carlton hotel one night, Mr. Brodeur was astonished at a remark made by their host who had been complaining bitterly of Premier Campbell-Bannerman's attitude toward disarmament. "Business is bad," he said. "How could it be otherwise with a man like Campbell-Bannerman. in office? Why, we haven't had a war for seven years!" He made a similar comment later to Sir Frederick Borden and two of his colleagues in the cabinet, both of whom are still living, saying that the government were a hopeless lot, and that the empire was going to the dogs as there had been no war for several years and there was not even one small war in prospect. These conversations made a profound impression on Sir Wilfrid Laurier to whom they were later repeated, indicating as they did with such surprising frankness the attitude of one of England's greatest armament producers towards the disarmament proposals of Campbell-Bannerman.
Before proceeding to read another extract or two, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that Campbell-Bannerman was a Victorian Liberal who practised Liberal principles to the full. As I said before, I am sure that if some of the anaemic descendants of the great Liberals of the Victorian period were to follow more closely in the footsteps of their ancestors, this house would be presented with bills different from this one.

I continue to quote from the article:
An examination of this summary shows that while the production of the forty-eight allied companies covers an extremely wide field, most of the things they produce are necessary equipment for the modern war of machines either at the front or in the complicated supporting organizations. Significantly enough, armaments and shipbuilding occupy first place. Most other armament companies throughout the world are similarly interlocked with apparently peaceful enterprises.
This presents a real difficulty that must be faced. Any suggestion of the nationalization of armament production will undoubtedly be met by the owners with the argument that these great corporations are essentially makers of peace and not war material, and that the severance of their interdependent interests would threaten the financial security of industries upon which so many thousands of workers depend for their livelihood. Probably the reorganizations necessary would entail some hardship, although it is not suggested that the armament factories be confiscated but only that they be expropriated under proper terms of compensation. But no matter what temporary inconveniences be involved this is merely a matter of detail that should not in any way be permitted to obscure the main issue, which is simply whether it is, or is not, advisable to permit the manufacture of arms and armament by companies whose selling policies are determined by the desire for profits and not in any way measured by actual national requirements.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are glad to have the support of the leader of the Progressive Conservative party for the nationalization of the armament industry, and the nationalization of industries producing defence supplies.
Then he goes on to say:
It is not suggested that national ownership of the armament industry throughout the world is a panacea which will cure all international strife. There are national prejudices and age-long suspicions which will always be difficult to overcome, but these suspicions and hatreds can be overcome by education in time if they are not constantly brought to the boiling point with insidious propaganda spread by those whose business would disappear if anything approaching an effective agreement to submit to international arbitration were even achieved. Just so long, therefore, as these companies continue to be operated for profit will they continue to employ the methods of persuasion in high quarters which they have found so effective.
At another point the article states:
One serious obstacle that must be overcome in convincing the people of the world that disarmament is everybody's business is the cynical attitude which is all too common that war is an inevitable evil and that the most we can do is to postpone it as long as possible and, when the time does come, hope to be just a little better armed than our enemy. Hand in hand with this attitude is the belief that we maintain peace by being better armed than our neighbour and thus preventing attack. An excellent example of this point of view is furnished in the following extract from an editorial in the Canadian Defence Quarterly of April, 1931:
"The world today has prohibited aggressive warfare but defensive wars are permitted; therefore, the nations still regard the use of armaments as the ultimate instrument of national security. So long as this condition remains, human nature decrees that each nation will strive to be armed with armament superior in quality, and if possible quantity,
Defence Supplies
to that of other nations. It is doubtful, therefore, if nations would forgo the abundant benefits which result from private enterprise in the armament field."
It is interesting to note in this article from the Canadian Defence Quarterly that even the defence department is aware of the abundant benefits which result from private enterprise in the armament field.
The article concludes with these words:
Words like these have been repeated so often that they have acquired general acceptance without any appreciation of their full import. No one, yet, has been able to demonstrate the "abundant benefits" resulting from private enterprise in the armament field, unless they be the enormous increase in the casualties to all combatants, or the huge profits acquired by men like Zaharoff, Krupp, Schneider and Grace.
Mr. Speaker, the present leader of the Progressive Conservative party has written an article of great interest at this time. I quoted the article to indicate that at least when he wrote it he believed in the nationalization or public ownership of the armament industry, and those industries producing defence armaments. There is no question about it; I believe that other governments have done better than Canada in this regard. For example, the government of Australia, as mentioned by the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), has advanced farther in the public ownership of certain armament industries. In Great Britain much more has been done in that direction.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the explanation given by the minister for dropping the former five per cent clause respecting the limitation on profits. I believe the minister s explanation was the clearest and most logical explanation we have heard of that clause. I quite agree with the reasons for dropping the clause when the clause was phrased as it was, and one had to take into account the capital used in the production of the armaments or goods supplied. We in this group would like to see an amended clause inserted in the bill clearly restricting the profits on defence supplies to five per cent.
. In general, Mr. Speaker, this group believes in the principle of public ownership. While we believe there are certain major industries that should be brought under public ownership in the near future, we certainly believe that any industry producing armaments or war supplies directly should be brought under full public ownership at this time. At least if this government is going to convince the Canadian people that groups of people in this country are not going to profit largely from the supplying of these armaments and goods, there should be introduced into this bill a five per cent limitation on profits.

Defence Supplies
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in criticizing this bill we in this group believe first of all that the bill gives the minister too much power.
I am not going further into that matter. We do not criticize the amount of power given to the minister on quite the same grounds as those mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). But when one looks at the bill and sees the powers given in section 3, on reading that section carefully one realizes the enormous powers given therein to one minister of this cabinet.
If this bill is to create in the minds of the Canadian people confidence in the desire of the leaders of this government, and of this government itself, to work for world peace and to prevent the building up of profits from the supplying of defence armaments and supplies, we believe there should be a clause limiting at least the profits on those armaments and supplies to five per cent. I am sure that nothing less will satisfy the Canadian people in this respect. Nothing less will give them confidence in the policy of this government and nothing less will be keeping faith with our affirmations, our beliefs and those of the Canadian people.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: When one reads a bin of this kind, Mr. Speaker, he is lead to exclaim, as a good many people throughout the country are now exclaiming: What is happening to our democracy? I draw to the minister's attention an article which was published in Maclean's magazine on the 15th of this month, in which his own picture appeared and in which certain statements are made with regard to the fate of democracy in Canada, and I would ask him to consider that article not as something facetious, not as having merely entertainment value but as being the consolidation of the opinions of a great many people throughout this country.
When the resolution preceding this bill was before the house I said that I was surprised that the minister would allow himself to be brought under the criticism which would inevitably come to him if this bill were to be introduced. My reasons for saying that are these. I want to assure the minister, Mr. Speaker, that I have regard for him and for his ability and that anything I say here today is not said by way of personal criticism of the minister at all. What I want to assure the house about is that I am opposed to granting to any minister, I do not care who he is, the sweeping economic powers which this bill proposes to grant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). My reason for opposing the granting of such sweeping powers is that it is not in the interest of democracy in peacetime to do
[Mr. Herridge.l
so. We must believe in democracy. Otherwise we are a bunch of hypocrites. We talk about it enough and we try to act as if we are operating a true democracy. But when the government brings before parliament a bill of this kind, proposing to grant to any single individual sweeping powers, the extent of which I shall recite briefly in a moment, then I say to you, Mr. Speaker, there simply cannot but be the shadow, and a mighty thin one at that, of true democracy.
Why do I say that there are sweeping powers proposed in this bill? I heard the minister say the other day, speaking on the resolution, that this bill proposes to reduce the powers that he already had under certain other acts, including the Defence Purchases Act, the Department of Munitions and Supply Act and so on. That may be so; it probably is so. But that is no argument for granting at this time the powers that are included in Bill No. 302 unless, as I said the other day, the minister is prepared to show to the house and to the country that we face a real emergency.
I thought that the minister would give a statement to the house on motion for second reading of the bill in order further to clarify the situation as a result of the request that some of us made the other day about this business of an emergency. To take a look at the bill for one moment, and without dealing in detail with any of the specific clauses of it, here are some of the powers that it is proposed that we should grant to the minister. Under different types of circumstances, we propose to give to the minister the power to requisition or to expropriate anything that he sees fit to requisition or to expropriate and which he, in his opinion, feels would be necessary for the defence of this realm. That does not exclude anything, including the suit on your back or the machinery you may have in your shop.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is going to extremes.


Solon Earl Low: I will admit that that is carrying it to the extreme limit; I agree; and perhaps the minister would not do that. But just the same, we are giving him the power to do that. If we are giving him the power, then there is nothing that he could not do if the proper occasion arose or if the proper combination of circumstances came about. Not only are we giving him the power to requisition or to expropriate in any way he desires or to buy anything that he thinks is necessary for the defence of the realm, but we are also giving him the power to do it at a price which he himself sets; and there is no recourse against his decision, except perhaps a costly reference to the exchequer court.


Mr. Fulton:: On such terms as the minister may decide.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, on such terms as the minister himself may decide. That is not democracy. That is far too sweeping a power to give any man in peacetime. By the way, those who wish to get evidence of the truth of the things I have just said, have only to refer to clause 3 of the bill, with its various subdivisions.
Then there is another thing. This bill proposes to give the minister the power to compel any manager of a factory, or any board that is operating in this country a factory, an industry or a business dealing in defence materials or materials which may be required for defence, to give to the minister any information he may desire; and the only undertaking that the minister has to give is that he will not tell anybody about it. I think that is carrying the powers of any man to lengths which should never even be dreamed of in peacetime. It is all right in wartime, Where we are facing real dangers, and where things have to be done quickly, for us to clothe our ministers of the crown with power to get things done, and to get information when they desire it. Certainly so; but in peacetime a minister of the crown ought to depend upon the natural processes of voluntary information, and not clothe himself with power to nose into things, when he thinks it is necessary for him to know about the business of any corporation in this country.
Through the power given the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this bill he can negotiate any contract of any kind for defence purchases, without consulting even the members of his cabinet, and certainly without consulting members of parliament. Well, if that is not a dictatorial power, I have never heard of one. Why should any minister be granted power of that kind in a time of peace? Why should all that power be vested in one man?
Of course the minister will claim he will not do it alone, and that he will have a board, perhaps, or that perhaps he will have the help of the governor in council. Provision is made in the bill that the governor in council may appoint assistants; but it does not say that they shall, or that it is necessary, or that the minister cannot negotiate contracts, make purchases or requisition materials without consulting the cabinet or without consulting parliament-not by any means.
That carries the thing absolutely too far. Section 4 of the bill states that the minister shall have exclusive right or authority to buy or otherwise to acquire defence supplies, and to construct or carry out projects required 55946-229J
Defence Supplies
by the Department of National Defence. That clothes him, alone, with that authority; and it cuts out any other possibility of consultation or assistance. No one else can possibly run any competition-not even the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), who is supposed to be running the Department of National Defence for the people of Canada.
I believe that defence purchases, just in the same manner as any other purchases, made by a government or for or on behalf of any government, ought to be made through a purchasing or requisitioning commission. I do not think any one person in any government should even ask for those powers. In years gone by a good deal of suspicion has gone along with the concentration of purchasing power in the hands of one or just a few individuals in the government. Everyone knows about the suspicions that always attend such things. In years past most governments that have valued their standing, and that have been anxious about the operation of true democracy, have set up purchasing commissions that were independent of political interference, to do their purchasing, so as to shun the very appearance of evil.
Well, I am surprised that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would allow himself to be put in a position where the appearance of evil goes stalking after him, and will accompany him every step that he goes, so long as this measure is in force, and his name is set down as the exclusive authority for the purchase of defence supplies.
I believe the wise course in any event is to set up a commission and to clothe it with the necessary powers to make purchases-to do it quickly, to do it properly, and to render accounts as quickly as possible both to the cabinet and to members of parliament. We had a perfectly good corporation for doing that sort of thing. I understand the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been doing a good deal of purchasing of defence supplies for the government. When the other day we were discussing the resolution preceding the bill, I asked the minister to tell the house wherein the Canadian Commercial Corporation had failed to do its; job, and why it was thought that that corporation was not able now to do the work efficiently.
I must say that although I reserved my decisions with respect to the bill, I said the other day that I would withhold any decision, and until such time as I had heard the minister reply to some of the questions asked, or such time as he had made a statement satisfying me, I could not possibly say whether I could support the bill. Having reserved my decision, and having now read

Defence Supplies
the bill, and having heard nothing whatsoever to allay my fears, I cannot do anything but say that I most certainly oppose the bill with all my strength-and I am speaking for this group.
I believe in true democracy. I believe that in peacetime or any time other than a time of emergency, we should not clothe any man or any small group of men with authority to do arbitrarily what they alone think ought to be done for the defence of the realm or in any other way. I believe every man must render account to the representatives of the people; no man can set himself above the law. Every official of government and every minister of the crown must concede that he cannot or should not, under the rule of law, do anything except that which the will of the people demands that he do.
I am asking the minister now if he has any requests from the people of Canada to clothe him with this power. If he has not, then I ask him by. what right he is bringing in this bill to clothe himself with these powers. I ask the government and his colleagues to come to his defence and to show any good reason as to why the Minister of Trade and (Commerce ought to have or ask for such sweeping powers as are contained in this bill. And until such time as the people of Canada have asked that such wide and broad powers be given to him, I can only assume that they have not desired it and, for that if for no other reason, I would oppose the bill.
I do not intend to enter into any debate on the philosophical aspect of defence procurement, or anything else. I said the other day that I still have faith in private enterprise and in its ability to produce as, when and where required for the defence of the realm. But I do say that where private enterprise has failed in the past to produce and to deliver as, when and where required, it may be necessary for the government to set up some enterprise such as was done at Sarnia for the production of synthetic rubber. I think that that is all right. But I certainly oppose the government's acquiring all those industries in Canada that may contribute materials for defence or other purposes.
I shall have to say without qualification that we are in opposition to the bill, and cannot in any way condone the request of the government to clothe any one man with such extraordinary and sweeping powers.


Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the debate I should like to assure hon. members that it is not my intention to take up much time. I rise only to ask one question and to make one point.

I would ask the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who comes from British Columbia if, when he was stating the policy of national defence for the C.C.F. party, he was stating the policy of the national party or that of the British Columbia party. I believe there is a great divergence of view as between the different parties. In fact, many hon. members of this house would say that their views are at right angles to each other. I think it will be found that their views are completely opposed. I do not believe that members of such a group have the right to criticize a party that is united.
In making my point as to what is the proper method of making purchases for the Dominion of Canada I would suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that it is well known to all hon. members that a lawyer is generally the best person to defend a guilty party because he is most voluble and eloquent. I suggest to my hon. friend that he was most voluble and eloquent in trying to make his point.
Any business firm of which I have any knowledge has only one purchasing department. I am glad the Liberal party is carrying out a businesslike policy of having only one purchasing department, and I am more than pleased that the Right Hon. C. D. Howe is the man chosen to head up that purchasing department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, this is a measure for the setting up of arbitrary power, the kind of power which in other states brought about the beginning of the destruction of the type of freedom we live under. This is being introduced in peacetime, at a time when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is sponsoring the bill, says that there is no emergency. This is a measure which should be utterly repugnant to anyone who believes in or has any understanding of Liberal principles. I am quite sure that I could find in the speeches of ninety per cent of the members of this house most eloquent passages declaiming against this kind of thing. As I say, it is entirely repugnant to the whole genius of our constitution.
It is difficult to speak about this because I am afraid there are a lot of people, both inside and outside the house, who think that this is just a lot of abstract nonsense being uttered by some of us who ought to know better, who ought to be practical men and not delay the house in talking.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Hear, Hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am going to thank the minister because at the moment he seems to be listening. I realize quite well that everything I say will go off his back just like

water off a duck's, but nevertheless it is something that for the moment he is listening and seems to be interested in what I am saying. The minister is a practical man and perhaps he will think that anyone who puts in his time worrying about political theory could have employed it to better advantage. But not everyone in this house thinks that way. I know there are members of the government opposite-and some not sitting opposite today-who have not always thought that, who have been very eloquent-when I say eloquent I mean eloquent-in their objections to arbitrary government and in their belief in the rule of law. Perhaps they will be interested if I read a sentence or two from an authority which some of them know much better than I. I am going to quote from what is perhaps the greatest living English authority on the law of constitution, and I refer to Dicey. I shall quote from page 202 of the ninth edition. If hon. members will be kind enough to follow what I read I think they will come to the conclusion that if what I read does not cover this bill, then there is no such thing as making a clear statement that will cover the bill. Speaking of the rule of law he said:
It means, in the first place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power-
Does any sane man contend that this bill does not give arbitrary power? I am not discussing for the moment whether the minister will use that power correctly. We all know the minister is a sensible and capable man, but that is not the point. This is arbitrary power and in giving arbitrary power to a man you must consider that while you may give it to a man you believe is a good man, that power may get into the hands of a man you might not consider to be good. You might even find that a good man is somewhat corrupted by power, but we shall not deal with that. I read on:
-and excludes the existence of arbitrariness,-
Does anyone doubt that there is arbitrariness in this bill? The minister can ask a man to do something and if he refuses he can have him fined $5,000. That is the effect of this bill. If the minister and that man do not see eye to eye, he may be fined and have no recourse. I continue:
[DOT]-of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government.
Does anyone doubt that all those things are deeply embedded in this bill? I quote again:
It means, again, equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts-
Defence Supplies
Is that what this bill provides?
-the "rule of law" in this sense excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obedience to the law which governs other citizens or from the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals:
By this bill the minister is excused from obedience to the law; he is put above the law. I should like to quote at this time something which many of you have seen day after day if you have the judgment, whether it is good or bad, to read the Globe and Mail. This is what appears at the head of the editorial page:
The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.
If this bill is not an arbitrary measure, I should like to know what it is. I want to make this point as clear as I can. I have said that there is no emergency. I said the other day, and I repeat what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has already said, that if there was an emergency nobody would be readier than we on this side to give emergency powers. But we have been told, and we are entitled to rely on that, that there is no emergency. After saying that we were ready to give the powers if they were necessary, I went on to say, as reported on page 3483 of Hansard of June 12:
I say that before we can be asked, or should be asked, to give any such powers as these we should know exactly what kind of difficulties are facing the minister at the moment. What are the things that cannot be done under the powers of the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the other authorities which do exist? Nothing has been said yet to indicate that.
Then I went on to say that I and those with whom I was associated would be only too ready to act if there was an emergency. I will say this about the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has contact with and a status with the business community of this country which the rest of us might envy. I do not begrudge him the fact that he has built it up perfectly properly. I contend that without all these additional powers to which I so strongly object the minister could carry on with the existing organizations. The minister has great influence now. I will not say that I like it all and I will not say that I like some of the measures which have given it to him, for some of those measures do give him a considerable amount of power.
Of course the minister's answer to my question was no answer at all. He gave us a hairsplitting statement that this measure was really taking power away from him-and in a narrow technical way he was correct- because he told us that the Department of Munitions and Supply Act which was widely used during the war was still on the statute

Defence Supplies
books, and that under it he had greater powers. I think that is quite true except as I said when I interjected this morning-and I say it again-to all intents and purposes in the last few years that act has been as dead as Queen Anne. The fact that the minister, who is pretty good at using power, did not invoke the act so far as I know, and certainly not to any great extent, proves to my satisfaction that it was really in the discard.
As to the measure we have before us, I am not going to take much of the time of the house to discuss it. I would ask members to read section 2 in order that they may see the range of it, how much it covers-it will fairly take your breath away-and then read the other clauses and see the power that is given. I am not going into detail on that because my point is to argue that here we have an arbitrary measure which is not needed, that the existing law is perfectly adequate, and that no attempt has been made to satisfy us that the existing law is not adequate. Yet we are asked to pass the bill, and I suppose the majority will vote it through.


Mr.   Kowe@: Mr. Speaker, on a question of
privilege, I assure my hon. friend that the existing law is much more than adequate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, yes, you mean the munitions and supply act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the existing law under which purchasing is carried on.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If you want to split hairs you are quite right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not splitting hairs.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You are
quite ready to do so. I will repeat my point, and members will have to judge for themselves. The Department of Munitions and Supply Act has been on the statute books, and is like a lot of other statutes which they have forgotten to repeal. I think the minister will not deny that it has virtually not been availed of, and what I am interested in and what we are all interested in is not what is in the munitions and supply act but what is in the bill before the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend thinks the
munitions and supply act is not being invoked, let me point out to him there are a few cases before the exchequer court where the appellants really believe it has been invoked.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister wants to go back into ancient history-


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are over there now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Cases often stay quite a long time in the law courts, and I expect if one looked into this matter the

same thing would prove to be true. Let the minister talk about the munitions and supply act if he wants to. What I am interested in is the bill now before us. At any rate the minister will agree that the bill before us will replace the Department of Munitions and Supply Act. I want to deal with the bill for a minute or two. Of course the powers are very wide and involve stockpiling, making contracts and, as has already been pointed out, stepping into the shipbuilding industry. As I said, I do not need to go into any more detail. I want to say, however, that it was put to me by a man whose judgment I respect very much, and could not possibly disregard, that the things contemplated to be done under the bill need to be done in order to get on with the business of our defence. I told him that I think I am just as anxious as anybody is to see the business of our defence proceeded with, but that nothing has been said to indicate that the powers presently existing under the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the defence department, which will get their votes, are not sufficient to make it unnecessary for us to have this measure.
A question occurred to me but I think I have answered it to my own satisfaction already. I take it that the bill is not ancillary to the vote that we will be passing for the Department of National Defence, that no attempt is being made to get further moneys in this way, and that everything that must be done by way of purchasing must be done under the estimates relating to the Department of National Defence. In other words, this is not an indirect way of getting what should be got directly.
There is one point that should be mentioned. There has been a rather feeble and childish attempt to say in the bill that if there is a disagreement on price then the matter may be referred to the exchequer court. I should like to ask the minister what he would have thought when he was in business of fixing prices before the exchequer court. I venture to say that the minister would have said, "What, go and spend months and months before a court!" He would have settled the matter then and there one way or another. I think it is a most unmeaning provision which is put in there as a kind of gesture to try to lessen the appearance of arbitrariness which sticks out everywhere in the bill.
I have tried to express my view on this question. What disturbs me most is the manner in which the bill has been received. One hon. member told us this afternoon that this is the kind of dictatorship we want. Many foolish things may have been said in the house but I wonder if anything more foolish

was ever said. I hope nothing so foolish will ever be said again during my time in the house as "that is the kind of dictatorship we want." One might have hoped that among the serried ranks of the government supporters, 190 members, there might have been somebody to speak out against the bill. One is almost tempted to call the roll of some of the ministers who, one knows, cannot possibly like this kind of thing. Apparently, however, they have allowed themselves to be lulled to sleep in some way or other, or they believe, like the hon. member who spoke a little while ago, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce can do no wrong, which has really nothing to do with the matter anyway.
I cannot expect the Minister of Trade and Commerce to be interested in these remarks. I am surprised that he has remained in the house because he must regard it as an utter waste of time to talk about political principles. The minister is a man of action, and indeed I think he regards the House of Commons as a rather foolish place. I think when we ask him questions about the business he is conducting he regards it as a rather unwarranted intrusion on private life. I thought so the other day when he said quite frankly that the Polymer Corporation was not a public enterprise but was his enterprise, and I think I know the way he meant it. It was said in all good faith, and there was a considerable measure of truth in it. As I said a moment ago, one might have expected something different from some of the other men in the cabinet. There was a time when I would have thought that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would have taken this kind of thing seriously. As I have said, there are other men in the cabinet who I know would have taken it seriously at one time, but I do not think anything is to be gained by conducting a poll.
I cannot take my seat without expressing the hope that there will be at least one among the 190 members of the government side who will say a word in favour of what I believe to be freedom and against what I believe to be the extremity of arbitrariness. If that is not to happen, if there is nobody in the majority, about which we are so often reminded, who will speak out in that fashion, then I can only hope that the voices of those who are objecting will be heard outside the house, and that church and educational institutions and people everywhere who understand that freedom is a delicate plant that needs constant cherishing will give voice to that feeling in order that this measure, which I regard as arbitrary and evil, may not be passed in its present form. I shall vote against it, Mr. Speaker.
Defence Supplies


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, because I feel this legislation is so charged with terrible consequences I find I must not only vote against it but speak against it when the bill is before the house with Your Honour in the chair. This type of legislation always presents members with a serious dilemma. We are told that the international situation is such that we are called upon to take strenuous and unusual measures to arm and equip ourselves, to build up stockpiles and so on, in order that we may be prepared for an emergency which we all hope will not actually arise but which unfortunately might arise. When it is put upon the basis that what is to be done under the new bill is in the best interests of the country, you are placed in a very difficult position when considering whether or not you should oppose it. Having given the matter that consideration, however, and being fully aware of the seriousness of what the minister said when he indicated that he needed these powers, I find I cannot agree that these powers are necessary, and have come to the conclusion that the bill is fraught with more harmful consequences than the good that may be done under it.
I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that we are not objecting to the things that are to be done under the bill; that is, the stockpiling and so on. As other speakers have said, if we were convinced that this was the only way in which those precautions could be taken that we want to see taken, then I suppose reluctantly we would have to agree to this legislation. But I am not in the least convinced of that. I cannot see why the minister needs this tremendous, sweeping power for which he is asking, in order to carry on defence purchases, in order to instruct the Canadian Commercial Corporation which already exists and is already authorized to act as the defence purchasing agent. I hope the minister will explain that to us, for I cannot see it.
I wish it were not always the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who is concerned in these things, because sometimes I am sure he must feel that we have a personal antipathy to him. That is not the case, but it seems all these matters concern the same minister, and he is the minister we have to criticize all the time.


Mr. Mitchell:: He has not done a bad job for this nation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know why the government keeps repeating that. It is readily admitted that during the war he did a good job for the nation. Let us analyse the power we are giving a minister; let us call him

Defence Supplies
Minister X. We are asked to give him power to control not only the plants which directly manufacture the materials of war but everything which may enter into a defence project. The mining industry, the lumbering industry, the clothing industry; every conceivable element of our economic life that could possibly enter into the manufacture of anything which might be needed in connection with national defence, directly or indirectly, is to be under the complete control of one minister. Not only has he power to set the price, to compel people to make delivery within a certain time, and so on, but there is no appeal from that arbitrary power except a very limited and, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has said, a really nugatory appeal by reference to the exchequer court as to the matter of price. And I think it is important to note that any such reference must be on terms laid down by the Minister of Justice. That is provided in the bill. A man has not the right to take his case before the exchequer court as he sees fit; it will be presented to the court on the terms contained in a reference drawn up by the Minister of Justice, and then only in reference to the price. What about the other matters? There is no appeal. The minister can set a time limit just as unreasonable as can be conceived. There is no appeal. It may be a physical impossibility to conform to that time limit, and because a man is unable to do so he may be liable to a penalty of $5,000.
I think it is fair, too, to observe that we have not been told of the proximity of this emergency which is said to justify the granting of these powers. By one minister we are told that nothing has happened at the recent conferences to change the picture as far as we are concerned. Then we are asked by another minister for powers which I think it is correct to say have never before been taken by a government in peacetime, when we have not been told that an emergency is imminent.
Having been told by one minister that nothing has happened to change the outlook as far as we are concerned, I cannot vote for a bill which gives another minister these undemocratic powers, when we have not had any further explanation as to the real necessity for them.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it seems particularly strange that when a bill of this kind is before the house for the first time in printed form the minister should not consider it necessary to explain the bill in detail when hon. members would have an opportunity of following what he had to say with
[Mr. Fultcn.l
the words actually before them. He gave a broad statement when the resolution was before the house, and when that resolution was in the committee stage he replied to certain points that had been raised. As yet, however, he has made no attempt to explain this extremely important bill, to analyse its effect in relation to the other legislation that is integrated with it, or to give hon. members one solid reason why we should be called upon to confer these extremely wide powers in peacetime.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I overrated the intelligence of the opposition. If I were starting again I would give a more comprehensive explanation.


George Alexander Drew: I should be very glad to resume my seat and continue later if the minister is prepared to give an explanation, as long as he would not close the debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid that procedure would not be parliamentary.


George Alexander Drew: I have examined the bill, and I am convinced that far from being more restricted, in many ways this legislation goes much further in peacetime than at least one of the acts which it repeals. The Department of Munitions and Supply Act, which is being repealed, is written in considerable detail, making it possible to understand exactly what is intended, what procedure is to be followed, and what actually are the powers of the minister. One of the well established principles of all legislation of this kind is that words appearing in an act must be read with the continuing meaning of those words right through the act; and in the Department of Munitions and Supply Act the words used relate very largely to munitions of war. It is perfectly obvious that in peacetime munitions of war are limited. Therefore I suggest that far from being narrower, when the new legislation refers to everything required for defence purposes it has a very much wider application than the munitions and supply act, which is still in effect and which is based largely upon the requirement for munitions of war.
I recognize, though I do not think the minister has clearly explained it, that some legislation is required to carry on the activities of the Canadian Commercial Corporation if the Department of Munitions and Supply Act is to be repealed, as undoubtedly it should be repealed having regard to the words I mentioned and the obvious fact that it is a wartime act. Nevertheless it would seem to me that the simple and proper way to deal with this, to the extent that such a change in legislation may be necessary, is to add any amending sections that are

required to the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act. Failing that, if for any reason it is not thought the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act should be continued, then the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939, which was a peacetime act, could be continued; and whatever amendments are regarded as desirable as a result of experience in intervening years could be made.
Let us see exactly what this particular act does. Here is an act which, if the members will only fully examine it, places practically the whole of our economy in the hands of this minister; that is written in four pages, and a considerable part of it is the definitive part of the act. Brevity is always highly desirable where brevity serves a useful purpose. When you are handing over to a minister the powers that are conferred by this act brevity, to the extent that it does not in any way bring any measure of control over the activities of the minister for the protection of the public or even for the protection of the government itself, is brevity of a dangerous kind.
Let us examine what this act does. It gives to the minister, according to section 3 (a), the power to:
buy or otherwise acquire, exchange, process, develop, repair, maintain, store and transport defence supplies:
What are "defence supplies"? Defence supplies are defined in section 2 of the act, and this is the definition:
"Defence supplies" means arms, ammunition, implements of war, vehicles, mechanical and other equipment, watercraft, amphibious craft, aircraft, animals, goods, wares, merchandise, articles and materials of all kinds required for any project or otherwise for the purposes of defence;
The only limitation upon the all-embracing effect of those words I have read, which embrace every conceivable thing which is available for our use in this country, is that it be for defence purposes. In addition to all the wide specific terms used in that section, it says, "articles and materials of all kinds." Surely, that is wide enough. We have been told that defence means the strength of the whole nation. What single thing is there that cannot be interpreted as for defence? It may be interpreted as necessary for defence to take over any part of the animal population of this country. It may be regarded as necessary for the purpose of defence to operate all the railways; it may be regarded as necessary for the purpose of defence to take over the control of production of all wood products; it may be regarded as necessary for the purpose of defence, having regard to the fact that our economy is in itself such an essential part of defence, to take over the 55046-2S0
Defence Supplies
control of the banks and other financial institutions. Do not let anyone say this is too wide an interpretation. As indicated in the Atlantic pact itself, all these things are regarded as part of the strength of a nation to defend itself. It is still within the scope of these wide powers for the minister to declare that those things are necessary for defence.
Under this act the minister can buy and sell, and generally deal in all these various things that may be embraced by such a definition. Let us look at section 3 (b). It reads: acquire, store and maintain stocks of strategic materials, and other materials or articles entering into the manufacture of defence supplies or the construction, development, repair or maintenance of projects, and sell or otherwise dispose of such materials or articles and use the whole or any part of the proceeds for the acquisition of further such materials or articles;
Mr. Speaker, once the step has been taken to declare that any particular segment of our economy is an essential requirement to our defence, this may become a great national trading organization exercising its influence directly over the whole of our daily activity in this country. Granted that the minister goes rather far today, granted that the minister has extremely wide powers under other existing acts; but this goes further than anything we have had before. It goes farther than one of the acts it repeals, the Department of Munitions and Supply Act.
Let us consider section 3(c), which reads: construct or otherwise acquire, carry out, develop, repair and maintain any project;
(d)	arrange for the performance of commercial and professional services;
(e)	require any person who is obligated by any contract to deliver any defence supplies . . .
and so on. Under section 3(e)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but as he knows, he should not refer to specific clauses of the bill on second reading. That can more properly be done in the committee. At this stage we are discussing the principle of the bill.


George Alexander Drew: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall proceed to state what it does do. This bill makes it possible for the minister to require any person who produces, deals in, or has in his possession or control, any materials or articles needed for the completion of a contract, with respect to which a requirement has already been established, to give certain priorities. As outlined by the minister the other day, another provision of this act is that the minister may require any person to furnish such information respecting defence supplies dealt in by him, or projects of a type

Defence Supplies
executed by him or respecting his production and other facilities relating thereto, in such time and manner as the minister may specify.
Where is the rule of law? Where is the defence of the rights of the individual? We have been hearing a lot about a bill of rights, both in the international and in the domestic field. Where is the right of any individual if a minister, no matter who that minister may be, may require information of this kind? There is no definition as to the type of information that is wanted, nor is there any measure of restraint excepting the discretion of the minister himself.
Then the act does provide for the employment of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. There is also a provision that the minister may do further things, and mark the extent of this. In case these powers are not wide enough, and I would not have thought there was any doubt about that, then the minister may do any other such thing as may be authorized by the governor in council in regard to the procurement and disposal of defence supplies and projects.
What is a defence project? During the war one defence project of great importance, and one which was completed with commendable speed, was the great power plant at Arvida. But what we have before this house at the present time, in peacetime, is the power to do that sort of thing in this time of peace. If that was actually a part of our defence requirements in war, it certainly is a part of our defence requirements in peace; and this bill is wide enough for this minister to construct anywhere in Canada, quite outside the scope of any other legislation that this house has adopted, any power project for the purpose of providing power which he might think necessary for the potential defence of this country. Those are the realities. Any one of those things I have suggested is not in any way a straining of the actual, clear and explicit meaning of the words of this bill that is before us.
Then again the bill has the effect of repealing the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939, which has already been referred to. In the explanation given by the minister, which he has not followed up and which he says must be taken as the full information that we are to have from the man who is to be declared a dictator under this act, it is interesting to note that he nevertheless did not even bother to explain to us why it was necessary to repeal the act known as the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939. That act has this interesting feature. It was a peacetime act based upon certain experience which demonstrated the necessity
[Mr Drew.]
of preventing profiteering in defence supplies in peacetime. That act imposed certain restraints that were regarded as wise by this government as a result of disclosures which had been made as to the profits which were resulting from some of the preparations then being made for defence, such as those which are contemplated under this present bill. Why should we remove all those restraints and all those protections which are contained in an act which was brought into this house with such acclaim?
With regard to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, we also know that this has been described to us as a highly efficient means of obtaining the defence requirements of this country. The last statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) during the last session of this house refers to this organization and its place in the procurement of our defence requirements. At the time that act was introduced, on July 2, 1947, the then minister of trade and commerce, Mr. MacKinnon, had this to say, as reported at page 4948 of Hansard of that date:
The government, in deciding to continue a single civilian purchasing agency for the services, was anxious to take advantage of the efficient organization that had already been built up and was functioning under the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. Many of the key personnel involved in these activities during the war are now carrying out duties as employees of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and handling procurement problems for foreign governments and UNRRA.
As one reads on in that speech, it becomes quite clear that it was intended that the Canadian Commercial Corporation should be the peacetime procurement agency for our defence requirements. Then the Minister of National Defence himself, as reported at page 4959 of Hansard of July 2, 1947, in referring to this act said this:
It is not a wartime show because it is not wartime, but this carries into peacetime in the person of Mr. W. D. Low and other senior officials the experience and the knowledge and the files and the contacts with industry throughout the country which the Department of Munitions and Supply built up over six years.
That quotation leaves no doubt that the house was being informed that this Canadian Commercial Corporation, as the civilian procurement agency for the Department of National Defence and for the government, was carrying forward the experience of the six years' activities of the department of munitions and supply; and that, as the Minister of National Defence stated, the expert staff of the department of munitions and supply were being transferred to the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
Then also to emphasize that this was a body that was doing the things which had

been done by the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, the Minister of National Defence said at a later point in his remarks:
As I pointed out, these are exactly the same people who had this continuous association through the Department of Munitions and Supply with the suppliers of munitions during the war.
That was the idea that the house had. It has actually been the role of this Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: And it still is.


George Alexander Drew: Then again the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) had this to say on July 2, 1947, as reported at page 4964 of Hansard in referring to this same organization:
It was felt that some central agency of government other than the Department of National Defence could do defence purchasing. When the Canadian Commercial Corporation was created a large portion of the personnel of the purchasing branch of munitions and supply was transferred to that department.
This bill that is before us has the effect of establishing on a new basis the powers of the minister. If the courts today were called upon to interpret the powers under the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, which uses terms that indicate that war is actually under way, the courts of this country, under well-established legal principles, would give an interpretation to the sections of it, bearing in mind at all times that these sections were drafted in time of war and were intended for war purposes, and therefore would give as narrow an interpretation as could reasonably be given to the extension of any powers conferred in that act. But if a court is called upon to define this present bill, the judges will properly say, under established principles of legal interpretation: This act was passed in peacetime; the parliament of Canada, knowing that there was no war, gave this tremendously wide power and therefore, having regard to the width and breadth of the terms, we must interpret this act in the broadest way. For that very reason, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this bill, as it stands now, gives infinitely wider powers to the minister than those which he has under the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, an act which is much longer and which goes into a great deal more detailed explanation. But certainly the repeal of the act which limits profits is one which should be examined carefully; I refer to the act known as the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939. I am aware that during the time I was out of the house this afternoon the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) quoted something that I had written some time ago in regard to the manufacturing of munitions of war or, rather, of defence supplies.
Defence Supplies
I certainly believe, as I believed then, that where industry is called upon to produce something under the dreadful necessity of arming this country, and where they have not all the problems of competitive selling, but rather only the simple fulfilment of a contract handed to them by the government, with a certainty of payment and a certainty of profit, those profits should be strictly limited, and that the needs of the country should not be the basis of extravagant profits at any time.
But I certainly would be most reluctant to see this House of Commons so casually and so callously disposing of this act, which does still make it possible to prevent profiteering from the demands created by danger to our freedom. If anything, I should like to see this act amended and brought up to date. I do not in any way change the views I held before. On the contrary, all that has happened since then has impressed more firmly upon my mind, even than it was at the time I wrote the article "Salesmen of Death", that there should be the most effective possible control over profiteering at the time that the dreadful threat to our freedom necessitates the expenditure of enormous sums of the people's money, resulting in heavy burdens of taxation for Canadians now and in the years ahead.
Hon. me'mbers appear to feel that there should not be debate even upon this vitally important subject. They would like to take the view expressed by one member, and say, "We trust the minister, so let her go. Don't bother about the act. Don't bother about the powers. The minister is a good fellow. Parliament doesn't need to know. We are sure he will do everything all right, no matter what power he has." It is something like the old saying, "Don't shoot the man at the piano; he is doing his best."
But this goes further than that. The man at the piano may be doing his best, but there are faulty notes that have been struck, and it would be well for us to examine this piece a little more carefully before we are satisfied that this is the best we can do. Because, after all, we are the ones who have to assume the responsibility-not the government.
In this particular case I would recommend to many hon. members, and particularly members of the government, that they read from Hansard of March 10, 1939, beginning at page 1751, where the then minister of national defence explained the reasons for introducing this legislation to control profiteering. In that speech he took occasion to quote the then prime minister of Canada, whose views, even while he still lives, have

Defence Supplies
been given something of a measure of sanctity by members of his party. At least they profess that those views have particular force. And, no matter what political opinions might be expressed otherwise, many of his views were extremely sound.
On this particular occasion the then minister of national defence quoted the words of the then prime minister, as they appear at page 1753 of Hansard. These are the words of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King:
I share the hon. member's abhorrence of anything in the nature of profiteering. I cannot imagine a more contemptible means of seeking to make one's fortune than by doing so at the expense of the lives of others. . . .
If there are to be no profits, I cannot think of any way in which industry can be carried on other than by its complete nationalization.
. . . The choice lies between state monopoly and private industry, or partly the one and partly the other. ...	.
Guns and shot and powder are not the only materials required for war. They are not the only materials that present a temptation in the matter of profits when war occurs. . . .
Are all these things to be procured only under a government owned and controlled system which will not permit of profits being made? All that could result from a policy of that sort, if it were possible, would be the creation of a non-profit socialist Island inside a competitive economy. But I doubt very much if we could get that far in Canada in a great many years, and, even if we did, whether it would be a good thing for -the country. . . . I am afraid that for a long time to come we would not recover what in the interval we had lost in the way of individual initiative and freedom. . . .
Government manufacture may be desirable in regard to certain kinds of essential supplies which we require continuously.
I think private industry, where it is engaged in the manufacture of munitions and war materials, has to be watched closely to see that excessive profits are not made. . . .
We should seek most carefully to control private industry, but I cannot see how, in a system of competitive industry, you can totally eliminate the possibility of some profit being made. As hon. members of the house know, there is a great variety of special articles required as war supplies and equipment. It would be going much too far not to expect these to be obtained at least in part from private concerns which would expect to make some profit. Where, however, private industry is permitted to undertake the manufacture of munitions and war supplies, I believe there should be very strict government supervision. All contracts should contain provisions which will ensure that there will be no opportunity for other than a reasonable profit. I may tell my hon. friend that this whole matter has been given very careful consideration by the government. So far as any contracts with which we may have anything to do are concerned, every effort will be made to prevent anything in the nature of undue profits being secured by those who obtain the contracts.
Those words of Mr. Mackenzie King were offered as the basis for the argument put forward. Hon. members did not say then, as one hon. member said this afternoon-and I am sure sincerely-"Well, certainly, we

want everything done properly. But we trust the minister; so let him go ahead. We do not want any details as to how it is to be done." But that was not the way it was done then. And it was this very government-this very government-which at that time, having stated the needs, did not say, "We rely on this minister", or that minister. On the contrary they introduced the Defence Purchases, Profits Control and Financing Act, 1939, in peacetime, and passed that act for the purpose of doing the very thing they said should be done.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this government certainly is not the one to tell us, and to tell the people of Canada, that that practice was unsound, that we are to abandon any measure of statutory control over profits, that we are to abandon any of the restraints that were imposed in peacetime-in 1939- because of the disclosure of certain profiteering that had taken place at that time. It would seem that this is the government which in the light of the experience of the years should say, "We are going to strengthen that act." If this government were prepared to say, "We think at this stage that the Canadian Commercial Corporation, as procurement agency for the government for defence supplies-"


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canadian Commercial Corporation is not; it has never been the government procurement agency for the Department of National Defence. I have said that three times in this debate.


George Alexander Drew: If the minister said that three times in this debate he said something three times that is the direct opposite of what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has said. The Minister of National Defence has said that it is the procurement agency and the quotations from Hansard I have just given indicate that at the time the bill was introduced the house was informed that it was to be the procurement agency for the Department of National Defence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nothing of the kind.


George Alexander Drew: In fact it is the procurement agency for the Department of National Defence at the present time. It operates as the procurement agency for the Department of National Defence under this device: By an amendment the Minister of Trade and Commerce was made the minister responsible for the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all.


George Alexander Drew: The minister was also given the power to avail himself of such provisions under the munitions and supply act as are required for the carrying out of the duties of the Canadian Commercial Corporation as

the agency. The statements I have read by those who introduced that act have absolutely no meaning, more than that they were insincere and improper and misleading, unless they were intended to convey, and did convey, the impression that the Canadian Commercial Corporation was to be the post-war civilian body set up by this government as the procurement agency for the Department of National Defence.
Having done that, if the government thinks that its powers should be widened, if the government thinks that some of the provisions of the munitions and supply act which are being employed in connection with the activities of the Canadian Commercial Corporation should be widened, then it would be a simple thing to bring in an amendment to the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act. If the government decided that, instead of having two acts, there should be one, it would be possible for them to introduce an amendment to the provisions of the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939. Then we would have in one act an up to date, effective and understandable piece of legislation dealing with the procurement of the defence requirements of this country.
At this point let me make one thing perfectly clear. The experience and service of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) in war as in peace demonstrate his unusual ability to discuss this whole subject, and what he has said leaves no doubt whatever that we want the most effective, the most efficient and the most up to date procedure that is available for the purpose of giving to our armed forces on land, in the air and at sea the finest type of equipment that human ingenuity and our productive capacity can produce. That is what we have been urging.
When we were urging the Minister of National Defence to tell us what we need under this new agreement which was settled in London only a couple of weeks ago and which the press of the world has hailed as a history-making agreement, we were really asking him to tell us frankly what kind of equipment our forces need. We were asking him to tell us how we could support him in giving to these men in uniform, whether it be khaki, light blue or dark blue, the very best that a great industrial nation could give to them with the backing of parliament which represents the people. That is what we have been asking.
I am only putting this forward in the belief that we should have an act which retains in the hands of parliament those appropriate controls which are the responsibility of parliament in peacetime. This bill
Defence Supplies
should provide legislation which will give the most effective possible productive opportunities in this country to provide those things that we really need, and it should also retain whatever restraints there should be and introduce whatever new restraints there should be so that this cruel demand which has been enforced upon our taxpayers so-shortly after another war for hundreds of millions of dollars for our defence shall not be the means of profiteering now or in the future.
This present bill, far from being restrictive, is the broadest possible piece of legislation imaginable. It is true that it does not say in explicit terms that the minister can force any industry to do anything, but the minister can buy or otherwise acquire, exchange, process, develop, repair, maintain, store and transport defence supplies. He can acquire those things in any way which he himself deems advisable with the support of the government.
Let us see what this bill does and does not do. With the other acts repealed, under this bill no tender need be called for at any time. If hon. members of this house are so gullible as to believe that there is no danger in a provision of that kind, then they have not been following the examination of the public accounts even during the present session. There are no safeguards of any kind which the parliament of Canada, the supreme representative body of the people, could exercise to protect the people's interests.
The board provided by the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act goes. There is to be just one man. Of course that man has the warm and high commendation which has been given to him by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), but even if all of us shared that warm admiration, I still think that with all that admiration-


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: May I ask the leader of the
opposition if he believes in dictatorship?


George Alexander Drew: Most certainly not.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: If you are a married man-,,
you do.


George Alexander Drew: 1 do not believe in dictatorship and I shall be sufficiently personal to say that I am very happy in my marriage and do not. regard it in any way as a dictatorship. What I said in regard to the hon. member for Fort William was sincere because I am sure every hon. member loves his warm and genial spirit.. But I am not saying anything offensive when-. I point out that what he has said has in it the very essence of the possibility of dictatorship, although I know he never meant that.

Defence Supplies
I can remember quite distinctly when those in Germany who were supporting the regime that came into power in January, 1933, said, "We trust this man, we leave it to him." The same thing happened in Italy and they said, "We trust this man, we leave it to him. We do not want any legislation talked about because after all he has done such a good job in building roads and making our trains run on time and no legislation is required." Then in Russia there were people, many of them quite sincere, who said, "This man is doing a good job. He has built a nice subway for us here in Moscow and we do not want any talk about legislation." And so it was in Germany. Instead of debate and discussion they simply said: "Here is the man. Heil Hitler!" In Italy people said: "Here is a man who has done a good job. Viva Duce!" In Russia they said: "Here is a man who has done a good job. Tovarich!" And so it went. Many very bad things resulted from that point of view. It would be most unfortunate indeed if we should forget today that many of the people who supported Hitler and Mussolini-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Among them my hon. friend, as I remember.


George Alexander Drew: That is as utterly untrue as other statements that have been made. As a matter of fact, if the hon. member would toother about being a little more accurate and careful he would find that I was one of the first to warn of the danger of the threat of German arms, to urge the rearming of our country, and to try to impress upon this government the necessity of bringing our defence forces up to some state of efficiency. I did that in different articles, and particularly in one which some of the members of the government did not like very much, entitled "Our Bow and Arrow Army". It was written for the purpose of meeting the threat of dictatorship I described which was emerging in Europe at that time. The fact is that those who have seen these things are likely to realize perhaps a little better the extent to which sincere people can be carried away by what they see.
Like everyone else who saw it I pointed out the way that people in those countries were impressed with the efficiency that appeared, with the fact that, as I said before, railways were run better, roads were better, and a lot of other things were better. Anyone who was not blind would have said that, and anyone who reported that was not supporting the regime.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You spoke very well of Hitler at the same time.


George Alexander Drew: Never at any time. That is the most preposterous falsehood I have heard. Mark you, I did not go over and call on Mr. Hitler, as your prime minister of that time did, and then come back with a fine report of what he thought about him.


Mr. McLure:: Give him another solar plexus blow.


George Alexander Drew: This merely indicates of course the kind of device that is employed at all times to divert attention from the really serious considerations before the house. We are being asked to remove wise restraints that were introduced by this very government at a time when some of its members understood the real and fundamental principles of democracy. We are also being asked to repeal other legislation without even having information as to why some of these things are being done. We are being asked to repeal two acts under the present bill without any explanation why the Canadian Commercial Corporation cannot carry forward the work that it was intended to do. We are also being asked to repeal the existing restraints on profits without any explanation as to why it would not be wise to carry them forward.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) takes very much to heart any suggestion that we should examine these things on the basis of parliamentary practice and established procedure. The fact is that as many free parliaments have been destroyed by sincere men and women doing the wrong thing without realizing that what they were doing was wrong, and really with the hope of improving the efficiency of government, as have been destroyed by force of arms. People forget that in Germany, Italy, Russia and other countries there were many sincere people who really thought that it was worth while to do away with ordinary parliamentary rights so that one man could act quickly without waiting for parliament to approve. Many people who thought that had no sinister motive. Of course many who did and many who supported that form of government had the most sinister motives.
I am not imputing sinister motives of any kind, but I say that the passage of this measure in peacetime, which will be read toy the courts with the knowledge that these emergency powers were conferred in times of peace, without any restraints on profit or any of the other restraints imposed by one of the acts to toe repealed, is opening the door to dictatorship. The only restraint on that is not one that can be exercised by parliament tout is a restraint which will remain in the hands of one man and the government around him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The hour is later, and I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) wishes to deal with one or two bills. The threat seems to be made from all sides of the house that this legislation will be defeated. I will say at once it is all right with me if it is defeated because I will at least get full marks for having tried to remove from the statutes legislation that is far too dictatorial and stringent for peacetime. I have tried to retain from the existing legislation only those powers, which are reasonable peacetime powers for carrying out the procurement duties involved in the defence of Canada. Even in peacetime provision for the defence of our country is important business. I believe that the defence of Canada even in peacetime is the most important business carried on in the country. If it is not, certainly the budget is badly distorted, since a considerable part of the taxation levied in this country is being spent on national defence.
We will concede that it is perhaps the most important business of the country. Therefore who can object to its having priority over other business in the matter of procurement? The power of priority is the only arbitrary power retained in the act. True we have taken power to compel a contractor to carry out a contract that he signs of his own volition. In wartime we had the right to go to a factory and say: You must make this. It is needed for defence. You have the facilities and you must make it. We are dropping that power, but if a contractor accepts a contract of his own volition to deliver defence supplies or munitions, then we are taking the power to say that he must carry out the terms of his contract and give his defence contract priority over other contracts he may have taken before or since.
We all know that there is no machinery in most government contracts to compel the contractor to carry out the work on time. We used to include penalty clauses, but I think they have been pretty generally done away with. It may be important, and usually is, in connection with a defence contract that the work be carried out according to the terms of the contract. Therefore we are reserving the right to demand from the contractor priority over contracts that he may have for less essential work. If any material is needed for defence we have power to requisition it. We are being criticized because the power of requisition carries with it the power to fix prices, subject to revision
Defence Supplies by the courts. Well, without the power to fix prices the power to requisition means nothing. Suppose I were to requisition from a stockpile of copper. I suppose copper today is worth about 23 cents a pound, and I say to the owners, "You must deliver it." The owner may reply, "We will deliver it, but the price is 60 cents a pound." That effectively stops the requisitioning from a practical viewpoint. We simply take the position that if we offer the going price of the day the copper must be delivered. If there are any circumstances that have not been taken into account in fixing that price the owner of the copper can go to the exchequer court, present his facts and have his contract revised.
If those are arbitrary powers, then we are taking arbitrary powers. We have those powers today, and of course we have powers that go far beyond them. Today we have the power to order a man to take a contract, to fix the price at which he will carry it out, to renegotiate our agreement at any time, and to revise the price. Today we have all those powers which in my opinion are not peacetime powers. Therefore we are asking that they be rescinded.
Now I come to the point raised by the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) and echoed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), that we should have an arbitrary profit limitation. The difficulty there is in framing limitations that would take account of all the conditions that apply to production. A contract carrying a profit of four per cent in certain industries could make a fortune for the owners. A highly mechanized industry might do very well on a profit of four per cent. An industry that is not mechanized, that depends upon handwork for its production, might be very likely to go broke on a profit of ten per cent. That is a condition of manufacturing. To set up arbitrary legislative limitations that would cover the great range of manufacturing going into the production of munitions, even in peacetime, is a task that I do not think any parliament could undertake and carry out satisfactorily.


Mr. Coldwell:: Then what about a tax on excess profits?


Clarence Decatur Howe: How can we impose a tax that does not apply to all production? Take the Canadian General Electric Company, and I mention this company because it is one of our big corporations, manufacturing a wide range of products. Five per cent of their factory might be devoted to the production of war materials and ninety-five per cent to the production of peacetime materials. How could you apply a tax there? No; we think our best protection is the experience of our

Defence Supplies
purchasing agents in placing contracts with companies at profits that are reasonable.
I suppose it is quite needless to say again that responsibility for the procurement of defence supplies is the responsibility of the minister, not of the corporation. That was the case when the Department of Munitions and Supply Act was passed in 1939. It has been the position ever since, and is the position today. I have heard more kind words in this debate about the Canadian Commercial Corporation than ever before, and I agree with everything that has been said. But I cannot understand the desire to substitute a bureaucracy-for certainly the Canadian Commercial Corporation is a bureaucracy- for a minister who carries his responsibility into this House of Commons. It has always seemed to the government that responsibility for defence purchasing should rest directly upon the shoulders of a minister. That was the position throughout the war, it is the position today, and will continue to be the position under this new legislation.
I do not think I need say much more. Perhaps the house would be interested in the size of the operation we have been discussing. Hon. members may think that defence purchasing does not mean very much in peacetime, but in 1949 the minister was responsible for placing 84,632 separate contracts having a value of $197,445,808.22. In addition there were 19,561 amendments to contracts, resulting in additional expenditures of $24,092,871.37. I just point out that the 104,193 separate transactions for which the minister was responsible represented over 350 transactions per day for the three hundred working days of the year. It is all very well to say that the minister should have no latitude and should obtain the approval of parliament for every separate transaction. I venture to say that parliament and even the government would have some trouble in approving 350 separate transactions every working day in the year. Therefore I think the limitation involved in the review by the government of transactions having to do with defence purchasing is reasonable.
A great deal has been said about this legislation being built around the present minister. Nothing could be more nonsensical. For his sins, the present minister was made minister of munitions and supply throughout the war years, from 1939 to 1946. At the end of that time it seemed that the department had served

its purpose. However, a number of continuing functions had to be carried on, and the minister recommended to the Prime Minister that the responsibility of procurement for the armed services should be turned over to the minister of trade and commerce, who at that time was my colleague Hon. J. A. MacKinnon. It was turned over to him, and I thought that was the last I would see of procurement for the defence services. However, it happened that a few months later Mr. MacKinnon retired from the government, and I was appointed Minister of Trade and Commerce. It was purely a coincidence, and nothing in this legislation would be changed by one iota whoever happened to be minister. The minister has experienced advisers who were through the war with him, in the heads of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. During the war they were members of an organization that purchased over $13 billion worth of munitions and supplies within something like five or six years. I doubt whether anywhere in the world can be found a group with wider experience in purchasing defence materials than is to be found in the Canadian Commercial Corporation, who are the advisers of the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the day, as far as the purchase of defence supplies is concerned.
I have a number of notes here, but if I followed them I am afraid the debate would take rather a frivolous turn. I believe I have stated the facts. If there are those who believe it would be preferable to retain the wartime powers and use them in peacetime instead of those suggested in this legislation, they would be quite justified in voting against this bill. Those who believe we should have a peacetime act for a peacetime period will, I believe, find little justification for voting against this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Calherwood:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee on the bill.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, two bills were passed in the Senate, one to amend the Trust Companies Act and the other to amend the Loan Companies Act. I spoke to representatives of the opposition parties earlier today. If by consent they could be given first reading, they could be distributed and could appear on the order paper for second reading, after which I would hope they could be referred to the banking and commerce committee. They are Bills 307 and 308.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRUST COMPANIES ACT


Douglas Charles Abbott: the first reading of Bill No. 307 (from the Senate) to amend the Trust Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Loan Companies Act LOAN COMPANIES ACT



AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO ORGANIZATION, OFFICERS, ETC.

Douglas Charles Abbott: the first reading of Bill No. 308 (from the Senate) to amend the Loan Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Tomorrow we might have second reading of these two bills
in order to refer them to the banking and commerce committee. Thereafter we shall proceed with Bill No. 302, which we have just been on. Then we shall take the notice of motion dealing with the financing of the Canadian National Railways and advance that one stage. After that, we shall go into committee of supply, taking up the Departments of Citizenship and Immigration, Labour, Public Works and Secretary of State.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 15, 1950