1953-03-24

LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to present a report of the civil service commission respecting the organization of the library of parliament, and also the first report of the joint committee on the library of parliament.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	229,	to	incorporate CanadianDisaster Relief	Fund,	Incorporated.-Mr. Weir.Bill	No.	231,	for	the	relief of Rolande
Jacqueline Lortie Nugent.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Alice Cecilia Anne Magniac Parker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	233,	for	the	relief of Therese
Monette Lax.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Paul Edward Tremblay.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Maurice Leveille.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Bernard Gordon Smith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	237,	for	the	relief	of	Anne
O'Connor Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Beryl Mildred Taylor Leckie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	239,	for	the	relief	of	Eileen
Margaret Amos Trudeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Florence Mae Mitchell Anderson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	241,	for	the	relief	of	Sidney
William Donald Butler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	242,	for	the	relief	of	Adele
Roberta Jeffrey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Margaret Bell Favreau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Lena Herman Besner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Muriel Luella Sproston Kerr.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Ruth Steirman Fernley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Milorad Aragian.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Kenneth Angus Eaton Hewitt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	249,	for	the	relief	of	Delia
Fleurette Ayotte Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Clarence Albert Edwards.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Issie Adler.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	252,	for	the	relief	of	Jean
Shelvingiton Parnell Adams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Peggy Louise Miller McCallum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Jean Paul Gauthier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	255,	for	the	relief	of	Bernice Catherine MacDonald Crawford.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Horst Wilhelm Wossidlo.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	257,	for	the	relief	of	Nick
Sauchuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Rita Frost Siversky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Beatrice Gotlieb Slobotsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Georgina Julia Rose Charland.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Margaret Violet Creasor McKenna.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Kathleen Snell Meloche.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Henry George Maxham.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Marjorie Evelyn Lee Stevens.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Queenie Isabel Brambell Muchan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Bessie Mabel Witcomb Elson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 267, for the relief of Catherine Maine McKenzie Woods.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of Robert Edward Francis Clements.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Agnes Jackson Stroud Earle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Irene Gray Brideau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Marie Claire Marcelle Suzanne Langlois Crowe, otherwise known as Marie Claire Marcelle Suzanne Langlois CockelL-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Janina Jenny Spaiches Remeikis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Ruth Sanel Koilofsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Pauline Tratenberg Goldman.-Mr. Winkler.
3230	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Bill No. 275, for (the relief of Molly Klau Lust.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Charlotte Freeman Pelletier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Olive Spencer Thompson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Dorothy Sanger Anderson Morris.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. T. Applewhaile (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister report any progress in the negotiations with the British for the sale of the present carryover of canned salmon in British Columbia?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia salmon canners have always sold a substantial part of their pack to commonwealth markets, the United Kingdom in particular. They have been good customers for many years. This year, because of dollar shortages, no orders have been placed by the United Kingdom for canned salmon. The B. C. salmon industry has managed, through aggressive advertising and salesmanship, to increase sales in Canada, the United States and western Europe, but is still left with a carryover of around half a million cases. This situation was discussed with the British chancellor of the exchequer, Right Hon. R. A. Butler, on his recent visit to Ottawa. Mr. Butler was most sympathetic, and promised to discuss the matter with his government on his return to Britain.
I am happy to report today that the British chancellor has now advised us that the British ministry of food has been authorized to make a purchase of British Columbia canned salmon to the value of $4| million. The ministry of food will choose the type and quality desired. While there are no conditions attached to this agreement, Mr. Butler did express the hope that our fishing industry would reciprocate by increasing their purchases of British goods-tinplate, nets and engines in particular. As Minister of Fisheries I strongly support this suggestion, for it is only by expanding trade that the British can earn the dollars for future purchases of our products.



INCREASE IN CARAPACE MEASUREMENT OF LOBSTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Watson MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Yes-



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour give us a report on the present situation with respect to the grain handlers' strike at Vancouver? Particularly, will he tell us what steps, if any, the government are taking to put an end to this strike which has been so costly to the farmers of western Canada?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I gave the house a statement concerning the strike of grain handlers on the west coast and in that statement I reported that, following the rejection by both parties of the compromise proposal submitted by my officer, arrangements had been made for a joint meeting of the representatives of the parties in a further effort to bring them into agreement. The joint discussions initiated by my officer were held on Thursday and Friday of last week. While agreement appeared possible on all other issues, the parties were adamant on the question of a wage increase. The companies would offer no wage increase and the union desired a "substantial" wage increase, with no figure being specified.
In the circumstances the parties agreed that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the joint discussions and my officer regretfully was forced to comply and made arrangements to leave Vancouver. Before leaving, however, he addressed a joint letter to the representatives of the parties proposing that two of the issues be arbitrated, that four other issues be made the subject of a collective agreement, and that work be resumed immediately on acceptance of the proposals which were in the following terms:
1.	That the parties agree to submit to arbitration the following issues: (a) The wage rate; and (b) the dust premium, with an

arbitrator, whose decision would be final and binding, being chosen by agreement between the parties or, failing agreement, by the Minister of Labour for Canada.
2.	That the parties incorporate in a collective agreement the following provisions: (a) Two additional statutory holidays; (b) an increase of five cents per hour in the present graveyard shift differential; (c) the payment of double time for all work done on Sundays; and (d) schedules of job classifications, without prejudice to the right of the management of each elevator to establish its own system of classification.
3.	That the parties agree that the present cessation of work be terminated and that work be resumed at the earliest possible time following acceptance of the proposal herein contained.
Then I quote from the end of the letter as follows:
Would you please place this proposal before the parties and give me your reply by letter as soon as possible.
The parties are now giving consideration to this arbitration proposal.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there seems to be some belief that certain difficulties at the head of the lakes are directly related to those in British Columbia, I should like to make a brief statement with regard to the head of the lakes. Many hon. members have asked me about the recent newspaper reports indicating that certain differences of opinion had arisen at the lakehead between the grain elevator companies and the union representing their employees which resulted in a strike vote having been taken. My department was advised of this situation late Friday evening of last week and immediate inquiries were made to obtain the facts.
Hon. members may recollect that contract negotiations were conducted in Winnipeg and Port Arthur in the early part of September last year between representatives of the elevator companies and of the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks, etc., with which the elevator employees are affiliated. One of the issues in dispute at that time was the request of the brotherhood for a five-day forty-hour week. The parties agreed at that time to reduce the hours from forty-eight to forty per week but apparently there is a difference of opinion between them now concerning the application of the forty-hour week.
My department acted immediately to bring the parties into conference with a view to the settlement of this issue. I should like to add that there is no connection between this dispute at the lakehead and the strike 68108-205
Inquiries of the Ministry of grain elevator employees on the west coast. Some of the same companies are involved in the two disputes but the employees are represented by different unions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the government prepared to use the emergency powers they now possess in order to bring the Vancouver strike to an end? After all, it has been going on now for more than five weeks.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think the situation is such that I need make a reply to that question.



EXCISE TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary assistant. Has the minister received from the fisheries council of Canada a letter regarding some misunderstanding with respect to the Excise Tax Act? I have a copy of this letter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member has asked his question.


Mr. McLure:: I did not intend to read it. I merely wanted to find out if he had received the letter. If not, I would be glad to send it to him.


Mr. Jean Lesage (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I am not aware that the minister has received such a letter, but I will look into the matter and I will be delighted if the hon. member will send me a copy.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I would ask whether the combines investigation commissioner has received complaints from the automobile insurance agents' association in the province of Ontario asking that an investigation be made because of the fact that board and non-board automobile insurance agents' commissions have simultaneously been reduced by 5 per cent; and whether consideration has been) given by the department as to whether or not this constitutes any invasion of the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question but the question he has now asked orally is quite different from

Emergency Powers Act the one of which he gave me notice. If he will permit me, I will state the question which he gave me in writing and then answer it. His question was:
Whether or not an investigation is being made under the Combines Investigation Act respecting the action taken by board and non-board automobile insurance companies in having reduced the commission of agents on the same date and in the same percentages?


John George Diefenbaker: What is the difference?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think there is a very great difference. Orally, my hon. friend asked if we had received complaints and so forth. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that since the statement, in any of these cases, that we are investigating an industry unavoidably implies that there are irregularities in it that require investigation, when that in fact may not be the case at all, it has not been our practice- as I think perhaps my hon. friend himself is aware-to disclose whether or not an investigation is being made in an industry until a report concerning it is brought down.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: That is reasonable.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
may 31, 1953 to may 31, 1954
The house resumed, from Monday, February 23, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. St. Laurent- Mr. Beaudoin in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Powers Act to provide for the continuation of the act for a further period of one year, that is from the thirty-first day of May, 1953, to the thirty-first day of May, 1954.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if my hon. friend,
the Leader of the Opposition, would permit me to make a short statement which is almost in the nature of a point of privilege.
Toronto Saturday Night in its second last issue, not the one of this week but the one of the week of March 17, said this in relation to the Emergency Powers Act now under discussion:
Mr. Garson tried to explain why the cabinet needed the power to pass secret orders which could affect the liberties of every Canadian, and he had a difficult time of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now, Mr. Chairman, that statement of about thirty words, innocent as it seems to sound to my hon. friends who have interjected "hear, hear," contains in it three serious misstatements of law and fact.
To begin with we are not in this measure seeking powers to pass secret orders in council. There is not a syllable in the

Emergency Powers Act which gives the governor in council power to pass secret orders in council. On the contrary, the Emergency Powers Act requires, as my hon. friend the member for Lake Centre, whom I see seizing his pencil to make a note, will find if he refers to section 2, subsection 4, that regulations made by the governor in council thereunder shall be laid before parliament within five days after they are made-


John George Diefenbaker: Did1 you lay the other secret one before parliament?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -or, if parliament is not in session, within a like period after the next session thereof.
Now my hon. friend says: Did we lay the last order in council-


John George Diefenbaker: The last secret order in
council.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -the last secret order in council before parliament? Well, there is one and only one secret order in council, and the law pertaining to secret orders in council is not in the Emergency Powers Act at all. In fact the power to exempt an order from publication, that is to treat it as a secret order in council, is not an emergent power. It is a power which was provided for in the statutes of this country before the present Emergency Powers Act was introduced in 1951. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, it is worthy of note that it was a power granted by the Regulations Act, which act when it was brought into this house, largely at the suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre, called for the publication and recording of orders in council. I am not referring there to the particular section but rather to the statute itself.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I challenge my hon. friend to ever detect one line in which I suggested secret orders in council. A secret order in council is the last thing in the world I would advocate and it is something I am against now-and I am going to go into the matter today.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon, friend had listened to my remarks a little more carefully-


John George Diefenbaker: I have been listening.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -he would have understood me to say, as I in fact did say, that the provision that makes it possible to exempt a certain order in council from publication is one provision in the Regulations Act which act provides for the tabling and publication of all orders in council. It was that act of which my hon. friend was strongly in favour.
The Regulations Act, containing provision for the exemption of certain orders in

council, was before this house in the year 1950. When it was here it was supported by all parties in the house, and, if my hon. friend has any doubts about the correctness of that statement, I would be glad, in due course, to oblige him with quotations from some of his colleagues who spoke on that statute.


John George Diefenbaker: Would you oblige me with a quotation from myself? I say I had nothing to do with that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The Regulations Act provides that the governor in council may exempt certain regulations by a certain method, that is by passing another regulation of exemption. That exempting regulation must be published in the Canada Gazette within thirty days and laid before parliament within fifteen days of its publication or, if parliament is not in session, within fifteen days of the commencement of the next session thereof.
As I have said, we have only one secret order in council and, Mr. Chairman, we could have passed that secret order in council under the provisions of the War Measures Act by invoking the present set of circumstances as a state of apprehended war; in which case not only would the content of the secret order in council be secret but its very existence could be withheld from parliament. Instead of adopting that course we passed that order in council under the more limited powers of the Emergency Powers Act and then, invoking the provision in the Regulations Act, we passed another order in council exempting the original or first order in council from publication; and we complied with all the requirements of the Regulations Act with regard to the tabling and publication of the exempting order in council.
In doing that we were giving effect to the position which we have taken from beginning to end' in connection with the Emergency Powers Act itself. That position is that, when the exigencies of the time require that we have a secret order in council, we shall pass it in the manner in which I have indicated in order that the knowledge of its existence will be before this parliament, and it can be debated to the limited extent which that knowledge would make possible.
Now, the second point upon which this short statement which I quoted from the Toronto Saturday Night is completely in error is that a secret order in council could affect-I assume it means adversely-the liberties of every Canadian. As I think everyone in the house will agree, this matter is of considerable importance as to whether 68108-205i
Emergency Powers Act a secret order in council could adversely affect the liberties of Canadians. This statement in the Toronto Saturday Night conveys a totally erroneous impression, for orders in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act cannot adversely affect the liberties of every Canadian as alleged by the Toronto Saturday Night. The Emergency Powers Act expressly states that the governor has no power to make regulations in relation to arrest, except as incidental to proceedings to enforce its own regulations, detention, exclusion or deportation of any person; or the censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings. The fact that an order in council is referred to in the exempting order as having been passed pursuant to the Emergency Powers Act is, therefore, assurance to the members of this house, that although they may not see the contents of the secret order in council, that its terms do not provide for arbitrary arrest, detention, deportation, exclusion or censorship, for the very simple reason that any order in council passed pursuant to the Emergency Powers Act cannot contain those provisions because they are not within the power of the governor in council to provide.
The third objection I take to this statement in the Toronto Saturday Night is that the following sentence:
Mr. Garson tried to explain why the cabinet needed the power to pass secret orders which could affect the liberties of every Canadian . . .
is completely false. The tenor of the statements that I have made in any debate upon this measure, as all the members of this house are aware, has been in precisely the opposite direction. We wanted to avoid the use of the unlimited powers of the War Measures Act which was passed by parliament on the recommendation of the Borden government in 1914 and has remained on the statute books ever since. The Prime Minister in 1951, in introducing the Emergency Powers Act, and I at the present time, have explained ad nauseam that one of the main reasons why we have not invoked the War Measures Act was that, amongst other things, we did not want to have the power of arbitrary arrest, deportation, detention or exclusion. We did not want to have powers of censorship or of interference with publications. In other words, in a condition of cold war, we wanted to preserve intact, by express exemption from the Emergency Powers Act, those liberties of the person and freedom of speech.
Now, that being so, it was not because we wanted to exercise the powers under the War Measures Act but because we wanted to forgo the powers under the War Measures Act
3234	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act that, instead of invoking the act, we chose to ask parliament to pass, and now to renew, the Emergency Powers Act. Under this act machinery is provided for the immediate scrutiny by parliament of all the governor in council's actions when he invokes its more limited powers. Therefore, when further down in his editorial the editor of the Toronto Saturday Night makes this statement, I suggest that he is again stating an untruth. He says:
The government may have the power to imprison a man without trial, to forbid public discussion of certain subjects, to clamp our economic life under rigid controls, to use thought police.
He says:
We do not know. We cannot know as long as there are emergency powers.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the editor of the Toronto Saturday Night could have avoided making this untrue statement by no more complicated a device than merely reading the Emergency Powers Act himself. He could have seen, as some of my hon. friends in the opposition could have seen if they had taken the trouble to read the act, that the powers of whose existence they "cannot know as long as there are emergency powers", are expressly excluded in the Emergency Powers Act by language which is as clear and as plain as any parliamentary draftsman could draw it.


Mr. Fleming:: Will the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why, if the minister says the cabinet did not want the power of arrest, is it that the bill as introduced in this house in 1951 contained no exclusion of the power of arrest from the powers conferred by this bill? It was only in committee of the whole on motion of the opposition that the power of arrest was excluded from the powers conferred by the bill.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is about the last member in this house who could conscion-ably ask the question he has just asked, because it was he and his colleague the member for Kamloops who raised the point to which he is now referring. He will recall that on that occasion it was explained by myself, repeating the assurances which had been given by the law officers of the crown, that if we were not going to be denied the powers to merely enforce in a simple administrative manner the orders in council which were passed under the Emergency Powers Act, we could not put in the bill as first introduced the word "arrest" unless it was qualified by the clause which is now found after it. This clause was worked out, if my memory
(Mr. Garson.]

serves me right, by the Prime Minister on the suggestion of the hon. member himself. Is that not right?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The terms of the clause were worked out in consultation, but the idea came from the opposition. This bill, when it was first introduced by the government, did not exclude the power of arrest.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What my hon. friend says is entirely correct. In its original form, the draftsman of the statute, thinking that, for the purpose of administering the orders in council that might be passed under the act, the power to arrest should be excluded, left out the word "arrest." In that connection my hon. friend is a lawyer and he knows quite well that the power to arrest arbitrarily is of very slight use unless there is associated with it the power to arbitrarily detain. When the arrest has been made, if there is no power of arbitrary detention then the arrested man can be taken out of his imprisonment by an application of habeas corpus. This was explained at great length before. So far as this particular provision is concerned, it was worked out between the opposition and the government, and by no person to a lesser extent than the hon. member for Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The idea for exclusion came from this side.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, and my hon. friend to be fair must admit that the minute it was made we went into consideration as to how the views of my hon. friend could be met, and at the same time protect us with regard to the enforcement of our orders in council, and it was for that combined purpose that the language of section 2, subsection 2(a), appears in the statute now in its present form.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemoni):: Do
not explain that to the hon. member for Eglinton, explain it to a lawyer.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The trouble with the editor of Toronto Saturday Night, and other editors like him, is that being pressed for time, they have not the leisure to go into these things carefully themselves; and are thrown back upon undue reliance upon some of the statements that are made by the members of the opposition in this house. The editorial in the Toronto Saturday Night is worthy of notice because it reflects some of the sentiments which have been expressed by members of the House of Commons. I do not object for one moment, either in this chamber or in the press-or for that matter any place else-to attacks upon the government. We have been inured to attacks. When about 90 per cent of the stock-in-trade of the opposition consists of attacks upon the

government, it is apparent we have long since become hardened to them. But what is not necessary at any stage of this or any other debate in parliament is that any member of the house or any editor in the country should recklessly, carelessly, or deliberately slander the laws of his own country. That is what has been done in this editorial. That is what has been done in this chamber in debates upon the Emergency Powers Act. I shall be glad to have something more to say upon this subject later on. This Emergency Powers Act has been quite falsely portrayed in this chamber and out of it. If we are to have any fair disposition of it, the time has surely come when a little bit more accuracy with regard to the law and the facts will become especially the members of the official opposition who take part in this discussion.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, if there has been any doubt up to this point about the importance of arguments against this measure, those doubts have been removed with the utmost clarity by the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: It sounded just like
Per on.


Sarto Fournier: Forget about politics. Come to the facts.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the hon. member could be more usefully occupied in continuing his earlier occupation than in that in which he is now engaged.


The Chairman:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the statement that we have just heard is one of the most remarkable pronouncements that we have had in regard to a motion before this chamber that it is expedient to renew the emergency powers which the government now asks for. We have just heard a remarkable pronouncement that there must be no reckless and careless slander of the laws of our country. Here we have not only a refusal to recognize the validity of the arguments that are put forward but we have the kind of attempt to prevent discussion here which is not in any way in keeping with this free parliament of ours but which is much more in keeping with the kind of legislative body that we are doing our utmost to prevent from ever being set up in this country.
Let me come to the points that have been raised by the remarks of the Minister of Justice. He speaks about the statement that has been made in the Toronto Saturday Night and suggests that the trouble-and he uses
Emergency Powers Act that word-with the editor of the Toronto Saturday Night and other editors like him is that they have been affected by the statements made in the House of Commons by members of the opposition. Mr. Chairman, that statement is reassuring indeed.


John George Diefenbaker: There is some hope for this country.


George Alexander Drew: There is some hope for parliament if the editors of this country and other commentators are going to pay some attention to the statements made by members of the opposition. It is a most gratifying thing to realize that they do and that they have. It will be a sorry day for this country if we ever reach a time when the editors of the publications of this country do not listen to statements made by the opposition, whether it is the present opposition or that opposition of which the Minister of Justice will be a member in a short time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Sarto Fournier: Don't tell us that he will become the leader of the Tories.


George Alexander Drew: That is, of course, provided that he is elected in his own constituency.


Mr. Rowe:: He might not even be elected.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this is indeed an extremely reassuring statement by the Minister of Justice. I would hope-in fact I will go further and say I am confident-that there is no editor of any responsible publication in Canada who will submit to the kind of threat that was made in this chamber this afternoon by the Minister of Justice. It was nothing but a threat to the editors of this country when he suggested that they should not recklessly slander the laws of our country by statements such as those which were made in this particular case. The Minister of Justice wants no opposition either in parliament or in the press of the country. That is what his declaration this afternoon told us. But fortunately for the processes of democracy in this country, our press has been fulfilling its function and I am confident that it will continue to do so.
Let us now come to the points made by the Minister of Justice in regard to this statement to which he takes such vigorous exception. He says that it is wholly inaccurate to suggest that the government is now asking to be permitted to pass secret emergency orders. There is nothing inaccurate in that statement. The statement is completely accurate. The effect of any legislation adopted by this house at any time must be regarded as part of our whole statutory structure. If we pass a

Emergency Powers Act law here at any time, it is essential that we examine what the effect of the law will be, with due regard to every other law that has some bearing upon it. When we are asked to pass this emergency act, we must recognize the fact that there is on the statute books another piece of legislation which makes it possible to keep under a continuing veil of secrecy any order passed under this act. Certainly this act permits a secret order. It was under this act that a secret order was passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


George Alexander Drew: Certainly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will he cite the section of the act which permits it?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, that is just nonsense.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it is difficult, within parliamentary language, to describe accurately an interjection such as that made by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is well aware of the fact that an order in council has been passed which is secret, and that order in council was made secret by an order passed under the Regulations Act to which he has also referred.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is not the Emergency Powers Act.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, every interjection made by the Minister of Justice should offer still greater warning to the people of Canada with regard to the danger of passing an emergency act which would be entrusted to him.


Alphonse Fournier: That is a nice way to escape the answer. Just give the answer; don't try to escape. Come clean.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


William Earl Rowe: May we have some order, Mr. Chairman?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Sarto Fournier: Shoot.


George Alexander Drew: I hope you will understand, Mr. Chairman, that I am under some restraint in refraining from a comment that is made appropriate by the obvious nature of the interjections which have just been made.


Sarto Fournier: Never mind, shoot.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Let us carry on.


George Alexander Drew: The motion now before us is to declare that it is expedient to renew the Emergency Powers Act under which any order can be made secret at any time by

a supplementary order in council passed under the provisions of the Regulations Act. The Minister of Justice has made some point of the fact that the Regulations Act was passed prior to the time that this emergency act came into effect. That only emphasizes the reason that we should look upon what we are now asked to do with additional caution. The Regulations Act was passed at a time when it was not contemplated that the government would be coming to us and asking that we agree that we should have a new Emergency Powers Act without any satisfactory explanation from the government as to why such an act is needed.
There are three reasons why we should review the wisdom of renewing the Emergency Powers Act which have been brought to our attention since that act was put on the statute books in 1951. The first of those is the Nolan judgment. The second is the secret order, and the third is the declaration of policy of the government by the Prime Minister in this house on March 16. Each of these has a very direct bearing on the wisdom or otherwise of continuing emergency powers of this nature.
Since this subject came under discussion during the present session there has been considerable comment about it outside this house, and it is clear that some of the important details are not completely understood. It is important that they should be understood. I therefore wish to refer to an editorial which appeared in one of the most responsible publications in this country. On February 24 a thoughtfully written editorial appeared in the Globe and Mail, which indicated that, in spite of the discussion which has already taken place, some details of this problem have not yet been made clear. Those of us who have been attempting to place clearly before the House of Commons the details of this important issue must accept responsibility for our failure to make these points clear.
Let me read part of this editorial of February 24.


Louis-René Beaudoin: 
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I have that in mind, and I have also in mind that if that citation applies, it did apply also to the discussion which has taken some time since this order was called this afternoon, because the whole of the discussion we already have had this afternoon related to a statement in another publication. But if there is any objection to my reading the exact words, of course I have no difficulty in presenting-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I might explain that I had the citation in mind too when I heard the Minister of Justice refer to an article in the Toronto Saturday Night; but I also had in mind the fact that when the minister rose he said he was doing it that way on a question of privilege, and no point of order was raised. It was apparently found quite appropriate by hon. members that the rebuttal to whatever had appeared in that paper be made. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is not going to read the article in full and perhaps we might reciprocate on this occasion. Since one hon. member has been permitted to quote from a newspaper perhaps I might allow this one, but in any event it is not in order to read articles from newspapers commenting on or referring to any proceedings in this house.


George Alexander Drew: I am entirely in the hands of of the committee. If the committee wishes to hear that part of the editorial that I propose to quote, then I will read it. If not-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes; go ahead.


George Alexander Drew: This editorial appeared in the Globe and Mail on February 24, and it starts:
Under the Emergency Powers Act of 1951, which parliament has been asked to extend for another year, the dominion government has passed at least one secret order in council. This was revealed in the Commons last week and the information stirred some members to protest. There is an obvious objection in principle to secret orders having the force of law; but in this case the government appears to be justified in its course and it has disarmed criticism by informing the leaders of opposition groups about the order in question.
Then I pass to a later part of that editorial without in any way, I believe, affecting the purport of what I am reading:
In the public interest, of course, there ought to be some safeguard against the abuse of the power to pass orders without parliament's knowledge. The government has provided such a safeguard, in the present case, by communicating its secret decree to opposition chiefs. Presumably they are bound by a gentleman's agreement, or perhaps by the Official Secrets Act, not to impart the information thus confided; but they remain free to exercise their judgment on the wisdom and necessity of secrecy.
If they come to the conclusion that secrecy is undesirable, they-or any one of them-could ask for a closed session of parliament to air the question. In the last resort the contents of the order could be publicly revealed at the risk of censure or
Emergency Powers Act
even prosecution. If the opposition leaders abide by the government's demand for secrecy, that is their tacit admission, and a sufficient guarantee to the public, that publication would be against the national interest.
I could have dealt with this as a question of privilege because there is in this editorial the statement that protection is afforded to members of the house and to the people of Canada by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other parties on the opposition side have said that they know the contents of the order. The editorial says:
If they come to the conclusion that secrecy is undesirable, they-or any one of them-could ask for a closed session of parliament to air the question. In the last resort the contents of the order could be publicly revealed at the risk of censure or even prosecution. If the opposition leaders abide by the government's demand for secrecy, that is their tacit admission, and a sufficient guarantee to the public, that publication would be against the national interest.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that I do not wish my silence to be interpreted as tacit admission that the secret order is a satisfactory order, nor do I want my silence to be interpeted as tacit admission that this is a satisfactory order, because I have never seen the order. I want that to be abundantly clear, that I have never seen the secret order. I only know that a secret order exists. I believe the same is true of the leaders of the other parties on this side of the house. I know nothing more in regard to the contents of this secret order than is contained in the numerous statements which suggest that it is for the purposes of security. That is all I know. That is all that has ever been indicated to me.
I am making these remarks because it is obvious that a carefully written editorial in one of our most responsible publications along the lines that I have quoted offers a measure of reassurance to the public which is wholly out of keeping with the circumstances as they actually are. The fact is that, if it were true that I knew the contents of this order and remained silent, it would be presumed that I agreed that such a secret order was desirable. I presume that it would be also 'agreed that the leaders of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties would also be regarded as having tacitly admitted by their silence that they had no objection to this secret order.
Because of the indication that some public assurance has been conferred by this belief that we know the contents of the order, I wish it to be clearly understood that I not only do not know its contents, I object most vigorously to the existence of any secret order.
3238	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act Certainly there must be things done in the interests of the security of the state which must be under some veil of secrecy. We all recognize that. But that does not require a secret order.
I do not believe that it should be open to the government of this country to carry on any activities the nature of which members of parliament are not aware of. I am not suggesting that when an order in council conferring certain powers relating to the security of the state is drafted it should give in exact detail what is going to be done, but every one of us as representatives of the people of Canada should know the nature of the activities which are to be permitted by any order of that kind. Certainly any order which is going to affect the freedom of individuals in this country should be known to members of parliament or else we are challenging the supremacy of parliament which is at issue in these very critical days.


John George Diefenbaker: Or abdicating it.


George Alexander Drew: The fact is that if we remain silent at a time like this and do not object to secret orders of this nature, then we abdicate our responsibilities and we ourselves are responsible for the loss of the rights of parliament which have been so jealously guarded throughout the years.
I know nothing whatever of what has been done under that order in council. The Minister of Justice tells us that the freedom and security of the individual is protected by the legislation which we are now asked to say shall be re-enacted. We do not know; we have no way of knowing. If that protection rests upon what the Minister of Justice said this afternoon, then it is very flimsy protection indeed.
This act does not offer the protection that he has told the house it offers. This act does not protect the freedom of the individual. Certainly there can be arrests under this act if there is a breach of any of the regulations passed under this act. Every member of this house who understands anything of the scope of the legislation we are now asked to declare shall be re-enacted knows that orders could be passed, no matter what the present intentions of the government may be, affecting the daily work and livelihood and freedom of Canadians in almost every field of human endeavour.
Once a regulation is passed requiring individuals to do something, a penalty can be imposed. If no penalty is imposed there is provision in the Criminal Code which makes it possible for action to be taken without any clearly-declared penalty in the regulation itself. The moment that individuals are com-

pelled to do something under anything that has the power of law and they fail to do it, they fail to comply, once they are in breach of that regulation then the Criminal Code provides the means by which the regulation can be enforced.
In any event there is clear provision in this act that penalties can be imposed dealing with any of these subjects in relation to which regulations can be made. I repeat that this embraces almost every human activity within the confines of our country. There is little or no protection afforded by the act itself.
Then let us recognize what could happen. A secret order affecting the daily lives of many of our people could be made and following that regulations could be passed. I do not know what the minister is saying when he says that this act does not provide for secret orders. This act, having regard to our existing legislation, does make it possible to pass orders affecting the lives of our people which will be completely secret just as the one order we know of now is secret. For all we know, there may be another order today. I am not suggesting there is, but there could be. In any event any order passed would and could remain indefinitely just as secret as the one which now exists. When the minister says that nothing could be done affecting the freedom of the individual, I point out to him that a lot of things can affect the freedom of the individual apart from explicit restrictions. I have referred already to the possibility that wires are being tapped. I have referred already to the possibility that mail is being opened. I have already referred to the possibility that certain investigations might be conducted which are not in conformity with our ordinary procedure in relation to criminal offences. That could happen. It has happened on earlier occasions.
This would be a very real interference with the freedom of the individual. It is not enough to say: Oh well, we just tap the wires of the people who we think are guilty of communist activities. That would not be a good explanation because this government says you cannot define communist activities. Of course they claim they have dealt with communist activities on certain of our ships, but still they cannot define them. Therefore, since this is something they cannot define, it would be very easy for their authority to pass over the boundary of those whom they regard as not being entitled to our ordinary freedom.


William Earl Rowe: The opposition.


George Alexander Drew: After having heard what was said this afternoon, who knows but what an

editor of some newspaper might find that his activities were not entirely in keeping with the thoughts of the government.


Mr. Croll:: Some broadcaster.


William Earl Rowe: Or opposition members.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, as has been interjected, conceivably the Minister of Justice might regard any criticism of this legislation as a reckless slander upon the laws of the country which he hopes will not be repeated. That is another case where this same power could be invoked. I agree with the hon. member. Then there would also be cases where individuals would be forced to submit to examinations not in keeping with our ordinary procedure. If there were no examinations under the regulations passed in relation to those working on our ships, then of course the regulations have been wholly ineffective and we do not need the Emergency Powers Act. If there were examinations, then those examinations were certainly not conducted under any existing law of which we are aware in this house. Certainly that was a limitation of the rights of the individual in certain particular cases.
No, Mr. Chairman, there can be no possible argument against the proposition that the rights of the individual can be impaired by secret orders passed under this act. When that is said, let it be immediately emphasized that this does not mean that anyone who points this out is claiming that the government has asked for these powers with any sinister purpose. However, it might be well to recall how easily people fall into the pleasant-looking pitfall that is provided by those who suggest that only the security of the state and the best interests of the people are being served by anything of this kind. We are told that actually this is an advantage, that there is of course the War Measures Act which could be invoked if it were necessary; but the government, with its sensitive instincts with respect to these matters, does not want to go that far. It wants to pass something in the nature of concurrent or parallel legislation which will have the same powers but look just a little better, just a little more democratic, just a little less as though we were absolutely abandoning our constitution.
It might be well to recall that the argument about the supremacy of parliament is not something new. To those who may be impatient about the time that is taken to discuss the supremacy of parliament, it perhaps should be recalled that it has taken a very long time to develop the principles upon which the freedom of our people firmly 68108-206
Emergency Powers Act rests. Perhaps it should be recalled that the idea of parliamentary responsibility did not begin 300 years ago. During the struggles in the days of the Stuarts they were at that time simply reviving a principle which had not been challenged but which had been accepted with some modifications in earlier days.


Alphonse Fournier: It is
better to say modifications.


George Alexander Drew: Oh yes, we always live and learn, or at least most of us try to learn. But the fact is that every one of us recognizes that our federal parliamentary system is the fruit of many long years of effort. I would point out, however, that at the time the last major issue with respect to this subject came before the people and engaged their attention for a great many years, with painful consequences for one monarch and for many other people at that time, there was a strange similarity in some of the arguments which were made in those days. Go back and examine the arguments in the days of the Stuarts. They did not challenge the rights of parliament but they said it would be a good thing to have complementary legislation. They claimed concurrent power.
In most of the great constitutional cases of the seventeenth century it will be found that this concurrent power was claimed in the interests of national safety or-and I emphasize this-because the matters that were being dealt with were of such trivial and varying importance as not to be such as should engage the attention of parliament. Those who have studied the great constitutional arguments with reference to the power of parliament will recall the case of Rex v. Hampden, which was settled as far back as 1637 and in which this was the issue at that time. The rights of parliament were not denied but concurrent and complementary legislation was sought and enacted which had the effect of denying the reality of parliamentary supremacy.


Alphonse Fournier: That is how many years ago?


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Chairman, may I hope that the hon. member is still able to arrive at that conclusion from the date of the case to which I have just referred.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not the one who has the floor. I just thought the hon. member knew it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I will have to ask the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont not to interrupt.
(Translation):
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Fournier) knows very well that he has no right to interrupt an hon. member

Emergency Powers Act who has the floor without obtaining his consent.
(Text):


Sarto Fournier: thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, but on a point of order, I think that you should repeat in English what you told me in French, for the benefit of the hon. member.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear that we have sought to emphasize our belief that the attention of the members of the house, and of those outside the house, should be directed to the constitutional issue involved here rather than to the intentions of the government in this case. I do not think that I could have been more emphatic than I was when I said I was not suggesting that the government was actuated by any sinister purpose in seeking re-enactment of the Emergency Powers Act, which does challenge the very foundations of parliament itself.
This is not something that has emerged suddenly here in Canada. This whole question of the encroachment on the rights of parliament by administrative law is one that has been engaging the attention of members of parliament at Westminster, and members of parliament in other parliamentary bodies of the commonwealth, as well as in the United States under a different constitution. The process of encroachment has been a long and steady one. It has, however, been emphasized during the past few years and particularly since the beginning of the second world war. During the first world war it did not become necessary at any time to go as far as it became necessary to go during the second world war, although the War Measures Act was enacted at that time.
The complexity of modern war, the tremendous demands upon any government, and the speed with which events occur, all impose the demand for greater flexibility and greater ability to adjust the daily work of the government to events of the day. The fact that this has been a common experience in all parliamentary governments within the commonwealth does not in any way lessen the responsibility upon us here in Canada to examine this encroachment so far as it affects our own parliament and the freedom of our own people.
Every argument I make is directed to the effect of this legislation as a principle in the light of the laws which affect the legislation, and the statements of policy of government which interpret their views, and which have a bearing upon the legislation itself. In that respect, I want to read just one paragraph from a book recently published which deals very fully with this subject. It has been referred to on earlier occasions in this debate.
[The Chairman.]

It is "The Passing of Parliament" by G. W. Keeton. On page 43 I find this paragraph:
The doubt which many citizens feel today is whether continued encroachments upon individual liberty really advance public welfare or promote national security, or whether they are not simply stepping-stones to a state of affairs in which all resistance to official policy is futile and perilous.
Mr. Chairman, with whatever good intentions he may have had, the Minister of Justice this afternoon indicated just how far his own mind has gone along that dangerous line. When he spoke of the reckless slander of our laws, in referring to the editorial in Toronto Saturday Night, to which he made reference, he was seeking to suppress or subdue editorial criticism of the official policy which he puts forward on behalf of the government.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, I must reject the interpretation which my hon. friend has placed on my remarks. I thought I had made it perfectly clear, and if I did not, I will make it clear now, that I had reference to deliberate misrepresentation or reckless misrepresentation of existing laws-


George Alexander Drew: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -misrepresentation that is false or prejudicial, regardless altogether of any policy that might be involved in those laws.


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly the point, but that is not what the minister said. The minister, in his earlier remarks, really disclosed what he thought was a terrible state of affairs. He said that the trouble with the editor-and he used the word "trouble"-and with other editors who wrote in a similar vein, was that they had been thrown back upon undue reliance on statements made by members of the opposition. It was then that he said he hoped that we would hear no further reckless slanders of our laws. It was certainly the suggestion that he wanted no more nonsense of this kind.
We have not yet, of course, reached the point where it would be futile or perilous to raise objection to legislation of this kind. But, Mr. Chairman, if the members of this house listening to the statement made this afternoon raise no objection to this legislation, it can become futile and perilous to argue any further about parliament's responsibility in Canada.
This is the chance we have to remind the government and members of parliament on the government side, in spite of their openly declared spirit of confidence, which may riot be quite so great underneath, that they may suffer the experience. They may themselves

some day hope that an opposition will have some freedom to express its opinion.
Another point that has come up since the act was before us on an earlier occasion has already been referred to and need not be extended. But there is one feature that has not yet been sufficiently apprehended by those who have been dealing with this subject from the other point of view, and I refer to the effect of the judgment in the Nolan case. In a nutshell, the judgment in the Nolan case simply means that what the governor in council declares should be done in the light of an emergency under this act cannot be set aside by the courts on the ground that what was done was not necessary, or that there was no existing emergency at the time, or that it was unnecessary to do what the government did at the time in the light of the general public interest.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is that a considered opinion?


George Alexander Drew: The minister knows quite well that is the effect of the Nolan judgment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I know no such thing.


George Alexander Drew: The minister knows quite well the effect of the Nolan judgment was that when the government passes an order dealing with something that they regard as an emergency, then it is not for the courts to review either the necessity for that order or the extent of its application. The warning there comes from the fact that the minister has told us that one of the things he wants to be able to do is to deal with box cars. The fact is that there is a very real relationship to the Nolan case. They were dealing with barley in the Nolan case, and with a limited quantity of barley. In that case the court decided it was not for it to decide whether or not this was something of general application. The government had decided, as part of what they regarded as an emergency, that this particular barley had to be dealt with, and it was not for the court to review the circumstances. That being the case, if the minister had this power and if he became concerned about box cars in one particular community, he would be able to deal with those box cars without dealing with any other box cars in any other community. It would not be within the power of the court to consider whether or not that was really wise or had anything to do with a general emergency such as we have in the past thought was necessary.
Now, in that respect, of course, we have had emphasized to us just how unnecessary this legislation is. If the minister needs emergency legislation to deal with box cars, all he has to do is pass a section in an act, 68108-206A
Emergency Powers Act such as exists in other acts, which gives the government the power to deal by order in council with a specific matter. We have provisions all through our statutes dealing with box cars, dealing with rail lines-not any particular line but just rail lines. We have other legislation affecting the many activities of our people, where it has been regarded as expedient that there should be a flexible power to deal with the situation which might occur when parliament was not in session. The minister could deal with that. The minister could deal with any similar problems he foresees.
If, for instance, there might be a problem arising in connection with shipping, then it is possible for him to introduce an amendment to the appropriate legislation that would give specific and definite powers to handle shipping if that was regarded as expedient at that particular time. Anything of that kind could be dealt with by the kind of legislation that has been included in other acts. It may have undesirable features, but it has been found necessary under most systems similar to our own. That is very different, however, from the wide-open powers which are now before us.
We know that the courts do not offer the protection that we thought they afforded when this act was before us in 1951; that is something that should be in our minds. Then, again, we should remember also the very important declaration of policy that has been made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government in this house on March 16, when he said, in effect, that the opposition will receive just so much information as the government thinks it should have, so long as it is supported by a majority of the members of this house. With that declaration before us, it is important to review the possible import of legislation of the kind now before us, because that is a new concept of the powers of parliament or rather of the limitation of the powers of parliament. Many of us thought that our democratic system was one in which the majority rule was based upon knowledge in the hands of the minority of all essential facts which would make it possible to form an objective judgment. This has been the principle on which our parliamentary proceedings have been based for many long years. The moment that it is agreed that the measure of knowledge available to the opposition is only such knowledge as the government thinks the opposition is entitled to have, then of course we come to a point where we never know how much information we really have, and what is important and what is not important in what has been held back.
3242	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act
If we are reduced to the situation that we are only going to have information that the government deigns to give us so long as they can command a majority, well then the debate in this house becomes largely meaningless because there might be important information not available to us which would completely change the whole situation after it had been disclosed. The attitude of the government is that there are those who trust their honesty of purpose, and so long as a majority do display that trust then they are going to carry on as they think wise. This is something that should not be disregarded when we are dealing with legislation of the type that is now before us.
Let us briefly recall the sequence of events. With the threat of war in 1939, the government invoked the War Measures Act and later other emergency acts. These emergency powers were continued until after the war. Then, legislation known as the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act was introduced. The explanation given at that time was that there were a number of orders still on the statute books, and that it was desirable to continue those orders in effect rather than write new legislation to replace every one of them. It was quite frankly stated that it was not possible then to say when these orders would be rescinded. The government, therefore, suggested that the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act would make it possible to continue those orders, and provide more flexible methods of disposing of these various orders from time to time as the need for their continuance disappeared. There was general concurrence in that, although there was objection to some of the details and to some of the possibilities. We have come a long way from that time. It was not suggested to us then that the emergency powers were needed just as a general principle. There was a definite reason, and that reason commanded general approval with some objections as to the things that could be done and certain details as well.
Then, the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act came to an end. The orders had all been rescinded and a new act took its place, the Emergency Powers Act. That act was passed with the declaration that certain emergency stand-by powers were called for. The first statement I recall as to the reason for that act was made by one of the senior members of the government who said that this would be for the purpose of making it possible to introduce price controls if and when that procedure became necessary; and price controls were much in the minds of the government in regard to this measure which

they introduced and which was passed in 1951. That phase is now past.
We have also been told of the critical days in the spring of 1951 when the situation in Korea was more than critical, and also when thoughtful people throughout the free world were conscious of the possibility that not only might the war in Korea turn out to be extremely serious but that war on a much wider scale might emerge as a result of the pressures which were then being created.
The situation today is far different. There is still a war in Korea and it is an extremely real one for those engaged in it. There are still great dangers throughout the world. As has been said by the government and by individual members of it, there is a wider measure of security as a result of agreement among the nations of the Atlantic community as well as among most of the members of the United Nations with regard to concerted action to deal with aggression. We have now reached as stable a position as we are likely to reach for some considerable time. If the state of affairs that we now know is to be regarded as an emergency such as justifies legislation which makes it possible to dispose at any moment of the rights of parliament, may I say that I find it difficult to imagine any period during the life of any one of us now in this chamber when we shall have any other state of affairs.
Our effort should be to try to find a continuing system which will preserve the strength, supremacy and full authority of our parliament; which will preserve the rule of law; and which will protect our federal structure with its delicate balance of responsibility between the federal and provincial legislative bodies. We should do that in such a way that we provide for any possible emergency and at the same time preserve, strengthen and revitalize the parliamentary system which is the expression of freedom itself here in Canada.
If the government is to have these emergency powers renewed simply as a matter of course-and that is what it asks-then the rights of parliament, step by step, will diminish to the point where they simply exist no longer. If there is some need for emergency powers such as those relating to box cars-and I introduce this comment without doing it humorously-then let us introduce to the existing legislation amendments which will clearly define the nature of the circumstances in which that legislation can be invoked and the scope of government authority in that respect. If we have anything else, then of course we have the War Measures Act with just a little bit of face-lifting done so that it presents what the government regards as a slightly more attractive appearance.

Actually it would be a wonderful thing for the whole record of parliamentary procedure in Canada and for the traditions of our free institutions if the government at this point would say to us and to the people of Canada: "We agree that it is not wise to proceed with this legislation; we ask that it stand. We will in this case accept the suggestions that have been made. We will introduce amendments to certain legislation which can be amended by specific amending sections, and we will not ask parliament to give us standby powers which could create all the power of a dictatorship".
The moment that is said, there are those who say: "Oh, look at the pleasant faces of the members of the government." On the other side we hear the statement made: "We are not concerned about the laws; just look at those pleasant men."


Donald Methuen Fleming: Which ones?


Mr. Adamson:: See them smiling.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, at the moment on the faces of the small number of government members who are present there is a pleasant appearance, except one-


Sarto Fournier: Just look behind you.


George Alexander Drew: -and that is in the case of the minister who apparently regrets the length of time we are taking to discuss the processes of democracy. It is important-and more important still in the light of what has been said this afternoon-that we examine this subject; and it is not a sufficient answer to say that these are very pleasant men. Surely it is not going too far to suggest that in the pictures of those who were gathered on Red Square not long ago there were a number of very pleasant looking people, according to the photographs which appeared.


William Earl Rowe: They were nearly as good looking as this government.


George Alexander Drew: The smile on the face of the tiger has never been a safeguard in the animal kingdom where the tiger is still an extremely dangerous animal. In fact, it is not enough to say: "Certainly these are the powers of a dictatorship but these are men who would never exercise such powers."
This is something that is of concern to every Canadian and to everyone who believes in the parliamentary system. This is something that has not been peculiar to the parliament of Canada alone. It is something that has been inherent in the necessary employment of emergency powers throughout these
Emergency Powers Act recent years. When war came, it was necessary to act quickly; and many of the powers that were employed were powers that might have been differently described if there had been more time to perform that task. But, Mr. Chairman, we now have time to consider this matter carefully. We now have time to pass the appropriate legislation. There is not a single thing that the minister has suggested that could not be dealt with suitably at the time that the people of this country have indicated by their own free will the government that they wish to choose, the parliament that they will have to represent them. Leave that responsibility until that time. Nothing has been put before this house that suggests any urgency about dealing with the legislation now before us.
This act is the War Measures Act with just a little bit of decoration on the top; that is all. Let the minister indicate to us a single thing that could not be dealt with by the kind of amending legislation I have suggested to sections of acts already on the statute books; and then, in the event of that dreadful necessity, if we should be threatened with war, invasion, insurrection or anything of that nature, employ the War Measures Act as it was intended to be employed. No one of us wants to see the War Measures Act invoked. Certainly we do not want to see the War Measures Act invoked for any other purpose than apprehended war or insurrection. That is the main reason we do not want this act invoked. It is the War Measures Act with only a very small limitation of no real effect, just a few frills and that is all. That is why we do not want it. But let us deal with the need, short of apprehended war and insurrection, by the kind of powers that exist in other legislation, and then the other can be dealt with.
It has been said on behalf of the government that they do not want to contemplate that. They seem to think that they would almost hasten the prospect of war by being left with the necessity of employing that act. We do not hasten death by making a will which recognizes death as one of the unhappy realities of our mortal life. We do not any more increase the possibility of early war by recognizing that war is still one of the realities of life which we must recognize in Korea and elsewhere as being still part of the lot of some human beings. Let the government on this occasion tell the people of Canada that parliament is really the place where debate can have some effect, and let them assist the parliamentary leader of the house in getting ahead with the legislation he wishes to present by withdrawing this motion at this
3244	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act time and allowing us to get ahead with other matters which are related to the circumstances under which we live today.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, I was not here when this resolution was first debated. I have read over the debates, and speaking on behalf of my colleagues, as well as myself, may I say that we do not propose to support it.
In 1951 we supported the Emergency Powers Act because we expected the government to use it at that time, to use it to protect the people of this country who were threatened with rising prices and rising rents. Both were inclined to skyrocket; they have skyrocketed since, and this act has not been used to protect the people of Canada in their domestic situation.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that if this country is threatened with war, apprehended war, insurrection, civil strife, we have on the statute books ready for proclamation the War Measures Act, and it could be proclaimed. We are living in a period of peace, uneasy peace, it is true. Some call it a cold war. But if up to the present time it has not developed into a hot war, then we can be thankful. If matters get worse at any time the government can invoke the War Measures Act to meet any situation that might arise in this country.
I have been here since 1935. During that time I have seen governments endeavour to do by order in council what should be done by parliament itself, and only by parliament itself. I have seen the powers of parliament become lessened in this period of time. Perhaps some of us on the opposition side are to blame equally with the government itself. During the war we were prepared at all times to grant every power that was necessary to the government in order that it might do for the country all that was necessary during wartime. After the war was over we again supported the transitional powers act because we believed that those powers should be given to the government. In 1951, when the Emergency Powers Act was introduced again, we believed that it might be in the best interests of the country to give certain powers to the government not to protect the people from danger from without but to protect the people of Canada from something from within. We have seen over and over again an order in council of the government infringing upon the rights of parliament or setting aside legislation.
This afternoon we heard the Minister of Justice reprove those who might be inclined to slander our legislation, or slander parliament. I have been here long enough to know


that from time to time I have heard those of us who sit in the opposition slandered. I heard it yesterday. For example, I heard the hon. member for Kindersley accuse those of us who sit on the opposition side of the house of opposing the wheat board act. Surely he has forgotten the history; he has forgotten the fact that when that legislation was put on the books and supported by the opposition parties of this house it was the Liberal government that was elected in 1935 that abused it. The late Hon. W. R. Motherwell, when speaking in this house on June 30, 1938, made the statement that by order in council that legislation had been sterilized. Indeed, the word he used was not sterilized; it was caponized. The old gentleman, looking along the front benches, accused the prime minister of that day, not the present Prime Minister, but Mr. Mackenzie King, of abusing executive power in changing the wheat board act by order in council. He charged the whole government with having committed that abuse of power. Therefore I say that from time to time we have seen governments setting aside statutes by order in council. And bit by bit the powers of this parliament have been more or less limited. I do not go along with those who say that parliament has become completely a rubber stamp for the government. I do not believe that that is so; but nonetheless I believe that we are in danger of becoming so, and that is due in part to the fact that we have had from 1935 to 1940, from 1940 to 1945, from 1949 to the present time, an unhealthy balance in this house, a balance which has given the government such complete power that they are able to forget sometimes that criticism in this parliament is one of the functions of the opposition parties in the house.
I want to tell the committee that I had not heard of the editorial in the Globe and Mail until it was read this afternoon. I learned of it just before I came into the house from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) who asked me if I had any recollection of a secret order in council having been shown to me. I have not any recollection of anything of the kind.
I have been absent and it may be that my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) may have been in consultation with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Social Credit party during my absence; but as far as my memory goes, and it is usually pretty good, I do not remember having seen any secret order in council. Indeed, I do not remember having any knowledge of any sort of anything contained in such an order in council. I felt

that in justice to myself and to others in the house I should make that perfectly clear.
Consequently we believe that if the government needs power to deal with war, apprehended war, insurrection or civil strife of any description the power is there in the statute and can be used. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that the position in which we are today, call it a cold war if you like, is in effect a kind of peace era in which we are likely to be for at least some considerable time. I regret that that is so, but during that time I think parliament must be supreme. The confusion caused in the minds of members of parliament through this legislation being on the statute books was illustrated in this house this afternoon when the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) rose and asked the government if they could not use the Emergency Powers Act in relation to a matter which is concerning the people of Canada. Surely the Emergency Powers Act should not be used when parliament is sitting. I do not know, but I do not think the government has used it extensively when parliament was sitting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, yes; many orders in council have been passed while parliament was sitting.


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps minor issues could be dealt with under various statutes of this parliament, but under no circumstances should a major problem be dealt with by these emergency powers when this house is sitting. This is the supreme authority in this country. I am not criticizing the hon. member for Calgary East for making that suggestion this afternoon; nonetheless it indicates the confusion that exists in the minds of members of this house regarding the functions of this parliament and what these emergency powers really are.
I can see no reason why at the present time this house should pass legislation renewing the Emergency Powers Act for another period. I agree that all the emergency power necessary is ready at hand to the government and the War Measures Act can be proclaimed immediately if necessary. I join in opposing this resolution. When it comes to a vote, if it does come to a vote, we shall vote against it this time.
On previous occasions we have given support to legislation granting the government the powers that were necessary to meet a war situation or an immediate post-war situation. We hoped that under those emergency powers the government would cope with the rising cost of living, the increases
Emergency Powers Act in rents and so on. That was what caused us to support this legislation in 1951.
Since that time the legislation has not been used to protect the Canadian people in these particulars. Bit by bit we have seen the difficulties caused by the high cost of living and high rents increasing through these years. The government have done nothing to stop this. They have divested themselves of the power of rent control, for example, and thrown it into the hands of the provinces; and the provinces are inclined to step out from under, as we see in the province of Ontario at the present time. There was an obligation to protect the people in those particulars.
When the government divested itself of these powers in relation to rent control they should at least have set up a national housing program that would have relieved the housing needs of our people. Not all our people can buy suitable accommodation at high prices, or make the necessary down payments. Not all people who work in industry can buy a home in a particular area because they never know when they will have to move to some other area to find employment. No attempt has been made to either provide them with subsidized housing to buy or with subsidized housing to rent. No attempt has been made to control high rents and high prices by this legislation.
That was why we supported it in 1951. Because it has not been used to protect the Canadian people in those particulars we intend to oppose this resolution now. In recent days some of my hon. friends who support the government have said to me, "Oh, well, in times like these the government should have these emergency powers." In times like these the government has all the emergency powers the government needs if an emergency should develop in which we are faced with war, apprehended war, insurrection or civil strife.
I say to the house that at this time we should not give the government these powers. We should deny them powers they have not used since 1951 to protect the interests of the people of Canada in their domestic situation. If they require powers of this description should conditions develop to threaten us in our internal or external security, the power is on the statute books and they can proclaim the War Measures Act immediately.
That was the purpose of placing the War Measures Act on the statute books during the first world war and keeping it there in the interim, to have it ready to proclaim in 1939 or any time war was imminent. It has never
3246	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act been repealed; it is there, and it can be used. Under those circumstances all the power the government needs is readily available.
Because the government have failed to protect the Canadian people in the manner we expected of them, and for which we supported this legislation in 1951, on this occasion we are going to deny an extension of this legislation.


Mr. Sinnott:: I have listened to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar make quite a lengthy statement.


Major James William Coldwell: I have only been about fifteen minutes.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: He supported the government previously in connection with this legislation, and 1 presume he had good reasons for doing so. As yet the hon. member has not outlined one specific case where the government has used these emergency powers to the detriment of the Canadian people. Why does the hon. member oppose the legislation now? If it is necessary to have the power now, it was just as necessary to have it when he supported it before.


Major James William Coldwell: My whole point was that the government had not used it in the interests of the Canadian people as we expected them to use it. They allowed the Canadian people to suffer under high prices and high rents without attempting to lift a finger to stop it. That is my point.


John George Diefenbaker: There are one or two observations I intend to make that arise because of the fact that this afternoon the Minister of Justice, instead of implementing an early conclusion of this debate, apparently deliberately decided, from his attitude, to challenge the opposition to continue its stand on behalf of the preservation of the rights of parliament. I cannot understand the attitude of the minister. He was most troubled over the editorial in Toronto Saturday Night. I took the trouble to send for the editorial and I was surprised that be did not read it all, for there were some wise words in it that should have commanded his commendation and approval. The editorial started off by saying, "Justice Minister Garson in the picture to the right"-I do not have the picture, though it was a delightful one-"appears to be a thoughtful and troubled man".
Today, Mr. Chairman, he was certainly troubled, and 'he raised an argument that I thought indicated the attitude of the government more clearly than it has ever been brought before parliament before. It indicates that the pathways of war, the shortcuts through parliamentary procedure, the ease with which this government passed orders in


council, have become, so far as the government is concerned, desirable highways of peace. When we asked the minister the question, "What are you going to do with these powers?" he gave certain examples. He said we might need box cars. Then again he said there might be an election. I think the box car argument has been disposed of-


An hon. Member:: By whom?


John George Diefenbaker: -but the election argument still remains to be considered. I am going to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to tell the house whether the reason for these emergency powers is to enable the government to do what it did in 1945 after the election writs were issued, namely to reduce taxation by order in council. That is what the government did in 1945 under the War Measures Act, and there has been no alteration of the powers contained in the clauses of the present act, in so far as the power to change taxation is concerned, from those contained in the War Measures Act. It will be remembered that two or three days after the Minister of Finance introduced the budget he made a statement to the Canadian people in which he indicated that, while taxation had been reduced, there were hopes of still further reductions being put into effect.
During the course of the budget debate, to which I cannot make reference, I pointed out what had been done in 1945 and the use to which the War Measures Act had then been put. As far back as March 6 I asked the government whether it intended to follow the same course during the coming months and after the writs were issued. There has been no answer, but it is interesting to note that the thought was in the minister's mind that this legislation could conceivably be used during the election campaign when parliament would not be sitting. On the 10th May, 1945 an order in council was passed which stated that certain taxes thereinafter enumerated were imposed by reason of the war to discourage production and purchases and that their continuation would delay and complicate transition to essential civilian production. Then it went on to say:
Now, therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance and under and by virtue of the War Measures Act ... is pleased to order and it is hereby ordered . . .
Then certain reductions in taxation are set out, namely (1) the excise tax on electric or gas fixtures; (2) the excise tax on automobiles; (3) the excise tax on cameras, photographic films and plates, and (4) the excise tax on phonographs. Later it dealt with the exemption of building materials from the

sales tax. Inasmuch as no reason that can have any appeal to the intelligence has been given as to why these powers should be continued, I am wondering whether or not the suggestion on the part of the Minister of Justice that the election has something to do with it would indicate that that is the way in which this legislation is to be used.
Certainly up to the present time the uses have been strange and peculiar. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar pointed out that in 1951 the reason given by the Prime Minister why these powers should be available to the government was the conditions at that time and the dangers of inflation. The Prime Minister went on to say, as found at page 499 of Hansard for February 20, 1951:
The very existence of the right to intervene and establish regulations sometimes is in itself sufficient as a warning to prevent abuses; and the existence of these stand-by powers may make it unnecessary to deal with abuses that might arise if they were not in existence.
In other words, this legislation was to be used as a club to be held over the heads of those who would be affected thereby in order to secure conformity with the desires of the government, because the existence of the power would in fact be tantamount in some cases to the actual use of that power. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has pointed out that the government is not one that in the past has used extraordinary powers with care and with regard for parliament. The Leader of the Opposition referred to Keeton, and there is one very interesting quotation in which he says that the attitude of government today in endeavouring to secure extraordinary powers, thereby resulting in an abdication of parliament, is often in fact based on this concept:
It is in fact the policy of "mother knows best" carried by logical deduction to the point of absurdity.
That is exactly the attitude of the government, sometimes even going one or two generations beyond mother. In other words they say: Trust the government. The Winnipeg Free Press is not so sure that this is a government that can be trusted. In one of its editorials it said:
-it is easy to say that Canadian liberty is safe in the hands of the present government. The record shows that it is not safe in the hands of the present government.


William Earl Rowe: What paper is that?


John George Diefenbaker: The Winnipeg Free Press, often quoted by members of the government-


Mr. St. Laurent:: Not as often as by members of the opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: -with the highest commendation. I go on to point out that
Emergency Powers Act statutes have been altered and amended by the government by order in council after being passed by parliament. They have been abrogated and suspended, and not under the guise of emergency. Take the annuities act which was altered to the detriment of many thousands of Canadian people by an order in council that ignored parliament. Through the years other statutes have been altered. Indeed, in 1950 or 1951 the Auditor General had this to say with respect to an expenditure of $650,000 without any legal authority:
None of these orders in council cites any authority on which reliance is placed for passing them.
There is an indictment against this government by the Auditor General which certainly does not disclose any partisan bias.
What excuse is there? What do they want these powers for? They have not been able to tell us. The Minister of Justice has tried, as he said, ad nauseam; and I agree with that. However, what we would like to secure from him is a definition of what these powers are going to be utilized for. He mentioned the danger of possible invasion, the election, and box cars. Those are the three examples he gave of how this legislation could be used. Well, invasion is covered by the War Measures Act, and box cars can be dealt with under legislation without going into the emergency powers that are to be granted to this government. This government is asking for unlimited powers for a limited time to do undescribed things in an undescribed manner.


William Earl Rowe: The people will look after the election.


John George Diefenbaker: This legislation maintains the garb of war in the days of peace; and it indicates the continued and inexhaustible appetite on the part of this government for unnecessary powers. I cannot understand why a government not needing these powers, with the War Measures Act standing available at any time of emergency arising out of either insurrection or possible war, or any other emergency incident thereto, would ask parliament to give it a blank cheque for a period of one year to take from parliament every right excepting the right to sit, to ventilate grievances and to pass supply.
Sir, the attitude taken by the opposition, the attitude that will be continued to be taken by the opposition in spite of the lecture the Minister of Justice read to us, will be this: that a stop must be put to the cabinet usurping the powers of parliament and having the right by order in council to amend or suspend the constitution of this country at any time at its will. That is the power which it secures under this legislation, to rewrite the constitution so that the matter of property
3248	HOUSE OF
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited and civil rights becomes the plaything of this government when any member of this government is able to convince the cabinet that in the public interest an order in council invading and infringing provincial rights should be passed.
The minister today spoke most feelingly and used some very strong language regarding the "slander of the government". I thought it was-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The slander of Canadian laws.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, it bore such a similarity to the arguments of those who sometimes assume that there is a synonymity as between parliament and the government that I thought the criticism was that the opposition had been able to arouse the Canadian people to a realization of the danger. A magnificent tribute was paid today to the press of this country when the minister made his suggestion that people who are ordinarily apathetic when matters such as this are discussed have at last been aroused by the fact that the powers of parliament are toeing insidiously usurped by the continuing action of the government, supported by a majority that invariably supports the government regardless of the principle at stake.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman-and I know the minister will agree that possibly he went further today in the heat of argument than was necessary-that when we arrive at a point in this country, or in any country, when the government no longer needs to pay any attention to the views of the opposition, then indeed democracy is no longer existent and dictatorship is in effect established. Yet, today, the minister's attitude was that criticism is dangerous.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I must protest against my hon. friend's interpretation. I at no time said that criticism was dangerous. What I said was dangerous was that seemingly, or otherwise, responsible members of parliament should get up and either recklessly or deliberately misrepresent the existing laws of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman, the applause of those around the minister indicates that no one seems to understand the point at issue when the minister places himself in the position where he determines what is reckless; for to every government it is reckless when those of the opposition dare to challenge it when it is overriding the rights of the people.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Again I must protest, Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege. I never suggested for one moment that the opposition


in this house had not a perfect right to challenge the government in any way on anything. As a matter of fact that is part of their job. But it is not part of their job to get up and either recklessly or deliberately misrepresent the existing laws of Canada. That is not the task of the opposition in any parliament.


William Earl Rowe: Do you think the hon. member for Lake Centre is doing that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: That is just your opinion.


Mr. Sf. Laurent:: Some things are opinions and some other things are facts.


William Earl Rowe: They are only facts when you fellows think they are facts.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As it is five o'clock the house will now consider private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Larson for the second reading of Bill No. 189, to incorporate Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited.
Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Kin-dersley (Mr. Larson) speaks he will close the debate.


Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have very much appreciated the discussion that has gone on in regard to this bill. I think a good number of useful things have come out of it. While we may sometimes think these debates are long and drawn out, the matters that arise are of importance to the citizens of Canada.
I wish to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for the speech he made, because I feel he did a good deal to clear the air regarding pipe-line policies and, in that connection, the matter stands in a much better light. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) asked one question but I presume that it was answered in the policy statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I understand there are certain amendments which are to be given consideration in the committee, and consequently I am not going to discuss them here. As I have said before, the technical people who understand the financing and other mechanics will be on hand when the committee sits, and those questions can be discussed at that time.
I would therefore move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Mr. Speaker:: That is all the business under the heading of private and public bills, so the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Powers Act to provide for the continuation of the act for a further period of one year, that is from the thirty-first day of May, 1953, to the thirty-first day of May, 1954.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago I was dealing with the rights of an opposition, and my interpretation of the views of the Minister of Justice was challenged by him. Certainly his words were capable of no other meaning than that I ascribed to them, namely that an opposition has no right to analyse legislation and state the dangers of that legislation, because he, as the responsible minister of the crown, viewed that criticism as reckless and would not have such criticism directed against the government at all. That is a dangerous doctrine, but it is quite in keeping-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, again on a point of privilege. As long as my hon. friend continues to misrepresent what I say, I am going to continue rising to correct him. I agree with my hon. friend that the doctrine which he has just enunciated is a dangerous one. But I say that my words, which on Hansard will speak for themselves, never at any time were capable of being so interpreted. If there is any doubt of that let me repeat myself for about the fourth time, that my hon. friend and his colleagues have every right to criticize the government in every way they choose; but they should not, in the discussion of existing laws, misrepresent them to such a great degree that they cannot acquit themselves of the charge of either reckless or deliberate misrepresentation. When the opportunity is presented to me in this debate I shall show that my hon. friend and his colleagues have been misrepresenting the legislation involved here to precisely that extent.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I might point out to the minister-


John George Diefenbaker: That statement must be withdrawn.
Emergency Powers Act


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I should like to point out to the minister that he cannot say that a member in this house is deliberately misrepresenting.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I agree with that.


John George Diefenbaker: Withdraw.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If there is any suggestion in my remarks that I was accusing my hon. friend of deliberate misrepresentation, I shall certainly withdraw it. I think when the language is examined you will see it is not open to that interpretation. What I do say is that in due course I shall take part in this debate, and I will show that my hon. friend's interpretation of these relevant laws, and that of his leader and some of his colleagues, have been erroneous from beginning to end, and that his arguments in opposition to the government in this debate are all based on those erroneous misconceptions of the law he has interpreted. This will not be the first time this has happened in this house. My hon. friend will recall that when Newfoundland was seeking admission to confederation my hon. friend and his colleagues got so tangled up in their own misconception of the law that they voted against the provision for the admission of Newfoundland when they said they were in favour of it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the withdrawal, surrounded with all the embroidery of evasion, is accepted. Having said that I want to read this editorial which aroused the Minister of Justice, so that I may analyse it and ascertain whiat is wrong with it. The editorial stated:
Justice minister Garson, in the picture to the right, appears to be a thoughtful and troubled man. If he is thinking of the part he played as leading spokesman of the federal government in the debate on the Emergency Powers Act, he has every reason to be troubled. He was trying, however clumsily, to defend a piece of legislation conceived in fear, sustained by men jealous of power, and alien to every concept of responsible government.
Those are very strong words, and I can understand the annoyance of the minister when he read them; but he should not have transferred his annoyance over criticism, however strong, which was at least sustained by events. One does not have to go back too far to recall that this government forgot an order in council that was secret, which swept aside every constitutional right in this country. What we in the opposition are endeavouring to do is to assure that secret orders in council shall not be passed.
During recent years, as the result of a desire on the part of the government to place these orders in council before parliament

Emergency Powers Act when passed, and in consequence of the criticism of the opposition to which the Prime Minister has paid tribute on occasion, parliament does know what orders in council are passed, which is going a considerable distance. All of us know that orders in council must be used. But all of us know, too, that when secret orders in council are passed, power is abused. There is nothing more dangerous for a democratic country than for a government to pass orders in council in the secrecy of the council chamber, and then reveal that a secret order has been passed that will determine the rights of individuals, while even in days of peace that order in council remains enshrouded in the mystery of the council chamber. That is dangerous, and no one can defend the passing of secret orders in council in a British country unless the emergency situation is such that the overwhelming fear for our security requires the abdication of the ordinary principles of democracy.
When we find a government passing a secret order in council-whether or not it was passed under the Emergency Powers Act does not matter-behind closed doors, I believe we have opened the door to possible injustices and probable denials of democracy.
We on this side of the chamber fear this trend, and we are not the only ones. No one has forgotten the great speech made by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) on the occasion of the Liberal convention when he pointed out the dangers of the continued marching forward of the powers of absolutism in a government that maintains the formal outward appearance of democracy. All of us realize that there will be occasions when orders in council will have to foe passed. I was glad to have today the assurance of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and of the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) that they do not know the content of that order in council and, not knowing it, are able to take their stand against what is the most dangerous interlude in the history of this country since the war.
My hon. friend says we exaggerate the powers asked for. A mere reading of those powers is a sufficient answer to anyone who would say that any further powers would foe necessary in order to establish the utmost dictatorship in this country. Here they are. Section 2 of the act reads:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;-

Those powers are as widespread and as comprehensive as it is possible to make them. The answer given on one occasion by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as to the reason they were so wide was that otherwise they might be challengeable in the courts. The section continues:
-and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it is hereby declared that the powers of the governor in council shall extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated,-
Excluding certain ones mentioned in paragraph 2.
-that is to say:
(a)	control and suppression of maps, plans and photographs;
(b)	control of communications and means of communication;-
That means every transportation company in Canada, every radio company and every telegraph company. The section continues: - (c) control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels;
(d)	transportation by land, air or water-
What greater powers than these could anyone have dreamed of in the secrecy of the council chamber?
-and the control of the transport of persons and things;
(e)	trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture; ...
When my hon. friend says we exaggerate those powers and what they mean to this country, may I say that a layman reading them knows, after the Nolan case, that they confer upon the governor in council the power to shut down parliament, to close it up except to vote supply. They have not yet got the right, under order in council, to vote themselves supply; although our memory goes back, Mr. Chairman, to 1947 when taxation was imposed by a radio speech.
I have nothing more to say at this time except this. The problem facing parliament today is connected with the survival of parliament. Certainly there is no writer of Canadian constitutional history and development within the last five or seven years who has not pointed out the danger to parliament in the degree to which parliament supinely abdicates some of its most precious privileges and grants them to the government in power, depending only upon the restraint of that government. All history shows that when nations or peoples give up their powers to a government, however benign or of however amiable men it may be composed-whose concept is, as Keeton says, "Trust mother and everything will turn out all right"-they have found ultimately that they have in fact given up something that cannot be retrieved.

In 1945 when the first legislation was introduced-and I have here the debates at the time-the promise inherent in the remarks then made was, "This is but temporary; after all, you are only giving up the powers for a year or so." The year from 1945 to 1946 has been continued until it is now eight years. As far as the present generation is concerned the temporariness of 1945 has become permanency.
That is why, if these powers are not to be used-as the minister indicates they have not been used-except to meet the examples that he sets forth of box cars, invasions and elections, surely the justification for the passage of this legislation in 1951-which the Prime Minister over and over again indicated was to be granted so the governor in council would be able to meet inflation in particular and guard the savings of Canadians against rising prices-has now disappeared. The statements of 1951 as to the reasons for this legislation are no longer applicable except that the same inflation is here, the only difference being that a new index has been established with respect to prices, which index has removed some of the wrinkles and indicates a lower index figure.
Is there any reason why parliament should abdicate its rights to legislate, examine and consider, when the government says that the only use it has made of this legislation in the past several years has been to pass five orders in council, two to repeal previous ones, two to deal with shipping and one with the content of the nickel. I know, Mr. Chairman, that a five-cent piece once created an emergency in this country, but we do not expect a repetition of that situation. There certainly was no reason why this legislation should have been passed or why it should have been relied upon in order to permit the amendment to change the nickel content of a five-cent piece. Surely that matter could have waited until parliament was convened.
Having regard to the lack of need for this legislation and for the powers asked for, I therefore suggest that the time has come for parliament to take its stand and once more to assert its sovereignty and its right to have legislation passed in parliament rather than in the secrecy of the council chamber by the governor in council. Parliament should pass the laws that affect individuals. Certainly parliament should not voluntarily give up its right to examination and criticism of legislation.
I know it would 'have been much better, and I am sure the Minister of Justice would have been much happier, if he could have passed this legislation by order in council. If he had been able to do that it would have saved all
Emergency Powers Act this argument. But that is what parliament is for; to examine, to criticize, to suggest and sometimes to oppose. I am not one of those who believe in Tierney's definition, and I am glad my hon. friend approves of this. Tierney once said that the duty of an opposition is to propose nothing, to oppose everything and to turn out the government at the next election.
I agree with the last of Tierney's definitions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has been interesting to
hear the Minister of Justice this afternoon assail persons outside this house, and if one may follow him, persons in the house, who he says have been responsible for misrepresentation of the purport of the legislation under consideration. And not satisfied to point out what he considers to be differences between his interpretation and that placed upon his legislation by other members of this house and by competent editors outside the house, he chooses to label those views with which he is not in accord as slander. First of all it was slander of the law. Then it was slander of parliament.
What kind of talk is this coming from the Minister of Justice? Perhaps some of the chickens are coming home to roost now, Mr. Chairman. They are coming home to roost in the neighbourhood of the Minister of Justice, because if anybody in this house in the course of this debate, which has been carried on at intervals for several days, has misrepresented the position of those who were not in agreement with him, it is the same Minister of Justice.
It will not be forgotten, I trust, Mr. Chairman, quite so soon as this that when this matter was first under debate in this house on February 10 the Minister of Justice undertook to make the categorical assertion, first of all, that the measure itself had not been opposed by the opposition in 1951, and that the extension of this measure for another year had not been opposed by the opposition in 1952. He made the bald assertion that this measure had gone through on both occasions unopposed. That, Mr. Chairman, was an assertion directly in the teeth of the facts. So if anybody in this house should be talking about misrepresentation, I suggest to the Minister of Justice that he examine his own statements and his own record in this matter, and there he will find much. And before he undertakes to pluck the mote from his brother's eye perhaps he will be kept very busy wrestling with the beam in his own.
Now, sir, what happened on these previous occasions? What were the facts-not the version of the Minister of Justice at all? The truth of the matter is that when this matter came up in 1951 there was a debate
3252	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act on the resolution stage, and that debate on the resolution stage was not of a conclusive nature. When we saw the bill strong objection was taken on this side of the house to many of its provisions. When we saw it the thing then-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Did you vote against it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was not a vote on
that occasion, because the matter was under discussion. Objections were being taken from this side of the house. The government was parrying. The Prime Minister, I will say this, sought to meet some of these objections because they were valid objections. In the course of the discussion of this bill in committee several very sensible amendments were brought in on the suggestion and at the urging of the opposition. Then when the bill came up for third reading the house had before it this question-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Did you vote against it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The measure passed on
division on third reading. Can the Minister of Justice get that through his head?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What about second reading?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister is sitting there parroting, apparently for the sake of killing time in this house, stalling for time. I want to say to the Minister of Justice that when a measure is passed on division the opposition asserts in this house-and it is a matter of record-that the matter is opposed. When the matter is passed on division it indicates the opposition of the opposition.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend a
question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister can ask all the
questions he likes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If that be so, why did my
hon. friend not call a division when the principle was decided on second reading?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I was guilty of a
personal oversight in that matter. The matter was in the hands of my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops and myself. We put forward our position very plainly on second reading, and it was a position highly critical of the bill; and the smug Minister of Justice sits back there. He knows what would have happened if there had been a division. The government would have summoned its submissive cohorts and there would have been the usual result. We recorded our opposition to the measure in our speeches, and when the measure was called for third reading the record shows that it was passed on division.


Alphonse Fournier: Not on second reading.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the very genial Minister of Public Works will look back at the record and will take the time to read the speeches that were made by my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops and myself on that occasion, if he will read them as I do not think he very often does-


Alphonse Fournier: Not your speeches.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -then I am quite sure he will rectify the erroneous impression he is under at the present time that there was no opposition. In every case I may tell him there was opposition.
We now come down to 1952. Again the Minister of Justice, when he spoke on this measure on an earlier occasion, now six weeks ago, said the measure was not opposed, that it had passed the house unanimously in 1952.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Did it not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a statement directly in the teeth of the facts.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Did you vote against it then?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would not be permissible for me to say that the Minister of Justice is trying to misrepresent. That would not be parliamentary but, Mr. Chairman, I am saying to the minister-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am simply asking a fair question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that the effect of what he is saying is to misrepresent the facts; and if he persists in misrepresenting the facts when the truth is again, as it has been previously, drawn, to his attention, then he will have to abide by the consequences.


Mr. Brooks:: Did he vote for it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What happened in 1952 has been told already, Mr. Chairman. You know about it so well. The only person who does not now know about it is the Minister of Justice, apparently. Everybody else knows perfectly well what happened. The Leader of the Opposition made a strong speech against this measure, a very strong speech. I say to the Minister of Justice that before he makes such a categorical assertion he should apprise himself of the facts given to the house, and the substance and pith of the statement made in this house by the Leader of the Opposition, which was highly critical of the bill and directly opposed to it and which indicated quite clearly that the opposition intended to vote against it.
Then the record is quite clear as to what happened at the end. When six o'clock came the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre

was on his feet and proposed to continue the debate after recess. At page 2576 of Hansard of May 26, 1952 we find that the house took recess while the hon. member was only part-way through his speech. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were here I would say that it is not altogether usual for him to curtail his remarks in a situation of that kind, and I have told the house before that I take personal responsibility for what happened, because there was to have been a vote. I was to follow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in that debate. The hon. member indicated to me at six o'clock that he was going to speak for a few more minutes after eight o'clock. I came into the house I think four or five minutes after eight to find to my amazement that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had completed his remarks in the space of one column, as will be seen on page 2576 of Hansard to which I have referred, indeed a matter of a few seconds before I entered the chamber. That is the reason and the only reason this measure passed at that time. It was the result of that accidental combination of circumstances, and I take full responsibility for what happened.


Alphonse Fournier: Was there nobody on that side to continue?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no doubt about it; I take full responsibility for what happened. Talk about axes, it is high time somebody took an axe to this labyrinth of misrepresentation we have heard in this debate from the Minister of Justice, with more of it today. The minister was a troubled man today. We do not need an editorial comment in Saturday Night to know that the Minister of Justice is truly a troubled man. If he was not sufficiently troubled before this afternoon he has been highly troubled since; he has certainly started fishing in troubled waters this afternoon.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps I may be permitted
to deny that I am a troubled man. At the moment I am a greatly amused one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure that the Minister
of Justice, who has been so consistently misrepresenting the position of the opposition in this debate, is quite welcome to find what amusement he may in the midst of his troubles at the effort on the part of the opposition to put the facts straight.
I did not hear what Coast-Capilano was saying, but I am sure it is something fishy. We are accustomed to having the hon. minister draw a red herring across the debate at such a time.
Emergency Powers Act


Mr. Graydon:: That is why they appointed him Minister of Fisheries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was a highly appropriate
appointment. What seemed to be troubling the minister most was the fact that a certain editor put an interpretation on this bill which is the interpretation which has been put upon it by the opposition and is the only proper interpretation which can be made. If plain language means anything the language of this bill means precisely what the opposition has been saying it means.
Figuratively the minister has held up his hands in horror every time this bill has been compared with the War Measures Act. I said on an earlier occasion, and I repeat, that the essential differences between this measure and the War Measures Act are relatively insignificant. Virtually, to all intents and purposes this is the War Measures Act. This is an attempt to gild the War Measures Act by another name. We heard the minister on a previous occasion in this debate assert that the condition existing in Canada today which justified the government in appealing to parliament to vest absolute powers in it, as contained in this measure, is the existence of a state of apprehended war. That is the basis upon which the Minister of Justice has sought to justify this demand that parliament abdicate these sweeping and absolute powers in favour of the government-apprehended war. He nods his head at this moment, indicating that for some reason or other we seem to be in agreement on his interpretation of his own words.


An hon. Member:: It must be wrong.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If that is the fact, then is
there any point in the minister trying to make it appear that there is some essential difference between this measure and the War Measures Act? If the minister is embarking upon that effort he is embarking upon a futile task. What is the essence of this bill? It is to be found in the sweeping terms of section 2, which reads:
The governor In council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
That is the generality of the language of this bill. There is no difference between these provisions and those of the War Measures Act. That is the language of the War Measures Act except that in place of the words "by reason of the existing international emergency" the words of section 3 of the War Measures Act are "the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or
3254	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act insurrection". Apart from that the language is identical.
Let us examine further the language that follows in the present bill. The language of section 2 is not language that restricts the generality of what I have just read, it is language that expands it for clarity's sake. These are the following words:
-and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it is hereby declared that the powers of the governor in council shall extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:-
The enumeration that follows closely resembles the language of section 3 of the War Measures Act. In a word, there is no essential difference between section 2 (1) of the present bill and the language of section 3 of the War Measures Act.
The only peg upon which the minister can hope at all to hang an argument is the difference created by the provisions of subsection 2 of section 2. There you have what are described as the restrictions on the powers vested in the governor in council by subsection 1 of section 2. There are only three exceptions. They are:
(a)	arrest, except as incidental to proceedings under section three, detention, exclusion or deportation of any person;
(b)	censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings; or
(c)	expenditure of moneys otherwise than in accordance with an appropriation by parliament.
There is a similar reservation in the War Measures Act. The minister was at great pains to assure the house this afternoon in one of his most troubled passages that the government did not want the War Measures Act because they did not want to have vested in them the power of arrest. It is fortunate that there are records in this house and that we are not left dependent upon the statement of the Minister of Justice.
I have here in my hand the bill as introduced in this house and given first reading on February 20, 1951. What was the language then of section 2, subsection 2 of the bill. Was there any exclusion, of arrest? There was not. That subsection provided for the right of detention, exclusion or deportation of any person. There was not a word in the government's version of that bill as introduced in February, 1951, to exclude the power of arrest; not a syllable.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege, my hon. friend needs only to cast his mind back about an hour and a half and he will remember that those words he has repeated with such great indignation were the subject of discussion between him and myself during


which I frankly admitted what he is now trying to * establish with such great ostentation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am glad the minister
remembers the correction that was administered to him an hour and a half ago, because I was just coming to it. I am very glad to hear his admission now that he accepted the correction, because it was not quite so apparent an hour and a half ago. Rather he undertook to rebuke me for having interjected this question. He said I should be the last person in the house to obtrude an interjection on this subject. I am glad to know that the light is dawning. It is refreshing to find that something is seeping through and that the minister now admits that an hour and a half ago he received the benefit of a correction in the statement he was then making to the house.
What was introduced in relation to this provision as to arrest was introduced by the opposition when the bill was in committee of the whole two years ago. Those of us on this side of the house strenuously opposed this measure because there was reserved to the governor in council in the government's version the power to make regulations and orders in council with respect to the arrest of any person. Credit for the fact that you now find in this measure a restriction which prevents the government from passing orders in council and making regulations with respect to arrest is owed to the official opposition.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right. No person has ever contended otherwise.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am very glad indeed that
we have that squarely on the record, because the mood of the Minister of Justice now is the mood of a very different man from the Minister of Justice of an hour and a half ago.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Tut, tut.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was there any suggestion
then of giving the opposition credit? Oh, no. That would have been much too generous. We have the record straight now. We will remember then, Mr. Chairman, that by this test we shall measure the reliability of the statement made by the Minister of Justice earlier this afternoon that the reason the government wanted this bill and not the War Measures Act was that they did not want to have the power of arrest. I trust that we have now exploded the nonsense in that statement by the Minister of Justice. That was a very important achievement on the part of the opposition on that occasion.
Then it will not have been forgotten that under demands of the official opposition one

or two other amendments were made to the legislation with respect to the laying of regulations, when made, before the house, and with respect to a certain provision with reference to possible annulment. Those were not in this measure when it was introduced. Those were not in the mind or the intent of the government. Those were wrung out of the government by the demands of the official opposition, and the fight we put up against the extravagant measure which the government introduced at that time.
I trust we have the record straight now. We have corrected many of the things the Minister of Justice said this afternoon which so badly needed correction. I trust the minister will not be heard to assert again that there is any difference in substance between this bill and the War Measures Act, because there is no difference of any significance whatever between these measures.


Alphonse Fournier: Why oppose this bill
if they are the same? You are in favour of the War Measures Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not in favour of the
invocation of the War Measures Act under present circumstances; not at all. There is no occasion for it. There is no occasion to invoke the War Measures Act today. Conditions do not exist at all-


An hon. Member:: Do you remember what
the Leader of the Opposition said a week ago?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -which would call for invoking the War Measures Act. The very erroneous argument was put forward by the Minister of Justice that the government would, if that argument were valid, have the right today to invoke the War Measures Act; but we do not admit the premises put forward by the minister. We say categorically that such circumstances as would justify the government in invoking the War Measures Act do not exist in Canada today. That is the difference, and it is a difference between the government and the opposition as great as the difference between day and night. They have this power complex, Mr. Chairman. It is one of the inevitable results of their clinging to power for so long. They have come to feel they must have all this power. What does it matter about parliament? After all, have they not told us that if they want to get away with anything nobody here is going to stop them?
That has been their attitude all the way through. After all, what is parliament? To the government we are a subordinate body. The body that is to have and retain all power is of course the cabinet. So runs their thinking. We can only hope that the
Emergency Powers Act opportunity of dismissing that kind of thinking from this parliament is going to be given to the people of Canada before the snow flies. The Prime Minister used that expression on emerging from the Liberal caucus last Wednesday, so the record goes, to certain newspapermen who asked when the election was going to be held. His answer was "Before the snow flies". It is to be observed, Mr. Chairman, that there were snowflurries in Ottawa the next day.
I suppose it is not the first time the government has been hopelessly wrong.


An hon. Member:: Don't worry about it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Justice has sought to create the purely fictitious point, with nothing whatever to justify it, that there is some essential difference between these two measures. There is not. Then there is the matter of the secret order in council. What a lather the Minister of Justice worked himself into over that subject this afternoon, the secret order in council. Those of us who sat in the house in 1946 will not have forgotten that the present Prime Minister, then minister of justice, had occasion to rise in the house and tell us that when he had assured the house the previous year that there were no secret orders in council remaining that had not been disclosed to the house he had forgotten one, one that turned out to be of very great importance.
Before the Minister of Justice works himself into a lather again on the subject, I suggest that he comb the records of the privy council very carefully. Perhaps he might put the clerk of the privy council to work combing those records to see if there are any more secret orders in council lying around. I suggest to him also that he do not endeavour to create the impression that these orders have been disclosed to the Leader of the Opposition or other persons in the house. I do not say that he tried to create that impression this afternoon, but he did try to convince the house that no such thing as a secret order in council is possible under the legislation that exists today. The fact of the matter is that we have been told now that there is a secret order in council.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Record of which has been established by another order in council under the Regulations Act, duly tabled in parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The contents of that order remain secret. The minister nods his head. It is still a secret order in council. Here in a parliament composed of the assembled representatives of the people we are left completely in the dark as to the contents of
3258	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act this legislative measure enacted in secret and retained in secrecy, and which apparently is just as much the law of the land as any measure enacted in the house by the open and democratic processes of parliament.
There is another aspect of this matter that is deserving of comment if there are any hon. members on the other side of the house who have some respect left for parliamentary processes. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made reference to it this afternoon. He indicated that he had been under the impression that no order in council had been passed under this legislation while parliament was in session. I think that has been adequately corrected now. The fact of the matter is that orders in council were passed under this measure while parliament was in session. Actually the orders passed in 1951 were all passed while parliament was in session. It happened that parliament was adjourned when two of the orders in council, I believe, were passed by the government. Parliament was technically sitting but happened to be adjourned at the time. But the others in 1951 were all passed while parliament was actually sitting here right in this chamber.
Is anyone going to rise in his place in the house and say that under the conditions existing in this country today it is proper that the government should make legislation by order in council while parliament is sitting? If there is any hon. member who believes that is proper, then I hope he will take advantage of the opportunity to declare himself in this debate before it reaches its conclusion. We of the official opposition say that parliament is the place where the laws of the country should be made, in open, public assembly, where the people of the country can observe their representatives, where they can make their views felt and heard in the way that is open to citizens of a free country, by communication with their elected representatives in parliam snt, through opinions expressed in the press and in other ways.
Those methods, those guarantees of democracy are denied where legislation is passed in secret by a cabal, a little group of men, who do not even in one conspicuous case take the trouble to make known to this parliament that they have proceeded to enact legislation. Surely, except in time of grave national crisis, time of war or something equivalent to it, there can be no possible justification, Mr. Chairman, for legislation being made by a little group of men called the cabinet, behind closed doors and in secret-legislation that is just as binding on the people of this country, in the light of


the unfortunate decision of the privy council in the Nolan case, as any legislation passed in this parliament. Anybody who violates that secret law is just as liable to the sanctions of that law as anyone who openly violates a known law.
What possible justification can there be, Mr. Chairman, for making secret laws while parliament is in session, and then proceeding to enforce upon the people of Canada laws that are secret? No, Mr. Chairman, there can be no justification under conditions such as exist in this country today for proceeding in that reckless and utterly undemocratic method.
What essential difference is there between that method and the method of fascism? The method the government is seeking to defend is the method that was practised by the fascists. Here we have, Mr. Chairman, open to the people of Canada a democratic parliamentary method of making laws in the open, right here in this chamber and in the other place. Then let us use parliament for the purpose for which parliament was intended, the making of legislation, and not have that done behind closed doors even while parliament is in session.
Is there any justification, Mr. Chairman, for now vesting sweeping powers in this government? An eminent gentleman who is a leading figure in the business world in this country, and who was a leading member of the group of men who helped to administer controls in this country during the war, very recently made a statement from which I shall read. Not very long ago Mr. J. Gerald Godsoe, speaking before the Windsor chamber of commerce, said:
The all-powerful state is the easiest to create and once created the hardest to destroy.
I think, Mr. Chairman, those are weighty words deserving of our consideration. He added this:
Scarcely a week passes without some group of people or some organization pressing one or other of our governments somewhere in Canada to undertake some new project for spending public moneys or to embark upon some other form of paternalism. Businessmen have been as imprudent as anybody else in this respect and all too frequently have gone running to government to seek some redress or some remedy when the answer, if the problem were tackled with some enterprise, could well have been found in the hands of business itself.
Mr. Chairman, the government does not need any more power. There is no justification for anyone coming forward now and proposing that the government should be given more power. This government has all the power it needs-yes, and a great deal more than it needs; more than is healthy in the interests of this government.

It will not have been forgotten, Mr. Chairmen, that two years ago this parliament did pass legislation that vested very wide powers in this government. That legislation was passed with due knowledge of the existence at that time of conditions in Korea and in the world which were quite similar to those that exist today. Parliament passed the Essential Materials (Defence) Act, chapter 6, 14-15 George VI, and section 4 of that statute conferred very numerous and very wide powers. Its provisions run to this effect:
(1) The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he deems necessary for the purposes of this act to control and regulate the production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition or use of essential materials or the supply or use of essential services.
Section 2 of that act defines "essential materials" as:
-such materials and substances as are designated from time to time by the governor in council under section three as being essential for defence purposes;
It also defines "essential service" as meaning:
-the carrying on of any commercial activity, including the generation and distribution of electrical energy, as is designated from time to time by the governor in council under section three as being essential for production, storage or distribution of essential materials;
Then follows in section 3 an enumeration of powers that are amazingly wide. Parliament, I am sure, only agreed to pass such legislation and vest such sweeping powers in the government in the belief at that time that the situation in Korea was rapidly deteriorating and the dangers of a spread of that unhappy conflagration were very serious. Parliament gave to the government these wide powers which permit the government to do virtually anything that is required for the purpose of rearming this country and re-equipping this country to defend itself, and to discharge its international obligations. All the powers to which the government has any legitimate claim are contained in that act.
Then the government, not satisfied with those powers, asked the house to enact as well the Defence Production Act, which is chapter 4 of the statutes of 1951. Section 15 of that statute provides:
The minister may, on behalf of His Majesty and subject to the provisions of this act,
(a) buy or otherwise acquire, utilize, store, transport, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of defence supplies;
The late Queen Mary
(b)	manufacture or otherwise produce, finish, assemble, process, develop, repair, maintain or service defence supplies or manage and operate facilities therefor;
(c)	construct or acquire defence projects and sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of them;
And so on and so on. The enumeration of powers extends to a very long list.
Mr. Chairman, I have cited these provisions because I think the Minister of Justice must have forgotten about them. I will be charitable and say that he must have forgotten about them, because nobody aware of these provisions on the statute books in this country could have any possible justification for making the assertion which the Minister of Justice made this afternoon.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and I say to the Minister of Justice and I say to the committee that with the possession of powers like those in these two statutes, this government has all the powers it needs and more powers than it needs. It has no justification whatever for coming back to this house and seeking to wrench additional powers from the house, or a continuation of the sweeping and unnecessary powers of this act which are virtually identical with those in the War Measures Act.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Progress reported.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I announce to the house the death of Her Majesty Queen Mary. I would suggest that tomorrow, after prayers, I move, seconded by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), with whom I have communicated, an address of sympathy to Her Majesty. I move that to mark our deep sorrow and respect for Her Majesty, the Queen Mother and the royal family, we do now adjourn until tomorrow afternoon at 2.30 o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 8.01 p.m.


				
				
				
	f if .			
				
				

						
						
				?" 7 up,-		
						
					ponif f . *	
						
						
						
		; if				
						
						
						
						
			rq			
						

Wednesday, March 25, 1953