1953-02-23

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: In my budget speech I announced that the reduction of $2 per thousand in the excise duty on cigarettes would come into force on February 20. It is now proposed that this reduction shall be effective as from February 1 in order to assist in having the benefit passed on to the consumer as promptly as possible. Advice to this effect has been sent to licensed manufacturers of cigarettes.
[Later:!



INQUIRY AS TO REFUNDS FOLLOWING BUDGET REDUCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance, which is dealt with in part, but only in part, by his own statement earlier today. I also refer to the statement made in his budget speech as found on page 2133 of Hansard. Can the minister give the assurance that the practice normally followed, namely, that of making no refunds in connection with duty paid on goods on which the tax or duty has been reduced in the budget, will be followed in all cases? If not, can he say in what cases exception will be made?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think my statement made it clear that the reduction in taxes, in the case of cigarettes, is a reduction in the excise duty. As the house is aware, there are two forms in which taxes are levied on cigarettes. There is the excise tax and the excise duty. Last year the reduction was made in the excise tax. This year, for technical reasons, which I need not go into here, but because of certain customs regulations, the reduction was made in the duty. The duty is collected by means of stamps which are purchased by the manufacturers in their warehouses, and I am informed that in the past when reductions in duty have been made-there have been two reductions in the last twenty or thirty years, one in 1932 and one on cigars in 1946-a somewhat similar practice was
followed, and this enables the manufacturers to pass on the reduced price promptly to the consumer. In the case of ordinary taxes which are imposed at the time of delivery there will be no refund.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister
whether in the case of duties paid on tobacco prior to February 1, which was the effective date or the announced date, there will be a refund of those duties?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. Phileas Cote (Maiapedia-Matane):: I should like to ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). Is there not an additional tax in Quebec on cigarettes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course there is a four-cent tax that was put on by the provincial government of Quebec.



STANDING ORDERS


Mr. Matthew MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house February 19, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 186, to amend the Canada Grain Act (distribution of box cars).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: The purpose of this bill is to
provide in a new section of the car order book a rule for the fair allocation of box cars among elevator companies at any marketing point. By allocating their seeded acreage among the elevator companies at a marketing point, the producers themselves will determine the distribution of box cars at that point.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Private Bills-Divorce PRIVATE BILLS



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Cecile Lea Sauve Rheaume.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	164,	for	the	relief	of	George
Frederick Shaw.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of John Arthur Dorsay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Dorothy Green Wainer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Mildred Isabel Lunan Aspell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	168,	for	the	relief	of	Minnie
Martz Kurtzman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Elizabeth Smaga Melnitzky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Alexander Hillcoat.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Georgina Gibbons Bastien.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Alice Martha Sharkey Maclnnes.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	173,	for	the	relief	of Gittel
Gershonowitch Hammer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	174,	for	the	relief	of	Frances
Louise Devenish.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Marguerite Evelyn Lucy Watts Paterson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	176,	for	the	relief	of	Joseph
Edouard Charles Pichette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	177,	for	the	relief	of	Cecilia
Rachel Baird.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Verna Kirstine Dam Credico.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Diane Parent Leblanc.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Blima Blossom Wendy Weitzman Thompson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	181,	for	the	relief	of	Joseph
Edgar Roger Roland Bisaillon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Catherine Lois MacLeod McPhee.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Dessie Fowler Taylor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Florence Trudy Nugent Barnett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	185,	for	the	relief	of	Gordon
Dampierre Ross.-Mr. Winkler.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Thomas:: 1.	How many passenger railway cars are on order for the Canadian National Railways?
2.	How many of these cars are to be made in Canada, and by what firms?
3.	What is the estimated cost of these cars including complete ancillary equipment?
4.	How many of these cars are to be made in other countries?

5.	What is the estimated cost of these imported cars including complete ancillary equipment?
6.	Were these imported cars of a type or quantity that could not be made in Canada?
7.	If so, what amounts in dollars for the above orders will be spent in (a) Canada; (b) United States of America; (c) any other countries?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	425 units.
2.	123 units by the National Steel Cai Corporation; 161 units by the Canadian Car and Foundry Company Limited.
3.	$32,705,000-estimated.
4.	141 units.
5.	$31,484,100 United States funds

estimated.
6.	No.
7.	See answers to questions 3 and 5 above The question of using Canadian parts on the cars to be built in the United States is being developed. Some of the parts to be used on the cars to be built in Canada will be imported from the United States. The details are not at present available.



STATISTICS BUILDING, OTTAWA  CAFETERIA EQUIPMENT

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the cost for (a) materials anc equipment; (b) fixtures; (c) furnishings; (d) utensils, etc., for the cafeteria and kitchen in the new bureau of statistics building in Ottawa?
2.	What was the labour cost of the installation oi the fixtures and equipment and the decoration oi the said cafeteria and kitchen?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	(a) and (b) Included in general contract, (c) $21,525.56; (d) Provided by civil service recreational association.
2.	Included in general contract.



SASKATCHEWAN


Mr. Harrison:: 1.	What percentage of the Saskatchewan population was actually living on the land and deriving their living therefrom, in the year 1952?
2.	What percentage of the national income going to people of Saskatchewan would such persons actually living on the land in Saskatchewar receive?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1 and 2. Information not available. The nearest available information is as follows,
1.	As of June 1, 1951 (census date) the population living on farms was 48 per cent of Saskatchewan's total population.
2.	In the calendar year 1951 the net income received by farm operators plus wages and

income in kind received by farm help was 51 per cent of all personal incomes in Saskatchewan.



SHAUNAVON, SASK., POST OFFICE

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the estimated cost for the building of the post office at Shaunavon, Saskatchewan?
2.	What has been the total expenditure to date, and what further amounts are estimated as being necessary in order to complete the said building?
3.	Who were the contractors?
4.	Was the contract awarded by tender?
5.	If so, what are the particulars of the various tenders made?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	$21,000 for purchase of building; $37,426 for alterations.
2.	$21,000 for purchase of building; $40,178 for alterations. (Work was completed in January, 1953.)
3.	Messrs. Freoschl & Heisler Limited, Moose Jaw, Sask.
4.	Yes.
5.	Freoschl & Heisler Limited, $34,150.00; W. J. Burden Limited, $39,611.00.



COAL IMPORTS

Mr. Carroll:: 1.	How many tons of anthracite coal were imported into Canada, in the calendar years 1951 and 1952 from (a) Great Britain; (b) United States?
2.	What tariff duties were collected on this imported coal?
3.	What was the amount of tariffs collected on bituminous coal imported from the United States at the same time?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	(a) Calendar year 1951, 291,656 tons;
calendar year 1952, 344,743.	(b) Calendar
year 1951, 3,560,461 tons; calendar year 1952, 3,553,734.
2.	Nil.
3.	Calendar year 1951, $8,981,497; calendar year 1952, $7,883,595.



RAILWAY REVENUES, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, N.B.

Mr. Robichaud:: What have been the Canadian National Railways revenues at the following stations: (a) Bathurst; (b) Caraquet; (c) Shippigan; (d) Tracadie, in the county of Gloucester, New Brunswick, in (i) freight and express imports; (ii) freight and express exports, during each year from 1945 to 1952 inclusive?


William Moore Benidickson: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Because the expense of doing so is unwarranted on company account, statistical records to facilitate an answer to these questions are not maintained by the Canadian
Questions
National Railways. To extract the information by an examination of the accounts of all these agencies would involve the engagement of extra staff for the purpose.



URANIUM REFINERY, GUNNAR GOLD MINES LTD.

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the government given consideration to the building in northern Saskatchewan of a mill or uranium refinery for or in connection with the operation of Gunnar Gold Mines Limited?
2.	If so, what decision has been made?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



CRANBERRY IMPORTS

Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	What were the quantities of cranberries imported into Canada from the United States, during the calendar year 1952?
2.	What is the estimated value of such importations?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	3,137,902 pounds.
2.	$598,460.



CAMP SHILO, MAN.  BARRACK BLOCKS

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	How many barrack blocks are to be constructed at Camp Shilo, Manitoba?
2.	How many have been completed to date?
3.	What was the estimated cost for each unit completed?
4.	What has been the actual cost for each unit completed?
5.	What firm has been awarded the contract for carrying out this construction?


Mr. Blanchelle:: 1.	Two 180-man barrack blocks are now under construction at Camp Shilo. It is expected that they will be completed by 31 October, 1953.
2.	Two 250-man barrack blocks have been completed, the first on 3 October, 1952, and the second on 7 January, 1953.
3.	The estimated cost for each completed barrack block was $600,000 and $650,000.
4.	The actual cost of each completed barrack block was $658,152.48 and $652,889.14.
5.	The Bird Construction Company of Winnipeg was awarded the contract for this construction.



WITHHOLDING OF BUTTER

Edmund Davie Fulton: In connection with a statement made by an agriculture department official regarding a shortage of butter, as reported by Canadian Press on February 14, 1953;

Questions
1.	Has the government any information in its possession to indicate that wholesalers or any other commercial interests have withheld their stocks of butter to create an artificial shortage?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the information, and what is the basis of the statement?
3.	If stocks were withheld, is there any indication that there was any agreement, arrangement, or understanding of any sort in respect thereof between the commercial dealers or interests involved?
4.	In how many places and by how many dealers was butter withheld?
5.	Has the government any other information as to how the situation arose, or in any other way bearing on this matter?


Mr. Gardiner:: The Department of Agriculture did not issue any statement to the Canadian Press on February 14, 1953, regarding the butter situation in Canada.



UNCLAIMED INCOME TAX REFUNDS

Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	How many taxpayers have failed to collect refunds for compulsory savings collected in the taxation years 1942 to 1944 inclusive?
2.	What is the total amount of refunds unclaimed?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	64,249.
2.	$2,996,840.57.



SOUTH KOREA


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Has Canada made a financial contribution to the government of the Republic of South Korea, to assist in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of that country?
2.	If so, how much has been provided for this purpose?
3.	Has any assistance, other than financial been provided?


Mr. Claxton:: 1.	Canada has not made any direct contribution to the government of the Republic of South Korea. Canada has, however, made a financial contribution to the United Nations Korean reconstruction agency set up by the United Nations to assist in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of that country.
2.	Canada contributed $7,250,000 to the agency mentioned above.
3.	Not by the government. In addition,
however, to the Canadian government contribution to UNKRA, the following private organizations have contributed to the emergency relief program carried out by the United Nations unified command in Korea in the following manner:	Unitarian Service
Committee of Canada, 243,000 lbs. of powdered milk, 49,000 lbs. of used clothing, (unofficial figures as at January 31, 1953); United Church of Canada, 164,000 lbs. of used clothing, (official figures as at September 15, 1952);

Canadian Red Cross, knitting wool valued at $2,240, (official figures as at September 15, 1952).



REGINA-PURCHASE OF HOUSE

Mr. Argue:: 1.	From whom was the house in Regina referred to in paragraph 67 of the Auditor General's report, purchased?
2.	What was the purchase price?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	The house referred to was purchased from Mr. Fern V. Hill.
2.	The purchase price was $14,000.



BAIE DES SABLES, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. Spence:: 1.	What rent is paid for the post office at Baie des Sables, county of Matapedia-Matane, Quebec?
2.	Does the department pay a heating allowance in addition to rent?
3.	If so, to whom and in what amount?
4.	Is there a watchman in connection with the building?
5.	If so, what is the name of such person and what salary or allowance is paid?
6.	Has any amount been paid for construction or repairs to this post office by the department?
7.	If so, to whom and in what amount?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	$1,536 per annum.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	No.
7.	Answered by No. 6.



INFLUENZA RESEARCH

Mr. Balcom:: Bearing in mind current reports concerning widespread epidemics of influenza in other countries, what research is being done in Canada with a view to the prevention and control of this disease?


Mr. McCusker:: The Department of National Health and Welfare is working in close co-operation with the world health organization in the early recognition of clinical influenza and the detection of the particular strain of virus prevalent during an epidemic of this disease. The advance notice of the presence of influenza in one or more countries is, of course, most important, as it is hoped that other countries will then have sufficient time to produce and administer vaccine containing the current strain of influenza. In this way, key personnel and particularly susceptible individuals may be protected. Influenza vaccine is only effective where the current strain or a closely associated strain of virus is included in the vaccine.

This winter the Department of National Health and Welfare is co-operating with the Department of National Defence in establishing a field trial to assess the protective value of influenza vaccine. About 7,000 doses of vaccine including some control material have been distributed across Canada. These have been allocated by provincial health officers to industrial groups, hospital staffs, etc., and by the Department of National Defence to various R.C.A.F. stations. As this vaccine contains a strain of influenza virus which is similar to the current strain now prevalent in other countries, it is expected that this trial will provide an accurate evaluation of the protective qualities of influenza vaccine.



ARMED SERVICES


Mr. Catherwood:: 1.	What were the number of enlistments in all branches of the armed services, during the calendar year 1952?
2.	What were the total number discharged, during the same period?
3.	Are the totals available as to the combined strength of all of the armed services as of December 31, 1952? If so, what are the totals?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Enrolments in the active forces during the calendar year 1952 were 29,141.
2.	The total number of releases (including deaths, but not including net desertions and personnel declared missing) during the same period was 13,915.
3.	The total strength as of December 31, 1952, was 101,419.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Wright:: 1.	What agricultural products are presently being purchased by the agricultural prices support board, giving grades purchased and prices paid?
2.	What agricultural products were purchased
since January 1, 1952,	(a) amounts; (b) grades
and prices?
3.	What amounts of these products have been sold to date (a) amounts; (b) grades and prices?
4.	What is the value of all products now held by the agricultural prices support board (a) grades; (b) prices?


CANNED PORK
Mr. Charlton:: 1.	How many pounds of canned pork were bought by the government, during each of the months since January, 1952?
2.	From whom were these purchases made, and what was the price and quantity in each case?
3.	What were the total sales of canned pork, giving quantity and value, by the government, during each of the months since January, 1952?
Orders for Returns
4.	Through what agencies were these sales made, indicating volume and commission paid in each case?
5.	What quantity of canned pork is presently held by the government?


SNOWMOBILES
Mr. While (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many snowmobiles have been purchased from the Bombardier Snowmobile company, Val-court, Quebec, for the Department of National Defence, for each of the years 1946 to 1952 inclusive?
2.	How many snowmobiles have been purchased from the above-named company for other departments of the Canadian government, for the years 1946-1952 inclusive?
3.	What was the total cost of these snowmobiles in each of the years 1946 to 1952 inclusive?


FIVE-DAY WEEK    FEDERAL AGENCIES AND CIVIL SERVICE
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What groups of employees working for agencies of the federal government, but not civil servants, are on the five-day week?
2.	How many employees are involved in connection with each such agency?
3.	How many weeks per year, in 1950, 1951 and 1952, have civil servants been on a five-day week?
4.	Have representations been received by the government, since January 1, 1951, for the five-day week for civil servants the year round? If so, from whom?
5.	What consideration has been given to such representations ?
6.	What progress is being made by the government in getting ready for a five-day week for all civil servants and all government employees?


GLOUCESTER COUNTY, N.B.  RURAL MAIL SERVICE
Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	How many rural mail services are there presently in operation in the county of Gloucester, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the name, address and remuneration of each rural mail carrier?
3.	What is the distance covered by each rural mail contractor on his respective route?
4.	What is the expiry date of each of the above rural mail contracts?



SHIPS, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT  AMOUNT SPENT

Mr. Catherwood:: What was the total amount of money paid by Canada for the building of ships of all kinds, and the equipment for ships, in the year 1952, in (a) United Kingdom; (b) United States?



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	What road bridges, spanning rivers or other waters, has the federal government contributed to for construction or maintenance, from January 1, 1949 to date?
2.	Where are these bridges located?
3.	What has been the amount of assistance given?
4.	Is the government providing any funds for bridges which are to be constructed or re-constructed, during the present year?

Motions for Papers .



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Nowlan:: For a copy of all correspondence or other recorded communications from the 1st day of January, 1951, to date, between the Department of National Defence, or any other department or agency of the government of Canada, and any other person or persons, respecting the sale of material to Sumac Industries Limited, together with copies of all documents referred to in any such communications.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the parliamentary assistant who has been handling this matter, may it stand until he returns tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



ST. LEOLIN, N.B., POST OFFICE

Albany M. Robichaud: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged, since the 1st of January, 1949, to date, between the district post office inspector's office, at Saint John, New Brunswick, the minister or any other official of the Post Office Department at Ottawa, and any person or persons whatsoever, with reference to the change recently effected in the post office (locality and postmaster) at St. Leolin, in the county of Gloucester, New Brunswick.


Alcide Côté: This motion may be passed subject to the usual reservation regarding privileged documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the statement made by the Postmaster General.



NEWFOUNDLAND NATIONAL HARBOUR

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: For a copy of all correspondence received by any department of this government, from April 1, 1949 to date, relative to the establishment of a national harbour in Newfoundland.



NEWFOUNDLAND NATIONAL PARK

William Joseph Browne: For a copy of all correspondence received by any department of this government, from April 1, 1949 to date, relative to the establishment of a national park in Newfoundland.


Mr. Winters:: Mr. Speaker, I am agreeable to this motion being passed subject to the usual reservation about concurrence by the government of Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the statement made by the Minister of Resources and Development.



CARAQUET, N.B., FEDERAL BUILDING

Albany M. Robichaud: For a copy of all correspondence received by and forwarded from any department of the government, from the 1st of January, 1945 to date, relative
[Mr. Pearkes.l
to the construction of a federal building at Cara-quet, county of Gloucester, New Brunswick, for the Post Office and other departmental offices.



TRANS MOUNTAIN OIL PIPE LINE CO.

Mr. Goode:: For a copy of correspondence exchanged between the province of British Columbia and the board of transport commissioners, in connection with the application by the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company for an extension of their pipe line from Sumas to the international border.


Mr. Chevrier:: Subject to the approval of the government of British Columbia, there is no objection to this order passing.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the statement of the Minister of Transport, the motion is carried.



RENOUS, N.B., NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT

Albany M. Robichaud: For a return showing a list and the price of all materials and/or supplies purchased for any purpose whatsoever and the amounts paid out for labour in connection therewith, in any way concerning the Renous, New Brunswick, naval ammunition depot, during the year 1951-52 and from the 1st of April, 1952 to and including the 31st day of December, 1952, also a copy of the payrolls in any way concerning the maintenance of the said naval ammunition depot, during the year 1951-52 and from the 1st of April, 1952 to the 31st of December, 1952, inclusive.
He said: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Associate Minister of National Defence, I would ask that this motion stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



CANADIAN COMPANIES IMPORTING UNITED STATES COAL

Mr. Gillis:: For a return showing the names of all companies in Canada who import American coal; (a) anthracite: (b) bituminous.


Mr. McCann:: Mir. Speaker, I will have to object to this motion. I am informed that since confederation the names of importers have never been given. We are agreeable, however, to giving the hon. member the quantities and the number of importers.


Clarence Gillis: I am not prepared to go along with the minister in his remarks. I am not interested in the quality or quantity of what these importers may be importing. I am interested in the names of the companies which are importing United States coal because there is a rumour to the effect that, while the coal industry of Canada is struggling for markets from coast to coast, some of the large coal companies in Canada are importing United States coal. If that is so, it is in the interests of the Canadian people

generally to know that and to take steps to correct it. Therefore I am not prepared to have the motion dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I will have to put the motion. Those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have supported the motion.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all cheques made in the months of December, 1952 and January, 1953, in favour of all employees or officers of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation who were, or are, in receipt of salaries of $10,000 per year or more.


Robert Henry Winters: As I indicated in the house previously, Mr. Speaker, the government does not have the information available to comply in full with this request. The president and vice-president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation were appointed by the governor in council under section 7 (1) of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, which reads:
7.	(1) The governor in council shall make the first appointments to the offices of president and vice-president and in the first instance fix their salaries and thereafter the board with the approval of the governor in council shall appoint and fix the salaries of the president and vice-president.
In conformity with the terms of this section, the president was appointed by the governor in council by order in council P.C. 7464, dated December 28, 1945, with effect from January 1, 1946. The board recommended and the governor in council approved the president's reappointment, effective January 1, 1953, by order in council P.C. 4656, dated December 22, 1952. The

Motions for Papers
board recommended and the governor in council approved the present vice-president's appointment effective by order in council P.C. 5156, dated October 25,	1950. The
Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) informed the house of these orders in council, among others, and I am tabling copies herewith.
When dealing with the matter of salaries, last Thursday, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), as reported on page 2090, stated it was his understanding that certain men in the corporation have raised their salaries. This statement creates an erroneous impression. These gentlemen have not raised their salaries nor can they do so. It is clear from the act that salaries of the president and vice-president are fixed by the board of the corporation, with the approval of the governor in council.
On this matter of salaries, hon. members may be interested to know that the president's salary remained unchanged from the date of his first appointment on January 1, 1946, until his reappointment as of January 1. 1953, when it was increased approximately 11 per cent. The salary of the vice-president has not been changed since he was appointed on October 25, 1950. With respect to other employees or officers of the corporation, I must refer as I did on Thursday last to section 14 (1) of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, which states that:
The corporation may on its own behalf employ such officers and employees for such purposes and on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the executive committee and such officers and employees are not officers or servants of His Majesty.
The government does not therefore have available to it the information on salaries of such officers and employees. When the legislation was enacted in 1945 it was the expressed wish of parliament that this section should apply and I am therefore not in a position to make this information available.
I am not clear as to the reason for requesting copies of all cheques made during the months of December 1952 and January 1953 as requested in this notice of motion. These are accounting documents, and it has not been the practice to ask crown corporations to produce them. I recall that the same hon. member put a similar notice on the order paper in 1950 with respect to a certain officer of the Canadian National Railways. At that time the matter was dealt with by my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), who explained why it was not possible then to make the information available.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the principle governing the relationship between crown corporations and parliament was first enunciated on April 26, 1920, by Hon. Arthur Meighen, then minister of the interior, who said in part, as reported at page 1665 of Hansard of that year when explaining why certain information could not be made available:
... it Is utterly inconceivable that a tremendous aggregation of railways, a great system such as the Canadian National system has now grown to be, could ever be conducted along that line. I do not think that there is one hon. member in this house who would rise in his place and suggest that it could appeal to his mind for a moment that any such system of management could be made a success for a single day.
He was speaking then of the corporate system and its relationship to parliament; that is, of course, a corporate system such as what we know as a crown company for the purposes of this return. That argument was repeated effectively by Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was then prime minister, on March 22, 1921, as found at page 1181 of Hansard of that year; and I recommend both these speeches to the attention of hon. members who are interested.
In the light of the explanation I have just made, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that hon. members would wish me to go contrary to the specific terms of the legislation enacted by parliament covering this corporation. I therefore regret that I am unable to produce everything requested. However, 1 suggest that the hon. member may obtain much of the information he is seeking by referring to the orders in council which I have mentioned and which have now been tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the last
statement explains the situation. The minister is going to deign to give much of the information to parliament. We want the full information with regard to the salaries asked for, of the 27 individuals in this department whose salaries are over $10,000.


Robert Henry Winters: 


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, $7,000. In the
order in question I asked as to the salaries over $7,000. I was interested to note that Mr. Meighen was quoted with such great approval. It is the first time that has happened in this house and it is a step in the right direction.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Meighen was dealing with the Canadian National Railways and he stated that it would be impossible to furnish parliament with the information, particularly in view of the size of the C.N.R. and the number of employees of that body.


Robert Henry Winters: It was the whole principle of corporated systems.


John George Diefenbaker: Central Mortgage and
Housing Corporation is not yet of that size, although it is rapidly getting there. I cannot accept the explanation given by the minister. To do so would be to countenance the keeping of the lid on information that the Canadian people have a right to have with regard to how their money is being spent.


Harry Oliver White: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have supported the motion.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have supported the motion.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries, a copy of which I sent him this morning. Has the Department of Fisheries received a request from the fishermen of Great Slave lake to increase the quota of fish to be taken from area 2? If so, what action has been taken with regard to this request?


Mr. J. Walson MacNaught (Parliamenlary Assislanl lo Ihe Minister of Fisheries):: I
wish to thank the hon. member for The Battlefords for sending me notice of his intention to ask this question. The Department of Fisheries has received such a request, and it has been given most careful consideration. It has been decided, however, that in the best interests of the proper conservation of the stocks in this area it is not possible to grant the request. The fishermen should not suffer any undue hardship because areas Nos. 3 and 4 are still open.



INQUIRY AS TO BLOOD TESTS BEFORE DELIVERY TO THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry Oliver White: I wish to direct two questions to the Minister of Agriculture. Have instructions been issued
2294	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to the government veterinarians not to take blood tests until March 2 of purebred cattle sold for delivery in the United States during the first week in March? Is the minister aware that such instructions will cause delay in delivery and financial loss to the livestock industry?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not aware that any such instructions have been issued, and I shall be very much surprised if they have.



INQUIRY AS TO WITHDRAWAL OF FLOOR PRICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In the press of Saturday, February 21, there was an article to the effect that the government had withdrawn the floor price under beef. Is this statement correct? Has the minister been informed by the U.S.A. authorities that the embargo against Canadian cattle will be definitely lifted on March 1?


James Garfield Gardiner: The present position is that the government have announced that we are not buying cattle on the markets this week.
The position in relation to the last question is that the United States government announced, I think on November 28, if I remember the date correctly, that the boundary would be open, barring certain conditions, on the 1st of March. We expect that that will be carried out.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I should like to ask a question based upon the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). I do not know whether I understood the minister to say that the government had stopped purchasing cattle and also stopped purchasing beef under the 23-cent floor which the minister stated would be in effect until March.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not purchasing
either beef or cattle during this week. As a matter of fact, our purchases of beef were always based upon our purchases of cattle. If we were not purchasing cattle, we would not be purchasing beef.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture a question based upon a telegram, a copy of which I have sent to him. Will the government consider placing the imports of potatoes from the United States on the same basis as that prevailing in connection with Canadian potatoes entering the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for sending me a copy of the telegram. I received a similar telegram from the minister of agriculture of New Brunswick, the last sentence of which reads:
If u.S. potatoes are entering Canada would suggest imposition of duty same basis as now prevails against Canadian potatoes entering U.S.
I am sure my hon. friend would not expect us to make an announcement of policy based upon a hypothetical question. The information which I gave the house the other day is still the information which I got this morning, that so far as we know there has been only one carload of potatoes sent from Maine to the market in Montreal. I would hesitate to even discuss with the United States authorities the difficulties that might be experienced from the shipment of one carload of potatoes in view of the fact that we do have a very considerable market in the United States for New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island potatoes. I am sure that it would not be expected that we would raise a question over such a small quantity, if the information we have is correct.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Has it been reported to him that potatoes from the state of Maine are being trucked across the border into New Brunswick and then shipped by railway to Montreal and other points and sold as Canadian potatoes? I think that is one of the great problems faced by the potato producers in New Brunswick and I should like to hear the minister's comments.


James Garfield Gardiner: Such a matter has not been reported to me. I can quite understand that it might be possible for truckloads of potatoes to be trucked across the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick, but, as I say, that has not been reported to our department. Perhaps I should read one or two more sentences in the telegram, which are:
Potato market has become demoralized during past ten days. Prices to New Brunswick pro-

ducers today range from $2.25 to $2.50 per barrel. This situation is possibly due to import of U.S. potatoes.
Then there was a sentence which I read a moment ago which was the last sentence in the telegram. Even the minister of agriculture of New Brunswick does not seem to have been convinced on this matter because he says it is possibly due to that. We have not been able to get any information that there is any considerable quantity of Maine potatoes coming into Canada in any way whatsoever.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Could the
minister state whether the quantity of Maine potatoes coming into this country would be greater than the quantity of potatoes that we export to the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: My information is that
only this one carload has come in. Of course my hon. friend knows that millions of bushels go the other way.



FOREST PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Albemi):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question with reference to the tax placed upon mining and logging profits by the Social Credit minister of finance in British Columbia. Would the Minister of Finance state whether or not this profits tax will be deductible when computing income tax?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Under the agreements with the provinces, taxes imposed by a provincial government with respect to logging and mining profits may be deducted as an expense of doing business. In effect that would mean that if a profits tax was imposed on logging or mining profits, under present rates approximately half of that would be a deduction from the federal tax, while the other half would be borne by the taxpayer.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked whether the B.B.C. had made
Emergency Powers Act arrangements with the C.B.C. for the provision of television coverage of the coronation ceremonies free of charge. The answer is yes.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I
should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question with regard to the redemption of or refund for excise stamps used on cheques and the like. What system has been worked out, in particular in respect to cheques which corporations and the like may have printed with the excise stamp lithographed thereon and quite inseparable from the cheque itself?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question, which he was able to do just before I came into the house. I know that arrangements are being made for refunds for these excise stamps, but I am not familiar with the details. However, I shall make inquiry and give my hon. friend an answer tomorrow.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 20, 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.
Mr. Garson:: Mr. Chairman, at the time
the Emergency Powers Act was sought in 1951 by the present government, the law had been continuously for a period of 37 consecutive years that in an emergency of apprehended war the government could invoke the virtually unlimited powers of the War Measures Act. Rather than do so we came to this house in 1951 seeking the passage of a measure granting us much more limited powers and subject to greater parliamentary control.
This course was at that time approved by every party in the house. The resolution introducing it was passed without division. First and second readings of the bill were passed without division. Third reading was passed upon division, and in that way it became law. My statements previously made

Emergency Powers Act to this effect have been challenged by the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Kamloops. When they were so challenged, making allowance for the fact that there can be differences of opinion even with regard to matters of fact, I sat here with the proof of the accuracy of my statements in my possession and said nothing. But then the Leader of the Opposition got up and supported these charges that my statements were inaccurate, and I have also found a report in the Montreal Star of February 10 last of a meeting in Westmount-St. Antoine at which the hon. member for Nanaimo is reported as having said the following:
Canada today is living on the "edge of a dictatorship" and Canadians dare not take one more step "along the road to Moscow," Major General George R. Pearkes, V.C., member of parliament for Nanaimo, told the Westmount-St. Antoine Progressive Conservative Association in Victoria Hall last night.
Then he is reported as going on to say this:
The government's introduction of the Emergency Powers Act last week to replace the War Measures Act showed that there was a drift away from parliamentary control and that the cabinet was usurping the power of parliament. "Once the government concedes that certain powers are necessary and takes it on itself to administer the country without reference to parliament, to pass a large number of measures by order in council, the lust for power grows and they hate to surrender the powers they have taken unto themselves, even though the emergency is long past."


Mr. Pearkes:: Another of my excellent speeches.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Making allowance for the fact that of course errors can creep into journalistic reports of meetings of that sort, it is apparent that the report is patently wrong in two respects. The act was not introduced at that time, and far from there having been a large number of orders in council passed under it, the very opposite is true. Member after member of the official opposition has risen in his place and complained not about the large numbers of orders in council but about the very small numbers.


John George Diefenbaker: There was never any complaint.


Mr. Drew:: No one has complained about it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest that the Hansard itself, the facts from which I propose to put on the record in the debate in committee, will show first of all that when the measure was brought into the house the Prime Minister took the house completely into his confidence and spelled out in the plainest language just what the government proposed to do. When he sat down he was followed by the Leader of the Opposition who pro-

ceeded, also in the most explicit language, to agree completely with the Prime Minister upon four points.


George Alexander Drew: What page and what date?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The date is February 20, 1951, and the pages are 500 and 501. If my hon. friend wishes the paragraphs-


George Alexander Drew: No, that is all right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: First of all he agreed that we were in the emergency of apprehended war as stated by the Prime Minister; if he wishes me to do so I will quote Hansard to him, but he must remember what he said. Second, he said it was not desirable to invoke the War Measures Act, and thereby to create the impression in the minds of the Canadian people that war was inevitable. Hence third, the Leader of the Opposition agreed with the Prime Minister that the War Measures Act should not be invoked; in place of that he suggested, fourth, the following, to use his own language as found at page 500:
... I wish to indicate my own support for the proposition now placed before us that such emergency measures as are to be adopted shall be brought clearly before parliament and shall be the results of actual decisions of members of this house.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what has been done. Certain sections of the Emergency Powers Act, as they are now upon the statute books, are in their present form as a result of suggestions made by members of the official opposition as to the form those sections should take. The members in question were the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Eglinton. In the face of these expressed statements of the Leader of the Opposition, it seems to me a most extraordinary proposition that he should now say that he was opposed to the legislation at that time.
But, sir, that is by no means all. At that time the thinking of the Leader of the Opposition (upon this subject was dominated- and I think that is not too strong a word to use-like that of the members of the C.C.F. party, by the idea that we should have a complete system of wage and price controls in this country. I put it to any of the legal members of the Conservative party in the house that we could not have a complete system of wage and price controls unless the government had emergency powers. If, therefore, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, he was opposed to our invoking emergency powers under the War Measures Act, then it was absolutely essential, in order to carry into effect his own policy of wage and price controls, that the government should have emergency powers of some kind. As he had said in the language I quoted a

moment ago that such emergency powers "as are to be adopted shall be brought clearly before parliament and should be the results of actual decisions of members of this house", it was perfectly clear that the only possible way in which his own idea about wage and price controls could be given effect to was by a measure of the precise kind which we are now discussing.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the minister what he is referring to when he speaks of wage and price controls?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will contain himself, I am going in due course to refer at some length to what he said. The Leader of the Opposition, who seems for the moment to have been overtaken by amnesia, was in 1951 not only in favour of the government taking emergency powers to introduce a system of wage and price controls but was in favour of those powers being immediately exercised. So was the C.C.F. party and so was the Social Credit party, and the only difference-


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege,
before the minister repeats that statement I ask him to indicate where I was in favour of wage control.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will permit me to do it in the course of my remarks-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: All right, fine; we will do it right now.


An hon. Member:: Who is making this speech?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is at page 506 of Hansard for the same date, for my hon. friend's convenience. This is the Leader of the Opposition speaking and making a statement that apparently he now forgets he ever made. He said:
I suggest, as was suggested by Mr. Walter Gordon-
He had quoted Mr. Walter Gordon at great length. He had quoted the details of the controls, on what commodities they should be placed and at what levels they should be imposed. The Leader of the Opposition said:
I suggest, as was suggested by Mr. Walter Gordon, that the very existence of these controls in the United States makes these controls inevitable here.


George Alexander Drew: But where is the reference to wage control?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Let me finish quoting your own words.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, go on.
Emergency Powers Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He went on to say:
If they are inevitable here, and if the public becomes convinced they are inevitable by reading statements of economists of the standing of Mr. Walter Gordon-
Let my hon. friend listen to this and tell us what he meant by it if he did not mean that controls should be put into effect at once. -the sooner these controls are put in the better it is going to be for all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Of course, I shall correct the
minister when I speak but the minister knows perfectly well that he is misinterpreting the facts. If he will read above he will see perfectly clearly the controls I had in mind.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was in the house when
these statements were made in the first place by my hon. friend in that debate. I also recollect when he was denying these things a few days ago. I went back to Hansard, all I could do, and, from it I have read the English language. If my hon. friend can get up and interpret, from the language which I have read, anything other than that he wanted wage and price controls to be put in, then he is a much more ingenious man than I have ever taken him to be.
There is nothing to be ashamed of in advocating wage and price controls. My hon. friends, the members of the C.C.F. party, have consistently done so and if I am not mistaken they would probably urge them still. But there is a difference between the C.C.F party and the Conservative party for which we must give the C.C.F. party credit for the fact that political doctrines theiy believe in on Monday, they still believe in on Tuesday. What they believe in in January they still support in December.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When they come into this present debate they say they do not wish to extend the Emergency Powers Act. Why? Because we have not used these powers to put in price controls-which is a good, fair, honest reason. But my hon. friends of the Conservative party, in view of an election being imminent, now want to go out and take advantage of the fact that the government has a large majority-to make virtue out of necessity-by saying that this government is a great dictatorship; that it is taking away the powers of the people; that it is engaging in a great conspiracy to destroy the supremacy of parliament-and the like.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, and I hope I may use this word within parliamentary rules, that my hon. friends of the Conservative party have a good deal of effrontery here

Emergency Powers Act to come and deny what their position was on the Emergency Powers Act when, in order to give effect to the central part of my hon. friend's speech to put in a system of wage and price controls, it was absolutely essential for the government to have emergency powers and, within the terms of my hon. friend's own statement, emergency powers of the precise character of those we are now discussing.
My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted from his speech and I have quoted from it. There is no difficulty there because, as always, it is a very long speech and his remarks upon price controls alone would make a large speech in themselves. They begin at the top of the second column of page 503 of Hansard of February 20, 1951, take the whole of that column, the whole of page 504, the whole of page 505, the whole of page 506, and they end on page 507. Now, my hon. friend says that he never did any such thing, that he does not remember making a speech of that sort at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Nonsense.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Let me remind him of what
he said. He opened up with a column-no, a column and a half-in which he quoted his favorite authority, himself, at great length. Then, having tired of that, he quoted at great length from a speech made by Donald Gordon about two weeks before that date in Montreal. Then, when he finished with that matter, he quoted from a speech made by Walter L. Gordon of Toronto. It was a speech in which Mr. Gordon, as I said, not only indicated the wisdom of having a policy of wage and price controls but stated the commodities on which those controls should be placed and the levels at which they should be imposed.
Then my hon. friend's conscience was bothering him and he was worried about where he stood in relation to free enterprise and he was groping around for some way out and he found it in the United States. At page 505 he said:
-may I point out that in the United States- which has been regarded by most people in most parts of the world as the great home of free enterprise-the two men who are mainly responsible for price and other controls are two men who, I would imagine, would be .generally regarded as the very top-level examples of success under the free enterprise system. I would point out that the two men who have been charged with responsibility, and have accepted it, for exercising controls in the United States are Charles E. Wilson and Eric Johnston. Both of them have wide and extensive experience and both have been lifelong exponents of the free enterprise system.
So, Mr. Chairman, this was an enterprise into which any good Conservative could go 

with the feeling that he was in a respectable enterprise and not a socialistic one. Now, he goes on again at page 505. He tells us just now that he was not in 1951 advocating immediate control. But at page 505 of Hansard he is recorded as having stated:
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that unless some steps are taken to exercise a measure of effective control over those raw materials and supplies which are being forced up by government action, the government itself is going to have the utmost difficulty in making contracts, and the very course it is following is going to be the most inflationary thing of all when it tries to get firm contracts made.
Of course, this sort of talk now looks pretty-what shall I say in parliamentary language-pretty unwise, in retrospect; but that is what he was advocating then.
Just in case there should be any misapprehension about what the other members of this house understood from the Leader of the Opposition's remarks as to what the position of the Progressive Conservative party was in this matter, let me refer next to the statement of the hon. leader of the C.C.F. party appearing at page 507 of Hansard. He says:
Mr. Speaker, apparently there is on this side of the house a warm welcome for the measure which is foreshadowed in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
Then he goes on later to say this:
I think the government is wise in not relying on the War Measures Act. I agree with what the Prime Minister said in that regard, and-
And now listen to this-
-also with what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The statement continues:
It is much preferable that at this time the government should introduce a bill which we can discuss and which will give them the specific powers that they require to deal with the situation as it now exists or as they apprehend it may exist.
What about the leader of the Social Credit party? He was the last of the party leaders to speak and as he was summing up the situation he made the most illuminating remarks of all. He said this:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the members of the house were definitely reassured this afternoon when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave his statement when moving this resolution. I certainly felt reassured by his very sincerity. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister upon conveying to the house a clear-cut definition of what the government proposes to do. I also want to congratulate him on observing meticulously the true democratic process.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A very different picture this year.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And then he goes on:
I think it must be refreshing to everybody to know that our Prime Minister will not try to hide things under a heavy cloak of language but will come straightforwardly to the point and say: We are going to ask parliament to give us additional powers; and those powers will be voted by parliament and none other.
Now, listen to the next statement. Let my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition listen to this:
This afternoon I found myself in fairly complete agreement with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). I found that we were standing in a different position from that in which we stood on Friday last. I find that I am ready to defend the Mr. Drew of today against the Mr. Drew of last Friday. He gave an excellent address as did the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Because they said many of the things that I perhaps would have said, and certainly many with which I agree, I am not going to try to give a long speech this afternoon nor am I going to attempt to cover the ground they have covered. I think it is important, however-and I believe the Prime Minister would want it-to place definitely before the house the position we take with respect to the measure which is to be introduced as a result of this resolution. We agree, Mr. Speaker, that we are living in a time of danger and emergency. The emergency is real to us. Our words up to this time in the session have indicated that we feel that is the situation. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the present emergency is most certainly of indeterminate duration. I do not believe any of us can see the end of it. It may last for much longer than any of us have any reason to suspect.
There was no misapprehension in the mind of that member of parliament as to the nature of this emergency.
Then he said:
We agree too, Mr. Speaker, that it is wise not to invoke the War Measures Act now. We think that this is a far better way of dealing with a situation that is not clearly a war situation. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was very wise in pointing out to the house this afternoon that until we are facing actual war conditions it is better not to bring in the War Measures Act, but to ask for a transfer of certain powers to the central government in order that they can meet the situation as it now exists. But he did promise that if at any time we do face actual war conditions he will bring in and proclaim the War Measures Act.
My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition says he is going to speak later. I would be very glad if he would speak and explain, if he can, how it is that we in this party, the leader of the C.C.F. party and the leader of the Social Credit party are all apparently of the same view as to what was the situation at the time this legislation was introduced.
That is the position at the time the act was introduced, and when it was introduced hon. members will recall that the resolution passed without any dissenting vote. The bill passed first reading without any dissenting vote. Then, Mr. Chairman, the matter came up for second reading and on the
Emergency Powers Act motion for second reading there were four people who took part in the debate. They were the hon. member for Eglinton, the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I spoke on behalf of the government. When the vote was taken, page 656 of Hansard for February 23, 1951, indicates the following:


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Then, there is one more speech by a member of the Conservative party which sheds a great amount of illumination upon the proud claims which are being made by members of that party that they were the great tribunes of the people defending the civil liberties of the subject, defending the supremacy of parliament and holding down these dictatorial ambitions of this terrible government. There is a short speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and this is what he said as recorded at page 656 of Hansard for February 23, 1951:
May I suggest that we have done a pretty good day's work today and we cannot accomplish anything more. I suggest that we call it a day.
On March 1, 1951, the committee resumed consideration of the measure at the point at which we had left off on February 23. During that consideration, as all members know, there was a great deal of discussion of the various sections of the bill. Suggested amendments were made, particularly by the hon. members for Eglinton and Kamloops. Just by way of making an honest woman out of this dictatorial government-
Edmund Davie Fulton: That is impossible.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -here is what my hon. friend from Kamloops who has just interrupted said at page 811 of Hansard for March 1, 1951:
I am quite certain I speak for all members on this side when I say we were impressed with the fact that in what he had to say this afternoon the Minister of Justice obviously had given a good deal of careful consideration to the points raised in the debate on second reading. The fact that he should have considered them, and that in certain respects he and the Prime Minister should have made concessions or, to put it perhaps more mildly, indicated that they were prepared to share at least to some extent the views put forward by members on this side, encourages us to think that by making reasonable suggestions we can-
This is the gentleman himself.
-work out a bill which will be a great deal better than we consider this bill to be, at least in its present form.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is wrong with that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not a thing, but it is not the statement of a man who is so bitterly opposed to legislation that he is fighting it to the last ditch. He is collaborating on making it better.

Emergency Powers Act
Then, the member for Eglinton, who is sometimes rather harsh in his statements about the government and government policies; what did he have to say on the same subject? He is reported at page 814 of Hansard for March 1, 1951:
I may say here that I received with no little gratification the expressions that came from the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister this afternoon of their willingness to consider some of the concrete suggestions that were made by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops, and myself last Friday evening in connection with specific defects in the bill. One is glad to see, on the part of the ministers to whom I have referred, an indication of some willingness to give serious consideration to proposals that are seriously put forward, based upon an earnest attempt to study the bill and to appreciate its significance.
Then, Mr. Chairman, just to spike these things down so my hon. friends of the Conservative party cannot roam around the country complaining about our being one step away from Moscow or complaining about these terrible ogres the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice taking away the rights of the people, just to make a concrete point that illustrates the general language used, may I say that the hon. member for Eglinton had made two suggestions of amendments. I believe it was the Prime Minister who drafted an amendment to carry these suggestions of his into effect. It was submitted to the member for Eglinton, and this is what he said as recorded in Hansard of March 2, 1951, at page 835:
The Minister of Justice was good enough to let me see a copy of the amendment. I may say at once that I am quite satisfied with it. I believe it meets the points I sought to raise with respect to the language of section 2, subsection 4.
There is another question that I raised concerning the concluding words of section 2, subsection 4, but that is a different matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe it is covered too.


Mr. Fleming:: Yes, the minister is right. X proposed that all the words after the word "effect" in line 44 be omitted. He has accomplished the two purposes in this amendment, and I am entirely satisfied with it.
Then he says in respect of another amendment that was offered:
I am satisfied that that covers the point I raised. I shall be happy to see that amendment carried.
On March 6, 1951, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) moved the third reading of Bill No. 24, this Emergency Powers Act bill. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) at once rose to speak and he spoke at great length. He made one point abundantly clear, namely that at that time when the bill was in the stage of third reading he was still in favour of putting in force a system of wage and price controls.


George Alexander Drew: Where is that said?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is said at page 949 in language which is as follows, to be found towards the bottom of the page:
We have been told that It is the intention of the government not to introduce price or similar controls at this time.
And further down:
In discussing this subject again today I wish to emphasize one fact. In advocating the adoption of some measure of control which will meet the immediate inflationary pressures I do so-
He is a great interpreter. Will he interpret those particular words into anything else than that he meant to have controls?


Mr. Sinnott:: He will squirm out of it somehow.


George Alexander Drew: Finish the sentence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It reads:
-in the belief that we should do all we can in this country to preserve a free economy. I have sought to make it clear that I am convinced that unless something is done to restrain the mounting spiral of inflation there will be a diminishing measure of confidence in the minds of the people of Canada in the ordinary operation of that free economy.
On the third reading of this measure the members of the Conservative party for the first time said that it was carried upon division. Here is what I do not understand. Perhaps some of the lawyers of the Conservative party such as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker)-he is a fairly ingenious lawyer-will be able to tell us the answer. What I want to know is how any leader of a party, who had said in this house and throughout the country that they were in favour of a wage and price control system, voted even on third reading against a bill which is the only means, under the terms of their own opposition to the War Measures Act, by which the government can have the necessary emergency powers to introduce a wage and price control system. Let them tell us that. I should be delighted to hear it.


Mr. Sluder:: No answer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You will get it.


Mr. Harkness:: Don't be impatient.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: From this hon. gentleman who says in one breath that he is in favour of a wage and price control system and on third reading of the bill that he is opposed to the legislation to make it possible-


John George Diefenbaker: Keep the voice down.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -he is the same gentleman who in this chamber and around through the country represents this government as being actuated by a desire to swallow up all the powers of the provincial legislatures.

Mr. Speaker, I should like him also to tell us, at his pleasure, what act, under these emergency powers, the government could take that would have a more adverse effect upon the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures than an over-all wage and price control system? What act could they take? What single act?


Irvin William Studer: No answer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You will get it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Silence is golden.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member had better learn that.


James Arthur Ross: There is not much gold about the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott).


Irvin William Studer: Silver threads among the gold.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Again, not relying only upon what the members of the official opposition themselves have said, I find that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as reported at page 959 of Hansard, says this, after listening to my hon. friends of the official opposition; and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, whatever we may think about the assiduity that he displays with reference to the rules of the house and the like, is quite an intelligent man. He can understand all of these points, and anything he says is fairly likely to be accurate. What he says is this:
All parties on this side of the house are united so far as our position on price controls is concerned.
Then he goes on even further.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are still united.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He says that private members on the government side want price controls. He says:
It all adds up to this, Mr. Speaker, that the only group standing in the way, the only group refusing to take action is the cabinet.
I think I can speak for every private member in our party and can say that they were at one with the government in the government's policy on price controls.


An hon. Member:: And still are.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, we had what I think is the finest budget speech I have ever heard in my life in any legislature; and I say this. If we had heeded the advice of my friend the Leader of the Opposition, his colleagues of the Conservative party and the rest of the members of the opposition, my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) would never have been able to bring down the budget which he brought down a few days ago.
Emergency Powers Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would not have been a bad thing either.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is one specific exception that I must make in my remarks today and I am glad to do so because the gentleman has earned the privilege of not being associated with his party on this matter; I refer to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). On third reading of the bill he took an independent attitude. As hon. members will recall, he rose in his place and joined forces with the government's policy of being opposed to controls and took an absolutely, as he says, crystal-clear position in opposition to his leader and his leader's other followers. If I were to return the compliment which the Leader of the Opposition is always paying to our private members, I would say "his faithful followers who follow him in everything that he does, however fatuous".
This is what the hon. member for Eglinton said:
But, sir, let me say without leaving this point, and say it with all the emphasis I can command, that short of all-out and total war, you cannot make a system of this kind work, the kind of over-all price controls advocated here unless you have behind it an almost unanimous public support determined to see that it works effectively, and that advantage is not taken of it by people who wish to enrich themselves by operating in the black market.
Then he says this:
I have made no secret of the fact that I have not always agreed with the Prime Minister, but I do say that no one could have been on sounder ground than was the Prime Minister in his speech made, not just in recent weeks but made some months ago, on the subject of the necessity for that general support of measures of this kind if they are to be effective in carrying out the purposes for which they are imposed.
He quotes from the Prime Minister; and I think the remarks are so full of truth and so apposite to the present debate, that I should read them. As quoted by the hon. member for Eglinton the Prime Minister said:
In peacetime the government of a free nation which attempts to control and regulate the whole economy would threaten freedom itself.
That is what we thought; that is what the hon. member for Eglinton thought; but that great exponent of freedom, the Leader of the Opposition and of the Conservative party, did not seem to be worried about it at all. I continue with the quotation:
The purpose of governmental intervention in peacetime should be to foster economic conditions in which initiative and enterprise will flourish. Because the government directed many aspects of our lives with conspicuous success in wartime, is no reason for assuming such direction would be successful in peacetime. We have ample evidence that in countries where the peacetime economy is rigidly controlled,-
2302	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act
I should like my Hon. friends of the Conservative party to listen to this. You know, this really is conservative, with a small "c", doctrine. I suggest that one of the reasons why my hon. friends get so few votes and do so badly at election time is that the Conservative party is supposed to be Conservative and not just an imitation of the C.C.F. party.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister once said that the C.C.F.'ers were Liberals in a hurry.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I continue:
We have ample evidence that in countries where the peacetime economy is rigidly controlled, prosperity and a high standard of living do not necessarily follow. Indeed, the kind of action required to make a wartime economy successful has in many cases to be reversed in peacetime.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the difference between the government and the hon. member for Eglinton, on the one hand, and the Progressive Conservative party as led by the Leader of the Opposition on the other, is that we believe in free enterprise and are prepared, after fostering the economic conditions under which free enterprise will flourish, to trust free enterprise to maintain production. But the Leader of the Opposition, the tenets of whose party would lead one to suppose that he believes in free enterprise, and who professes to believe in free enterprise, does not seem to have any confidence in it, and he wants to rely upon controls. And this is the man who lectures us about the dangers inherent in the Emergency Powers Act, of destroying the rights of the provinces, and who in the very debate on the bill which we are discussing has throughout favoured the kind of exercise of these emergency powers which would override more provincial rights than any other invocation of these powers that one could think of.
The Prime Minister closed the debate on the third reading of the bill, and on page 981 of Hansard it is recorded:


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
They said that it was agreed, and just as an afterthought my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition said, "on division."
On May 26, 1952, the following year, the Prime Minister moved a resolution to extend the Emergency Powers Act for another year. After he had spoken the Leader of the Opposition took the floor, and in a very long speech, the general import of which I think it is fair to say showed an attitude of opposition to the Emergency Powers Act, gave vent to his views. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke, and then silence. On


this matter which our hon. friends of the Conservative party felt so deeply about, and which they said affected the very liberties of the subject and the rights of parliament, and although they were against the usurpations of this dictatorial government, and ready to do battle to the last ditch, no other member spoke at all; just the leader. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke and the motion was put. Did they call a division? No, they never even called "division". There are just three words as follows: "Motion agreed to".
Is not that a strange thing? Is it not strange that though this party is so fearful of the pretentions of the government, their great majority, their pretentions to power, their desire to be dictatorial, when the matter comes up asking for a renewal for one more year, and which the Leader of the Opposition says is such a terrible thing, no other man speaks. It is all over in a short time.


Mr. Green:: You had only Springfield support you in this debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, may I ask the minister if he does not accept the statement made as a statement of fact in his explanation of that by the hon. member for Eglinton earlier in the course of the debate? Does the minister say he does not accept the statement of the hon. member for Eglinton?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend can make his speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister on a question of privilege, because I point out that the hon. member for Eglinton explained the circumstances, and in doing so he said he accepted the responsibility and he made a statement on behalf of this party. The minister has now called that statement in question.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for Kamloops will realize that his question is not one of privilege. The question of privilege is one which must be raised by the hon. member for Eglinton whenever he chooses. If the hon. member for Kamloops wants to ask a question of the minister who now has the floor, he must obtain his consent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely it is within the rules for one member to raise a question of privilege on behalf of another member in his absence. I am asking you, sir, if this point of order is not within the rules.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I might give the hon. member my own interpretation of the rules.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I raise a point of order? We do not need to bother with the rules.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You never do.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I think I do as much as my hon. friend. I am quite prepared to admit that the hon. member for Eglinton made a statement the other day to the effect that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concluded his speech more quickly than the hon. member for Eglinton thought he would.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And just at eight o'clock; remember that. He said it was just at eight o'clock.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As a matter of fact-


Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I am surprised that the hon. member for Kamloops, who has been so long in this house, does not know yet what is a question of privilege. It is beyond me. His question is frivolous.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of order-


Louis-René Beaudoin: There is no point of order at the moment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am willing to admit that there is because the Minister of Justice said a moment ago that there was one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; he said he was going to disregard the rules.	[DOT]


Louis-René Beaudoin: A point was raised by the hon. member for Kamloops, which was solved by the remarks made by the Minister of Justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, as I say, I accept entirely the statement made by the hon. member for Eglinton the other day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is fine.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Inasmuch as this has to do with such an extremely important matter, in the view of my hon. friends, and so much turns upon this question, I should like to point out that Hansard of May 26, 1952, shows at page 2576:
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not finish, quite so quickly, because his speech takes one full column and a bit of another column.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would be about a minute and a half at the rate he speaks.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am not questioning for a moment the good faith of the hon. member 68108-147
Emergency Powers Act for Kamloops and the hon. member for Eglinton, or anything of that sort; but I do suggest this: In respect of a matter which in their own terms was one of such paramount importance, I should think that they should have their board of strategy, or whoever arranges these things, alerted so that they would have seen to it that some member was going to see that the debate was carried on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certainly, the hon. member for Eglinton.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Be that as it may, we are in this position. The history of the bill is as I have indicated. It was supported on first reading by all parties. If my hon. friends of the Conservative party say that they did not support it, then they are going to have great difficulty in establishing the sincerity of their advocacy of the wage and price control system.


George Alexander Drew: Did the minister say first reading?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When the bill was introduced in the first instance.


Mr. Casselman:: The minister said "first reading".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am glad my hon. friend corrected me. I certainly meant to say that it was supported when it was introduced in the first instance. There was no division then or when it was renewed. The only member of his party who spoke against it was the Leader of the Opposition.
I do not think anyone in this house is going to argue that the emergency which is the basis of this legislation does not still continue unabated until the present time. If it was good legislation in 1951 and again in 1952, it is just as good legislation today, more particularly so because of the fact that the government has exercised great restraint indeed and has kept its invocation of this legislation down to a minimum. On that basis I think we have a right to ask this house to pass it for another period of twelve months.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it is most interesting to have this preview of the minister's course of action outside of this house. It is also extremely interesting to be able for once to have the opportunity to immediately correct the minister in his misstatements. That opportunity is not frequently presented; however, on this occasion it is.
When the minister says the bill was supported on the first occasion it came before this house, he is making a statement that he must know to be contrary to the facts. He had Hansard before him so he was not misled as to what the facts were. While he is not
2304	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act reluctant to disregard facts outside the house, this is the most glaring example I have seen of his misrepresentation of facts in the house when we have Hansard before us which shows exactly what are those facts.
The minister says that we supported this measure, but he himself has read into the record the fact that this bill was opposed and that after that opposition we did call "on division" on third reading. But the whole tawdry nature of the argument put forward by the Minister of Justice in regard to this is best illustrated by his reference to what occurred at the time this bill was before the house for third reading. With certain gestures, which regrettably do not find their way into Hansard, the minister is reported on page 981 of Hansard of March 6, 1951, as follows:


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Alexander Drew: On division.
Then the minister said that that was an afterthought. Since those who are reading Hansard are in some cases perhaps not fully aware of the procedure in this house-


Edmund Davie Fulton: As is the minister.


George Alexander Drew: -as is the minister, it might be well to point out for their benefit, although it will do no good in the case of the minister, that when the Speaker makes a statement of that kind there is usually a very prompt and hurried call of "agreed" by supporters of the government. The fact that they were able to shout "agreed" in this way before there was an opportunity to say "on division" carries no suggestion whatever that the remark "on division" was an afterthought. On the contrary, what is on the record shows perfectly clearly how strongly we were opposed to this act.
I am going to read what was said on third reading just prior to that, to indicate how utterly removed from reality is the statement which the minister has put on the record this afternoon as to our position in regard to this bill at that tune.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is back in "Alice in Wonderland".


James Arthur Ross: He thinks he is out on the hustings.


George Alexander Drew: It does of course reflect on the measure of accuracy which we can attribute to some of the statements he is making in relation to the bill now before us. Let us see exactly what I said, as reported on page 952 of Hansard. It was just after I had concluded my remarks on the third reading that we called "on division." Every hon. member in this house, including the Minister of Justice, knows that "on division" indicates as


positive an expression of opposition to a bill as a registered vote, although in the case of the registered vote there is an actual record of those who have expressed their vote one way or the other. I had been discussing this bill and I went on to say, as reported on page 952:
The Prime Minister may also say: This is in the hands of parliament. In answer I would say that we have not seen too much evidence, during this session or preceding ones, that there is that measure of independent expression of opinion-
There was no objection raised to this, yet this is what I said in 1951:
-by the large numbers of supporters of the government in this house which would suggest to those who are concerned about the trend we now see that we might hope that within this house there would be a vote which would place any effective restraint upon a government which commanded a majority of that kind. Unless we return to established and tested principles of parliamentary democracy we may in fact at this hour be in the twilight of freedom here in Canada, no matter how much we believe in freedom itself. We Canadians can pay the penalty of surrender just as other people have paid the penalty of surrender of those principles which protected the freedom in which they believed.
What I said then and what I have been saying now is that this legislation constitutes a surrender of the rights of parliament. I do not know how it is possible to place in more explicit terms opposition to a measure of this kind. Opposition had been expressed right through the discussion of this bill, except in the first instance when it was under consideration, not in the form of a bill but by way of resolution that a bill be introduced.
At that time it was pointed out that we did not have the wording of the bill before us, but we know now what kind of bill we are going to get. At that time we did not have the wording of the bill before us, but when that wording did come before us we then opposed this bill most vigorously and urged the government to consider a course which would bring before the house details of the procedure which they sought to invoke.
The purpose was quite plain why it was placed on the record, and not because it has nothing to do with what is before us today because this is 1953, not 1951 or 1952. A glaringly inaccurate record has been placed on Hansard today by the Minister of Justice.
I would recall that the minister has over and over again repeated that we were advocating price and wage controls. That statement is absolutely contrary to the facts; that statement is absolutely contrary to the Hansard he had before him. What we were urging very strongly was that there be introduced, not an over-all plan of price control-the minister is well aware of that because he had Hansard before him-but a

flexible system of price control which would apply to those particular commodities which were in short supply at that time, as stated by the government the day before this subject came up for discussion.
There was not one word in advocacy of wage control at that time, and the minister is well aware of that fact. In so far as the questions of price control and inflation are concerned, may I point out that at the time these were under discussion we had a greatly depreciated dollar. Our dollar had depreciated to 57 cents. The minister says if we had done anything of that kind we would not have had a budget such as we have before us now. The people of Canada probably would not have had a budget like that; they probably would have had a budget that would have really effected some reduction for the people who need a reduction, and would not have left the great burden of taxation which we now have.
But what is more, inflation did not stop at that time. It was then a 57-cent dollar, but it is now less than a 50-cemt dollar as a result of the failure on the part of the government to do the very things for which it said it wanted this measure. Let us recall that prior to the time the bill was introduced the minister mainly concerned with the control of commodities and things of that kind stated quite definitely that the intention in the introduction of the bill which was yet to come before the house was that the government would be in a position to introduce price controls if and when that became necessary.
That was the statement of the government. That was the reason given by the government for a measure of this kind. The fact that the government did not do so is of course something that is past and gone and cannot be changed at this time. But the Minister of Justice, in going back over the debates of 1951 and 1952 and seeking to distort what was said at that time, has not only not dealt in any way with the matter now before us but has indicated quite clearly how destitute of any real argument with regard to this matter he really is when, instead of giving us reasons for introducing the measure now, he goes back and seeks to create the impression that there was some inconsistency with respect to our position as to the measure. If there had been inconsistency, if there had been a change of view, that would have nothing to do with the merits of the measure now before us.
We have, of course, plenty of opportunity to discuss these other details on other occasions; and every time the Minister of Justice seeks to place on the record statements of 68108-1471
Emergency Powers Act the kind he has made today we will deal with them. But now let us come to what is before us today. The minister in his speech, which I wish could have been recorded because in addition to gestures it had certain other qualities which would have been entertaining if it had been possible for people to hear it by way of a record, said with dramatic emphasis-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I must apologize to hon. members. I happen to be suffering from a cold, and if that is what my hon. friend is objecting to-


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman. I regret that the dramatic emphasis of the minister was not recorded. I have no doubt that if a cold was bothering him it added somewhat to the dramatic emphasis. What he emphasized was that the Liberal party believes in free enterprise, and that so far as the other parties are concerned there is great uncertainty about their position. The Minister of Justice will have his opportunity to move around the country making speeches of the kind he has made today-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Good.


George Alexander Drew: -but we are members of a parliament that is supposed to be dealing seriously with a serious subject. The minister has not yet placed before the house a single reason why, at this time in 1953, an emergency measure such as the one before us now should be introduced.
Let us recall again that at the time the measure came before us in 1951 it had been explained that one of the reasons it was being brought forward was so that the government could deal with price controls. It will be recalled that at that time we were very uncertain about the situation in Korea. It need not be recalled that there were even doubts as to whether the troops then in Korea could stay there. The situation was very different from what it is today when, through the collective efforts of the western powers, their growing strength gives a greater sense of security even though the danger is still very great.
But there are other reasons why the measure now before us cannot be disposed of by such statements as those made by the Minister of Justice this afternoon. He told us that the Prime Minister spelled out in the plainest language in 1951 what the bill would do. The Prime Minister did nothing of the kind. We are still waiting for a clear example of the kind of thing the government thinks it would need to deal with under the measure now before us. Over and over again members of the house have asked
2306	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act the Minister of Justice to place before them even one simple illustration of the kind of situation that would make necessary the invoking of the powers conferred by this legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: He referred to the election campaign.


George Alexander Drew: Of course we now have a completely new type of emergency. Up until a late hour on Friday night we had had different types of emergencies described. We had the post-Korea emergency. We had the twilight war. Now we have the pre-election emergency. For the first time last Friday the suggestion was made that the only reason for passing this measure-


John George Diefenbaker: The only concrete one.


George Alexander Drew: The only reason that was in clear and understandable terms was that there is an election coming and this measure is needed during the period parliament is dissolved for the purpose of the election. Very well. For the sake of argument, let us accept the contention of the minister that there is really a pre-election emergency. Then let him tell us in simple and understandable terms exactly the kind of pre-election situation which would call for the invoking of the wide and undefined powers conferred by this legislation.
There may be a great many. Let the minister describe them. Is it in order to handle the ballot boxes? Is it in order to deal with the voters' lists in any special and unheralded way? Is it for the purpose of prescribing the size or type of advertisements, or anything of that kind? Let us know in simple and understandable terms the kind of pre-election situation that would be involved. It is not of course war in Europe, not of course broad-scale war in Asia, not of course war in any other place, because the minister has already explained to us that there is legislation on the statute books to deal with situations of that kind. We are still waiting for a clear and understandable explanation of the kind of situation that demands the powers contained in this legislation to deal with the pre-election emergency which was announced for the first time last Friday night.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are short of campaign funds.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A little echo over there.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Justice has not yet attempted to deal with what is the most important consideration with respect to the proposal now before us. We are asked to declare that it is expedient that this bill be re-enacted. For several days now we have


been trying to find out why it is expedient. What we have asked and what we are asking again is why is it expedient that this bill be re-enacted in view of the wide powers this legislation contains as interpreted by the judgment of the privy council.
What is most disturbing about the attitude of the government toward the resolution now before us is the complete failure of the government to deal with the entirely different effect of the legislation as the result of the judgment last year of the privy council in what is known as the Nolan case. It is true that the wording may be the same, but the effect of every important law which remains on the statute books for any length of time ultimately finds its interpretation in the judgment of the courts. When that judgment comes from the court of last resort, whether it was the privy council last year or, now, the Supreme Court of Canada, that judgment then becomes a precedent which the courts will follow when at any time in the future they are called upon to interpret the same law.
As an example, in seeking an interpretation of our basic constitution, the British North America Act, we must not only examine the words of the act itself but also the long series of judgments which interpret the effect of different sections of that act, and particularly that extremely important section of the act which confers upon the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights. Anyone seeking to determine the dividing line between the responsibility of dominion and provincial governments, and legislative bodies of which they are the executive under sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act, must examine the cases which have been tried and examine the judgments in order to see what the real effect of those sections has been found to be. The same is true of the preamble to the British North America Act and of many other important sections of it. In a number of cases they have been given a judicial interpretation quite contrary to that which they were assumed to have in the early days.
The same is equally true of the legislation which we are now asked to declare should be re-enacted by this parliament. How far does this legislation go? It is not enough to say: Here is the act, and it tells you. It is necessary to take the act and also to examine the judgments under the act, and related judgments, to find out what the words actually mean.
In the judgment in the Nolan case, referred to already in this debate, we were told that the courts must be ready to accept the

proposition that there was in fact an emergency which justified the action of the government, for the government had so declared by an order passed under that act. Moreover, it has been declared in that case that the courts are not in a position to review the circumstances which might or might not have justified the nature of the order made.
The Nolan case indicated the importance of this proposition. That was a case where it was alleged before the courts of Manitoba on behalf of a man named Nolan that the circumstances did not in fact constitute an emergency such as could be contemplated by the act and that, moreover, what had been done was contrary to the general purposes of the act. In that case grain had been seized and certain steps had been taken under an order which was intended to prevent Mr. Nolan making profits out of prices which had been fixed by the government under its controls-and, I might say, all this by the government which is now professing such an objection to controls of any kind. In one case the government does not hesitate to have price controls-since the war-and in another case it raises a great clamour about even suggesting that price controls might have been exercised.
This is a case where a price control was exercised. Not only was there a price control exercised, but the government decided that they were not going to permit an individual or individuals to make a substantial profit from that fact. Now, whether it was desirable or not that any profit be made, the question before the courts was whether this did in fact cross the boundary into the areas of property and civil rights reserved to the provinces under the British North America Act and whether, also, the facts were such as to justify an order of that kind.
So far as the Manitoba courts and the Supreme Court of Canada were concerned, Mr. Nolan's position was upheld; but in the privy council the position was reversed, and that is now the law. That law has been stated perfectly clearly and that law is what now tells us what this act really means. This law has been already read into the record, so it is not necessary to repeat it beyond referring again to the effect of that judgment in interpreting the power of the act now before us. That judgment of the privy council found:
-that it was not competent for the courts to canvass the considerations which had led the governor in council to deem it necessary to effect the vesting, or to ascribe to the order in council a purpose other than that which it professed to serve; the measures authorized were such as the governor in council, not the courts, deemed necessary or advisable.
Emergency Powers Act
Then the judgment went on to interpret the effect of the other words contained in this act as giving these wide powers which give almost unrestrained authority to the government under the act now before us.
The history of the interpretation of emergency legislation of this kind is one of ever-increasing power on the part of the dominion government, not only at the expense of parliament but at the expense of the provincial legislatures and the provincial governments. The first great milestone in the interpretation of the scope of legislation of this nature, and orders passed under it, was the Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Company case. In that case the Manitoba Free Press Company sought a declaration that an order affecting newsprint was ultra vires. There had been an order made under the War Measures Act, and the effect of that order had been continued after the war. The Manitoba Free Press Company sought to have this order declared ultra vires and to recover certain moneys that had been paid. That case went to the privy council and the judgment is to be found in Appeal Cases, 1923, page 695, under the title "Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Company Limited, appellants, and Manitoba Free Press Company Limited, and others, respondents". The effect of the judgment is to be found in these words at page 706:
It may ba that it has become clear that the crisis which arose is wholly at an end and that there is no justification for the continued exercise of an exceptional interference which becomes ultra vires when it is no longer called for. In such a case the law as laid down for distribution of powers in the ruling instrument would have to be invoked. But very clear evidence that the crisis had wholly passed away would be required to justify the judiciary, even when the question raised was one of ultra vires which it had to decide, in overruling the decision of the government that exceptional measures were still requisite.
In that case, Mr. Chairman, the arguments related to the extent to which the powers or jurisdiction of the provincial legislature might be overridden, and actually the judgment undoubtedly gave a wider interpretation to the emergency powers than had, up to that time, been in people's minds. From that time onward, however, that judgment did indicate the wide powers that existed under the emergency legislation, legislation very similar to that now before us. This judgment was followed in a number of cases in the intervening years.
Then we come to the second milestone, which is a case decided last year by the privy council under the title "The Attorney General of Canada and another, appellants, and Hallet and Carey Limited and another, respondents", as reported at page 427 of 1952 Appeal Cases. This case is generally known as the Nolan
2308	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act case because Mr. Nolan was the man who actively carried that case forward.
Now, Mr. Chairman, when we have that interpretation before us I submit that it is the duty of the government to explain why an emergency act of this kind is required at this time; and it is also the duty of the members of parliament not to abdicate their position of supreme responsibility without some explanation from the Minister of Justice or the government as to why such wide powers are necessary. We have been told that the government prefers to tell us exactly what it is intending to do. This government has not told us what it is going to do. This government has not indicated in any way the kind of situation it thinks it would be called upon to deal with under this act which it now asks us to say should be brought before us.
It does seem difficult to understand the unwillingness of the government to indicate to us or to the people of Canada a single reason why this act, with its wider powers under the interpretation given, should be carried forward. We have been told that this act spells out what the government will do. It spells out nothing. It asks for a blank cheque. The only reservations contained in the measure are of a most illusory nature. These are the reservations in section 2. I repeat that so far as arrest is concerned, the only reservation is that it must not be arrest except as incidental to something done under this act.
If anything is ordered to be done under this act and anyone fails to comply with that order, then there is no exception in this act to the powers of arrest. Censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings-how much does that mean when this government, under an order, can withhold from any newspaper or any publication the paper on which to print either the newspaper or the publication? It is not enough to say that this government would not do it. They could do it. They did something of that kind in the case of the Eldorado Mining company when they picked that particular mining company and said they were going to take it over. They could take over any newspaper or publishing house in precisely the same way. It is not enough to say that this government would not do it. The power is there.
That is the second exception. The third concerns the expenditure of money otherwise than in accordance with appropriation by parliament, except the expenditure of money from any fund or amount established by order or regulation in connection with a
Mr. Drew.]

scheme of control for the purposes of that scheme of control. Since all production, transportation, communication and other human activity comes under the possible application of this act, plans could be made relating to the whole economic and personal activity of this country and, within the meaning of this act, appropriations could be made without reference to parliament for any of the plans made to carry out those controls. In fact I submit that, by the ordinary rules of interpretation, the very inclusion of this exception implies that there is power to raise the money once the government has settled on a plan which needs a sum of money to carry it out.
I submit also that there are practically no reservations whatever in this act, and that the whole productive and economic life of this country is brought fully under the powers of this act without definition of the terms under which those powers can be exercised. In effect that was what the Prime Minister said last Friday. When we are given a lecture by the Minister of Justice in the way he delivered one to us this afternoon, exactly what occurred on Friday night should be recalled. The hon. member for Lake Centre was seeking some clarification of certain points in this act. He asked the Minister of Justice if it was not so that, under this act, certain things could be done. Each one of those things was quite clear, and there was not the slightest doubt as to what were the powers of this act in relation to them. The Minister of Justice, as recorded at page 2278 of Hansard for February 20, 1953, had this to say:
Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has practised law for many years. I think if a client came to him and asked him the question he has just asked me he would want two weeks to give an opinion upon it, and he would not give that opinion until he had given the question the most mature consideration.
Then the hon. member for Lake Centre said that, for the convenience of the Minister of Justice, he would break it down into single questions. He started to do so, and at that point the Prime Minister had this to say, as reported on the same page of Hansard:
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be more venturesome than the minister. I would venture to say that if those things are things that could be done by parliament, they would be transferred by this act, as regards power, to the government. But they would not be any more apt to be exercised by the government than they would be apt to be exercised by parliament.
The Prime Minister had no doubt about what the act meant, and the Minister of Justice should have had no doubt because he is one who has been asking us to accept this act. If he has not yet studied the act

he has no right to be pressing us to adopt the resolution which says it is expedient that this act be continued. We have a clear statement from the Prime Minister that if these things are things that could be done by parliament they would be transferred by this act, as regards power, to the government. There is no question about it.
Subject to these illusory reservations in section 2 to which I have referred, this act places the whole economic and personal life of this country under the government, subject only to such measure of restraint as they choose to exercise. But we have been told that this act, of course, has a sound provision which safeguards parliament and the public. We are told that this act provides that the orders must be tabled. This act tells us that the orders must be laid before parliament within five days after the making of a regulation if it is made by the governor in council and within fifteen days in the case of any other regulation; or if parliament is not then in session, within a like period after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
Mr. Chairman, it is necessary to repeat a reference to this matter because the minister has not yet sought in any way to deal with the point which has been made and which cannot be challenged, namely that it is possible for this or any other government to withhold publication of the orders under that provision; and again, it is only the discretion of the government that operates. The Regulations Act, which calls for publication of the regulations, under section 9 says explicitly that the government may exempt from publication any regulation it has passed. That is a wide and dangerous power which should not be available to any government, no matter how high and lofty the intentions and principles of that government may be. The fact that a government is made up of men who do not seek deliberately to abuse the powers they have is no answer to the fact that there are conferred powers which are contrary to the fundamental principles of parliament.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question at this point?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is it not a fact that if a government seeks to do the very thing my hon. friend has just stated, they are obliged to table the order in council which provides for that thing?


George Alexander Drew: Oh, yes; the order in council that says the other order in council is secret will be tabled; but the order in council that
Emergency Powers Act is published gives absolutely no information with regard to the other order and is not one of these orders which can be challenged by the procedure included in the Emergency Powers Act now before us.
What should be remembered is this, and it does not seem to have yet impressed the Minister of Justice because he has not dealt with it in any way. We are not merely dealing with an emergency act of this kind as though it came before Westminster, where there is only one parliament to deal with it and where the right of review might have some effect. We are a federal parliamentary democracy; and when an order of this kind is passed which abridges the ordinary reservation to the provinces of property and civil rights, by passing a secret order of that kind and imposing a ban of secrecy upon it, the government is not only challenging the authority of parliament, but is also taking authority to deny the provincial legislatures and provincial governments any right to deal with this matter.
I repeat that whatever doubtful rights may be available under this act

and they are only imaginary rights under the Emergency Powers Act-or whatever supposed rights there may be, those rights are not available to the provincial governments or to members of the legislatures. Therefore this act, hand in hand with the Defence Production Act and the Regulations Act, suspends our constitution and leaves the provincial legislatures, the provincial governments and the members of this parliament entirely at the mercy of any government in power during the life of legislation of this nature.
The fact that there has been only one secret order, or so we are informed-although not one of us knows anything about the operation of it-does not indicate any protection to parliament and to the provincial legislatures. It merely indicates that the government is prepared to enshroud its secret act by the cloak of still further secrecy and to deny the operation of the Emergency Powers Act so far as review is concerned. If it is prepared to do that in one case, why is it not prepared to do it in any other case if it should come to the conclusion that such a step would be in the interest either of the public or of the government?
Mr. Speaker, it is not so much wrongdoing under an act that is the concern of members of parliament. Our task is to pass laws that do not permit wrongdoing. When we pass laws which create an offence, we do not say, "Tell us about the offence first and then we will deal with it by specific legislation". We are told that the rights of society demand
2310	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act certain laws. Those laws are passed. Those laws are then supposed to be enforced by the government as well as by the general enforcement officers of the country.
If this principle is wrong, then the time to deal with the wrong principle is now, not at some future time when wrong and dangerous things may have been done under these powers. Then it might be too late. What is the use of the Minister of Justice professing his great belief in our free system and in free enterprise when he asks us to say that it is expedient that we re-enact a measure of this kind which has been given the wide interpretation now placed upon it by the Nolan case, without giving us one single concrete example of the kind of thing which he says w'ould require an act of this kind to meet the situation?
We do not know what is being done under that secret order that now exists. We have been told that the secret order exists and that it relates to security. Are telephone wires being tapped? This government has tapped them on earlier occasions. Are letters being opened? This government has opened letters on earlier occasions. Yes, it opened letters of members sitting in provincial legislatures and while they were representing the people. Is this government invading the rights of private individuals and placing them under restraint in any way without the knowledge of parliament or of the provincial legislatures? It did that before. What assurance have we that this government would not do it now?


Edmund Davie Fulton: None whatever.


George Alexander Drew: None whatever, as my hon. friend says. It is not enough to profess its good intentions-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, as to that last point which my hon. friend has raised, may I say this; and I am sure he is not anxious to mislead the committee. So far as arbitrary arrests or detentions are concerned, I am sure he would be the first to agree that they have been expressly exempted from the provisions of this Emergency Powers Act.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman; they have not.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes; they have.


George Alexander Drew: They have not. That just shows how dangerous this power is. The minister does not understand his own act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend-


George Alexander Drew: I am speaking in regard to-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Section 2, subsection 2, paragraph (a).


George Alexander Drew: I say the minister does not
understand the act, because section 2 (a) reads:
Arrest, except as incidental to proceedings under section 3, detention, exclusion or deportation of any person.
Arrest except as incidental to proceedings under section 3; and section 3 reads as follows:
All orders and regulations made under or pursuant to authority conferred under this act have the force of law while this act is in force.
Therefore if any order has been made under this act-and there have been orders- and if these orders at any time provide any authority or give any instruction that must be obeyed, then under this there could be arrest through the very exception that is included in section 2.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not the arbitrary arrest that
my hon. friend is referring to.


George Alexander Drew: Of course there could always
be secret arrest under a secret order. Let us remember that this excepts arrest where it relates to any order made under the provisions of this act, and there is the very case where an order could be made and then a cloak of secrecy placed around it.
Again let us remember that the whole history of parliament is based upon the theory that laws should be passed so they are safe in the hands of any government. Laws should be passed so that in fact there is the rule of law, so there is in fact an understandable law that the people themselves can know. Surely this is such an old principle that we need hardly reassert it at this time. The Minister of Justice is very fond of dealing with some of the points that we make from time to time in regard to some of these matters. He of course does not forget that one of the extremely important points covered by Magna Carta was that no one would be disseized except under the law. This act makes it possible to disseize any person under a secret order of the government.
These are the things that are before us for consideration, Mr. Chairman, and I do submit that while the Minister of Justice may have felt some measure of satisfaction in doing what he did this afternoon in the way of a preliminary canter for an election campaign, he should come back to the fact that we now have before us a resolution which says that it is expedient to introduce a measure which has been given the wide interpretation that it has.
Just so no one will have any doubt as to what that ancient document of freedom declared, may I recall section 89 of Magna

Carta, of which there is one original copy at London and one original copy in Washington. I only wish there were one original copy here so that it might be a reminder to our government of the traditions behind our judicial and parliamentary system.


John George Diefenbaker: They may not be able
to read it.


George Alexander Drew: There is the question of course as to whether the Minister of Justice would actually read it. Since he might not, I should like to read section 89 of Magna Carta, which became the charter of free men and women in 1215. In modern language this is the way it reads:
No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed, nor will we go upon nor send upon him, save by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
It might be helpful to have an original copy of Magna Carta, and perhaps if there is one available a move might be made to seek the generosity of the British government and transfer it over here, because it is obvious that these ancient documents do give inspiration to people on different occasions. It is interesting that although we have forgotten Magna Carta-or rather the government has; some of the rest have not- in the United States, perhaps because of the fact that they were impressed by the presence of one of the original copies there, last year one of the greatest cases decided by the courts of that country rested upon that very section of Magna Carta.
There is no attempt to place a practical interpretation upon an act. Let us for the sake of argument say that it is based upon the best intentions possible. This is only for purposes of illustration, but let us concede that for this purpose-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Fair enough.


George Alexander Drew: And then having conceded that, let us recognize that the question before us is not the smile on the faces of the members of the government or the bright and pleasant looks in their eyes. It is the principles of parliament that are at stake, and it is a simple question as to whether we are going to declare that it is expedient to pass a law of this kind. Whether this government has the most virtuous intentions or not, with the wide-open interpretation in the Nolan case, and with an act which permits complete secrecy, we now have before us in fact an act which permits the setting up of a dictatorship in Canada.
Do not let anyone ridicule the reference to that very excellent book on the subject of administrative law referred to by the hon.
Emergency Powers Act member for Nanaimo when he used the expression "The Road to Moscow". No matter what the virtuous intentions are, this act on the statute books would make it possible for anyone, for any government which wished to do so, to set up an effective dictatorship in Canada. That is something the members of this parliament should never do, and those who should be most emphatic in refusing to do it are the members of parliament on the other side whose vote sustains this government in power. Unless they are prepared to admit that they are willing to abandon their responsibilities to this government, then let them be the ones to say:	We never
intended that the executive which we supported and which we brought into existence by our support should have powers of this kind.
The issue before us is whether parliament is going to be supreme, and whether the people of this country are going to carry on their daily lives under orders by dictate or under a known and understandable law of the land.


Mr. Laing:: It was with some hesitation that I persuaded myself to enter this debate. Up to the present time it has been engaged in almost exclusively by practitioners of the law. But I had some reassurance in the fact that two people, the hon. member for Springfield and the hon. member for Vancouver East, did take part in the debate. In reading their speeches I was of the opinion that in some of the things both of them said there was a greater amount of common sense than in some of the other arguments. I would hate to believe that common sense ceased to have a place in this chamber.
I believe further that it was somewhat of a casualty here last Friday, because I read attentively the debate held at that time. I do not think that a very great case was made out by those who spoke at length.
In summary I should like to quote a part of the speech made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on Friday, as reported on page 2241 of Hansard. He said:
The powers are so wide, sir, that they cover all such orders and regulations as the governor in council may, by reason of the existing international emergency, deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
1 would like to ask the hon. member for Lake Centre what he would say of a government that defaulted in its responsibility of providing those things for Canada at any time. I am going to quote also from the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton. I am not going to quote his most recent remarks, and I do not want to make any
2312 '	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act reference to the speech of the Minister of Justice. I think the people of Canada will be able to place these two offerings side by side, and will have little difficulty in deciding who had the better of that debate. I should like to go back to 1951-I am not going back to Magna Carta-and quote what the hon. member for Carleton said in the debate on the address in reply, as reported on page 24 of Hansard of February 1, 1951. He said:
It would be well for us to examine the pattern of communist leadership and the pattern of what they are teaching their young people. It would be well for us to try to understand what it is that inspires to such fanatical efforts so many of those young people who have been brought up under communist rule. They do not praise their system because it gives them more material advantages. They praise it because they believe it is leading them to victory.
Putting aside all legalistic arguments and the gyrations of the legal mind, I think we have in reality only one question to ask ourselves; that is whether there is an emergency in the world today that requires this legislation. I think that is the entire nub of the situation. I would go back further in the case of the hon. member for Nanaimo, to when we had up in this house the Essential Materials (Defence) Act. At that time he made a dramatic break with his leader. What he said on that occasion was-


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, the hon. member cannot quote from a previous debate during this session.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This was in 1951.


Arthur Laing: This debate was in 1951, not during this session. At that time the hon. member for Nanaimo said that in the two previous wars in which Canada had been engaged we had had considerable notice of the forthcoming war, but that in any future war we would have no notice at all, the first notice would be the bomb that dropped. I [DOT] should like to ask the hon. member for Nanaimo whether the international situation has changed to a point where we are going to have notice if we fail to preserve the peace. Has there been any marked change there? As a matter of fact, anyone who studies the international situation and who has heard the pronouncements that have been made in this house I think will agree that the world-and Canada is very closely allied to the other nations under this system- is at the present time in a state of stabilized international danger.
That being the case I think it is more important today that we have this type of legislation than at any time in our past.


Without putting forward any argument about the past, the hon. member for Carleton has said that-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, the hon. member who is now speaking keeps referring to the hon. member for Carleton. I believe that under the procedure and customs of this house which have the force of law, the hon. member for Carleton, who happens to be the Leader of the Opposition, should be referred to as such.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am quite sure that my hon. friends opposite who are making this chorus would raise the same point if we kept referring to the Prime Minister as the hon. member for Quebec East.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I am quite proud to be the member for Quebec East.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let George speak for himself.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What is wrong with being the member for Carleton?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I raise that as a point of order and I think you should rule upon it. Unless I am wrong, that has been the established custom in this/house and common courtesy calls for reference to the member for Carleton as the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Riley:: I do not blame him a bit.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member looks
at Hansard he will see that the reference is made to the name of the member who has spoken and the name of his constituency. That stems from the fact that all members here are considered as being equal. I think it is optional for an hon. member who is speaking to refer to another hon. member by the name of his constituency or by a title he may have, but I do not think I should instruct the hon. member to refer to the hon. member for Carleton as the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member has made reference to our rules providing that the hon. member for Carleton should be referred to in debate as the Leader of the Opposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, in view of
what you have said I would call your attention to the fact that in Hansard you will notice that when the Leader of the Opposition speaks he is referred to as "Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition) " and when the Prime Minister speaks it is noted as "Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister)". I am not going to press the point, but if my hon. friends opposite do not wish to extend the courtesy which is usually extended it will not hurt me a bit and it will not hurt the Leader of the Opposition

a bit. I think it will be quite interesting to the country to know that on the other side they do not normally extend these courtesies.


Mr. Cruickshank:: You change your leader so often.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the reference I made to
what appears in Hansard is not correct, I will stand corrected. I know I have seen it somewhere. However, I shall look it up and if I can find the citation I will perhaps have something more to say about it.


Arthur Laing: I thank the hon. member for Kamloops for bringing this to my attention. The last thing in the world I wanted to do was to be discourteous. I will at all times address the Leader of the Opposition by that appellation, so long as I am never forced to address him as the Prime Minister of this country.


An hon. Member:: You won't be here.


An hon. Member:: You never will be here.


Arthur Laing: I have dealt with the references of certain members of the opposition in the past to a situation in the world that was difficult and dangerous. There is one more reference I want to make, and this is also to another member of that party. I am not going to refer to a debate during this session, but for many years the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has been pointing out the advisability of participating in a Pacific defence pact. I take it that he wants us to enter into a Pacific defence pact because it is his best judgment that we are in danger on the Pacific coast. He and I both remember that during the winter of 1941-42 we were blacked out in Vancouver in anticipation of invasion. That invasion actually did take place later in the Aleutians rather than on our coast. His continued effort to bring that situation before parliament indicates to me that he thinks the danger is very great in that area.
Our government in time of war I think has two responsibilities. Those prime responsibilities are to defend our constitution and to save people's lives. Our government is bringing administrative leaders from municipalities across Canada to Ottawa to take courses in civil defence which I am informed are admirable. We are making preparations for the mass feeding of the population in case of disaster. Who on the other side of the house would say that all danger is past at the present time?
I have risen to make these few remarks as a layman. I think the danger throughout the world today is at least as great as it was in 1951 and 1952, and I think the need
68108-148-1
Emergency Powers Act for this legislation is as great as ever. I was sorry to see the forensic displays by lawyers on fine points of law with respect to the measure. The legislation is only sought for one year, and I think the need for it is as great as ever. I recall the story of the old Greek, Demosthenes, who went down to the seashore to practise speaking against the sound of the waves and with the handicap of a mouthful of pebbles. I hope the parliament of Canada does not lend itself to too much hairsplitting over something which, to the great majority of members of the house who have been denied specialized training in the law but have been exposed to comparable training and education without that specialization, is for the benefit of Canada, is good legislation and is necessary at this time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: With respect to the point of order raised a moment ago by the hon. member for Kamloops, may I refer him to citation 242 in Beauchesne's third edition, page 103. He will find it says there that it is usual to refer to the chiefs of the two main parties as "the Prime Minister" and "the Leader of the Opposition". It is usual.


Mr. Noteworthy:: The hon. member for Vancouver East and other members in this group have already set forth our reasons for supporting in 1950 and 1951 a measure similar to the one now before us, and for opposing it at the present time. We are not like the Leader of the Opposition in one respect. We are under no obligation to apologize for the fact that we supported this measure in 1950 and 1951, because we were optimistic enough to believe that a government which still went by the name "Liberal" would have some regard for the great mass of the Canadian people who in 1950 and even in 1951 were asking for price controls. We were in good company in those days. Seventy-five per cent of the Canadian people had shown in a Gallup poll that they favoured price controls. Practically every national organization across the country, with the possible exception of the chambers of commerce, had gone on record in favour of such controls.
We supported this measure in those days because we had been assured by the government that the powers granted under this measure could be used to impose price controls. The minister is very glib in throwing across the floor of the house the phrase "price and wage controls". To keep the record straight, our position on wage controls in those days was the same as that taken by the three great labour congresses of Canada, namely that when the government was prepared to impose price controls they would be
2314	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act ready to sit down with the government and work out a scheme of wage stabilization. Labour knew then, as it has found to its sorrow since 1950, that in an inflationary race between the wages of labour and prices, labour stood not a chance in the world of keeping up with prices.
Just before the house adjourned on Friday night I had asked the minister two very simple questions which are to be found at page 2281 of Hansard. My first question was as follows:
. . . what situations have arisen during the past two years wherein the interests of the country would have suffered if the government had not possessed these powers?
I was referring to the powers granted under the legislation. For once the minister gave a very short and concise answer. He said:
... no facts have arisen during the past two years which would make the possession of the powers covered by this statute absolutely essential.
In other words, so far as the past two years are concerned these powers were not essential. Nothing has happened that the government could not have dealt with without having such powers. Then I asked him the second question, which was as follows:
. . . will the minister outline to us definitely what situations he visualizes may occur that will demand the exercise of these powers by the government when they could not possibly be exercised by parliament or by calling parliament?
The minister's answer-and this is the only answer he gave

was that if war were to break out in Asia or in any other place which required, perhaps in a matter of hours, urgent action upon the part of the country, that action could only be taken by the government if it possessed the type of emergency powers covered by the statute. The minister does not say if the government possessed the very powers contained in this act, but refers rather to the type of powers. That is well taken, because further down in the same column he says that these powers would in any case under those circumstances be exercised under the War Measures Act.
I should like the minister to clear up this matter. He has admitted that nothing happened during the past two years which required these powers. Granted that conditions today are bad, they are no worse than they have been; and the only example the minister gives us of a case where the government would require such powers would be if war broke out following the dissolution of parliament. He said that if war should break out during the election campaign, when there would be no parliament, the government must have powers of this type. But he tells


us that in that case the War Measures Act would be invoked and those powers made available. If the government did not need these powers during the past two years, if the situation today is no worse than it was, and if the government already has powers to take care of the event of war breaking out when there is no parliament, then why ask for these powers in peacetime? That is what I want cleared up.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The Emergency Powers Act was introduced into the house by a resolution in connection with which the Prime Minister gave a fairly lengthy explanation of the very point which my hon. friend has now raised. He made it clear then, to the expressed approval of the leaders of the three opposition parties which I quoted earlier this afternoon, that in 1951 we had had the War Measures Act on our statute books for a period of some 37 years, with virtually unlimited powers which could be invoked to deal with the emergency of apprehended war. He said, however, that the government had considered it a preferable alternative to bring to parliament in the Emergency Powers Act a statute which would be passed by parliament, and the powers of which parliament would approve; that that statute would provide for the prompt tabling of the orders in council passed under it, and for proper machinery whereby members of parliament can seek annulment of those acts or orders in council passed by the government under the Emergency Powers Act with which for one reason or another they might disagree. It was perfectly clear from the debate at that time that the course met with the approval of all of the opposition parties.
At the present time we are considering whether or not the Emergency Powers Act should be extended for another twelve months. My hon. friend asked me the other night to state under what set of circumstances we might likely need the powers granted under the Emergency Powers Act. I have endeavoured before-I must confess without great measure of success-to make this point clear, and I will make another attempt now. If we knew with some exactitude the sets of unforeseen facts that we shall encounter during the next twelve months we would not need to have stand-by emergency powers at all; if we could be perfectly certain that such and such things were going to take place, obviously the proper course would be to bring in a bill to provide in adequate detail for things we knew were going to happen; and we would not need emergency powers. The essential character of emergency powers is that they

empower the government to deal with unforeseen circumstances which it is anticipated may arise during the emergency but the nature of which circumstances cannot be forecast in advance.
The whole idea of the War Measures Act, for example, is that when there is war real or apprehended it is pretty difficult to deal with some of the exigencies-sudden invasion, for example-by calling parliament together and debating the matter, something which would take some days. The idea of the War Measures Act is that the government, to deal with these exigencies, will have power to act at once. As X said in a previous reply to my hon. friend, it might be in a matter of hours or a matter of minutes.
When members of the opposition say, and I am making the suggestion with great respect and deference, "Why won't you tell us just what you need this for", that question indicates that they do not completely comprehend the nature of emergency powers. Emergency powers are given to deal with circumstances which we cannot foresee, if and when they arise. In relation to our present situation, some time before August, 1954, we must have, according to law, a general election. If the position is taken by my hon. friends of every opposition party- I do not know whether they all still take it. but they took it in 1951-that they would much prefer we should use the Emergency Powers Act than the War Measures Act, then we have to have the emergency powers which are available to us under the Emergency Powers Act in order to deal, for example, with an invasion; or to deal with questions, for instance, arising out of a shortage of freight cars, and other matters of that sort which cannot be foreseen in advance.


Joseph William Noseworthy: May I ask a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I just finish this thought. Once the position is taken that it is preferable that we should use the Emergency Powers Act which has been passed section by section by this parliament, rather than invoke the more unlimited powers of the War Measures Act, then if anything should arise during a time when parliament is not in session or not even in existence, the government without this measure would have no way of securing powers until parliament came into existence again.


Howard Charles Green: They would have the War Measures Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They would have the War
Measures Act; but my hon. friends are firmly on record as saying that they prefer that we should not invoke the War Measures Act. The Leader of the Opposition on February
Emergency Powers Act 20, 1951, during the debate, said: "I was not in favour of invoking the War Measures Act then and I am not in favour of it now".
The point at issue here is a very simple one. If the opposition are opposed to our invoking the War Measures Act, all the government asks for is some emergency powers to take its place so that, for instance, during the interval of an election the government is not absolutely helpless because there is then no parliament which can be called to deal with any of these unforeseen circumstances. In such a case it is only by our having the powers of the Emergency Powers Act would the government be able to act.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I would like to ask this
question if I may. Do I understand from the minister that if war broke out when there was no parliament in existence the government would not have recourse to the War Measures Act but would carry on under this Emergency Powers Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I would not say that, Mr. Chairman. I would think that the government in a situation of that kind would be faced with a choice of two alternatives. If it thought it could adequately deal with the set of facts that arose-I use that expression because I do not like to call these facts an "emergency" since to do so might confuse it with the general emergency-I repeat, if it thought it could adequately deal with the set of facts that arose under the Emergency Powers Act, in conformity with the wishes of the preceding parliament, I am sure it would do so. However, if the unforeseen situation that arose was such that the government in its judgment felt it preferable in the interests of the country to deal with the matter under the War Measures Act I think it would go ahead, as it has always done, and act in the interests of the country under the War Measures Act and thus assume the responsibility for such definite action on the merits of the case.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: At six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, we were discussing the resolution preceding this emergency powers bill. It is not my intention to take up much of the time of the house this evening. The hon. member for Vancouver South said the legal aspects of the case had been thoroughly discussed. I believe the facts have been clearly brought out, and we all know that the facts are very often more important than the legal aspects.
2316	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act
I intended to discuss the matter which was brought up by the hon. member for York South. I listened to the remarks of the hon. member and the explanation by the minister.
I do not know whether or not the hon. member for York South was convinced, Mr. Chairman, but I did not feel the minister s remarks were altogether convincing, so I am going to refer to the questions which were asked by the hon. member for York South on Friday. After listening to the minister in -his debate I might say that if any argument were needed to show that this act is not necessary, I think the minister presented that argument on Friday night.
The question asked by the hon. member for York South was whether there had been any emergency in which it was necessary to invoke these powers. The minister said, as recorded at page 2281 of Hansard for February 20, 1953:
In reply to my hon. friend's question, may I say that the orders in council that have been passed themselves indicate that no fact has arisen during the past years which would make the possession of the powers covered by this statute absolutely essential.
I think that statement in itself is very convincing evidence that, with the situation as it has been in the world during the past two years, there have been no facts which have made it necessary to pass any orders in council under these powers. I do not see, therefore, why this act should be necessary at all.
The minister went on to state that the great necessity for the act was that in case the house were dissolved, and between the time of the dissolution of the house and the time a new government was elected some emergency should arise through war in Asia or some other part of the world, it would be necessary for us to have these emergency powers. That is the meaning I took from the statement the minister made. He said also that the War Measures Act, which we have on the statute books and which to my mind would deal with a situation of that kind, would be too drastic to use.
With the situation in the world as it is today, there has been so far no necessity for the Emergency Powers Act. The minister believes it is necessary to place this act on the statute books to cover the few weeks during which there might be no elected parliament. In that case, Mr. Chairman, we would have not only the Emergency Powers Act but we would have also the War Measures Act, both available at the same time.
I am satisfied that in case of actual war such as the minister outlined, instead of


passing orders in council under the Emergency Powers Act the government would invoke the War Measures Act. They could use the War Measures Act as much or as little as they thought necessary to meet the situation.
I should like to quote the War Measures Act to indicate that, in my opinion, it would meet the situation as outlined by the minister. Section 3 reads as follows:
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 existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
By invoking that act, Mr. Chairman, at a time such as the minister mentioned, I am sure it would cover the situation and there would be no necessity for the Emergency Powers Act at all. My point is this. Why continue another act in peacetime which the minister claims might only be necessary in time of war? I think that is a fair statement to make and a fair inference to draw from what the minister said on Friday last.
Then another fact which might be presented with reference to these emergency powers is that so few orders in council have been passed under these powers since they have been in force. In 1951, for instance, there were 17 orders in council, and I understand that none of them was of very great importance. In 1952 there were five orders in council. I am not going to deal with those orders in council to any extent tonight. They have been dealt with by hon. members who have spoken previously. I believe three of them were revoked; one had to do with seamen on the great lakes, and the other had to do with private or ham radio stations, as we call them. Both these matters could have been dealt with by amendments to other acts.
Those are the facts which appeal to me as quite definite proof that emergency powers are not needed by this government at the present time. Having an act such as this in peacetime, as has been pointed out on so many occasions by previous speakers, is in my opinion an infringement of the rights of the people.
We may perhaps belittle the struggle we have had to wage for our present parliamentary form of government. I heard Magna Carta referred to rather slightingly this afternoon, and I also heard the Leader of the Opposition state what a great factor it has been in the development of our government throughout the ages. He said that Magna Carta might well be read by the Minister of Justice. I think it might well be read by all members of the house and by the people of

the country. Along with it we might read the Bill of Rights and the Petition of Rights. Those were all milestones on the hard road to freedom of parliament and the establishing of the rights of our people down through the years. Then if we wanted to read the .history of our own country, we might read of the struggle for responsible government here in Canada. We know that not only as to the parliament of Canada but in each of the provinces there was a difficult struggle by the people for responsible government.
To my mind it would be a great mistake for us in any way to weaken the supremacy of parliament especially in times such as these when we hold up ours as the type of government which protects the liberties of the people as opposed to the dictatorships in other countries.
I do not wish to say anything further on that matter, except that in this world today we are divided into two classes: those who believe in the dictatorship form of government, and we who believe in the democratic form of government. To my mind anything that weakens the democratic form of government is a step backward.
One argument has been presented time and time again-and this is my chief reason for rising to speak tonight, Mr. Chairman-by those speaking for the government. It has been argued that we have such a benevolent, benign form of government that, with the members representing that government, we could well trust our liberties to them and rest assured that nothing will be done to impair them. To my mind that is an exceedingly weak argument. I must confess that in my own province within the last year something occurred which I believe indicates that this government is not as kind and benevolent as it might be. I know there are many other people in my province who feel the same way as I do.
I refer to the arbitrary manner in which it was decided to take over 400 square miles of land in one of our good farming areas in the province of New Brunswick for a military training area. The matter was never brought before this parliament. The representatives of the people in that area were given absolutely no opportunity to say whether or not they wished that sort of thing done. It was never explained to them by the Minister of National Defence, the minister in charge, why it was necessary to take over the homes of these people, break up their societies and take away their churches. This was all done in an arbitrary manner by this government which, we are told today, we can trust with the liberties of the people.
Emergency Powers Act
I might say that nearly 3,000 people are to be dispossessed of their homes; 1,100 farmers are to be removed from this area. When I asked that we be told by the Minister of National Defence why it was necessary to take over this area, I did not receive a satisfactory explanation. It may have been necessary. I am not saying that it was not. But I think the people of that area should have been told, and I think the matter should have been brought before parliament. But not one word has been said. It was done by order in council. It was not done under the Emergency Powers Act. I suppose it was done under the prerogative right of the crown. However, it was done; and these people feel that it was an injustice. I also feel that a great injustice was done. Of course I know that if it had been explained to these people that it was absolutely necessary, they would have agreed to its being done. But in this day and age I say that an explanation should have been given to these people, and that their representatives in parliament should have had an opportunity to inquire into the matter.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to prolong this debate, but I wished to make those few statements. Except in actual war, when the War Measures Act can be used, I believe parliament should be kept responsible in matters of this kind and not a few men in the government using arbitrary powers. We
have been told-and I think it is true__that
too much power makes governments careless of the rights of the people; that under such circumstances a government can become the master and not the servant of the people.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, this is
undoubtedly an extremely important question. Nevertheless, I am coming to the conclusion that we have perhaps said almost everything that can be said profitably about the matter. We in this group have made our position clear with regard to the extension of these emergency powers. We are opposed to their extension at this time because we feel that the government did not use the powers they were given, under the emergency acts of other years, for the things we thought they should be used for. Indeed we feel that little use was made of them.
Up to the present time no statement has been made by the government which convinces me that there is a necessity for these powers at this time. I am not opposing this measure because I am afraid the government might misuse its powers; and I think that statement applies to all the other members of this group. We are not opposing it because we are afraid the government might misuse its power. I cannot see our mild-mannered
2318	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act Prime Minister being so power-hungry that he wants to get legislation of this kind so he may use it for ends other than the welfare of the Dominion of Canada. Really, when we suggest things of that kind I think we are spoiling our own case.
But I will say this. If a government or an individual has powers that will enable it or him to do things in an easy way, things will be done in that way. We are so constituted that we will always do things the easy way. Occasions might arise when, in the ordinary affairs of this country, something would develop which the government could not deal with, something which had nothing to do with aggression from the outside or even with espionage from the inside; something in the ordinary carrying on of our business, which the government would not want to call parliament to deal with; and this would be a convenient way of dealing with it. I am not so sure the government should have that kind of power.
As a reason for having this sort of legislation on the statute books, it was said that when war begins today there is no declaration of war as there used to be in other times; that wars come quickly and without notice. If that should happen, it is my understanding that the War Measures Act is only in suspension and that the government could invoke that act just as quickly as they could act under this Emergency Powers Act. I am giving only a layman's opinion, but that is my opinion. But there is something else. Even if there were no War Measures Act I am convinced that because of the powers inherent in every government, if the occasion arose they would have the power to protect the country and do the things that are necessary regardless of legislation. That does not mean they should have emergency legislation that could be used because, as I said, while the government might not be power-hungry it might be the easy way to do the thing. Because of that it could be used to do something that it was never intended to be used for. So far as we are concerned, I do not believe it has been shown that there is any definite need for this legislation at this time; consequently we are going to vote against it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee ready for the question?


John George Diefenbaker: I have one question I want to ask, and I may have a few remarks to make a little later on. I realize that the cabinet is not recognized under the British North America Act, but in so far as there is a reference to parliamentary government, the British parliamentary system is part of our
[Mr. Maclnnis.l

constitution. I should like to have the Minister of Justice or perhaps the Prime Minister explain whether or not any rule has grown up through the years, a rule of convenience or of tradition, that requires a majority of the members of the cabinet to be present at any time. Is a quorum of the cabinet necessary to constitute a group of cabinet council to recommend an extraordinary order in council such as the secret one to which reference has been made?
It will be a matter of considerable interest to know the degree to which extraordinary orders in council receive the approval of the cabinet, or whether they become more or less formalistic in so far as the technique of passing them is concerned. I ask that question because I have looked through the records of debates through the years and I have never seen an answer to it. I think it was asked in 1922 and the answer was, to say the least, very inconclusive. Can the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister clarify that situation?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: It is I think easily understandable why there has never been any such declaration made in the house. The executive government of Canada under the constitution is in the hands of the sovereign, and is exercised by the Governor General on the advice of his ministers who are sworn of the privy council, and who are bound by their oath not to disclose what goes on in their deliberations.
The Governor General acts on their advice, and they have the responsibility for all the acts that are performed. That is the constitutional position. No one of us is free to inform the house what takes place in our deliberations for the purpose of tendering advice to the Governor General on which he acts. He assures himself that he has the advice of his ministry and that the ministry, each and every member of it, will be responsible for the acts which he performs on their advice.


John George Diefenbaker: I entirely agree with the view that what takes place in council is secret. But what I am asking is this: Before the governor in council is advised, who transmits to him the decisions of the cabinet, and is there any unwritten rule that a majority of the cabinet must be present at any time when an order in council as serious in its effects as a secret order in council is passed? There was something that was a denial of the principles of parliamentary government. It is a dangerous power. We are not criticizing it because I know nothing of the circumstances.

I am opposed to secret orders. I remember one that was denied in parliament and afterwards admitted. It was stated that the then minister of justice, now the Prime Minister, had forgotten the existence of an order in council that swept aside all constitutional rights. But that is past history. What I am trying to find out now is what assurance parliament has that an order as far-reaching as the secret one, as far-reaching as those that are contemplated by the powers being asked for in this legislation, are in fact the acts of the majority of the government rather than of any individual ministers.
The Prime Minister says a question like that has never been answered, and he can understand why it was not answered. It was answered in Britain in 1942, during the days of the war. The nearest it has ever come to being answered in this country was, as I pointed out, just after the first war. I am asking this question because one wonders how an order in council, such as the one in 1945, could have been passed by a cabinet of which the minister of justice was a member, and he could forget the existence of it. He forgot the existence of a secret order in council that swept aside habeas corpus; which placed incarceration of the individual above review of the courts because it declared it to be legal regardless of whether it was or not. How such a thing could have been missed by the then minister of justice I do not know, and I was wondering whether or not there was an explanation in the fact that such an order in council could conceivably be passed without the knowledge of the minister of justice.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman is not entitled to assume that it was passed without the knowledge of the minister of justice. That has never been stated-


John George Diefenbaker: No. I do not assume that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -and could not be stated without getting special permission from the crown to make that kind of revelation. If there was any explanation given at Westminster it must have been after permission had been obtained from the crown, relieving the ministers of the obligations of their oath of office. I am sure the hon. gentleman has seen the terms of that oath of office. One who takes it is precluded from communicating to anyone not of the council anything that takes place in respect of the advice they give to the crown. I am not in a position to go further than that. I am sorry.
I hope that some day the hon. gentleman will be a member of the privy council and will be within the circle that is not closed
Emergency Powers Act by the oath. But in the meantime it is not possible to go beyond what I have said.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, the Prime Minister is away from my question. I am not asking a revelation of what took place in cabinet.
I should like to know whether there is an unwritten law, a precedent, a tradition that requires a majority of the cabinet to be present when an order in council is passed or recommended; or could it be the action of one minister? That is all. That is not asking for a revelation. I am asking whether it is a tradition; whether throughout the years since 1867 a course of action has been built up that ultimately attains almost the force of law that a quorum is required in cabinet for the doing of things such as those I have in mind.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that every member of the cabinet is responsible for every bit of advice that is given to the crown. I would be very much surprised if members of the government would wish to continue to be responsible if they were not kept advised of that for which they were being made constitutionally responsible.
The tradition that has been built up is that everybody is invited, a free discussion takes place, and then it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to advise the crown. After that free discussion has taken place, after there has been an opportunity for every member of council to know what kind of advice is going to be given and an opportunity to take the constitutional course open to him, if he does not agree, of resigning from the government, the crown is then advised.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken part in this debate up to this point, but the longer I have listened to it the more I have become convinced that we in this house and the people of Canada as a whole seem to be losing our consciousness of what individual liberty and individual rights are, and to be far too much inclined to think there is nothing out of the way in arbitrary power being given to the executive.
After listening to the discussion which has gone on today about secret orders and things of that sort, as to what arbitrary power the government may or may not exercise at its own discretion, it almost seems to me that the powers of the executive have completed a full circle. One would almost think that John Hampden had never lived and that we were back in the days of Charles I when it was held as a theory by a large number of people that the executive should be allpowerful and should exercise arbitrary rights

Emergency Powers Act without any rule or control as far as parliament or the representatives of the people were concerned.
The impact of the first and second world wars and of the conditions which have existed since the second world war has been ' such that a very large number of hon. members in this house and people throughout the country have been convinced that these arbitrary powers in the hands of the government are necessary. I think a large number of the speakers in this debate have shown that in order to meet any emergency which might arise it is not necessary for the government to have the arbitrary powers which they are seeking to secure by means of this particular bill.
If a real emergency develops, if a third world war should break out or anything else along that line, as has been pointed out time and again the War Measures Act is there and can be used; and this half-way war measures act, which gives the government power by order in council to take control of the economic life of this country or the affairs of any particular individual if it so desires, is not necessary.
The fact that the government say they are not going to do these things, that they are not going to abuse this power, is not important. If we as representatives of the people of Canada in this chamber actually do our job-I think perhaps it is one of our essential jobs-and protect the rights and liberties of the individual citizens of this country, then I think that we should deny to the government the power which they are asking for in this particular instance.
This makes me think of how far we have departed from what was more or less a universal feeling of independence, of individual liberty and so forth which existed in Great Britain and which was transplanted to this country and continued in existence here until the first great war. I think that type of independence of thought and personal freedom is exemplified best in the story of old Kelly of Silverstone who left a provision in his will that his grave was to be covered with sharp iron spikes so that those who came after would not be able to trample upon him even in death.
That spirit was more or less universal; individual liberty and freedom and the determination that the executive should not have arbitrary powers and, therefore, the right to trample on the individual. Unfortunately that spirit seems to have disappeared. If this parliament is to do its duty it should deny the government the powers they ask for and reassert that spirit which I think is essential 
if democratic institutions and individual freedom are to continue in this and other countries.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister has certainly shed a lot of light during the course of his two statements, but instead of going around the matter I am going to ask this direct question. Is this secret order in council known to the members of the cabinet generally, or is it restricted to the Prime Minister and the governor in council as such?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I do not want to go beyond what I am allowed to do by the terms of my oath of office, but I can say to my hon. friend that I have never made any recommendation for action by the governor in council which was not known to my colleagues.


Howard Charles Green: Can the Minister of Justice give us some examples of the emergency measures the government expects to have to enact under this act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think this is the fifth time I have tried to explain the point which I think anyone dealing with the Emergency Powers Act should know from the beginning? The purpose of the Emergency Powers Act is to provide the government, during the existence of an emergency in which unforeseen sets of circumstances can arise, the exact nature of which cannot be anticipated, with emergency powers to deal with such circumstances. I do not know whether my hon. friend was in the house when the hon. member for York South asked the same sort of question just before six o'clock.


Arza Clair Casselman: He was here; he has been here all day.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If he was here then I shall try to make it clear to him now, if I did not succeed in doing so before. If during the present emergency we knew all the possible sets of circumstances which could arise during the next twelve months we would not need any emergency powers at all. Knowing that, we could bring in legislation to deal with the things which we knew would arise. But no human being is a prophet, least of all during a time of emergency such as the present when exigencies may arise which no person, even with the greatest foresight, could foresee.
The purpose of an act of this sort is to give the government certain specified powers as set out in the Emergency Powers Act so that when unforeseen exigencies arise the government will have the power to dea1 with them. Therefore for my hon. friend to ask "what are they going to be?" is really not very sensible.


Howard Charles Green: Of course none of us can be sure of what is going to happen at any time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of course not, and that is the point.


Howard Charles Green: That uncertainty does not apply exclusively to the year 1953; that will always be the situation.
I should like to say a word or two in reply to the minister's speech this afternoon. In the first place, he was trying to depict the attitude taken by the opposition in the year 1951, and I think in the course of his remarks he said that a paragraph of mine clinched his argument. I was very much surprised to hear that, and since then I have had an opportunity to look up just what I did say. It is to be found at page 656 of Hansard for February 23, 1951. There had been debates on several different subjects in the house that day, and my remark was the last one made in the discussion of the Emergency Powers Act. I presume I was leading the opposition at the time, and before the house closed, and without any reference to approval or disapproval of what had been said in the debate,
I made this statement:
May I suggest that we have done a pretty good day's work today and we cannot accomplish anything more. I suggest that we call it a day.
That had absolutely no reference to the merits of the debate that had been taking place but was merely a suggestion that, the house having given second reading to the bill and having gone into committee, it would be wise to wait until the next day rather than open up a new discussion. The fact that the minister tried to make a point in debate on a statement like that shows how carefully one has to scrutinize his arguments. It is a childish argument, and it is not the only childish argument he has made in the course of the debate on this measure.
It is quite significant that in this debate the minister has had one parliamentary assistant in the hon. member for Springfield. The minister and the distinguished member for Springfield were the only two members on the government side who had endorsed this proposal until this afternoon when, by some means unknown to me, they managed to drag in the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Drag him in?


Howard Charles Green: Now there are three of them; and no one else on the government side, from the Prime Minister down, has stepped in to support the minister in the course of this debate.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why are you so provocative?
Emergency Powers Act Mr. Green: I am rather hoping that the hon. member for Temiscouata will get into the debate, because I am quite sure he will not agree with the minister. He is too good a parliamentarian for that. It is now perfectly clear what the Minister of Justice is asking. In the first place he wants to have the War Measures Act kept on the statute books. That is the act which enables a government to rule by decree in the case of either war or threat of war. The wording of the statute is very wide. Section 2 reads as follows:
The issue of a proclamation by His Majesty, or under the authority of the governor in council-
That of course means the cabinet.
-shall be conclusive evidence that war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists and has existed for any period of time therein stated, and of its continuance, until by the issue of a further proclamation it is declared that the war, invasion or insurrection no longer exists.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the War Measures Act?


Howard Charles Green: That is the War Measures Act. May I suggest that is all the government needs by way of emergency powers. When the last great war ended other emergency measures were introduced and we agreed to them believing that in a very short time parliament would get back to the position where the War Measures Act would be put away in the cupboard and parliament would rule supreme. Instead, we are met eight years after the war with a request from the government to consent to this emergency measure for another year. The minister in effect is asking for a second emergency act. He has the War Measures Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not the same thing; a different one.


Howard Charles Green: Then he wants these additional emergency powers.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not additional; different.


Howard Charles Green: They are not different. The Emergency Powers Act contains most of the powers found in the War Measures Act, not all but most of them. In fact it is a modified war measures act. We conscientiously believe that the time has gone by when an act of that kind should be in force. We believe that parliament should be supreme; that when measures are to be passed they should be brought before the house and debated; that members of the house should have an opportunity to speak on them, the press should have an opportunity to report on them and the Canadian people should have an opportunity to understand what it is the government is proposing. Instead, we are asked to give the government power to legislate by decree whether or not parliament is sitting. Under this measure members of

Emergency Powers Act the cabinet could go over to the east block tonight and enact legislation even though parliament is sitting. We believe that is unreasonable at this time.
I see, Mr. Chairman, that we have evidence right before our eyes as to who is who in asking for this measure. We have the minister and his parliamentary assistant from Springfield sitting together.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: From the laughter that has emanated not only from members of the opposition but from members on the government side, I think one can see very clearly just how much merit this measure has under such sponsorship.


Mr. Ferrie:: It shows how bankrupt of ideas you are when you have to resort to that kind of talk.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I have nothing on you so far as bankruptcy of ideas is concerned.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I don't know about that.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: That is a smart attitude to take.


Mr. Lennard:: You asked for it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Howard Charles Green: In the course of this debate the minister has admitted that for the last two years there has been absolutely no need for these emergency powers. He gave that answer to the hon. member for York South on Friday night. This afternoon, under pressure from the same hon. member the minister said-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I never said anything under pressure. The question was asked, and a free answer was given immediately. These little tricks of my hon. friend are not very admirable.


Howard Charles Green: I will put it this way, Mr. Chairman. Under questioning by the member for York South-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite right-a very different thing.


Howard Charles Green: Well, we aim to please, Mr. Chairman. Under questioning by the hon. member for York South this afternoon the minister said these powers might be needed in the coming year first of all if there were an invasion, and second, to control freight cars in Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend with his usual accuracy-


Howard Charles Green: Thank you.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -is making statements that are just twisted sufficiently to change the entire meaning. The cases I gave were given as examples. I did not give them as embracing the whole field at all. It makes all the difference in the world, when they are given as examples.


Howard Charles Green: Well, this evening I myself asked the minister for an example and, instead of getting any examples, I got a lecture on my lack of intelligence. This afternoon the minister did give the hon. member for York South examples, but he only gave him two. One of them was that the powers would be needed in the event of an invasion, and the second was to control freight cars in Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There are numbers of other examples that could be given.


Howard Charles Green: Why didn't the minister give them? He has had the opportunity for several days to give examples, but these are the first two that he has been able to give.
If there were an invasion of Canada the government of course would have the War Measures Act proclaimed, so that eventuality does not call for any Emergency Powers Act. If the freight cars in Canada have to be controlled that can be done by an amendment to the Railway Act giving the Minister of Transport the necessary powers, and we do not object to a step of that kind being taken. That is our submission, that legislation should be passed in the regular way to deal with conditions of that type rather than giving the government these emergency powers.
The worst feature of it all is that we learn, in the course of this debate, that these emergency powers are not just to be for one more year, they are going to go on indefinitely.
I asked the minister at page 2087 of Hansard about that. He was referring to the world situation when I asked:
Even though that condition continues over a period ol years?
The minister's answer was:
Yes, surely.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, my hon. friend is again misrepresenting my statements. He knows perfectly well because he can read that, in relation to the Emergency Powers Act, the extension is limited to twelve months. It cannot go on beyond twelve months; and the question he asked did not refer to the Emergency Powers Act but to the general nature of this emergency. If this is the sort of thing that he puts around on the hustings where there is no person to contradict it, well-


An hon. Member:: You are a past master at that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: These interjections and remarks by the minister have been typical of his attitude throughout this debate, and are a very good reason why Canada should have a new minister of justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is a statesmanlike remark, I must say.


An hon. Member:: Truthful, though.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is not a very good judge of statesmanlike remarks. I admit that the act itself will only be for a period of a year but we have had these acts coming in year after year and, from statements made by the minister, it is perfectly clear that the intention of the government is to retain this Emergency Powers Act on the statute books. Just as long as there is tension in the world that act is to remain on the statute books; and we say that the situation is met by the War Measures Act, and that there should not be any other infringement of the rights of parliament such as is brought about by the Emergency Powers Act.
Then the minister-I will say "under questioning" if he does not like the word "pressure"-on Friday last Anally got in a corner and argued the election. He said there was going to be an election and that, therefore, the government had to have these emergency powers for the next year. Well, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Canadian people that that is one very good reason why the government should not have these emergency powers during the next year. If they choose to do so they can exert a great influence on that election because they do have the Emergency Powers Act. Just let me refer to the powers contained in the act. Section 2 (1) 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;
You cannot have broader terms than that. They cover the whole gamut. Then the section goes on:
-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:
(a) control and suppression of maps, plans and photographs; (b) control of communications and means of communication; (c) control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels; (d) transportation by land, air or water, and the control of the transport of persons and things;
Emergency Powers Act
And here is the clause upon which I place the most stress:
(e) trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture;
There the government is given tremendous powers over every business in Canada and, for all practical purposes, over every person in Canada. These are powers which they can use by way of threat or promise and which should not be theirs in an election year under present conditions.
They cannot argue, although they may try, that they need them for defence preparations, because the Defence Production Act gives them all the powers required for defence production even in the middle of a war. The Prime Minister admitted that during the course of the debate on the bill setting up the Department of Defence Production, so there can be no argument that these powers are needed for defence purposes.
It cannot be argued that they are needed for the export and import of goods because under the Export and Import Permits Act they already have that power.
Here is an act which the government has taken and which is in effect just a big stick over the Canadian people. That is an extremely serious feature, but in addition to that it derogates drastically from the rights of parliament. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the time has come for an end to cabinet rule in Canada. These powers should now be restored to the Canadian parliament where they belong.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have been listening to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, Mr. Chairman, during his last utterances. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with him at all.


Howard Charles Green: I really did not expect you to do so.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, but my hon. friend was using his best style, and it means quite a lot to convert me to his ideas. He tried to magnetize me or hypnotize me, and I had to resist the temptation to rise and answer him.
I shall tell him how I understand the whole business. There are two acts, one of which was passed a long time ago and is still on the statute books of Canada. It is the War Measures Act of 1914. He read part of it. There is also the legislation before the house, which is not just slightly different but is entirely different from the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act applies mostly to total war. It was used twice during periods of total war. The hon. member read the provisions of the War Measures Act which have a very wide application. I want to say that if I could not agree with him, I hope he will agree with me.

Emergency Powers Act


Howard Charles Green: That is quite a tall order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I cannot be as convincing as he is, but when someone has an argument which is solid it must appeal to one more than an argument which is weak.


Howard Charles Green: That is why I thought I might convert you.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have not the eloquence of my friend, but I appeal to his good judgment and wisdom. Well now, the War Measures Act is for total war. We do not have total war. The legislation before us now is for defence; it is for preparation. I have told a page to bring me the statutes for the first session of 1951, which I read once again before coming down here. In the first section of this emergency measure the word "defence" is repeated time after time. It is for preparation for defence.
Now, my hon. friend says there is the Defence Production Act which includes all that, and we do not need the emergency legislation which is before us. On this I disagree with him. I am for free speech, for human rights and fundamental freedoms, inasmuch as they are acceptable and inasmuch as everything is applied sensibly. I did not want to interrupt my hon. friend too much, so I only made a couple of interjections to show him that I had not been killed by the big stick. He must put things before the committee as they are. There is a tremendous difference between these two pieces of legislation; and the wiay he spoke -perhaps purposely-created a doubt in the minds of the hon. gentlemen who sit here. His argument was not clear, and he can make a very clear argument when he wants to do so. With a bad case, he had to mix it up. Listening to him, no one knew if he was speaking about the War Measures Act or the emergency legislation. It was only in the last part of his speech that he quoted an excerpt from the emergency legislation.
Why put confusion in the minds of hon. gentlemen? If my hon. friend has a good case, he has only to state it and to read the War Measures Act. I had to ask him, "Is this the War Measures Act you are reading?" He said, "Yes". The War Measures Act is not before the house now; it is the emergency legislation. Anyone who is not familiar with the law would have been deceived by that, and would have thought the part the hon. member was quoting from the War Measures Act was in the emergency legislation that is now before us. That is my point. I do not understand why a debater of his ability has recourse to such tactics.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, the hon. member is an old friend


of mine but he must not go that far. I was not trying to deceive anybody at all. If he could not understand the difference between the War Measures Act and the Emergency Powers Act, that is not my fault.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want to be offensive to my hon. friend. We have been on the best of terms for a number of years. We may differ politically and remain friends socially. Now, I profoundly regret the way he has expounded his argument. It was not satisfactory to me, because when we discuss a piece of legislation it is from that piece of legislation that we must quote when speaking to the committee. When we take another piece of legislation and read it to you, sir, it is important to say that this is from such a statute.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he not realize that I was reading from the Emergency Powers Act? Early in my remarks I read section 2 of the War Measures Act, but then I read the first subsection of section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I do not deny it. I agree with the hon. gentleman; but the part he quoted in the first place was from the War Measures Act, and he did not say so. I had to ask him, is it from the War Measures Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He did say so.


Jean-François Pouliot: In answer to me.


An hon. Member:: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was not intelligible. He must have mumbled it. I was here listening to him with my ears open and I did not hear him say so.


Howard Charles Green: That is the first time I have ever been accused of mumbling.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member may have said it. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. I want to be generous. Here is the book.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is in it?


An hon. Member:: Throw the book at him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have the book in front of me and I quote from chapter 5 of the statutes of Canada, 1950-51 "An act to confer certain emergency powers upon the governor in council", assented to March 21, 1951. It was the preamble that I wanted to read. I said it was the first section. I regret it, sir, but may I say that I was right. It is exactly what I quoted, but it is in the preamble instead of being in section 1. We must be honest. When I make a mistake, I say so. But it is a matter of little importance. The

basis of my argument is right. Here is the language used in the preamble:
And whereas it is essential that emergency powers be conferred to enable measures to be taken as urgently required from time to time to carry out adequate defence preparations, to regulate the economy of Canada to meet the needs of defence and to stabilize the economy and to safeguard it from disruption that may result from defence preparations in Canada or from emergency measures taken in other countries, in order that defence preparations may not be impeded; . . .
That is defence. It is preparation not for war but for defence to prevent war. That is the difference. It is not the same thing at all.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Can you not prepare for defence without an emergency act?


Jean-François Pouliot: Here we have it. Why do you oppose it?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is not necessary.


Jean-François Pouliot: Here we have it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Get another book.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: They are just trying to fool the public, that is all.


Jean-François Pouliot: We have a good case. We should defend it. Why should we be imposed upon by those gentlemen when they come here with their stories?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Keep cool.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are so few of you.


Jean-François Pouliot: They tell stories to frighten children. This is a serious matter. I do not intend to speak about it for long. I have just expounded my case, and I told the hon. gentleman who is one of our best debaters that he was not equal to the occasion today because he tried to link up both pieces of legislation when they are entirely different. That was unworthy of him. Here is the War Measures Act. It is entirely different. It is not the same thing at all. Section 2 of the War Measures Act, being chapter 206 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, reads as follows:
The issue of a proclamation by His Majesty, or under the authority of the governor in council shall be conclusive evidence that war, invasion, or insurrection,-


An hon. Member:: Don't mumble.


Jean-François Pouliot: To continue:
-real or apprehended, exists and has existed for any period of time therein stated, and of its continuance, until by the issue of a further proclamation it is declared that the war, invasion or insurrection no longer exists.
That is the War Measures Act. No one can say that it is the same kind of legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) read that section,
Emergency Powers Act and he read it better and more audibly than did the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Probably so. I have not the sweet voice of my hon. friend, who has the most pleasant voice of any member of parliament since confederation.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret to be obliged to speak abruptly at times but I can make myself well understood by all- and I can speak loudly enough to be heard. I do not intend to say any more about the matter. My argument is made. I shall not repeat it. I have only one thing to tell the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and it is this. I am satisfied with the Minister of Justice. The hon. member has no reason to complain that the minister does not answer fully the questions of any hon. member. No minister has the patience to answer everyone. I congratulate the Minister of Justice for his patience in listening to the lengthy arguments and for his graciousness in answering questions that sometimes could be dispensed with.
In conclusion I want to say something to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and it is outside the scope of both acts to which I have referred. Does he know that, by the way he referred to him in his speech, he has assured the re-election of the hon. member for Springfield?


James Arthur Ross: In whose party?


An hon. Member:: That is a good question.


Jean-François Pouliot: That has no importance whatever. He made him the great man of the day. I am sure that the hon. member for Springfield, who is a shrewd and astute politician, will get in touch with the queen's printer tomorrow and order five thousand copies of the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. If he distributes them widely, he is sure to be re-elected in Springfield constituency by a big majority.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I really
intended to rise and merely ask a question this afternoon but the minister himself got the floor and he was followed by others who spoke at considerable length.
Before asking my question, therefore, may I make an observation or two upon the minister's speech this afternoon. It seems to me that he laboured considerably the arguments that were used by opposition groups some two years ago when this measure was brought before parliament. The reason the opposition groups at that time were not so vigorously opposed to it as they are today is that, as far as we are concerned, the circumstances have more or less changed. We are
2326	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act just two years farther away from the close of the war, and things look a little bit brighter now than they did a couple of years ago.
I do not quite see why the minister laboured that point so much, because when this measure was brought down in the house a couple of years ago the government was asking for these powers for a period of one year. Our attitude was: well, they are asking for these powers for only one year. Perhaps we should not oppose it too vigorously, since the government will be back again a little later either to repeal the act or to ask for an extension of those powers. The minister could not very well say at that time: Well, now we are asking for these powers for a period of one year, but remember that whatever you say on this bill today is going to be used against you if we come back and ask for an extension of these powers.
Let us look at these things in a little retrospective way and take our minds back there. Why did the minister ask for this measure for a period of one year if he did not expect that within that time circumstances might change or that opposition members might change their minds, as hon. members have a right to change their minds if they wish. Suppose he had said at that time: We want these powers now, and we are going to hold you to what you say now when we ask for an extension of these powers later on. Do you suppose we would have been perhaps as magnanimous in our attitude then if he had said that? The fact that he wanted them for only a short period of time indicated that when he asked for a renewal of the powers hon. members would be able to say what they wanted to at that time. That is what we are doing now. We are exercising the right to do that now. We believe that circumstances have changed.
The question I really propose to ask the minister arises from the debate of last Friday. I want to review that a little bit because a very important point is involved. The hon. member for Lake Centre spoke at the time and put this question to the minister quite directly. I am going to read from page 2278 of Hansard, where the question of the hon. member for Lake Centre will be found. I want to emphasize a little phrase that was used during the time he was asking the question. It is found at the top of the page and is as follows:
Is it not a fact that under the powers now asked for under the Emergency Powers Act the government or the executive would, under orders in council, be empowered to direct all Canadian imports and exports-
And so on. What the hon. member was asking was, would this not give the government that power? That was all. Would it
[Mr. Hansell.l

give it that power? A little later on I find this phrase:
[DOT]-under the authority of this act the government could-
All right; now the act would give that power. Would it or would it not; that is the question? It could give that power. Could it, or could it not? Later on we find this:
-that under this legislation it could take over the Canadian Pacific Railway-
And so on. That is what he was asking the minister. Would it give these powers? Could they do these things? Then toward the end of the paragraph I find this:
-that indeed there is no field of human endeavour in Canada that the government could not invade or that it could not appropriate.
Would this measure give that power, and could they do these things? When the minister rose to answer that simple question, I think he could have answered with one simple word "Yes, it could give these powers; yes we could." And then the argument would be: "Well, we have the powers; we could do these things, but whether we would or not is another question". But the minister did not answer it that way at all. The minister rose in his place and said:
Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has practised law for many years. I think if a client came to him and asked him the question he has just asked me he would want two weeks to give an opinion upon it, and he would not give that opinion until he had given the question the most mature consideration.
Of course I am not a lawyer who has practised law for a good many years, but looking at it as a layman I do not think it would take a couple of weeks to give an answer. The minister really did not give an answer, but a little later on the Prime Minister came to his rescue and then the line of argument changed slightly. The line of argument pursued a little later on was whether or not this act was taking away from parliament something that it already had and would not have if this legislation were passed. I will read a couple of lines from the Prime Minister's answer as it appears on page 2279 of Hansard:
1 am sure the Leader of the Opposition does not mean that transferring power would take it from parliament and place it in some other hands. This merely authorizes the government to exercise, if it takes the responsibility of doing so, power that still remains with parliament and that parliament could exercise. That was the answer I gave the hon. member for Lake Centre.
I followed this quite closely on Friday night. The hon. member for Vancouver East then rose, and he put the point as clearly as it could be put. In summing up, the hon.

member for Vancouver East said at page 2281 of Hansard:
But there is always that danger that a government may do so, and the more a government becomes accustomed to having powers without continual control by parliament the more the danger is increased. There may be no merit at all in what I have said; nevertheless I think it would be much better if the government had the right to exercise such powers, in times that are somewhat critical, when parliament is not in session and then when parliament convened the Emergency Powers Act would lapse until such time as parliament was again not in session.
That point was never answered or taken into consideration by the minister, yet it may have been the way out. It may have been the way out which the opposition could have given the minister. They might have said: All right, we will meet you half way. I know it has been proven on a number of occasions previously that the government has exercised these powers while parliament has been sitting. Suppose we go to the government or to the minister and say: Well, now, we are willing to meet you half way. We will not oppose this measure so vigorously so long as you do not exercise these powers while parliament is in session.
Now we come to what the hon. member for Vancouver East said. He did not ask for an answer in that regard, but I am going to press for an answer. Would the minister insert in this bill a clause to the effect that notwithstanding anything that may be in the bill, the act does not apply while parliament is in session?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the legislation which we have before us represents government policy in connection with the matters covered by it and therefore I, as one member of the cabinet, have no right to commit my colleagues to any change in that policy until I have consulted with them. I would not have the slightest objection to doing that if my hon. friend can assure me that his party or some party on the opposition side will consider making a proposal of that kind.
I would point out to him, however, that if the powers under the act are exercised while parliament is in session, under the terms of the act the order in council which results must be tabled within five days. It is open then to inspection by any member of the house and any member can by resolution take annulment proceedings in relation to it. I should think he would get that resolution on the order paper and have it debated and considered by parliament perhaps more rapidly than a bill to the same effect, introduced by the government, would come up for debate. My hon. friend will remember that when this matter was under discussion last
Emergency Powers Act year one of the members of the official opposition raised a question in relation to this resolution of annulment which is covered by section 2 (5) of the Emergency Powers Act, which reads:
If the Senate and House of Commons within a period of forty days, beginning with the day on which any regulation is laid before parliament in accordance with subsection four and excluding any time during which parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both the Senate and House of Commons are adjourned for more than four days, resolve that it be annulled, it shall cease to have effect.
The hon. member will recall that when we were considering that section of this act objection was taken by certain members of the official opposition to the fact that inasmuch as this would be a private member's resolution it would probably find its way to the bottom of the order paper and by a little tactical manoeuvring the government could arrange the orders of the day so that it would never be reached. On that occasion, after conferring with the Prime Minister, I came into the house and gave the undertaking on behalf of the government that in a case of that sort we would waive the house rules in order to give priority to this resolution of annulment.
I have no objection in the world to carrying my hon. friend's suggestion to my colleagues, but I do not think that for practical purposes it would make sufficient difference in the working of the legislation to be of much value. Let us consider that a certain subject matter is up for consideration and can be dealt with outside the terms of the Emergency Powers Act by the government bringing a bill into the house, on the one hand, or dealt with under the terms of the Emergency Powers Act by order in council, on the other hand. I suggest that while parliament was in session that matter could be dealt with by parliament, it could be disposed of or negated or annulled at least as quickly under the Emergency Powers Act as it could in the form of legislation introduced by the government. That being the case I think it is open to some doubt as to whether an amendment of that sort would really advance the interests of the opposition to any appreciable extent.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Presuming that the government agreed to that, let us say there was an election this fall. I hardly think the house could be in session while an election is going on. If Uncle Joe got unruly, what would the government do? Would they call us out of the campaign, including the members of the opposition, to deal with the emergency?


Mr. Graydon:: You might be glad to get out of it.
2328	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That question raises a point similar to that raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. The hon. member referred to freight cars, which is a good example, and I emphasize that it is just an example. It has been stated by many members of the official opposition, especially its leader, that it would be much preferable not to use the provisions of the War Measures Act but to proceed under the Emergency Powers Act.


Howard Charles Green: Are you going to repeal the War Measures Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That act has been on the statute books since 1914, when it was put there by the government of Sir Robert Borden. It was maintained by the government of Mackenzie King, by the government of Arthur Meighen, by the government of R. B. Bennett and by all succeeding governments, so I do not think there would be any reason for us to repeal it.
With the War Measures Act still in force, we have devised in the Emergency Powers Act a means of dealing with the same type of problem in a manner which gives parliament a much greater measure of control than it would have under the War Measures Act, and which also provides for powers which are much less extensive than those under the War Measures Act.
Coming back to the question which has been asked; if, leading up to a general election, parliament is dissolved it ceases to exist until another parliament has been elected to take its place. If during that period of time we ran into an acute exigency-not an emergency, because "emergency" applies to the whole situation which is the basis for the validity of the legislation-such as a shortage of box cars or a difficulty in moving our crop, the very sort of thing we are faced with today; if an exigency of that sort were to arise while parliament was out of existence, then under the Emergency Powers Act the government would be in position to deal with the situation; but if we had no such act there would be no parliament to go to; and unless we could invoke the War Measures Act there would be no way of dealing with the problems.


Howard Charles Green: Why not amend the Railway Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Could you do that when you had no parliament in existence?


Howard Charles Green: At this session.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend says to amend the Railway Act at this session. What would he put in the Railway Act? It would be the
	.

same sort of provision which is in the Emergency Powers Act, that in that sort of emergency the government should have the power to deal with such an exigency as a box car shortage. The Prime Minister stated his reasons quite clearly when he introduced the resolution leading up to the Emergency Powers Act in 1951. These were agreed to one by one by the Leader of the Opposition. That is, we did not want to create the impression by invoking the War Measures Act that war was inevitable, and frighten people and so on. Once we adopt that premise, that we do not wish to invoke the War Measures Act for these purposes at this time, then from that point on, if we are going to protect the people of Canada against such exigencies in the kind of conditions in which we live today, we must clothe the government with emergency powers to deal with exigencies which may arise and which we cannot now foresee.
It has so happened that during the past year no such exigency has arisen but an exigency may arise within one week or two weeks. Then where would my hon. friends of the opposition be if they voted against this measure?


George Alexander Drew: Right here.


An hon. Member:: In opposition.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right, they would be; and probably on the basis of that act they would likely remain there for some time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They will anyhow.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has really cleared the matter up in the last few minutes. He says-and he has brought this up on several occasions-that this legislation is needed for box cars. What box cars have to do with an emergency-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I know that my hon. friend employs these police court tactics in parliament a little too frequently-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend knows perfectly well-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -that I never said any such thing.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: We have the emergency right now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. While the hon. member for Lake Centre was speaking the minister rose and I did not quite get whether it was on a question of privilege or to ask

him a question. Since the hon. member for Lake Centre resumed his seat, I presume he consented to the minister interjecting remarks. I heard the expression used by the minister with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre. It was at that moment that I think the hon. member wanted to say something by way of a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: He did not rise on a question of privilege.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. There was so much noise in the house at the moment that I was not quite clear as to what was going on. I have taken good note of the words used, but we cannot have two questions of privilege before the chair at the same time. If the Minister of Justice has a question of privilege, let us hear that one first, and then I will hear the hon. member for Lake Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The Minister of Justice has the floor. The Minister of Justice is completing his question of privilege. I have said that I noted the words used. We cannot have two questions of privilege at the same time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, my question of privilege is this. I have made it clear not once but two or three times, and I emphasized the point a few moments ago just before my hon. friend got to his feet, that I was citing the case of the box cars as an example of the sort of exigency that might arise. When my hon. friend rose to his feet he referred to it not in any sense as an example but as the substance of my argument, which is not a fair representation of all of what I stated.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I have used words, in natural resentment-


Arza Clair Casselman: What did you say?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -referring to the technique of my hon. friend, that I objected to police court tactics, may I say that I do not wish to apply that to my hon. friend but 1 wish that he would confine his remarks to a proper representation of what I said.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that clarifies the situation, because remarks such as that can give rise to replies that would not be altogether satisfactory to the Minister of Justice. I will say no more than that at this time. But I do want to say that the examples
Emergency Powers Act that are given generally revolve around box cars. For some reason the minister has come back and come back and come back to box cars, and I was taking as an example the example that he adheres to with such pertinacity. He returned to box cars. We have asked him for several days to give us reasons for this emergency legislation and he has said, you see, that they cannot anticipate what will arise out of circumstances connected with apprehended war. What have box cars to do with apprehended war?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Ask the farmers of western Canada and they will tell you.


John George Diefenbaker: We will return to that in a moment. The minister has given three examples, box cars, invasion and an election. Those are the three emergencies he says may arise.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The election is not an emergency.


John George Diefenbaker: On Friday evening the minister dealt with the question of the election. He said, as found at page 2281 of Hansard:
Let me take a concrete example.
The concrete examples produced by the minister have not been worthy of the Minister of Justice. If he cannot find any better examples than the kind he has produced here, then I am forced to conclude that there is something hidden here, a hidden reason. As a matter of fact I should like to argue the right of the government to pass any secret order in council under this legislation. The act to provide for the publication of statutory regulations does not cover orders in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act as it is worded at the present time. I could go into detail on that but I am not going to do so on this occasion. But one wonders what is behind this. The first concrete example is the election. One cannot refer to a legal argument as nonsense, and that is the only reason 1 abstain from doing so. On Friday night the minister said:
Let me take a concrete example. Within the next year and a half-I think before August, 1954- we have to have a general election in Canada. Having regard to the state of the world at the present time, if during the time parliament was completely out of existence because of dissolution- and no new parliament can meet until the general election is held-war was to break out in Asia or in any other place which required, perhaps in a matter of hours, urgent action upon the part of the country, that action can only be taken by the government if it possesses the type of emergency powers which are covered by this statute.
That statement is not in accordance with fact or practice. The governor in council has prerogative rights. Those prerogative

Emergency Powers Act rights can always be exercised. Indeed, they were exercised in 1945 in the expending of considerable amounts of money under treasury orders. So far did they go-


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


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has the habit-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If he will not permit a question, all right.


John George Diefenbaker: -of always interrupting. He objects to it himself, but he keeps up a perpetual patter of that type of interruption. Let me conclude with my other two points. No. 1 is the election. That is no justification for this measure. The prerogative rights still exist. The second is freight cars. Is there any reason why prerogative rights should not exist in respect of matters such as that? Those are not emergencies arising out of the world situation. The need for freight cars in western Canada arises because we have an excess of wheat and require to have it marketed or removed, or to have an equalization of freight cars in the various communities. That can be done under the statute.
Finally the minister said: Suppose there was an invasion. Well, invasion is covered by the War Measures Act, which specifically states that the provisions of the last three sections-those are the pertinent ones-shall only be enforced during war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended.
What is this emergency? Surely after two or three days the minister could produce three better reasons than a repetition of box cars, invasion and election. We have had elections in the past and every government has been able to carry on.
I think the whole situation is best summed up, from the layman's point of view, in an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen dated February 20 entitled "What is an emergency?" That is a very pertinent question, and the longer I hear this argued by the Minister of Justice the more I am convinced that somehow there is something that he and the Prime Minister keep from parliament as completely as they are keeping this secret order, whatever it is; and in my opinion there is no provision in the regulations for filing or tabling such secret orders. The editorial reads: What is an emergency?
The House of Commons debate on the Emergency Powers Act has disclosed some dissatisfaction with its terms, and has failed to bring out a concept of emergency sufficiently well defined to prevent an abuse of power. The government itself, by a simple parliamentary majority, can declare a state
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

of emergency; and the present government has merely said that an emergency is by definition a state of "apprehended war".
It goes on to say:
The world being what it is, there would always be an excuse to ask for emergency powers, whether the threat to Canada's security is real or fancied. This cannot be what parliament wants.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister can take parliament into his confidence and place before parliament reasons why this hungry government, greedy for power and used to power practically since its inception, and certainly since 1939, continues to grasp and hold power. It is one of the reasons why only the day before yesterday an outstanding leader of the Republican party in the United States used these words, and he was referring to the danger of granting powers:
Liberty may be destroyed by expenditure so great as to turn this country into a garrison state in time of peace . . . there are always conflicting dangers to liberty.
He said:
-usually freedom was lost because the people surrendered powers they had enjoyed perhaps because of some temporary emergency, without realizing how important it was to retain that freedom and how difficult it was to regain it.


Mr. Croll:: Was that Senator Taft?


John George Diefenbaker: Senator Taft. And the views of Senator Taft were accepted by Mr. Eisenhower, in so far as the restoration of freedom is concerned. The people of the United States went from one extreme then to the centre, to the middle course, while retaining freedom of enterprise.
When I listened today to the minister give the house his ideas of the attitude of this government to free enterprise, to the maintenance of free initiative, I thought of the speech which the Prime Minister made in Regina in 1949, during the election, when he was endeavouring to secure support from those who usually support socialism in Saskatchewan. He said there was no difference between the Liberal party and the C.C.F. party except that the C.C.F.'ers were Liberals in a hurry.
Those were not the ideas of free enterprise that were placed before the house today. Taxation today socializes our country and denies freedom of enterprise. What is actually taking place in this country under the high rate of taxation is that ultimately the whole spirit of private enterprise is being undermined far beyond what is necessary to preserve integrity and initiative; and my hon. friend says that he and his party believe in free enterprise.
Yes, for the last few days they have taken some interest in the budget because they have

seen the results of the United States election and they are beginning to realize that the pendulum has swung. No longer may any government create a garrison state by socializing danger. No longer may the government continue to press forward measures for socialization while pretending to be friends of free enterprise.
When I listened today to the minister give the house a lecture on the benefits of free enterprise I was wondering where he has been in the last few months while this government has continued to entrench upon private initiative; when it has gone into business; when today it controls a monopoly over wheat, barley and oats, and almost a monopoly of radio by its control; a monopoly on synthetic rubber, and I could go on to name various other monopolies, indicating that this government itself has gone farther along the way of the centralized state and the denial of private business than has any other government in this country. In the last few weeks this government has learned something, that in the United States the pendulum has swung and people are beginning to realize that if you establish a state socialist in fact-
Emergency Powers Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They had something to swing to over there.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that remark will not be made in a few months. We shall see.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We have heard that before.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Are hon. members ready for the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are a few observations arising out of the statement made by the minister wherein he let the cat out of the bag in a real way.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I simply asked if hon. members were ready for the question. If not, as it is ten o'clock, I will leave the chair.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we will take up consideration of the budget.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 24, 1953