1953-02-20

[Stage Direction]
BEING THE 95th SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1953

[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 20, 1953

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I have received from His Excellency C. Staf, Minister of Defence of The Netherlands, a letter which I think would be of interest to the house. It states:
The Hague, February 14, 1953.
My dear Minister,
Now the moment has come that your troops who came to help us during the floods are about to be retired, I want to thank you for the many distinguished services that they have rendered to us.
Their morale and their discipline, their tenacity and zeal have greatly impressed us. This enabled them to take a large part in rescuing the human lives and cattle and salvaging the goods.
I can assure you that in these anxious hours it has been a ray of hope for the Dutch people that your country and your military were at our side.
Yours sincerely,
C. Staf.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 144, to incorporate the Apostolic Trustees of the Friars Minor or Franciscans of Western Canada.-Mr. Dechene.
Bill No. 145, to incorporate the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Western Canada.-Mr. Knight.
Bill No. 146, respecting the Detroit and Windsor Subway Company.-Mr. Brown (Essex West).
Bill No. 147, respecting the Apostolic Trustees of the Friars Minor or Franciscans. -Mr. Pinard.
Bill No. 149, to incorporate Canadian Reinsurance Company.-Mr. Cameron.
Bill No. 150, to incorporate the Callow Veterans' and Invalids' Welfare League.- Mr. Balcom.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Rolph Julian La France.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Jack Gold. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Hazel Margaret MacRury Jordan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Anne Agnes Costigan Entwistle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Rachel Stur-man Spirer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Agnes Kathleen Small Finlayson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Pearl Irene Balogh Katona.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Zoe Audrey Birch Butler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Bessie Mew-hirter Mitchell Cameron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Elsie Smith Gray.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Rita Lowsky Blatt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Anna Shulem-son Heymann.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce) moved the first reading of Bill No. 148 (from the Senate), to amend the Statistics Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Has the attention of the government been brought to a statement reported in the press, by Mr. Henry Ford, Jr., in regard to furthering free trade? If so, is any action being taken to follow up the proposal?


An hon. Member:: Give him notice.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I had no time to give
notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If this has not been
brought to the attention of the government,
I am bringing it to their attention now. If it has been brought to their attention, I should like to know what action is being taken.
Hon. Douglas Abbot! (Minister of Finance):
I saw the press statement and I think Mr. Ford's sentiments are highly commendable.

Inquiries of the Ministry POTATOES



DROP IN PRICE IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: On Thursday last the hon.
member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) asked the following question on the orders of the day:
Has the minister received any complaints with regard to the serious drop in the price of potatoes in Prince Edward Island, and that United States potatoes from Maine are being dumped on the Montreal market? Can the minister indicate whether the government is taking any action in the matter?
In reply I may say that no representations have been received to the effect that there has been a serious drop in the price of potatoes in Prince Edward Island, excepting by telephone from the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught). Stocks of potatoes in storage in Canada on February 1, 1953, indicate an increase of 26 per cent as compared with the light holdings of a year ago, but are still 17 per cent below the past five-year average holdings at that date.
Potato prices at the beginning of the 1952-53 season were higher than usual, but as it became apparent that the crop would be somewhat larger than at first anticipated, prices declined.
I am informed that the Prince Edward Island potato marketing board established a floor price of $1.90 per 75 pounds on November 29, 1952, but subsequently revised it downward on January 21 to $1.55-$1.60, and to $1.30-$1.35 on February 14 last.
I am also advised that United States potatoes from Maine are not being dumped on the Montreal market. One carload of Maine potatoes arrived in Montreal early this week and as of yesterday the shipment was still on track unsold. There have been no other importations of Maine potatoes this season.



ALLEGED SHOOTING OF REFUGEES BY CANADIAN TROOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice, notice of which has been given. Has the minister been informed of charges alleged to have been made by Mrs. Kay Gardner at a Victoria peace council meeting that Canadian troops in Korea have been ordered to shoot refugees? If so, has the minister taken any action or can any action be taken to stop such slanderous statements being made?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: In British Columbia the Royal Canadian Mounted Police act for both the federal government and the provincial government. They are taking up this matter with the attorney general's department of the provincial government of British Columbia.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: May I ask a supplementary question. Is Mrs. Kay Gardner a known communist and member of the communist party in Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have no information as to this.



DOUKHOBORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
view of the general concern in the Kootenays with the Sons of Freedom problem, and in view of a recent Canadian Pacific Railway order abolishing the 21.00 to 3.00 curfew on certain sections of the Kettle Valley railway,
I should like to ask the Minister of Justice this question. Has the federal government received any request from the government of British Columbia for assistance generally in dealing with the Sons of Freedom problem or in particular for assistance or co-operation in providing protection for the operating personnel on certain sections of the Kettle Valley railway? If so, what action has been taken?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. In reply may I say that in the latter part of January the attorney general of British Columbia wired to me asking for 20 additional constables to be made available immediately under the terms of our police contract with that province for the purpose of undertaking special duties with regard to the Doukhobor problem. That request has been complied with.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 19, 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. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, I intend
to deal at some length with the views expressed yesterday and on the previous day by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), in particular regarding the necessity of legislation such as this, as well as the views expressed by him that after all the handing of extraordinary powers to this government would have no dangerous possibilities because this government would not exercise them unfairly or unjustly. It is on that basis that I intend to speak on this occasion and to refer in particular to the powers asked for. Then I shall deal with some of the attitudes displayed by a number of ministers in this government which in my opinion are not indicative of an attitude of mind deserving in any case of powers such as are asked for by this bill to be continued.
The resolution provides for the continuance of an act passed in 1951. I am not going to quote the various sections of the act but I intend to point out a little later the comprehensive nature of the powers asked for which in effect would result in parliament becoming a shadow of itself, would perpetuate power in the hands of the executive beyond the control of parliament except with the narrow confines contained in the act, and would in effect establish in this country, were these powers continued year by year, control over every business and person in Canada which could be exercised dictatorially and without the protection of the courts being available to the individual.
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. Powers such as these mean the denial of every constitutional safeguard that democracy ordinarily preserves under parliamentary government. Without restricting the generality of those words, the governor in council shall have the power to control and suppress maps, plans and photographs, control communications and means of communication, control harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels, and control trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture of goods. The only restrictions on absolute powers are with respect to arrest in cases where arrest is based upon the taking into custody for other than an offence against the act, censorship, and one or two other minor matters.
I can understand the attitude of this legislation for it indicates why over the years the government and the minister in particular have been averse to bringing in a bill 68108-143i
Emergency Powers Act
of rights for Canadians. In effect this legislation will deny freedom in the British tradition. It abridges the heritage of parliamentary freedom. It denies every individual in this country a defence against the arbitrary power of the state, for there is no appeal against a decision made under the legislation, provided, as the preamble of the act sets out, the interests of Canada demand it and there is an emergency.
The resolution, when translated into legislation, once more will, in the words of Sir Alan Herbert, make the individual "as rightless as a straw upon the sea." It will permit of a monstrous perversion of the constitution, of a concentration of power in the hands of a central authority, and will in fact rewrite the constitution making our land into a unitary state by a simple declaration of the majority in parliament. It will deny the supremacy of the individual against the arbitrary power of the state.
I remember that when the first of these bills came before parliament in 1945 the then minister of justice and now Prime Minister pointed out the dangers at that time, and certainly gave parliament no idea of the fact that the pathways of war were to become the highways of peace in this regard. On November 23, 1945, he said, as found at page 2453 of Hansard:
I submit to the house that without in any way departing from its attachments to the traditional constitutional practices of a free parliament, there is a situation which requires to be dealt with in an extraordinary way, and for that purpose there is required the extension of some emergency powers. This bill provides that it shall be in operation for no more than one year, unless before its expiry the houses of parliament by an address request that it be extended for a further period.
Year after year it has been extended until today the passage of such legislation is looked upon almost as though it should be automatic. The government asks parliament to transfer to the government the conduct of the lives of Canadians. In effect this legislation, if carried on, will in the long run imperil and endanger the basic foundations of freedom. That is one of the reasons that I am encouraged by what happened yesterday when for the first time in this parliament or any of its predecessors over the last few years members of the other opposition parties joined with the official opposition in our expressed and voiced antagonism to such legislation.
Parliament cannot afford to take holidays from vigilance when the government continues year by year under the guise of its own benevolence to pass such legislation unless there is a strong and abiding reason for the necessity of that legislation. Certainly there has been nothing to indicate that a

Emergency Powers Act
concentration of such power is needed today to meet the kind of emergency that has been described by the Minister of Justice. This legislation would, if used, constitute Canada a garrison state. It would place in the hands of the government power over the lives and the businesses of every Canadian. The minister of course says that they do not intend to use these powers. It is not use of the powers that is dangerous; it is the possibility of abuse. It is a danger inherent in our system that a government, now almost unanimous in its belief in its divine right to rule, continues to ask and demand of parliament extraordinary powers which are a negation of democratic government.
They have every hope these powers will be granted to them because we find ourselves in a position today where the government has behind it an overwhelming majority in the house, and that majority has at no time shown that vigilance for the preservation of democratic rights or parliamentary freedom that one might expect. But the minister says:	After all, we are
not going to use the powers. That is the most dangerous argument that can possibly be advanced.
Benevolent authority may have a temporarily alluring attraction to the people, but ultimately the granting of absolute power over the individual has its dangers, and there are frightening dangers. Governments have always professed benevolence in securing those powers, and by contending that their membership possess other than the attributes of mortal men. One of the best answers to this type of thing was given by Junius who by his letters did much to establish parliamentary government in Britain. His answer, and it is the answer I now give to the Minister of Justice, was in a letter dated May 25, 1771, when he said:
We betray ourselves, we contradict the spirit of our laws and we shake the whole system of jurisprudence whenever we entrust a discretionary power over the life, liberty or fortune of the subject, to any man or set of men whatsoever upon a presumption that it will not be abused.
Over and over again the argument advanced through the years, by those who have sought wide powers-and my hon. friend, with his usual urbanity, repeated them-is in effect: "You have nothing to fear; this is not the kind of government that would abuse power."


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to hear the minister say, "Hear, hear", because that gives me an opportunity to cite some of the examples that are a contradiction of his affirmative attitude at the moment. Parlia-

ment was a casualty of the war, but it had to be convened for the passing of supply. Laws were passed into the hundreds of thousands by order in council. When the war ended we believed that these things were going to end. The attitude of the government-and after all this is a lineal descendant and has members in it who were members of that government-was displayed by the then minister of justice who said, in effect, on November 12, 1945, when we were endeavouring to secure information from the government:	The authority of the government is not given by the House of Commons; it is received from the crown. And through the years since, this government has by its attitude maintained that view. It has on many occasions refused information under the specious excuse that it was not in the public interest. I remember an outstanding example. When I asked a question as to the price of coal at the Dundurn military camp the answer was that it was not in the public interest to furnish that information. Again yesterday when I asked a question, to which Canadians surely have a right to receive an answer, as to what salaries are being paid in one of the emanations of the crown, namely the housing corporation, where one is led to believe that salaries have been fabulously increased in recent days, the reply of the government was to deny that information. It is strange that an emanation of the crown dare deny information to the representatives of the people as to how the people's money is being spent.
The minister says: "Trust us." My mind goes back to 1949 when the minister on that occasion did something that he hears about frequently. He broke the law of this country by concealing a report under the Combines Investigation Act. The minister says, in effect, "Trust us; trust this benevolent government". In 1947 this government imposed taxation by radio.
Between 1945 and 1949 the government abrogated or suspended by order in council statutes passed by parliament. I think of one example and I could give several. The one I think of relates to the matter of annuities. The rate of interest passed by parliament was altered by order in council. "Trust the government", the minister says: "just give these powers". What do they want them for? Do they want them for decoration? Trust the government-a government that brought in the foreign control regulations that allowed illegality to pass unchallenged in the courts and protected any official under that act against actions for wrongdoing. Finally, when the statute was brought before parliament in the form of the

Foreign Exchange Control Act, the government's attitude was to allow the citizen to appeal to the courts where he has been illegally treated; but if he succeeded, no matter what damage he had suffered, he was to be restricted to nominal damages, not over $1 that would be, and without costs of action.
The minister says, "Trust us". I think of the hidden order in council that came to light after months of secrecy. I think of the power under the Defence Production Act and the orders in council that can be passed under it that under no circumstances have to be brought before parliament. I think of another order in council when the minister says, "Trust us". The Eldorado order in council made provision only for the holding of an investigation and denied to any individual there the right to have counsel, and indeed provided that if the actions of the commissioner in the investigation were illegal the individual had no right of recourse to the courts.
I think of the orders in council under the Excise Act and I could go on indefinitely.


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


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The order to which he is referring as having denied counsel was passed under the War Measures Act, was it not?


John George Diefenbaker: I care not whether it was passed under the War Measures Act, because the powers given to the government to pass orders under this legislation in so far as that particular type of thing is concerned are subject to no restriction. That is why I am making this appeal to the minister. If there is to be such a restriction, let him place it in the statute.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Read the act.


John George Diefenbaker: I have read and re-read the act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is a good idea before you make a speech on it.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a good idea, and the minister speaks with authority when he says that.	[DOT]


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Look at section 2, subsection 2, paragraph (a); that is where you will find it.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Read it.


John George Diefenbaker: Notwithstanding anything contained therein, the powers conferred on the governor in council by subsection one do not include power to make orders or regulations in relation to:
Emergency Powers Act
(a) arrest, except as incidental to proceedings under section three, detention, exclusion or deportation of any person.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Right. Has not that some bearing on what you are talking about?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman,-


Mr. Martin:: Oh, yes, it has.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friends protest. Their main contribution is a cacophony of noise in answer to a serious discussion, Mr. Chairman. That section has no relationship whatever to what I have been referring to. I have been referring to investigations that deny the individual the right of an appeal to the courts, and the subsection to which my hon. friend refers has to do with arrest beyond and above the provisions for infringement of section 3 of the act.
I suggest that, in order to protect the rights of the individual against a repetition of that kind of thing, a change in the law is much overdue. Otherwise, the individual is in a position, now that the Nolan case has been decided by the privy council, of having a right of appeal to the courts; but in reality it will be ineffectual as the appeal will be denied, however outrageous the action of the government is, so long as what is done purports to have been done in an emergency. There is the abiding danger in legislation such as this.
I sum up this phase of my argument, and then I shall refer to some other acts of members of the government. This measure places in the hands of the cabinet powers so sweeping that the cabinet is transformed, for the period of the emergency, into a position of master of the Canadian people rather than servant. The ministers of the crown will be constituted as omnipotent masters with the power to control the economic life of this country. Amongst the ministers in the house on this occasion I point out one who never during the years used these powers, and I refer to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Other ministers have used these dangerous powers, powers that ought not now to be abdicated by a free parliament to any government, however benign or however benevolent. This measure conveys to the cabinet absolute power, without challenge in the courts, so long as the preamble contains words that aver the existence of an emergency. This legislation places the edicts of the government above challenge in the courts, and it grants to the state despotic powers over every business and indeed over every citizen in this country if the government so chooses. These are dangerous powers to place in the hands of any government at any time.

Emergency Powers Act
Now, what are some of these powers that are conferred upon the government? I shall refer to them in particular. There is the power to take over the telephones and telegraphs of this country; to take over transportation by land, air or water. For what reason is the government asking the power to control the railways, canals and seaways or airways of this country? Why ask for these powers? What justification has there been in anything that has been said by the minister in the last few days for virtually asking parliament to go on a holiday if the government exercises the powers requested? There is the power to control persons and things. Why does the government request the power to control transportation, the truckers, the railways, the airways and our great lakeways? For what reason do they ask for these powers? For what purpose do they want them? There has been no explanation as to why the government seeks power to control by order in council all trade in Canada, all "exportation, importation, production and manufacture."
Why do they ask for these powers, Mr. Chairman? Under them they can control every field of agriculture, every person engaged in farming and every labour man. Under the provisions of this act every labourer can be directed to go to one particular line of production and leave his own business at the whim and will of a government which in the past has shown no particular consideration for the rights of the individual. People are beginning to realize that. There was an outstanding article on this subject by Mr. Pat Nicholson of the press gallery. There is an article in the Vancouver Sun of February 7, written by Dillon O'Leary, under the heading "What price democracy", which deserves to be referred to. The article reads in part as follows:
It's my view that if Canadians set any great store by free speech and parliamentary institutions they would be up in arms about a measure now before parliament, the Emergency Powers Act.
Here is the issue:
Will parliament of our elected representatives govern, making its decisions in open debate? Or will we have government by cabinet decrees made in secret discussions behind closed doors, legislated by order in council?
We prate often about our "democracy", about our "freedoms." We agree with fervent afterdinner speakers that we reject totalitarian communism.
In doing so we take for granted that our parliament of elected representatives rules supreme.
His concluding words are:
But if Canadians get used to allowing their governments to have these special powers up their collective sleeve, to be whipped out in an emergency, then some day a sad reckoning is ahead.
We will have forgotten that these powers are there (as indeed I think most Canadians have

forgotten that today), and will be surprised by some government confronting us with dictatorial powers . . .
Why, Mr. Speaker, not only do some hon. members object, as they did a while ago, to criticism, but we are coming to a point where some of the ministers resent criticism. But the Prime Minister surprised me most. On two occasions, one when the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) was speaking on February 6, and the other when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was speaking yesterday, the Prime Minister walked out. On February 6, as recorded at page 1712 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Prime Minister has other things to do than to listen to the hon. gentleman, when he is using that tone.
That is a strange attitude for the Prime Minister to adopt, a man for whom we all have respect in his position and in his person. It shows, Mr. Chairman, that power does have its influence, and that power is intoxicating. The other night the Prime Minister was temporarily piqued in that he did not wish to listen to the hon. member for Kamloops, who apparently had not that modulation of voice which the government asks for in criticism. Yesterday when the hon. member for Eglinton was speaking the Prime Minister left again, and suggested the following, as recorded at page 2095 of Hansard for February 19:
It is suggested that "the whole story" is going to take forty minutes, and I think I can use the forty minutes to better advantage.
Those are strange words, Mr. Chairman. The Prime Minister is not here now. I did not interrupt him when he left because I did not know what the next version would have been. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister ought to be in the house when a measure such as this, which stands in his name, is before parliament. This is a strange attitude, and coincides with the attitude of so many members supporting the government in the last few days who, by their interruptions, have been deriding the arguments of the opposition which, under our system, has a responsibility to vigilantly scrutinize all legislation, and in particular any that infringes the freedom of the individual or constitutes a danger to the maintenance of parliamentary government.
We have had too many of these instances lately. The Minister of Trade and Commerce over and over again has uttered words that I would not have thought would have been adopted by any other minister. I have some quotations here which, because of his

absence, I am not going to use except for one which indicates an attitude of the government. I refer to what happened in Winnipeg in connection with Mr. Pitt, the manager of the Fort Garry hotel. Because a complaint was raised in the house over his transfer the minister said he could say that he knew enough about the management of the C.N.R. to know that the remarks made by my hon. friend were not going to help Mr. Pitt very much. That is a dangerous statement. This outstanding Canadian, Mr. Pitt, was transferred because he did not show to ministers of the crown that vocal subservience they thought was necessary.
Mr. Chairman, the past indicates the future. The granting of these powers to a government that has openly shown its contemptuous disregard of parliament in so many cases is going to be opposed by the opposition. The opposition is going to be maintained against it; for we intend to assure, if this legislation does go through, that the Canadian people know the danger in these wide powers, which was so well summarized in an article in the Family Herald and Weekly Star of November 20, 1952. The editorial is entitled "Canadians Have No 'Rights' " and it reads in part as follows:
But the truth is that while we have such rights at this moment, we have not got the right to keep them.
That is, the fundamental freedoms of the individual.
The fact is-and it is necessary that all of us should realize it-that Canadians have no fundamental, authoritative law which could protect them from parliament. They are well protected from the tyranny of the Queen, if that is any comfort! They are well protected from the tyranny of a cabinet minister or a policeman, but they are not protected at all from an angry or fanatical majority in parliament.
One of the judges in the province of Quebec, Mr. Justice Smith, said this; and these words are as applicable to the present statute as they were to the statute to which he referred. He said:
It was within its competence-
That is, within the legislative competence of the legislature.
-to fix the conditions governing the acquisition of the shares and the price to be paid for them. There would seem to be no doubt that it could even have confiscated them entirely without compensation, had it so enacted.
Then he goes on to say this, and I think it is completely applicable to extraordinary powers legislation which the Prime Minister said in November, 1945, was to be merely momentary, for a period of one year. Mr. Justice Smith says:
In short the legislature within its jurisdiction-
Emergency Powers Act
I apply those words to the government of Canada provided these powers are granted to it under this bill; powers to set at naught the constitution and to override provincial rights, property and civil rights.
-can do anything that is not naturally impossible and is restrained by no rule human or divine. If a plaintiff had acquired any right the legislature had the power to take it away. The prohibition "Thou shall not steal" has no legal force upon the sovereign body. And there would be no necessity for compensation to be given.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am familiar with this quotation to which my hon. friend is referring because I read it with interest some time ago. But it has nothing whatever to do with what we are talking about here. The point that is being made by the editor of the Family Herald and Weekly Star is a very simple one that I am sure my hon. friend is aware of; it is that where the parliament of Canada acts within its jurisdiction, its powers are unlimited and not in any way restricted; and that where the provincial legislature-as in that case which was under discussion-acts within its jurisdiction, its powers also are unlimited. But that has nothing to do with the Emergency Powers Act. The quotation is very interesting but it is completely irrelevant.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether my hon. friend's mind is confined to one line. The applicability of this quotation to the present bill is that under the present bill absolute power is given to the dominion government within the ambit of the provisions of this bill, when they exercise the power granted. The Nolan case decided that it is an absolute power that cannot be interfered with because the courts are not permitted to determine whether there is in fact an emergency once parliament has so declared. Once parliament has so declared you place in the hands of the executive-as is placed under the constitution in provincial legislatures under property and civil rights -a right so absolute that it denies the individual protection against tyranny. That is the danger of this legislation.
If my hon. friend would only appreciate that fact, I am sure that his apparent desire to push this bill through would cause him to step back and say, "Why abrogate our constitution? Why tread on every principle, constitutional and otherwise, for the purpose of securing powers which we have not used as yet to any extent and as to which only our benevolence is your guarantee that it will not be extensively used?"

Emergency Powers Act
This type of legislation cannot be justified in times like this. How can the government take the stand now that there is such an emergency as will justify control over all business; all agriculture; every transportation system, air, land and water; all trade, exportation, importation, production and manufacture? Why ask for those powers? They say they have not used them or that they have used them only five times, once over a five-cent piece. I seem to remember a time when a five-cent piece had a tremendous effect. But surely at no time was it necessary to have a statute passed abdicating parliament in order to provide for the nickel content of a five-cent piece.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Three of them were revocations.


John George Diefenbaker: Two of them are revocations. Is there any need for granting such power to revoke an order in council passed under extraordinary powers? Two are revocations; one is as to a nickel and the other two could have been legislated upon. Surely after seven years following the war there is no necessity once more to confer upon this government absolute power. As far as I am concerned-and I am pleased with the general united front of the opposition-we believe that the Canadian people should know the dangers of such legislation. If this government continues its avid and greedy search for power, we intend to do everything we can to assure that they shall know that absolute power will not be conferred on a government, however benevolent it describes itself to be, however benign and however omniscient.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before my hon. friend takes his seat, will he permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Surely.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask the hon. member this question: If this statute as he has described it in such eloquent language is so bad, why did not his party vote against it in 1951? And why did they not vote against its extension in 1952?


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently information of a dependable character will not satisfy my hon. friend. He asks the question as a sort of rigmarole. He asked the question of the hon. member for Eglinton and he got his answer. He asked it of the Leader of the Opposition and he got his answer. I can give him my answer.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps you can do it now. We have not had an answer yet.


John George Diefenbaker: Do you think you can ever be satisfied with an answer? As a matter
of fact, let me say this-and I am making it perfectly clear-that for reasons beyond my control, and about which the minister knows, I was not here in 1951 and 1952. But the only time I was here I took the stand I have always taken: Freedom-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Did you vote against it?


John George Diefenbaker: Vote against it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I opposed it, on every occasion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But did you vote against it?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I am sure I voted against it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, look up the record and you will find you did not.


John George Diefenbaker: "On division" is voting against it, just as clearly as by any other means. I was not here in 1951 or 1952, for reasons which my hon. friend knows.


Mr. Sinclair:: But your party was here.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and my party took a stand against it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Why did you not vote against it?


Mr. Sinnott:: Mr. Chairman, allow me, in a few moments, to give my analysis of the great oratorical speech of the hon. member for Lake Centre, which comprised forty-five minutes.
I have been irritated to the point where I feel I must speak this afternoon. I do this because of some statements that have been made in the house. Before going into that however let me say that I will give the government my support in this legislation they are now attempting to introduce.


Mr. Brooks:: I am sure they are wrong, now.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: When the hon. member for Lake Centre was talking about the tone of the Prime Minister, I was wondering if it was half as bad as the tone he was using, or that used by the hon. member for Eglinton, or by the hon. member for Kamloops. I think we have as fine a gentleman as Prime Minister as we have ever known in Canada.


Mr. Fulton:: Short-tempered, though.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It would take a man with a long temper and long patience to stand you very long. When the hon. member for Lake Centre says that these powers have been exercised for the last eight years he should keep in mind that they have been exercised because it has been the will of the Canadian

people that they should be. In 1949 a clear mandate was given to the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: He is going out.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I would like him to stay here, because there are certain things to which I am going to refer in a few moments.
What prompted me to speak was that the Leader of the Opposition came into the house last night and in a very, very fretful tone- fretful, as well as arrogant-made some comments as they are reported at page 2109 of Hansard. This is what appears at that page:


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege. My question of privilege is this. I refer to my hon. friend's statement that the points which he is now discussing have not been dealt with. I dealt with them earlier this afternoon when he was at another place, no doubt on an engagement. He therefore should not now be suggesting that they have not been dealt with by the government.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, X regret that I now find it necessary to deal with the implication left by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that night before last, and that now left by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I dislike doing it, but I am going to tell hon. members that the reason I was out of the house earlier in the week and the reason I was out of the house earlier today was the death of one very dear to the members of my family. I was at a funeral this morning and just got back by air this afternoon in time to come into the house when I did.
Now, in picking up the Ottawa Journal of February 19, I find a report dealing with the night before, and saying this:
Progressive Conservative Leader George Drew predicted last night that Canada will emerge as a major world power in a few years and might have a population of thirty millions by 1965. ''This may well be the dawn of the period of the greatest opportunity in Canada", he told the annual dinner meeting of the St. Catharines and district chamber of commerce.


The Chairman:: I am afraid those remarks are not relevant to the resolution. I do not think the hon. member, in the debate on this resolution, should discuss the activities of the Leader of the Opposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, I believe that the hon. member is entirely out of order, true. But he has gone a certain distance along the line he started, and I believe he should finish it, because I think what he has tried to do is sufficiently contemptible-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The facts should be placed on the record.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I shall take into consideration the remarks made by the hon. member for Kamloops and, in doing so, I would suggest that perhaps he should revise the word
Emergency Powers Act
"contemptible". He has used a word which I believe he should consent to withdraw. When the hon. member for Springfield has finished speaking, if the hon. member for Kamloops wishes to reply to that phase of the speech he has the right to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr.   Sinnnoii@: Mr. Chairman, the point I was trying to make was this-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I will not ask him to withdraw because I realize the vein in which it was given, and I could not expect anything different.
The point I was trying to make was this, that the Leader of the Opposition said, as I understood him, that the emergency powers bill had not been discussed while he was in the house, and that it was discussed while he was in another place on business. Well, the emergency powers bill was discussed in the house on February 18, as appears at pages 2080 and 2081 of Hansard, and continued until the end of the evening's debate.
That is the evening that I was trying to say the Leader of the Opposition was making a political speech before the chamber of commerce in St. Catharines. In spite of all we have heard the hon, member for Lake Centre say about the extraordinary powers given to the government in the last eight years, last night we heard our Minister of Finance say that we had made continuous progress such as we had never seen before, with eight continuous budget surpluses.
Another thing that prompts me to get on my feet today is the fact that I asked the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra a question on February 6, as reported on page 1694 of Hansard, as to how many times these emergency powers had been used in the last five years, and the hon. member replied as follows:
I do not suppose the hon. member who has asked the question would have the faintest idea of what emergency powers are.
Those words are in line with what was said by the hon. member for Kamloops. I had been listening to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra for approximately 40 minutes and I wanted to find out whether he knew how many times these emergency powers had been used. I will give him the information.
In 1951 these powers were used 15 times. In 1952 they were used 5 times, 4 times to rescind previous orders in council and one time in connection with the licensing of pilots. We listened to the hon. member for Lake Centre for 45 minutes this afternoon, and for

Emergency Powers Act
40 minutes we heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra say that the government had used these extraordinary powers to the detriment of the country, that the country was in danger through their having such powers. The passing of an order in council licensing air pilots would not put the country in a strait-jacket. These powers are to protect the country should an emergency arise.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: That is what happened in Boissevain last fall.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We will take care of Boissevain when the times comes.


An hon. Member:: Do not get in the line of fire.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: When a railway strike was threatened a few weeks ago these emergency powers would have come in very handy. We had one part of the economy of the country going down with another part coming up. These labourers were asking for extraordinary things and the government has the power to restrict their actions. We say that, with the Prime Minister that we have in office, the people of the country are not the least bit concerned about these powers the opposition are talking about so much. I say once again that I shall support this legislation.


Mr. Green:: Will the minister explain what orders in council would collapse if this legislation were not renewed for a further period of one year. During the debate in 1952 the Prime Minister listed the 19 orders in council which were in effect at that time under the act and pointed out that some were to be replaced by legislation. During the course of the debate this year the Minister of Justice listed 5 orders in council which presumably had been passed since the Prime Minister spoke in 1952. But it is not clear yet what orders remain in existence at the present time and would lapse if this act were not extended for a further period.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Speaking generally, I would say that the ones concerning which questions would arise would be the series relating to the great lakes seamen's regulations and those relating to pilots and radio operators. There may have been one or two others.


Howard Charles Green: In effect the government is asking that this act be extended for a further year in order to retain regulations covering merchant seamen on the great lakes, and the licensing under the Radio Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is the licensing of radio operators and pilots from the security standpoint.


Howard Charles Green: I believe that one type of licence is granted under the Radio Act and the other under the Aeronautics Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I explained when I was dealing with the resolution itself, this is a question of security. It is a question of applying to the great lakes seamen, to pilots and to radio operators the same kind of security procedures as are applicable to civil servants to avoid the disclosure of information, sabotage, espionage and the like.
The renewal of this legislation, as my hon. friend correctly apprehends, will support the continuing validity of those orders in council, but it would be quite wrong to suppose that that is the main purpose or the only purpose of the legislation. The main purpose is to provide the government in an emergency of apprehended war with certain powers which it may use without recourse to parliament. For example, if a war were to occur in Europe overnight, immediate action would be required with regard to-


John George Diefenbaker: Could you not do it under the War Measures Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With regard to the very matter which the hon. member for Lake Centre was discussing, it might become necessary to route troops and you would have to have some overriding power for that purpose because otherwise you might be met with the suggestion that the necessary and contemplated action could not be taken.
The hon. member for Lake Centre has interjected that it might be done under the War Measures Act. It may have been the infirmity of my language, but I thought I had made it clear that the Prime Minister had said when the emergency legislation was brought in in 1951 that for a number of reasons it was considered desirable that we should not in a state of cold war which might be fairly protracted, I think "indeterminate period" were the words used, use legislation which would convey the impression to our people that war was inevitable.
It was for the purpose of avoiding the much wider provisions of the War Measures Act that this government came to parliament with legislation which was approved at that time by the Leader of the Opposition and which asked in express terms for certain specific powers.
The government not only asked for those powers but said when they were asking for them: We do not, in the exercise of these powers, wish to take away from the jurisdiction of parliament over the actions of the government. When parliament is sitting, as my hon. friend knows and as happened here today, every action of every department of the government is open to questioning on the orders of the day and by written questions on the order paper. When we move to

go into supply members can rise to air grievances and move amendments if they so desire. They can discuss these things on the floor of the house. The objection to the War Measures Act, to which all of the great eloquent remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre today would have a very apt application, is that the powers contained therein, which are much wider than those in the Emergency Powers Act, can be exercised by the government without reference to parliament at all.
On the other hand when the powers under the Emergency Powers Act are exercised by order in council that act provides that the orders in council shall be tabled almost immediately and not, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, some long time afterwards. Section 2, subsection 4, of the acts reads as follows:
In respect of a regulation made under this act, the period for laying a regulation before parliament under section 7 of the Regulations Act is
(a) five days after the making of a regulation if it is made by the governor in council-
Every order in council which we pass under this act must be laid on the table of parliament within five days. It is then before parliament. It appears in Votes and Proceedings. It goes downstairs to the parliamentary papers branch where the text of it can be examined. Then if any member of the opposition objects to the terms of it or thinks that it represents an excessive or improper use of these powers that have been granted by parliament, he can take annulment proceedings under subsection 5 of the same section
2.	Subsection 5 reads:
If the Senate and the 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 4 and excluding any time during which parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both the Senate and the House of Commons are adjourned for more than four days, resolve that it be annulled, it shall cease to have effect.
So this great speech of the hon. member for Lake Centre we have heard this afternoon about the powers of parliament having been abrogated, repudiated and torn to pieces is not only not true but is the very antithesis of the truth. My hon. friend proved that himself by his interjection a few moments ago when he said, "Could you not use the War Measures Act?" Of course we can use the War Measures Act, and if we used the War Measures Act parliament would not have anything to say about it. The purpose of this legislation is to uphold the very things for which my hon. friends say they stand but which they either do not have the intelligence to understand-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Emergency Powers Act


Howard Charles Green: You do not have to be abusive.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -or the integrity to support when they get the opportunity.


John George Diefenbaker: We do not want to enter into a discussion of intelligence because after all the minister is omnicompetent and omniscient.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We are in fact at the present time, and every intelligent person in the free world knows, regardless of what the hon. member for Lake Centre, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Kamloops or any other member of the opposition may say, that we are in fact in a very serious world emergency of apprehended war. We could invoke the War Measures Act. But the whole purpose of this Emergency Powers Act is to provide those emergency powers which we should properly have, which the government of Sir Robert Borden said in 1914 that any government in power during a time of war emergency should properly have, and which every government since, whether Conservative or Liberal, has left upon the statute books. Even in times of peace the War Measures Act has never been changed. We are proposing, by means of this emergency powers legislation, to have these emergency powers upon such terms that the actions taken under them shall be immediately laid before parliament so that they can certainly be reviewed by parliament and, if parliament so decides, they can be annulled by parliament.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I think we are beginning to get down to the roots of this matter. It is perfectly clear from what the Minister of Justice has said that the only measures dependent on this act today which are of any importance whatever are those dealing with screening seamen on the great lakes and screening pilots and radio "hams". I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, to the house and to the Canadian people that these particular measures should be placed on the statute books if they are required. This whole business seems to me to be a case of half a dozen communists bringing about a great diminution in the value of parliament in this country. In other words, in order to be sure that we catch a handful of communists we are cutting down the rights of parliament in a most drastic fashion.
The Canada Shipping Act could be amended to deal with merchant seamen on the great lakes if the government had the courage to amend it. Instead of the government facing the problem in the open, as it should have done, it has passed an order in council under the Emergency Powers Act behind closed doors which is enabling the police to screen seamen who want to work on the great lakes.
2250	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act
Last October a similar order in council was passed, again behind closed doors, to enable the Minister of Transport, presumably co-operating with the police, to take away the licences of pilots and the licences of what are commonly known as radio "hams". This is getting pretty close to thought police in Canada.
If provisions of that type are to be passed, then they should be put on the statute books. They should be brought into the house where they can be properly debated and where the press of the country can hear the arguments pro and con and can report them to the Canadian people. Then the Canadian people will be able to tell in due course whether such legislation is proper or improper. Instead we are asked to retain on the statute books of Canada the Emergency Powers Act, the only effect of which at the moment will be to provide a foundation for these measures dealing with communists. It is a pretty serious thing in a democratic country when parliament is asked to swallow a pill of that kind.
Yesterday the minister enunciated a strange doctrine. He said: We have available in case of war or apprehended war the War Measures Act which enables us to deal with any emergency that may arise. Then he said in effect, we are now also to have in Canada a three-quarters War Measures Act, which will enable us to deal with three-quarters of the things we can deal with under the War Measures Act itself. My fraction may be wrong, perhaps nine-tenths would be a good deal closer to the mark than three-quarters, but apparently we are now to have in Canada for an indefinite period this new method of government.
We have the War Measures Act which is to lie dormant until we get into a war, and, of course, then will apply at once. In the case the minister has just mentioned, that of troops having to be brought across Canada, if we ever got to that position, we would be right in war or very close to it, and the War Measures Act would be brought into effect. Then we are to have this three-quarters power, and for a time at least the supremacy of parliament goes out of existence in Canada.
On Wednesday the minister explained just what he meant by the emergency that exists today. He described very accurately the emergency about which the government is thinking. The description is found at page 2087 of Hansard, where he said:
But I still say that, whether we look at Iran or at the Balkan states, or Malaya, or Indo-China, or Korea,-


It is significant that Korea was the fifth in the list. I continue:
-or Tunisia or Morocco or South Africa,-
Why on earth he dragged in South Africa no one will know, but apparently because they are having a little difficulty in South Africa that is one reason why this government thinks we should have this nine-tenths War Measures Act in effect in Canada. He goes on:
-or many other places in the world today-or, indeed, regarding the continuation of the war in Korea-there is no less of an emergency today than there was in 1951 or 1952.


John George Diefenbaker: What has South Africa to do with it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Unrest, wherever it may be, does not add to the feeling of security, so far as an emergency is concerned.
Apparently whenever there is unrest in other parts of the world then in Canada we must have this three-quarters or nine-tenths War Measures Act and parliament is to see its powers cut down accordingly. I continue:


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? Is it his belief that, so long as there are situations such as those in Iran and the other places he mentioned, the government should have emergency powers?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that where an emergency of an apprehended war faces a democratic parliament, that has on its statute books an act like the War Measures Act, that the proper course for that democratic government is to come to parliament and ask it to give certain specified emergency powers, under proper precautions as to the tabling of the orders in council and proper precautions as to the control that parliament will have over all the acts done under those emergency powers. And I say that it is quite reasonable that that special act should remain upon the statute books during the continuation of such emergency, rather than that the government and parliament should have to fall back upon the much wider powers of the War Measures Act.


Howard Charles Green: Even though that condition continues over a period of years?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, surely.
Mr. Chairman, that statement of policy has very wide implications, and I think it is a tragic day for parliament in Canada when the government will take a stand of that kind. Surely there will never be a time in the world when there will not be tension. The present tension in the world situation may continue for the lifetime of every one in this chamber today. Are we to take the position that a free parliament, a parliament without these restrictions, without these infringements on its rights, is to disappear in Canada for the time that the present tension remains? Surely the cabinet does not believe in a policy of that kind.
We cannot expect to have much change in the present state of the world for many, many years; and yet, if the statement of the Minister of Justice is to stand, this policy

which is followed in enacting a bill of this kind will continue just as long as the world is in the state in which we now find it. It is about time we realized that this is probably the normal state of affairs of the world today. We are probably living in 1953 in what will be normal times. The only alternative that is likely is if there should be a third world war, which none of us wants; in that event there is legislation written on the statute books in the form of the War Measures Act which can be brought into effect. Speaking as one member, as a member representing one constituency, I cannot see the wisdom in having emergency powers under conditions of this kind.
There is one other factor which is very serious. I referred to it the other day when the Speaker was in the chair, and that is that this type of legislation can be used as a threat. The government has this power at the present time. It has it for only two measures, but it has that power, and because of the fact that the act is on the statute books it can say to anybody in Canada, "You do so and so or we will take action under the Emergency Powers Act". The Minister of Trade and Commerce expressed that very clearly a year or two ago. On September 8, 1950, at page 460 of Hansard he said:
I suggest to the committee that a word from the government is more effective if there is a law in the background that can be applied in case the response is not all that may be desired.
I believe that behind the argument of the Minister of Justice on this measure there is the thought that the government would like to have this legislation on the statute books so it can be used as a threat to make the Canadian people do as the government wishes. In any event, that is one very serious feature of legislation of this kind.
In the course of his remarks the minister showed what seemed to me, with all deference, to be a schoolboy attitude. He reminded me of a schoolboy debating, and a schoolboy not in a very high grade. He showed a delight in arguing: Why, we have saved parliament all its rights. Have we not written into the act that when we pass an order in council it shall be put on the table of the house, and then if any member wants to rise and challenge it he can do so and can have the whole order in council cancelled?
Well, that is a fine substitute for a free parliament, a fine substitute for having measures debated in the way that everything else is covered in this house.
The minister knows and you know, Mr. Chairman, and everyone in this house knows, that by the time the government has passed
Emergency Powers Act
an order in council behind closed doors and has laid it on the table, there is just as much chance of that order in council ever being voted down as there is that we shall be able to fly to the sun. It is one of those things that do not happen. The Canadian people had better not be fooled by a specious argument of that kind. When parliament is reduced to having only the right for a private member to introduce a resolution against an order in council, then the rights of parliament are mighty small. There is not the slightest possible chance of the government's action in passing the order in council being repudiated. This provision is just a sop. It is just put in the act for a bit of face-saving. As for protecting the Canadian people or the rights of parliament, it is useless.
What worries me the most about this whole situation, Mr. Chairman, is the attitude of the members of the cabinet. They really seem to believe that they cannot run this country without these emergency powers. They show not the slightest indication of believing that they are going too far in taking away the rights of parliament, as they are doing, by a measure of this kind. I point out once again that only two of the members of the present cabinet have ever been ministers at a time when they did not have emergency powers. They are the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture. All the rest of the ministers have been appointed to the cabinet since 1939 when the War Measures Act was brought into force. The Minister of Trade and Commerce does not need to worry because he has on the statute books, in his Defence Production Act, all the powers that he would require in the midst of a third world war. We cannot complain about the way in which that was done, because the act was passed after a proper debate. Of course, this minister has never been hesitant about taking powers, and he has got them in the shape of a statute.
The Minister of Agriculture seems to get his way whether or not he has powers. Perhaps he does not need them. In any event, he seems to get along very well without them. All the other ministers in this cabinet are war babies.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So long as we are not
babies.


Howard Charles Green: They are all accustomed to having these emergency powers. They are accustomed to going over to the east block, slamming the door, pulling down the blinds and passing an order in council which then
2252	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act becomes law just the same as if it were brought into the house and debated. They cannot get away from the habit.
In my opinion that attitude is the serious feature of this whole situation today. I cannot understand why the government insists on forcing this emergency measure through. The date upon which this emergency powers measure becomes law again in Canada is going to be a bad day for the Canadian parliament, and a worse day for the Canadian people.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before actually saying what I have to say at this stage in connection with the resolution itself, Mr. Chairman, I regret that it is necessary to deal with the remarks made by the hon. member for Springfield a few minutes ago in an attempt to bring some personal discredit upon the Leader of the Opposition. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that in what I have to say my words will not reflect the actual extent of my feelings. I shall endeavour to keep within the rules. I observe also that the hon. member for Springfield is not here at the moment. And I shall, therefore, refrain from making any further comment on the type of attack which he was attempting to level on a personal basis against the Leader of the Opposition.
It is necessary to place the facts on the record so that they may appear in today's Hansard along with the remarks of the hon. member for Springfield. As was known to other members of the hon. gentleman's party, and I should be surprised if the facts were not known to him, the Leader of the Opposition was absent for part of three days this week because of the death of a member of his household. This member of the household died in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Notwithstanding that fact, the Leader of the Opposition was in the house during the first part of the sitting on Tuesday. On Tuesday evening, the Leader of the Opposition was at the funeral parlour arranging for the transportation of the body of this member of his household to Guelph on Tuesday night. On Wednesday morning he went to Guelph, whither the body had been transported, and he remained at Guelph for the purposes of the funeral which had been arranged to take place Thursday morning. While in Guelph he did drive to St. Catharines to address a non-political meeting of the St. Catharines chamber of commerce. He stayed in that part of Ontario until the funeral on Thursday morning, then flew back to Ottawa in time to be here for the presentation of the budget that evening. That is the chronology of the events to which the hon. member for Springfield has
rMr. Green.]

seen fit to make reference in an effort to bring some sort of personal attack against the Leader of the Opposition, apparently in an effort to discredit him personally, as part of the personal smear campaign which has been carried on against the present Leader of the Opposition for some years now by Liberal members.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: They were his own words.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I feel that it is important that a few more things should be said in connection with this measure before this discussion in committee is concluded. There are a number of unusual things about this legislation, but perhaps none of them is more unusual than the circumstances under which it has been introduced. I want to suggest this as a serious consideration in connection with this measure. It stands on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister has not yet said a word in connection with it. This is a resolution preceding a measure which, if passed, will take away from parliament for a further year its powers in a wide field, and hand those powers over to the executive. It is, I suggest, one of the most important measures which will come before parliament at this session. It is a measure which I believe properly stands in the name of the Prime Minister.
This resolution has stood in the name of the Prime Minister on each of the two previous occasions upon which it has been discussed in this house. The Prime Minister has not yet seen fit to speak to this resolution, although it is significant that on each of the two previous occasions when the measure was debated the Prime Minister did speak. He spoke in 1951 at the very outset in explanation of the measure, and in explanation of the views of the government as to why it was necessary to have it. He spoke again in 1952 when the legislation was before us to extend the operation of the Emergency Powers Act for a further year. The Prime Minister then explained why it was considered necessary that it should be extended. But now, Mr. Chairman, on this occasion, when we are being asked to extend it for a third year-when we are being told that there exists the emergency of apprehended war; when we are told that by the Minister of Justice and are told that no fewer than nine times in the course of one speech; when we are told that this emergency is so serious that it is emphasized nine times, and that it is the emergency of apprehended war-we find that the Prime Minister does not choose to explain or perhaps he does not consider the matter of sufficient importance that he himself, as he did on two

previous occasions, should explain to the house, why this measure standing on the order paper in his name should be approved by parliament.
I can only conclude, Mr. Chairman, that the government realizes that it is an unpopular measure; that they realize that there is in fact no justification for asking parliament to continue it; that they realize that considerable opprobrium will come the way of the government if in fact it is forced through; and that they do not want the Prime Minister to be the object of that opprobrium. They do not want the Prime Minister to subject himself to the criticism which is going to come his way if he has his name associated actively with this measure.
But, Mr. Chairman, this house and this country must not lose sight of the fact that this measure stands on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister. Of course the government as a whole is responsible for the legislation passed in this house; but in a peculiar way legislation of this type is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. He introduced it. It is his resolution, and his particularly will be the responsibility if it passes and if, for a further year, extraordinary, sweeping, emergency and quite unjustifiable powers are taken by the cabinet and are taken away from the House of Commons composed of the people's elected representatives.
That then is the first unusual thing about this measure. The second unusual thing about it is this. Notwithstanding the lengths to which the Minister of Justice went in trying to impress us with the seriousness of this emergency-an effort which by its very laboured nature, Mr. Chairman, suggested to me more than anything else that the emergency is pretty much of a phony- and in spite of the fact that the Minister of Justice used no less than nine separate times the expression "the emergency of apprehended war" and, in support of his suggestion that that is the nature of the emergency, mentioned the unrest in South Africa, in Tunisia, in Morocco and those various distant parts of the world; in spite of his contention-which was, I suggest to him with all due respect, unsubstantially founded-that there was an emergency, I want to point out that this parliament is being asked to give up all its rights to the cabinet for a further year at a time when other parliaments and other legislative bodies in other free countries of the world are finding that it is more and more appropriate to restore to parliament the powers which formerly were theirs, to restore to a much greater extent the rule of law and to deprive
Emergency Powers Act their governments to a much greater extent of the absolute control and power which they had previously exercised.
I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that within the last two days headlines about the United States have drawn attention to the fact that control measures in that country have been allowed to lapse:	important
measures giving the government, the executive, wide powers of control over the economy of that nation. They are following exactly the opposite course from that being followed by this government. Yet the United States government should have occasion, if any government should, to be seized with the magnitude of the emergency if there is in fact an emergency which really justifies the taking of emergency powers by the government.
Then again in the United Kingdom, although not in exactly the same sphere but in a closely related one, we find that the government there is taking steps to denationalize certain of the industries which were nationalized by their predecessors. I admit that it is not exactly a parallel, but I certainly suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if there were a real emergency such as is claimed by this government of Canada, the government of the United Kingdom would not be weakening its control over the economy of the nation which had been acquired under the Labour government by the nationalization measures which were passed by that government. The government of Canada is therefore unique amongst the democracies of the western world in moving further along the road to controls and emergency legislation.	The
government of the United States and the government of the United Kingdom are moving in exactly the opposite direction.
Then, Mr. Chairman, what about this emergency? It is significant that every time the government want to assume to themselves powers which deprive parliament of its powers and prevent us from carrying out our responsibilities, they find some sort of new emergency. After the war, in the immediate post-war years, it was the emergency arising out of the war and arising out of the transition from war to peace. That was a new kind of emergency. That emergency carried on for two or three years. It was extraordinary, Mr. Chairman, how that emergency was prolonged. It was an emergency which was supposed to last for a year but, as you will remember, we were called upon, on two subsequent separate occasions, to extend that act.
Then along came Korea and the government asked for emergency powers which
2254	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act were to last only for a year. This is now the second time we have been asked to extend those powers. This is another kind of emergency. We are told now that this is not a war emergency nor yet is it an emergency arising out of or subsequent to a war. This is a third type of emergency. It is the emergency of apprehended war. It is extraordinary, Mr. Chairman, how apprehensive the government can get when they want to find some new excuse for emergency powers. I suggest that the apprehension should be on the part of the Canadian people and that the apprehension should be on the part of the members of parliament on both sides of the house who should, by now, begin to be aroused as to the extent to which this government are taking powers unto themselves and are placing us in a position in which we cannot exercise the responsibility which we were elected to carry out.
What kind of emergency is the emergency of apprehended war? Let the Minister of Justice be a little more specific. The expression "the emergency of apprehended war" is mentioned nine times. War is apprehended nine times in the course of a forty-minute speech. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that "apprehended" and "war" are the words which are used in the War Measures Act. Let not the Minister of Justice try to distort-as he has tried to do on a number of occasions-what is being said here into a statement that we are saying that they should apply the War Measures Act. We do not. We say exactly the opposite. But what we say is that the very fact that the government does not apply the War Measures Act is an indication that there is in fact no such emergency as justifies the taking of this kind of power. It does not matter what they say, or how apprehensive they may suggest they are, or how much they may apprehend war; if there is not the type of emergency which justifies the invoking of the emergency legislation on the statute books then I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that they cannot go about inventing new kinds of emergencies and invoking other emergency powers.
There is no such emergency; that is the fact. There is no emergency such as to justify the invoking of the War Measures Act. The minister may apprehend war to his heart's content; but the Secretary of State for External Affairs calls it a police action. But that small inconsistency does not bother the minister.
The fact is that there is no such emergency that would justify the continuation of this act. It does not matter how many little


debating points the minister wishes to score -if in fact he is scoring any-it does not matter that a bill was passed in 1951 and that the measure was extended in. 1952. The fact is that we are now dealing with 1953; and in 1953 the situation is quite different from what it was in either 1951 or 1952.
The fact is that in 1953 it is perfectly open to the House of Commons to decide that this measure should no longer be extended. Or is the minister going to say that simply because they passed it in 1951 it must be continued indefinitely? Is he going to argue that because it was not turned down in 1951, it is mot open to anyone at any time to suggest that it should be discontinued? He shakes his head, of course.
Well, what is he so concerned about, then? Why is he trying to make the point that it was passed in 1951 and renewed in 1952? Why does he now suggest that we are out of court when we suggest it should not continue in 1953? I am glad the minister agrees with me, that he would never make such a suggestion, himself. But why does he suggest it to us now? Why does he say now that we should follow the course which he, himself, has said he would not follow?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does my hon. friend seriously wish an answer to this question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am always glad to have the minister's answers.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then I will give an answer: Because the emergency of apprehended war still continues. And in support of that I would refer him to Hansard for January 22, 1953, and the words of his esteemed colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo, who said this-


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order; surely the Minister of Justice, of all ministers in the government, must know that he cannot refer to another debate in the same session. He tried to get away with that the other night, and I submit he is certainly out of order today.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then, Mr. Chairman, I shall not quote it. But I would refer my hon. friend from Kamloops to that statement of the hon. member for Nanaimo. I would suggest that he read it, and learn what a man who is quite well posted upon these subjects thinks as to whether or not there is an emergency.


Howard Charles Green: Read what the Prime Minister said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is all very interesting. The minister raises points and asks that they

be dealt with; then when they are dealt with he conveniently closes his eyes and his ears, and goes along in a sort of blind folly pretending that the answer has never been given. The hon. member for Nanaimo dealt with the situation, and the hon. member for Eglinton gave the minister an answer earlier.
But if the minister is asking the hon. member for Kamloops to cite his authority on this question of emergency and apprehended war, then I ask him what does he say about the words of his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whose duty it is to know whether or not there is a state of apprehended war, and who says that all we have is a little police action in Korea. Why does he not ask his colleague for his authority for making that statement?
That is all I am suggesting. The minister has not dealt with the point at all. The minister has said nine times in the course of one speech-so often that we became weary with his repetition of it-that there is a state of emergency and apprehended war. But he is not telling us the grounds for his apprehension, and he is not telling us what war he apprehends. And at the same time his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs tells us that there is no war, that there is only police action. So we have a situation where, without being given any grounds, this parliament is being asked to continue the surrender of these powers to the executive, into whose hands I submit such powers should not be surrendered.
I suggest it is high time-more than time- that parliament put an end to this practice of the government of extending, inventing and multiplying the types of emergencies as it suits their convenience, for no purpose other than that of continuing emergency powers when, in fact, the national and international situation does not justify their continuation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: No. If I correctly summarized the minister's words, the reason for this legislation is that the government wants power immediately available so that in a time of stress and strain, a time of emergency, the government will be able to act with unusual alacrity and speed.
That being so I wish to ask the minister some questions about the five orders in council passed during the last year. I would ask, first, how long the government gave consideration to that momentous question regarding the content of the five-cent piece. I am wondering whether that could not have been
Emergency Powers Act dealt with under the prerogative exercised by the crown, without the use of emergency powers legislation on the statute books. At the moment I am only asking for information. How long was that very important question under consideration before the cabinet decided, "Well, this is an emergency matter; we will pass an order in council with respect to it." Because it would not appear to be closely connected with the troubles in Korea, in South Africa, in Morocco or Tunisia.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am always glad to accommodate my hon. friend with an answer whenever I can; but I am afraid this is one of the occasions upon which I am unable to give an answer, because the matter with which this order in council was concerned does not arise in my department. As my hon. friend has indicated, it is not a matter of the gravest importance. It would come before the cabinet along with a number of other matters, and be disposed of in due course.
I am sure I cannot recall how long it took to consider it. Perhaps the hon. member means to ask how long it was considered in the department; is that correct?


John George Diefenbaker: No; I am wondering why this very unusual act should have been used for such a momentous matter as the five-cent piece?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend, as a lawyer, would agree that the Emergency Powers Act would give power to pass an order in council of this kind. It may be that the other point my hon. friend took, that it could have been dealt with under the general powers of the executive, is also true. But I do not think either of those two legal points has any substantial bearing upon whether the present legislation should be extended. The fact that it was used for what my hon. friend may regard as a relatively trivial purpose, shall I say, does not by any means get away from the fact that during a time of world emergency it is necessary to have emergency powers. The only real question with which we are concerned here is as to whether those powers shall be the very wide ones under the War Measures Act or the more limited ones under the Emergency Powers Act.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, the government is asking for power. We have not had much of an explanation regarding the five-cent piece. That is 20 per cent of the use made of the act last year. Apparently it was not of such a pressing nature as to have required the abdication by parliament of its rights. Now I come to the other portion, the revocation of two orders in council.
2256	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: By the way, the one the hon.
member just referred to was also a revocation.


John George Diefenbaker: It was a revocation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister
whether those orders in council which were revocations could not have been passed under the prerogative rights of the crown without having all these extraordinary powers?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend raises a rather interesting legal point which I say again is not particularly relevant to the matter we have under discussion. However, I have no objection to commenting upon it. Where an order in council has been passed under the Emergency Powers Act and that act is still subsisting I am sure that my hon. friend would agree that it would be desirable to invoke the same powers to revoke that order as were invoked to pass it in the first place.


John George Diefenbaker: But they could have been passed by the crown without passing them under this act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite a tricky question which my hon. friend has raised and I must say I do not like to give an opinion on it offhand. But when the extraordinary powers under the Emergency Powers Act have been invoked to pass an order in council in the first instance I would not think that it could be changed under ordinary executive powers.
But there is one point on which I regret I have not been able to secure the assent of my hon. friends of the opposition. While this legislation may have been used during the past year for the passage of five orders in council, perhaps only one of which could be said to be regarded as related to the emergency, surely the need for emergency powers under a notorious state of emergency will not be denied by reasonable people.
The only real question with which we are concerned is whether we should act in this existing emergency under the powers of the War Measures Act, which are very wide and which do not provide either for tabling of orders in council, or for bringing such orders in council passed under that act before parliament for discussion, as they can be if passed under the more limited powers of the Emergency Powers Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Or under the prerogative right of the crown.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I see what my hon. friend is driving at. He is raising the point that one or two of these orders in council which were passed during the past year under the Emergency Powers Act could have been passed


under the prerogative powers of the crown. But the real point here is that if some event took place in Korea tomorrow morning, or on the Elbe in Germany or in some other part of the world which created a serious necessity for quick action in respect to a matter which would otherwise have to go before parliament, I am perfectly certain that the ordinary prerogative powers of the crown would not be sufficient to support an order in council authorizing such action. Otherwise where would there be the necessity for the War Measures Act. I take it that my hon. friend agrees with that.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not say that I agree with that. I will agree with part of it, but I cannot agree with all of it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I take it then that my hon. friend does not disagree.


John George Diefenbaker: I disagree with part.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The position is really a simple one. In 1914 Sir Robert Borden put upon the statute books of this country the War Measures Act with very wide powers which included, among other things, the power of arbitrary arrest, detention, deportation and exclusion. As my hon. friend said-wrongly in my judgment in relation to the Emergency Powers Act because these powers are expressly excluded in that act-if the government has the power of arbitrary arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation it is in a position to take actions under which there might not be very much left of the civil liberties of the subject. When parliament was asked to give us the powers contained in the Emergency Powers Act it had the privilege of considering whether it would give those powers. One group of powers was expressly excluded from the beginning as making possible an abrogation of civil liberties. But if we were to invoke the War Measures Act we would invoke all of these powers without reference to parliament at all.
I think some hon. members of the opposition will recall that when the emergency powers bill was before parliament in 1951 we asked in the first instance that the power to arrest should be included. The reason for that was that we wanted to have some way of enforcing orders in council which were passed under the Emergency Powers Act. That was the only arrest that was necessary or that we had in mind. We did not ask to include arbitrary arrest as authorized in the War Measures Act. This question was the subject of an extended debate in which members of the official opposition took part. Finally we agreed upon the words which are now in the Emergency Powers Act. A number of the colleagues of

the hon. member for Lake Centre took part in the discussion. We collaborated across the floor of the house in drawing up that subsection of the Emergency Powers Act.
The result is that we have in the Emergency Powers Act a code of limited emergency powers which can be exercised only upon the condition that whenever an order in council is passed it shall be tabled immediately and be available to members of the house. Then an hon. member may bring into parliament at once a resolution to annul any such order in council, to which resolution priority will be given by any necessary waiving of house rules so that it could be considered promptly by parliament.
I do not like disagreeing with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra; but he brushes off these provisions as being of no account, and says, "of course a private member could not hope to attack these orders in council with any success". I suggest that the rights of a private member in relation to such annulment proceedings are just as broad and powerful as they would be in relation to any piece of government legislation. In other words, if he could by his argument command a majority of the membership of the house he could succeed in getting it annulled. If the government brings in a piece of legislation and the opposition are able to persuade a majority of the members to vote with them, that legislation can be defeated.


John George Diefenbaker: I am going to deal with the last observation immediately because the minister apparently thinks we are rather naive. The act provides:
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 the House of Commons are adjourned for more than four days, resolve that it be annulled, it shall cease to have effect.
That, Mr. Chairman, is not very much of a defence of the rights of the subject. I carry my mind back over the period that I have been a member of the house, and I only know of two individuals on the government side of the house who have ever voted in any way against the government of the day. You see, this section means nothing. This is a protection as non-existent as if it were not on the statute books. What would happen? The minister says that any member can introduce a resolution to set aside what has been done by the government in this way. One just has to mention the possibility of such a motion being brought before the house to know what the result would be. That is no defence of the subject.
Emergency Powers Act
A few minutes ago, the minister went a long way further than he has ever gone, when he said that if they used the powers of exclusion, deportation, arrest without warrant and detention they would be doing things detrimental to civil liberties. Indeed he said there would not be any civil liberties left. Well, the minister will recall that in 1945 and 1946 this government did just those things.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But not under this act.


John George Diefenbaker: Not under this act; but now I come back to the next question he raises, the question of the War Measures Act That is not an alternative. Any one of these five orders in council could have been passed by order in council under the residuary powers of the crown. On the one hand the government take the stand: Well, we are asking for terrific powers but we are not going to use them. This is a beneficent government composed of members who will never use such power. On the other hand, they say: We need power. I am going to give the minister the opportunity to tell me whether or not the government would have the following powers under this legislation: power to take over every telegraph and telephone company in Canada, to confiscate the private radio stations of Canada, to take over private air lines including Canadian Pacific Air Lines, to direct every business in Canada, productive, export and import, to direct the sale of every farm product of Canada in their own way as determined by an omniscient government.
Are those not the powers you ask for under this legislation? If you admit that they are-and I cannot see how you can contradict it, because you have power to do almost anything under the sun except deal with deportation and censorship-what do you need these powers for? If you need these powers we are in such a dangerous situation as to amount to war itself. If we are, then why do you fear the use of the War Measures Act? I ask the minister: Would you not have all these powers and would you in the exercise of them not be supreme in any court as long as you had the declaration that there was an emergency and that declaration had been made by parliament?
That is a simple question setting forth in large type, you might say, the powers for which you ask. I say those are the powers for which you ask, and no parliament has any right to give them to a government, particularly when the only challenge is the challenge of parliament. The minister knows and I know that any member introducing a

Emergency Powers Act
measure to annul any of these orders in council would be met by the same attitude with which we are met today when we challenge the need for parliament to abdicate and give extraordinary powers over property and civil rights. Indeed, so far as the provinces are concerned it is a complete abdication of their rights under the constitution.
What do you need these powers for? If the situation is as serious as you say, you certainly do not show it in other particulars. If the situation is that serious, then parliament would certainly be the last to deny your request, if war were that eminent. Surely you do not want to be loaded down with powers over the rights of Canadians so that they become mere robots in your hands for you to direct, merely so you can pass an order in council about a five-cent piece, another about a few sailors on the great lakes, and revoke two or three other orders in council. Surely parliament has the right to ask that freedom be restored to parliament hill; because the passing of legislation such as this means that we might just as well close down parliament, except that you would have to call it back in order to get supply. Other than that you would be supreme.
Why should you ask for powers like these on the weak, meagre grounds you have given? One is that the situation might demand immediate action, that war might flare up in some part of the world and we would need immediate action. If we ever come to that you have the War Measures Act. Surely it is a weak-kneed explanation to say that you want power now so that if the situation ever does develop in that way you will not have to use the War Measures Act because it may shock the sensibilities of the Canadian people. To me this is a ridiculous attitude on. the part of the government because I remember the Prime Minister when he was minister of justice-I have the speech here that he made in 1945-saying that we were in the post-war period now, that they wanted these powers only for a year and only wanted to continue them for a short time. Mr. Bracken, the then leader of the opposition, said that if the powers were only to continue for a short time and if the government needed them, the opposition, while disagreeing with the government having them, would let the house go into committee for the purpose of the government explaining the matter.
At that time the measure was passed on division. That is clear from the record because the late Ian Mackenzie, who led the government at that time, made very sure that we in the opposition had taken a stand against this legislation. Even before we could


do so he made the declaration "on division". I ask the minister a simple question: Will these powers convey the extraordinary rights I have suggested over property everywhere in Canada, and over the individual? If they will, why not simply ask for parliament to close down, because if you exercise these powers that is really what happens. If they will not, what do you want them for?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will consider private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Marguerite Irene Bastien Taschereau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of William Gordon Quinn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Joseph Brennan..-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Henry Colling-wood.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Douglas Malcolm Stephen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Mary Lane Taylor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Stanley Gordon Fowler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Ethel Florence Flack Towne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Mary Katherine Randell Clarke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Ralph Wellington Goodyear.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	123,	for	the relief of Donalda
Gagnon Fontaine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	124,	for	the relief of Marie
Sylvaine Alain Dahlstrom.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Ruth Schwartz Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	126,	for	the relief of Annie
Mislovitch Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Minnie Miki Simon Werkzeig, otherwise known as Minnie Miki Simon Werk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	128,	for	the relief of Antonio
Proietti.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Ida Hier Blant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Hilda Irene Roddis Galbraith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Ivy Helen Jean Morton Starke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Barney Flegal. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Marie Renee Emond Walker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Edwin George Chafe.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 135, for the relief of Phyllis Violet Perlson Wright.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Margaret Eadie Kerr Britton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of George Robert Stirling Henry.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Thelma Webb	Crothers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Pauline Liliane Baron Brumby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Madeleine Blain Cousineau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Angelina Maria Di Battista Gill.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Charles Snoade Hilder.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 108, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to abolish capital punishment and substitute therefor life imprisonment. It is similar to a bill which I introduced on April 18, 1950. On that occasion I dealt at some length with the arguments against hanging, and I do not intend to go into the same details at this time.
I know some hon. members doubt the wisdom or desirability of this kind of legislation at the present time. Many are of the opinion that opposition to the death penalty is based on ill-advised and sloppy sentimentality. However, I feel that the practice of hanging is so revolting that parliament should consider its repeal once again.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in deciding to proceed with this bill in the current session I have been influenced somewhat by correspondence which I have received from various religious and fraternal groups across the country. For instance, on January 9, 1953, the Toronto Telegram quoted an editorial in the United Church Observer, organ of the United Church of Canada, as follows:
Execution by hanging is brutal, cruel and inhuman, a sadistic spectacle shocking to the Christian conscience.
The annual meeting of the Carmichael United Church in Regina passed this resolution this year:
Whereas the execution of criminals by hanging is cruel, inhuman and brutal; we the congregation of the Carmichael United Church of Canada vigorously protest the continuance of such manner of execution.
Private Bills
The Rev. H. Howey of the United Church of Aurora, Ontario, wrote me as follows:
Our whole church should support you. I have preached against it. And our presbytery I believe would support you.
These are typical of many letters I have received in recent months. I think they indicate a growing revulsion against this savage and inhuman method of execution. Since confederation approximately 700 people have been hanged in Canada. Speaking in the 1950 debate the then solicitor general (Mr. Lapointe) said that an average of about ten people a year were hanged. Actually in 1951 and 1952 the number was greater than ten.
I agree with most of the classical observations which have been advanced over the years by social reformers advocating the abolition of capital punishment. I think in considering the question hon. members should keep these objections in mind. In the first place capital punishment violates the Christian belief in the sanctity of human life, because if it is wrong for an individual to kill, surely it is equally wrong for the state to take a human life. Second, there is always the danger of hanging an innocent man. Once the punishment has been inflicted there is no possible rectification in the case of error.


Mr. Gibson:: The guy has no future.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: One hon. member said that humans err and judges and juries can make mistakes. We had a grim example of that in the city of Toronto last week. I hold in my hand a copy of the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 13. It is headed: "Mistake jails man ten months" and reads as follows:
A Toronto detective's sense of fair play led him to help uncover evidence that resulted yesterday in the acquittal of a man who served 10 months in the Don jail for an armed robbery he never committed.
It was a case of mistaken identity, and it cost Ronald (Rocky) Power, a 22-year-old Nova Scotian who had no criminal record, his freedom, his job, his personal papers, including his U.S. birth certificate, two topcoats, three suits, 12 shirts-and a lot of worry.


An hon. Member:: And no compensation.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: And no compensation. If young Power had been condemned for a robbery where someone had been shot, by this time he might have been hanged. Therefore I say that there always is the danger of an innocent man being hanged. History recounts numerous instances where that has happened.
My third objection to hanging is the brutality of the actual execution. There was a parliamentary committee in 1937 which studied this question. Mr. S. Wills, Toronto deputy sheriff, testified that in eleven hangings which he had attended, there had not

Criminal Code
been one rapid death. On page 53 of the evidence Mr. Wills made this further statement:
I have always had at the back of my mind the possibility of decapitation every time there is a hanging. There is always the fear of that.
When we read the minutes of the evidence of that committee we find that that has happened in Canada on numerous occasions.
On January 23 I received a letter from Mr. H. C. Paul of Winnipeg. I do not think he would object if I quoted one paragraph:
A friend of mine is a doctor, and a doctor associate of his had the job of checking hanged persons. He informed me that recent hangings had been badly handled. In fact, it was nothing more than slow strangulation. The victims were almost always alive after the drop and continued to moan and live for nearly an hour. The facts were all hushed up.
I think such a statement should be investigated, and soon. Sheriffs who are forced to attend executions of this type testify that death is never rapid. Therefore I say that hanging is inhuman. It is a foul practice which has no place in a civilized country.
In the fourth place I oppose capital punishment because, quite frequently, Canadians are hanged who did not directly commit murder. Under our present law accessories to a murder are just as guilty as the man who committed the act. Time after time, not only individuals but groups of persons have been hanged for permitting themselves to be present when a murder was committed. A good example of this type of justice was the recent Bentley case in England. I cite the case because under our law the same thing could happen in Canada. I quote a press dispatch of January 28, from London, England, headed: "Youth hanged for murder despite protest." The article goes on:
A 19-year-old Briton was hanged today for a murder shot he did not fire.
The youth, Derek Bentley, took part in a holdup in which a policeman was killed. A companion, who actually fired the fatal shot, escaped with an indeterminate prison sentence because he was only 16 years old.
The fatal shooting occurred when Bentley, dull-witted son of an electrician in suburban Croydon, was arrested on a rooftop with a 16-year old friend, Christopher Craig.
Craig cut loose with a gun, killing one policeman, while another officer was holding Bentley.
It seems to me that cases of that kind are a travesty of justice. In the famous Bank of Hochelaga case in Montreal some years ago five men held up a bank. One of them killed a bank teller in the process and all five were subsequently executed. Theoretically, the principals are equally guilty in the eyes of the law, but morally they are not. Only one man committed the fatal act, and I think only one man should have to pay the penalty. In my opinion six lives for one, four lives

for one, or two lives for one is not Canadian justice. It is vengeance, stark and brutal.
Speaking in opposition to this bill in 1950, the then solicitor general made this statement, and I quote from page 3278 of Hansard:
I should like to make it clear that in this country the actual infliction of the death penalty is, in practice, reserved for the worst type of assassin, the man who kills with full knowledge of his deed, having carefully planned and premeditated his crime.
With all respect, I must take exception to that statement because I do not think it is correct. Time after time men have been hanged in this country for murders that were accidental and in no way premeditated. I quote a Canadian Press dispatch giving an example, the Rowe case in London, Ontario, in 1951. I ask hon. members to judge the facts for themselves. The heading of this Canadian Press dispatch is: "Didn't see victim -Man in holdup dies on gallows". The article reads as follows:
London, Ontario, June 5
Walter George Rowe was hanged early today for the murder in a garage holdup last November of a man he didn't see.
Rowe and companion robbed a house In Windsor, Ontario, and fled in a commandeered taxi to London.
They stopped at a city garage and herded the driver and two other men into a grease room. Two of them made a break. Rowe fired a shot. The bullet went through a door, fatally injuring Galbraith, working on a car in an adjoining room.
At his first trial, Rowe said he had no intention of shooting, but slipped on some grease.
Rowe's counsel, W. R. Pool of London, said the shooting was accidental. 'The bullet went through a closed door and Galbraith's presence was unknown".
Surely there was no premeditation in that case, Mr. Speaker, and there have been similar ones in Canada that could be mentioned.
My fifth reason for opposing capital punishment is the fact that hanging is so repugnant to many decent citizens that juries sometimes bring in verdicts which are contrary to the evidence, thereby endangering society by allowing guilty men to go free. According to Royal Canadian Mounted Police statistics, in the ten-year period from 1940 to 1949, 450 Canadians were tried for murder, yet only 177 were sentenced. Acquittals sometimes can be blamed only on the humanitarian feelings of the jurymen, and their reluctance to send a man to certain death. Strong but inconclusive evidence has led juries to let scoundrels go scot free, rather than see them hanged. The same doubt has influenced other juries to reduce the verdict to manslaughter.
Finally, I suggest that every hanging has a demoralizing effect upon the community. A murder trial always arouses a remarkable

public interest, and in order to satisfy that interest the newspapers give wide publicity to all the sordid details of the crime and trial. This morbid press publicity permits many weak-minded persons, of inadequate self-control, to dwell upon the details of horrible crimes with the real danger of repeating them. The extensive publicity can and does lead to imitative crime.
Shortly after the Suchan-Jackson hanging, the following report was carried by the Canadian Press. I refer to the report in the Ottawa Citizen of February 10, 1953, which reads as follows:
Two mothers who went out to look for their children Monday may have saved a seven-year-old boy from possible hanging during a game of cowboys and Indians . . .
The seven-year-old boy was found with his hands tied behind his back, a rope around his neck and the loop thrown loosely across the beam. Part of his clothing had been ripped off.
Four 10-year-old lads were held responsible by Police Chief Clifford Mosher . . .
"They certainly were realistic about the hanging scene," Chief Mosher said. "If the mothers had not arrived in time a tragedy might have occurred."
Executions are quite frequently discussed by children and others, with most unhealthy consequences. These are some of the major arguments which I suggest mitigate against capital punishment in Canada today.
Now, what are some of the arguments advanced in favour of retaining it? There is only one with which I should like to deal on this occasion. Most people who believe in hanging frankly confess that it is a horrible and revolting practice, but they say it is necessary in order to protect society. They maintain that hanging discourages and deters potential murderers. This was an argument which was advanced by the Solicitor General in 1950, but unfortunately he did not produce any evidence to back up his argument. Personally, I believe the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent is a myth, or at best a hypothesis, because the evidence is all on the other side.
In spite of the fact that over a period of many years literally tens of thousands of people have been hanged, burned, decapitated, electrocuted or shot, the number of murders increases with amazing rapidity. If capital punishment really deters crime, how did the commission of crime survive the reign of King Henry VIII? While that king sat on the throne 72,000 people were publicly executed for minor or major crimes. Hanging was no deterrent. A few centuries ago there was hardly a responsible person in Europe who did not think that the safety of the state depended upon the right of the state to hang a man, if his religion was not correct. If you happened to live in France or Spain, you
Criminal Code
might be hanged for being a Protestant. If on the other hand you happened to live in England or Holland, you might be hanged for being a Catholic. Despite that fact, we know that religion flourished in most of the countries in Europe. We know that public executions did not deter it. There is no evidence of a significant relationship between the murder rate of a country and the presence or otherwise of the death penalty. Most people who hold that kind of belief have not tried to verify it.
A few years ago Governor Harry L. Davis of Ohio made an intensive study of this aspect of the problem. He examined in detail the murder rate in a number of states in the United States before and after capital punishment was abolished. His conclusion is found on page 80 of the book "Capital Punishment" by J. E. Johnson, which is in the parliamentary library. It was as follows:
It is thus easily seen that, on the whole, it appears to make little difference in the prevalence or scarcity of homicides, whether the punishment is death or life imprisonment.
Today more than thirty nations of the world have abolished capital punishment. England and France, I believe, are the only countries in Europe, outside of the iron curtain sphere, that still have capital punishment. In those countries evidence would not indicate that abolition has resulted in an increased murder rate.
Some hon. members may recall that back in 1930 a parliamentary committee was set up in the House of Commons in Great Britain. This parliamentary committee sought evidence from all the countries in Europe which had abolished capital punishment. The committee invited experts from those nations to come to London to give testimony. Some of the evidence was, I think, pertinent, and I should like to place it again before the House of Commons. The Belgian government sent a representative to testify. He said that in Belgium there had been no executions since 1863. The Belgian attitude to the death penalty was summed up in a memorandum sent to the committee by the minister of justice. I quote from that memorandum:
Since the death penalty was definitely abandoned, the crime ratio has remained practically stationary . . .
In the face of results so conclusive ... it seems inconceivable that a Minister of Justice should ever again think it possible to re-establish a penalty, the uselessness of which has been amply demonstrated.
In Denmark the last execution took place in 1892. The Danish minister of justice made this statement to the committee:
It may be considered proved that the abolition of this punishment has not had any adverse influence on the number of capital crimes.

Criminal Code
Mr. Erik Kampmann, representing the Danish government, told the select committee:
The number of murders decreased since the virtual abolition of the death penalty.
In Holland capital punishment was abolished by law in 1870. Today the homicide rate of that country is the lowest on the continent of Europe. Representing his government, Sir Simon Van Der Aa was a witness before this committee. He stated that, following abolition, criminal statistics continue to show no tendency of increase in crimes for which, in lieu of the death penalty, lifelong imprisonment may be imposed.
In Norway there have been no executions since 1875-that is, there had not been up until the end of the war when some collaborators were executed. According to official statistics, the annual murder rate per 100,000 has been as follows:
Year	Rate
1869-1878	  -14
1879-1888	  -12
1889-1898	  -12
1899-1904	  -08
1905-1924	 -05
In other words, following abolition the murder rate has dropped consistently. The Norwegian memorandum to the British government has this to say:
The experience gained has strengthened the view that abolition of capital punishment has not caused any increase in the number of murders.
In Sweden the death penalty was abolished in 1921, although the last execution took place in 1910. In a report to the committee the chief of Swedish penitentiaries had this to say:
The final abolition of the penalty so far from leading to an increase in offences of this kind was actually followed by a noticeable decrease in crimes legally punished by death.
The actual homicide rate per 100,000 population in Sweden has been as follows:
Year	Rate
1905-1913	 -86
1914-1916	  -72
1920-1932	 -52
1933-1938	  -46
1939-1942	  -47
Mr. Speaker, one could go on to show that the representative of every country who appeared before that select British committee gave evidence that the murder rate, if not remaining stationary, actually went down after the abolition of capital punishment. I suggest to this house that those countries are very similar in nature to our own, and that we could profit from their experience.
There is one final reason why I do not believe that hanging is a deterrent to crime. Most murders take place in moments of great 
passion, caused by rage, fear, jealousy, drink, insanity or something of that nature. At the time the murder is committed, the murderer is usually so blinded by his passion of the moment and his unreasoning fury, that no thought of future punishment enters his mind until later. I say that over these influences no deterrent can have very great effect. No matter how hon. members may wish to approach this problem, I think it is almost impossible for anyone to prove that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.
I conclude by saying that the real security for human life is to be found in a reverence for it. If the law regards life as inviolable, then people may begin to regard it in that light. I therefore commend this bill to the consideration of the house.


Tom Goode: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussion with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) with regard to this bill. I think he is to be complimented for bringing the matter again to the attention of this house. It is my opinion that the hon. member is entirely sincere in what he says. For that reason, whether we agree with him or whether we do not, I think we should express our opinions on this matter in the house.
In Burnaby we happen to be so unfortunate as to have the Oakalla prison farm. We want to get rid of it. We hope that the government of British Columbia, when they get around to getting something done, will move Oakalla from my constituency; but until that time comes it will remain there. All the hangings that take place in British Columbia, or the majority of them, take place at Oakalla, usually a few moments after midnight.
I visit that prison farm quite often, having some interest in some of the inmates there with regard to their future after they leave that farm. For the last four or five years I have had occasion to see some of these lads in the death cells. I have also had occasion to watch the construction of the gallows in the prison yard at Oakalla and sometimes inside the building. Those people who seem to think that hanging is a deterrent to capital crime because of the fact that it teaches a lesson to other men or women who might be of the opinion that a murder comes in their future, could take a lesson from the officials of a prison farm such as Oakalla.
I remember one time-not too long ago- when I was in the prison farm about three o'clock in the afternoon. The hammers were ringing on the scaffold. The place had such a deathly calm that you could have heard the proverbial pin drop anywhere in the yard, and it could be said that it was having an

effect on the inmates. But it also had an effect on the officials of the prison. They tell me that hanging in most instances-and quite a large number occur in that prison-is a most offensive sight. They have gone on to give me details of certain hangings.
For the carrying out of penalties for this crime we provide in this country a licensed executioner who works for money and who chases around the country. Sometimes you have to delay a hanging because he is doing the same job somewhere else. The man comes to the prison farm and he is supposed to take scientific notes on the weight, etc., of the prisoner who is to be hanged. Then we find that in most cases he has made a mistake. The prisoner can hang on the end of the rope for half an hour, and no one can prove that that man or woman is dead. It seems to me that in Canada we can do better than that, even in executing a criminal on a capital charge.
I do not altogether agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw, because I see a purpose in capital punishment. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that hanging is not the way to carry out that sentence. Instead of these gruesome occurrences in prison farms where we have the legal number of witnesses to watch an affair that should not be seen by anyone; where we have morbid curiosity evidenced by a number of people who ask to be there-and then where you see what the hon. member for Moose Jaw has so aptly described as decapitation in some instances- I think Canada can do better than use this legalized form of what I consider is murder in itself.
I say I take a different view from that taken by the hon. member for Moose Jaw because I do not believe that all murders should be put in the same class. I think there should be degrees of murder. How can you take the case I brought to the attention of the house some months ago and view it in the same light as you would the couple of chaps who were hanged in Toronto within the last few weeks? There, as I see it, it was a case of deliberate murder, something that was planned. For that crime those men suffered the death sentence. But I brought to the attention of this house-and I do not intend to mention names-a certain case in which there was reason for mercy which the Minister of Justice so promptly extended. But in that case that young lad could have suffered the penalty as prescribed by law. Would anyone in this house say those two crimes were of the same magnitude? Certainly I would argue that they were not.
Criminal Code
Although I do not wish to speak too long on this matter, I want to say that I support the hon. member for Moose Jaw as far as this bill goes. I think he has brought before the house a matter that needs consideration, a matter which the Minister of Justice could well take under consideration having regard to the degrees of murder.
I also believe that for a convicted murderer this government could prescribe electrocution rather than hanging. It seems to me that the way in which we carry out the death sentence today-and I know quite a bit about it-is a disgrace to this country. As I have said, to my mind it is legalized murder. I believe that the sentence of death is not carried out in the way that Canadians would want it to be carried out. I cannot say that I support the hon. member in all his arguments. I say that there are several degrees of murder, and that they should carry with them different sentences.
I could go on to speak at length, as I have the papers in front of me with regard to instance after instance in which men have been sentenced to death and have been hanged for crimes which, if I were sitting on a jury, I would have had a little bit of suspicion were not subject to the death penalty. Last night the hon. member for Moose Jaw told me of a chap-and I think he mentioned it today-who went to hold up a garage but did not use his gun; and none of us will excuse the use of the gun or even the carrying of it. He came out of that garage office and in going across the yard slipped on some ice-I think it was ice-and his gun went off and he shot and killed a man who was working at the back of the garage. To my mind that was not murder. We know that a man was killed, but certainly that could not be classed with the case of the two men who shot down the man in cold blood on a Toronto street. So I say there are degrees of crime, and if I had the time I could quote authorities to prove my point.
I would like to hear one or two lawyers in the house express their opinions as to whether hanging should be the final result of the crime of murder in Canada. May I compliment the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) upon bringing this matter to the attention of the house. I hope that when, in years to come, he is successful, I shall be here to see it.


Mr. A. Earl Caiherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two on this resolution and commend the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) upon bringing this matter to the attention of the house.

Criminal Code
I was greatly interested in a number of suggestions brought out by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode), and I find that I can agree with some of the points mentioned.
However, I cannot agree that capital punishment should be abolished in this country.
I think it is a good thing to bring these matters before parliament because, since coming here, I have found that the debates in the house help us to arrive at conclusions, and those debates are necessary, particularly when matters as important as this are brought before us.
Perhaps indirectly, but nevertheless truly, the matter of capital punishment is of great concern to members of parliament, because we are responsible for the laws of this country. We must determine what the legislation will be. I think from time to time we should review that legislation. At the present time the committee on the Criminal Code is doing an excellent job in reviewing that statute. It is an immense problem, a big job, and I am sure they will find it necessary to suggest changes that should be made in the Criminal Code.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw has advanced a number of arguments which many of us could support. He has pointed out that there are many countries in which capital punishment has been abolished, with results that do support the views he has expressed. I can agree with him in respect of the figures he has quoted concerning countries where capital punishment has been abolished, because as disclosed in a number of books I have read on this matter it would appear that the number of murders has decreased to a considerable degree where the death penalty has not been in effect. This we can concede.
But we mfist also be prepared to concede that these are countries that have advanced and developed materially during the years. If capital punishment had been in effect, how are we to know that the taking of human lives would not have dropped to an even greater degree? Those countries have advanced to the point where they have become more civilized, and it is my view that had capital punishment been in effect in those countries the number of murders would have been lessened to an even greater degree than has been the case under the system they have adopted.
In the United States of America last year reports indicate that not a single case of lynching was reported. This, it seems to me, indicates that today countries are becoming more advanced and more civilized, and that this menacing danger of murder is lessening from year to year. I do feel that the time
[Mr. Catherwood.)
will come when capital punishment will be abolished; but I do not feel that we can afford to take this very drastic step until we are fully and finally convinced that another form of punishment will act as a sufficient deterrent to crimes of this nature.
I think the hon. member has advanced splendid arguments, and I can agree with many of them. However, I am not yet convinced that in this country we should abolish capital punishment.


Mr. Noseworthy:: What are your arguments against it?


A. Earl Catherwood: Just a moment and I shall reach that point. If the hon. member had introduced a resolution to the effect that a different system of capital punishment should be employed, I could have assured him of my support. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) pointed out other methods that could be used. I will agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw that the present system is most revolting, most barbarous, most inhuman. I think we can all agree with him on that. But we do not have to go back very far in history to the days of the stretching racks and other inhuman methods. We can recall reading of the days when murderers were stretched limb from limb. We know, too, of the execution block, which was another form of punishment which prevailed for centuries.
We can be very thankful that we have made at least some progress since that time, but not enough. Surely there are other means than the gallows whereby those people, who have forfeited their right to live, can pay their final debt to society.
The hon. member referred to the United Church Observer, a publication that commands the respect of all Christian people, which recently stated editorially:
Can anything be more brutal, more cruel or Inhuman? We would not treat a dog that way. The Christian conscience is shocked at such a sadistic spectacle. If it is necessary to put a criminal to death-and we are not persuaded it is the Christian thing to do-surely some more humane way of doing so should be used.
That is very definitely in line with the sentiment I have in the matter. I believe some more humane method should be followed, when dealing with those who commit murder. I do feel that when a change is made in regard to capital punishment, it must be to another form of capital punishment. Surely we can inaugurate some other form of execution that is not associated with conditions that existed centuries ago. In the carrying out of the death penalty there is the lethal chamber, carbon monoxide, or some other procedure which, I feel, would

meet with the general approval of many of our citizens who, while favouring capital punishment, oppose just as strongly our present repulsive system.
As I said earlier, I commend the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. But again I say that we must not allow sentiment to turn our thoughts away from the plain fact that coldblooded, ruthless, callous, heartless killers must be punished in a manner, and the only manner, that they will ever understand.
I think every member in the house, in his own heart, would hope that justice could be served by not taking another life. Nevertheless I cannot help feeling that, owing to the fact that we have capital punishment, men are alive and in their homes tonight with their wives and families who might otherwise have been the victims of assassins' bullets.
No one has yet convinced me that the fear of the death penalty is not infinitely greater than the fear of life imprisonment. This has been proven many times, because in practically every instance we find that when sentence of the court is the death penalty, appeal is entered in the hope that a life sentence will be the final decision of the court.
Again I say that we should maintain capital punishment; but as people who are living in 1953 rather than 1853, I believe we should change to a less inhuman method that would eliminate for all time any such distressing situation as that which arose recently in Toronto, when it took two men almost an hour to die on the scaffold.
Again I commend the hon. member for Moose Jaw for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. As was said by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, I would hope that some of our members learned in the law would take part in the debate so that we may have the advantage of their views. This is an important question, and one that should be discussed in detail. I trust there will be a full debate in which many hon. members will take part.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support of this bill for one or two reasons which I shall attempt to explain to the house. First, I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) has rendered a public service to the Dominion of Canada by bringing this bill before the house and giving us a chance to discuss it. I believe he has placed evidence on the record, both today and on the previous occasion he introduced this bill, that is overwhelmingly in support of his contention that
Criminal Code
capital punishment should be abolished. We have not time in one hour to go into all these details, so this evening I shall just give one or two reasons why I think capital punishment should be abolished.
First, we are living in a Christian civilization, which about 2,000 years ago replaced a civilization which operated under the old Mosaic law. The Mosaic law upheld the theory of punishment on the basis of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The coming of Christianity scrapped that law of revenge, replacing it with the principles enunciated in the New Testament, of love and tolerance. Therefore I believe that capital punishment, being based as it is on the Mosaic law, should be replaced by a Christian method of punishment which definitely would not include the extreme penalty as carried out today.
Secondly, facts are now available as to the experience of other states and countries, 30 of them, I believe, where capital punishment has been abolished, which prove that the incidence of violent crime has not increased since that abolition. Some claim there has been a large decrease in serious crime as a result of the change.
I am not satisfied that capital punishment acts as a deterrent to others. In the rare premeditated crime it may be a factor while the premeditation was taking place, but the fact that the act did take place proves that it was not a very strong factor. As a child I was told, as probably everyone in this house was, that I should follow the principle that God gave life and God only should be allowed to take it away, not even the state. I think that is the basic principle of Christianity today.
Some of those who favour the death penalty claim that it is cheaper for the taxpayer than maintaining a prisoner for life. That may be an argument more against our correctional institutions than against the abolition of the death penalty. Could not the policy of our prisons be changed so that life prisoners could be employed at useful work which would provide not only for the prisoner's keep but for the maintenance of his dependents outside the prison? I feel that that could be done.
Modern psychology and sociology accept the principle that human behaviour is largely unplanned and habitual rather than calculated and voluntary. This is supported by the evidence which is presented in the majority of criminal cases where men have been judged as suffering temporary insanity. Men who are otherwise normal have become

Criminal Code
temporarily insane or irresponsible, due possibly to jealousy or some other strong mental force.
A man of this type may spend possibly 40 years of his life as an exemplary citizen and then become temporarily insane or uncontrollable for ten minutes during which time he may commit a murder. His actions during those ten minutes completely outweigh his previous 40 years of good behaviour. I believe the day will come when such a man will be treated by modern science so that the balance of his mental processes may be restored and the remainder of his life used profitably in more ways than one for the benefit of humanity.
In carrying out the extreme penalty we refuse to consider the implications of that act upon the lives of the family of the prisoner. The stigma of this penalty does not end with the execution, it is borne by the members of the victim's family for the rest of their lives. It may be a wife, a mother or children, but whoever they are they become social outcasts in the district in which they live. In many'cases they are forced to sell their home at a loss and move to new surroundings in an effort to hide their shame.
It has been suggested to me that it would be far better if society when demanding full punishment for a crime should give the prisoner an option-I think this should be considered by the Attorney General-of serving for life and producing sufficient during that period to maintain himself and his dependents through some useful occupation in the prison, or submitting himself to medical science for experimental purposes for a few years. There might be dangerous experiments which could result in providing the answer to many problems still baffling science, problems concerning cancer and so on. If such a man survived he could be returned to society properly cured.
In that way he would be paying the penalty and atoning for his crime. To my mind such a method of punishment is preferable to capital punishment. We members of society have a direct responsibility for many crimes which are the result of economic conditions in the way of bad housing or many other contributing factors. Our antiquated methods of dealing with first offenders can be considered as a responsibility of society. Our whole treatment of crime is in my opinion a reflection upon our moral attitude toward this matter. We should consider it our responsibility to remove this horrible method whereby a victim's life is

demanded for the commission of a crime which may be partly due to our conduct of society.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say very much. From my experience in Canada and in the old land I am convinced that our present method of execution is barbarous. I have had a good deal to do with prisoners-I stopped counting them at 160

and I have had only three who slipped partially. Life is sacred. I think our hearts rebel even against this execution of a mother and father which is about to take place in the United States.
Some years ago we had considerable discussion in the house over the change from the present method of execution to something more like that used in the United States. To my mind that does not go far enough. I still believe that in every human being there is a spot of good that can be touched. Man's destiny is in the eternal world, and that should make us consider this matter most seriously. I think there is a good deal in the suggestion that a man found guilty of murder should be given an option.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments in connection with this bill. Before proceeding may I say that I do not often find myself supporting the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) in his proposals for saving funds, but I do most heartily support him in his efforts to save life.
I am rather surprised that, while several hon. members have spoken-and I have enjoyed what they have had to say-none of our great legal luminaries have risen to express their opinions on this most important question. In fact I am rather surprised that we have not heard from the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who always takes the position that he stands for things that are for the general advantage of Canada generally.
In my opinion the bill deserves the most earnest consideration of all members of the house, and I join with other members who have congratulated the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) for bringing the bill before the house and by so doing providing an opportunity for general discussion and consideration of the subject. Not only is it a matter of concern to quite a number of members of the house-and I have heard a number of them express opinions who have not spoken this afternoon-but it is a matter of concern to quite a large segment of the Canadian people. I have heard this subject discussed by people of various types representing different groups and all parties in

the house at the present time. Therefore I think there is no question but that it is a subject that we can discuss on a strictly nonpartisan basis and therefore entirely on its merits.
From my reading on the subject, which has not been in recent days, apparently we in Canada have not paid as much attention to it as has been paid in some of the older countries. I can understand that because the objection to certain processes of law, particularly to capital punishment, in my opinion increases with the development of civilization. The older a civilization becomes the more people begin to examine the various legal processes. I understand the subject has been discussed in Great Britain on many occasions and received such wide support that the House of Commons of that country passed a bill in 1948 providing for the suspension of capital punishment for a period of 20 years. That bill, however, did not become law because it was defeated by the House of Lords.
Canadian experience has not been as lengthy as that of Great Britain and western European countries, particularly those to which the hon. member for Moose Jaw referred. As far as I can ascertain the first reference to this subject in the debates of the house was made in 1914 by Mr. Bickerdike, who introduced legislation quite similar to that introduced by the hon. member for Moose Jaw this afternoon. I understand he reintroduced his bill in 1917 and received the support of Hon. George Graham, at one time a cabinet minister. In 1919 Mr. Mowat introduced legislation containing a similar proposal to that contained in the bill of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. Then in 1923 a bill was introduced by Mr. William Irvine, a former member of the house for a number of years who has been and still is a very active member of the C.C.F. party in Canada.
I think a reading of the debates of that period will indicate that Mr. Irvine had given the subject considerable study, and he made a most interesting speech at that time. In 1937 a parliamentary committee gave attention to the subject, dealing with the methods of execution and other matters. Since that time various organizations, church and other organizations, small groups of the different political parties and many newspapers throughout Canada have dealt with the subject from time to time, and the newspapers have published editorials. Possibly the most notable and recent are the editorials published in the Vancouver Sun, which is so ably represented in Ottawa by a descendant
Emergency Powers Act of a very well known and prominent newspaper man. The Ottawa Citizen, I presume because of the introduction of the bill by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, had an editorial on February 10 entitled "Stale Arguments for Hanging" which I think is well worth reading, but I do not intend to read it at this time.
The Citizen complimented the hon. member for Moose Jaw for bringing the subject to the attention of the house and indicated that it was about time there was some action to improve the present law. I am of the opinion that it would be advisable to refer the bill to the committee revising the Criminal Code. That committee could study the terms of the bill, hear evidence and representations and make a report to the house.
I am not quite certain that I agree entirely with the proposal of the hon. member for Moose Jaw that capital punishment should be limited to treason only. I am of the opinion that possibly we should have capital punishment for crimes of violence committed with cruelty and in cold blood.
On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: When the house reconvenes at eight o'clock it will continue consideration of the business in committee of the whole which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
31, 1953 to may 31, 1954
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Robinson 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. Churchill:: I have become interested in this particular debate because of one or two statements made by the Minister of Justice. In view of the importance of the subject matter I feel it is worth while having a word or two to say. I take it that is the duty of the opposition when contentious legislation is before the house. In that connection I should like to quote from the book "Cabinet Government" by Jennings, page 464. This

Emergency Powers Act
quotation deals with the function of the opposition, and I just mention it in passing:
Attacks upon the government and upon individual ministers are the function of the opposition. The duty of the opposition is to oppose. It adopts Sir Toby's advice, "So soon as ever thou seest him, draw; and, as thou drawest, swear horrible." That duty is the major check which the constitution provides upon corruption and defective administration.
I am not dealing with a matter of corruption, nor am I making an attack upon the minister or upon defective administration. However, as a member of the opposition I feel it is only my duty to oppose measures which I think are unsatisfactory. I have already mentioned my reasons for speaking at this time, but in addition I have been disturbed over the years by the growth in the power of the executive. There is no question but what, over the years, there has been a decline in the power of the House of Commons, while the power of the executive has increased.
This has been a matter for investigation and discussion by many people who are interested in parliamentary government. The distinguished writer Professor Dawson, in his book "The Government of Canada" on page 316, in discussing delegated legislative power, indicates the gradual development of the power of the cabinet. I should like to quote two or three passages, commencing at page 316. Earlier the author has been mentioning that parliament has delegated powers to the cabinet to enact subsidiary legislation within the limits of the statutes, and that these powers may also be given to a government department, board and so on. He says:
Delegations of both kinds are extremely common. At least one-half of the 225 public acts of the dominion in force in 1933 gave power to the executive to legislate by order in council or departmental regulation, and the tendency has been for this proportion to increase rather than diminish. Most of these acts do no more than permit the addition of technical details, although in many cases this is covered by a vague phrase authorizing such regulations "as may be deemed necessary for giving full effect to the provisions of this act". Other statutes, however, go much further than mere amplification. Some give the executive the power to vary the provisions or extend the scope of the act in an important respect; . . .
Further down he says:
The most extreme example of such a delegation of subsidiary legislative power was furnished during the recent war. The War Measures Act gave authority to the governor in council to make such orders and regulations as it "may deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada" so long as the war emergency should continue-a grant of power so sweeping that it conveyed to the governor in council most of the enormous wartime emergency powers made available to the dominion parliament under the "peace, order, and good government" clause of the British North America Act.

Then, one final quotation from this book on page 318:
The clear justification for so comprehensive a delegation was of course the national safety, but the degree to which this would be warranted in the period following the cessation of hostilities is naturally much more debatable.
That is the reason for this debate at the present time. We feel that the extension of emergency powers to a government in time of peace, although not going as far as the War Measures Act, is unnecessary at the present time.
I have mentioned the growth of the power of the executive, and it may be interesting to consider just how that power can be exercised and what it amounts to. Again I shall quote from Professor Dawson, page 252:
The cabinet, acting as the governor in council, enacts subordinate legislation under the authority (and only under the authority) delegated to it by acts of the Canadian parliament. Its legislative output may be known as minutes or orders in council, the distinction being largely one of form and apparently of little consequence, and it must also give formal approval to the minutes of the treasury board. The subject matter of this legislation may range from questions of purely departmental routine to those of first-rate importance with far-reaching consequences, from the approval of a contract or the amendment of a minor regulation to the establishment of a nation-wide system of price control in time of war.
Then he goes on to deal with the number of orders in council, and I quote again:
The number of these orders and minutes is very large: even in ordinary times they reach five or six thousand a year, while in time of war they naturally increase greatly with the additional cabinet responsibilities and the need for immediate executive decision and action. Thus from August 25, 1939, to September 2, 1945, the governor in council disposed of 92,350 items of business, a tremendous total, although one which is not so impressive as it appears at first glance. A very large part indeed of these orders and minutes were concerned with routine matters, and not more than 4 or 5 per cent of the total represented action which was legislative in any real sense of the term. Even so, the numbers give a very good idea of the cabinet's enormously important function in supplementing the legislative activity of parliament.
I might just note there that in the footnote to this passage he breaks down the total as follows:
Orders in council and minutes of council 56,202
Proceedings of treasury board	 36,148
That again gives an indication of the extension of powers in the hands of cabinet and the way in which the cabinet is involved in legislation. Perhaps in the house here sometime we might propose to debate a resolution in the following terms: Resolved that the cabinet's power has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. It is to prevent a further increase in the power of the cabinet that we are opposing the present Emergency Powers Act.

In the course of his remarks this afternoon the Minister of Justice stated that the Emergency Powers Act was, in some respects, superior to the War Measures Act because under the War Measures Act there is no obligation to place before the House of Commons the orders in council which may be passed. In order that his words may be given with accuracy, I will quote from page 2081 of Hansard where we find the following:
Moreover the War Measures Act does not require that the orders in council passed under it shall be tabled in parliament, nor does it provide that such orders in council shall be open to annulment proceedings by parliament.
I should like to deal first with the second part of that quotation. The Emergency Powers Act does provide for the annulment of those orders in council if it is the opinion of parliament that that should be done; and it is so stated, of course, in section 1, subsection
5.	But it is quite obvious that nothing would be annulled, or it is quite unlikely that anything would be annulled by the House of Commons unless that was the purpose of the government. I therefore do not think there is much weight in that particular argument, in distinguishing the powers within the War Measures Act and the powers within the Emergency Powers Act.
The other matter is what really engaged my attention originally, where the minister says the War Measures Act does not require that the orders in council passed under it shall be tabled in parliament. I presume he gets his authority for that statement from that extremely wide section in the War Measures Act, namely section 3, which confers upon the governor in council almost everything that is desired. But I suggest to the Minister of Justice that it would be interesting to hear from him under what authority he bases the statement that orders in council need not be tabled in the House of Commons.
In the second place, I would draw his attention to custom; and custom and usage play a great part in parliament. We have our rules by which we govern proceedings here; but there are many unwritten rules or customs which determine the course of our proceedings. If at any time the government decided not to table orders in council in the House of Commons, whether under the War Measures Act or otherwise, it would certainly be called into question, and it would be running counter to custom established over many years.
I was interested to note what had been done during the recent war. In looking through the Journals of the House of Commons I found that in 1939 the emergency orders in council passed just prior to the war
Emergency Powers Act were promptly tabled in the House of Commons by the then prime minister. If you look at Hansard for 1939, covering the period September 7 to September 13-that is the special war session of the eighteenth parliament-on page 1 you will find a report dealing with the European war and the prime minister saying as follows:


Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister) :: With the consent of the house I desire to lay on the table documents relating to the outbreak of war, September, 1939, copies of which, in English and French, are being distributed this afternoon.
I desire also to lay on the table copies of emergency orders in council passed since August 25, 1939, to date.
Then follows, of course, on page 2, a list of these emergency orders that had been passed. Then on page 3 you have this question:


Mr. Manion:: Am I right in understanding that this is a complete list of the emergency orders in council?


James Horace King: Yes.


Robert James Manion: My right hon. friend has read a complete list?


James Horace King: Yes. Of course, there have been many other orders passed in the last week; but these are the orders which refer to the emergency situation.


Robert James Manion: The ones my right hon. friend has read?


James Horace King: Yes.
Then in checking the Journals for subsequent sessions of parliament I found that in 1940, on January 25, copies of these emergency orders in council passed under the provisions of the War Measures Act were tabled in the house covering the period September 12, 1939 to January 17, 1940.
Throughout the war years the same practice was followed. I checked the Journals, volume 81-it covers the period 1940, 1941 and 1942-and under the War Measures Act orders in council for the period from July 23, 1940 to January 13, 1942 were tabled in the house. In the 1942-43 session of parliament there were six occasions when orders in council under the War Measures Act were tabled. Similarly in 1943-44 there were four sessional papers, being orders in council under the War Measures Act, tabled in the house covering the period January 6 to June 30, 1943. Again in 1944 to 1945 the same practice was followed. In 1945 again the orders in council were tabled. That is, in 1945, tne first session of the twentieth parliament met on September 6; on the following day, September 7, copies of orders in council passed under the War Measures Act for the period March 1 to June 30, 1945, were laid before the House of Commons.
I suggest that the custom of this house is to give to members of the House of Commons

Emergency Powers Act full information with regard to orders in council whether passed under the War Measures Act or otherwise. I therefore conclude that when the Minister of Justice was suggesting to us that under the War Measures Act the government would not be required to table orders in council in parliament, he would be running quite counter to the custom and usage of the House of Commons.
Another comment of the Minister of Justice that attracted my attention was the question of apprehended war. Apparently one of the reasons for wishing to have emergency powers now is the threat of war; and the suggestion is made that unless these emergency powers are available, some crisis may arise during this particular period when it will not be possible to take effective action. Several arguments have been advanced against that view. I am not sure of the meaning of "apprehended war". I had been under the impression that that term was used when war was very, very close. It was used in August or September, 1939, when a proclamation was issued by the government of the day regarding the existence of apprehended war. Well, are we now in a state of apprehended war, or what do these terms mean?
As has been pointed out in the house, we have been assured that we are not at war, that there is only a police action going on in Korea, although two million men have been killed or wounded. We are assured that it is just a twilight war, and we have had these odd expressions used: "cold peace" and "cold war". Surely there is a war going on in Asia but not, at the moment, elsewhere. And a war in Asia does not threaten Canada with any great emergency, that is as a threat to our own defences.
So what is meant by apprehended war? I would like to hear that from the Minister of Justice. I think we are not quite clear with regard to the world situation if we say that at the present moment we are faced with a condition of apprehended war. According to the understanding of that term in 1939,
I am sure it must have meant that troops were in motion in Europe, that attacks had been made on the frontiers, and that submarines were at sea.
Well, perhaps the Minister of Justice has more information on the present situation than we have, and we may be in a more serious position than we think. If we are in a more serious position, then a different type of action is required. I suggest that that type of action would be the one followed in the summer of 1939. I was not one who approved in 1939, 1938, 1937 or 1936 the dilatory action of the government of the day, or their lack

of preparation for a war which seemed to me to be imminent. Nevertheless, when a crisis did arise in the summer of 1939, and when the government of that day decided that there was an apprehended war, certain measures were taken. Those measures were outlined in emergency orders in council which, as I have pointed out, were subsequently and promptly tabled in the house by Mr. Mackenzie King.
I think when we reach an actual crisis, and when the government has, from its various sources of information, knowledge that war is imminent, special emergency powers may be brought into effect and the War Measures Act invoked. But until we are sure that there is actually a grave danger of war within a very short time, I do not see the need for these emergency powers which the Minister of Justice is trying to persuade us should be adopted.
We have had pointed out to us that the government has not used its powers very widely under the Emergency Powers Act. That seems to me an argument for the discontinuance of it; they do not need it. We have had much attention drawn to the fact that some of the orders in council passed under that particular act have been rather trivial, and that some have been used to rescind other orders in council. I would say, then, that the Emergency Powers Act is not at the present time required. Unless it can be shown to us that a serious emergency exists, unless it can be shown that in the last two years such a serious emergency has resulted in the use of the Emergency Powers Act to very good effect, and that it has included measures outside the scope of immediate action by parliament-unless all those things can be shown, I do not see any reason for continuing the Emergency Powers Act.
Then, other methods are open to us. Nowadays it is not difficult to assemble parliament when an emergency arises. In these days of air transportation I fancy the House of Commons could be called together with great rapidity. Why confer upon the cabinet greater powers than it enjoys at the present time? I have read in one of these references that about half the present statutes delegate powers to the cabinet. This goes back to 1933, and it may be that by this time more statutes confer that power. Why, then, give to the cabinet these extraordinary powers which surely are not necessary? It seems to me that runs counter to our system of parliamentary government.

'	-	-j
Mr. Dawson, writing in the "Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science", volume 12, 1946, has this to say:
The cabinet is above everything else responsible to the House of Commons, not as individuals alone, but collectively as well. This responsibility has been the key to the control of the executive power in Canada as in Britain; the powers of the crown have remained for the most part intact or have even been increased, but the exercise of those powers has come under the cabinet, and this body in turn under the general scrutiny of parliament. This is the central fact of parliamentary democracy; for it is this practice which keeps the system both efficient and constantly amenable to popular control.
I think we should keep that in mind on all occasions. And although the Minister of Justice may reply that parliament will have the opportunity of reviewing the action of the cabinet during periods when parliament is not in session, nevertheless I think that conferring upon the cabinet emergency powers as outlined in this act would tend to suggest to the cabinet that various matters might be dealt with by orders in council without the necessity of summoning parliament. And I think that is not a good thing for democracy.
I am not one who opposes the length of sessions of the House of Commons. I think it is a good thing to come here and scrutinize the actions of the cabinet during the interval we are away. It is good to scrutinize all the various functions performed by the government. That can be done only when we are here in session.
Certainly if there is an emergency the first thing to do is call together the parliament of Canada and lay before it the problems that have arisen so as to determine what shall be done. It should not be left just to a handful of men in parliament to make these decisions. That is another reason I am opposed to granting this authority to the government under the Emergency Powers Act. I think this measure should not be passed, and I say to the Minister of Justice that he should give it second thought.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the resolution carry?


George Alexander Drew: No. This discussion has taken some time, but no member of the committee should regret the length of time it takes to consider something so fundamental as the rights of this parliament, in which the business of the country is carried on. The concept of our parliamentary system is that it is in parliament that the business of the country will be dealt with. There has been great reluctance to confer upon the executive powers to legislate which take from the continuing control of parliament the enactment of laws which people will understand and can observe, with a knowledge of what those laws really are.
Emergency Powers Act
But there is a very important difference between the kind of legislative law which has been accumulating over the years, and an act of this kind which permits the executive to pass new laws by orders in council without any definition as to the limitations under which it can act. Repeated interruptions by the Minister of Justice referring to the exceptions contained in the act indicate either that he is unwilling to leave with the committee an accurate interpretation of what the act really means, or that he does not understand it. It is one or the other. He has constantly spoken of the fact that this act has very great limitations. He speaks, for instance, of the limitation upon arrest, which is provided in section 2(2). He has spoken about other limitations. The fact is that there is no effective limitation under this act. It is only necessary to read what the act says to see how broad its powers are. Subsection 2 of section 1, to which reference has been made, reads:
Notwithstanding anything contained therein, the powers conferred on the governor in council by subsection one do not include power to make orders or regulations in relation to
(a) arrest, except as incidental to proceedings under section three, detention, exclusion or deportation of any person.
Then when we look at subsection 3 we find where the government can deal even with cases of arrest. That subsection 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.
In other words anything that is passed under this act by way of regulation under those wide and inclusive powers-to say nothing of the generality of this act-would have the force of law and under subsection 2	(a) the protection that is apparently
afforded is denied in relation to those particular provisions.
I must place on record the views expressed on an earlier occasion in regard to this act, in view of the repeated statements by the Minister of Justice that we had not opposed the act on previous occasions. The Minister of Justice has repeated this over and over again. I am not going to use the term which I think might be appropriate to describe the nature of the interjections, but over and over again the question was interjected, "Did you vote against it on that occasion?" The statement has been made and repeated that we opposed this act. So there may be no doubt about it I wish to place on the record extracts from what I said in May of last year. These statements were similar to those made by other members of this party. I refer to page 2568 of Hansard
2272

Emergency Powers Act of May 26, 1952. The remarks I shall now quote related to the very act that we now have under consideration, and were as follows:
This act, subject only to the very limited reservation to which I have referred, represents a complete surrender by parliament of its powers to the executive. It authorizes for the government of Canada-an undefined body from time to time, the executive of this parliament star chamber procedure that has been repudiated for centuries under our parliamentary traditions. Instead of representing the judgment of parliament this act expresses no judgment at all, except that we say to the government:	you do anything you
think wise either with the business ordinarily in our hands or ordinarily in the hands of the provincial legislatures.
This act places the fate of our people m the hands of the government of Canada, the executive, undefined, without reference to any particular minister, without any specific declaration of any kind as to the terms under which it can be employed. Instead of prescribing rules of conduct defined by the people's representatives in parliament it authorizes the government to enact codes which will prescribe the rules for our daily life in any manner the government in its secret judgment, without the advice of parliament, may decide.
Then I wish to quote from what I said later, as reported on page 2572:
At a time when we are seeking to preserve the spirit, the form, the living body and the traditions of democracy, I most earnestly urge the government to withdraw this resolution. It can withdraw it in the same way that it has on other occasions when other measures have been presented and the government became convinced that it was not desirable to proceed. That does not mean it cannot deal with any cases which it thinks should be dealt with. It is only necessary for the government to examine what was done during the past year under this act, and anything that conceivably could be required during the coming year, and then introduce simple amendments to existing legislation which will permit them to deal with the matter under clearly defined and limited terms.
May I also say that, if circumstances should arise short of war which call for wider powers, we have seen that this parliament can meet within a few days and pass whatever laws are necessary. In the event that the most unhappy possibility of war should become a reality the government need not be concerned because it has the powers already.
It seems to me in the face of those words that anyone who says we did not oppose this measure simply does not understand the English language. I do not know how it would be possible to be more emphatic in the way of objection to this act. In that speech in May of last year I carried forward the argument I had made on earlier occasions and described this as a star chamber procedure which had been abandoned for centuries. I described it as legislation that was inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this parliament and our federal democratic structure. It was opposed then and on other occasions. We are repeating [Mr. Drew.l
that opposition now. But there is reason why opposition to this measure at this time should be much more vigorous than it was a year ago.
At that time we were still unaware of the exact words of the judgment in the privy council in what has become known as the Nolan case. Actually reference was made to the judgment of the privy council because it was announced to the press at the very time we were discussing this act. Since then we have received the judgment and we know the effect; we know how far it goes. Until the Nolan judgment many of us still believed that it was competent for the courts to examine an order in council passed under emergency legislation of this kind and say whether or not the government had gone beyond the actual facts of the case at the time they declared that there was an emergency.
In the Manitoba courts and later in the Supreme Court of Canada the Nolan case was decided in a way different from what was ultimately decided by the privy council. It was decided in those courts that it was not competent for the government to deal with the particular subject matter in that case in the manner it did because the emergency was not such as justified the action that had been taken. But the final judgment in the Nolan case removed any protection of that kind.
The case is actually known as Attorney General for Canada and another, appellants, and Hallet and Carey, Limited, and another, respondents, and is reported in 1952 Appeal Cases, 427. In the summary at the top we find a condensation of the judgment as follows:
Held, first, 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.
Held, secondly, that the act of 1945, by words which were neither vague nor ambiguous, on its true construction gave the governor in council the power to carry out what he had purported to achieve. There is no rule of construction that general words in a statute are incapable of interfering with private rights, and although the act of 1945 did not include a specific reference to the subject of appropriation, the words "may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may . . . deem necessary or advisable" gave the amplest possible discretion in the choice of methods, and applying the paramount rule of interpretation that every statute must be expounded according to its manifest or expressed intention, there could not be implied an exclusion of any power in the circumstances to acquire compulsorily any piece of property.
Those are the two findings in that case which are condensed at the head of this very

important judgment. On different occasions the Minister of Justice has interjected that the Nolan case did not decide anything in relation to the act we have before us. That is perfectly true. It decided the power of the government to pass an order in council under the transitional powers act, which was the forerunner of the present act. The words under which the privy council gave its judgment were the exact words that appear in the present act.
It does not make any difference what other words may be different; the words that were used by the privy council as giving such wide powers to the governor in council that the courts were not competent to canvass the circumstances which the government had deemed adequate to justify an order of this kind were the following: "may do and authorize such acts and things ... as he may by reason of the existing emergency deem necessary or advisable" for the various subjects then covered by that act. The words that are important are "may do and authorize such acts and things as he may by reason of the existing emergency deem necessary or advisable." Those are the governing words. Those are the words interpreted in the Nolan case. Those are the words we now have before us, and we have the judgment of the Nolan case which says that once the government under these wide terms declares that in its opinion it is advisable that something be done to meet an emergency described as such by the government, then it is not competent for the courts to review the circumstances which led to the passing of such an order.
This gives us an entirely new interpretation of the powers of the government. It tears away any pretence of protection in the courts against improvident and unnecessary acts of the government in the exercise of its powers. True, the government come before us and say: "What reason have you to be worried? Look at what was done last year. We employed this act so little that you have no occasion to be worried at all." It has been pointed out that not one of the things that was done needed to be done under an emergency act. It has been pointed out that every one of these things should have been done here in parliament by legislation passed by parliament in view of the fact that we were meeting here continuously and could have dealt with legislation of this kind.
In an attitude of derision the Minister of Justice points out that on the one hand we emphasize the dangers of this legislation and on the other hand emphasize how little the government needed to employ the act last year. Yes, that is so. On the one hand what 68108-145J
Emergency Powers Act happened last year shows that they did not need it last year. We point out the dangers, and the government has not raised one argument of any kind to challenge the accuracy of our interpretation of those dangers if the government should seek to exercise these powers in the way it could. The government has made no attempt whatever to explain to the house why it needs this emergency act.
The statements of the Minister of Justice do not constitute any argument in support of such an act. The minister said this afternoon that the need of emergency powers will not be denied by reasonable people. Dire necessity, such as would involve curtailment of the ordinary facilities of transportation and communication and the easy contact of people in their daily occupations, may well call for emergency measures, and those emergency measures are available to the government in the unhappy event that at any time circumstances of that nature should arise. They have not arisen. The government itself says they have not arisen.
Having said that, then let the government explain to us why it needs these emergency powers. What it has done so far, what it has been called upon to do, has at no time suggested any reason for the existence of such powers. In the face of the Nolan case, let the government tell us why they placed this resolution before us that it is expedient to adopt an emergency measure which will give the government the power to invade the ordinary rights of parliament, and to completely destroy the rights of the provincial legislatures of this country if they choose to do so. It is no answer to say that this government would never do it. If it would never do it, why ask for the power?
If the government believes that there are limitations upon its conduct, then let it place those limitations in the statute. We do not like administrative law. We do not like passing legislation which creates further administrative law; but if there is going to be administrative law then at least let the measure define the limits within which the government can make laws by order in council. Nothing of that kind exists in this case. This afternoon the hon. member for Lake Centre emphasized in his remarks these broad powers to invade every field of the economic life of the country as well as the personal activities of our people, of production, of transportation, of communication. Practically every human activity is brought specifically under this emergency act. It is no answer to say: "Oh, we would not act improperly." That is the attitude of the government.

Emergency Powers Act
It would not be necessary for us to continue this debate in the manner it has been continued if the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister, in whose name the resolution stands, would give us any reason why this emergency power is now necessary. Let them point out to us clear examples of any conceivable cases where they would need such emergency powers. They have not put before us a single example which would indicate to us the nature of any circumstances which they would regard as justifying powers of this kind. On different occasions the Minister of Justice has interrupted members who have pointed out other acts of the government which suggest that they should not be entrusted with too wide powers of this kind. On different occasions he has said that these remarks are not relevant. They are very relevant, Mr. Chairman. When members of this parliament say, as some members on the opposite side do, that we can trust the government no matter how wide the powers are, they should again review the things this government has done at different times.
We are told that this government would always put before parliament what it has done. Well, it has not on certain occasions, and it has broken laws on different occasions. As a matter of fact the very minister charged with the responsibility of the enforcement of the law most glaringly broke one of our laws and withheld from publication a very important document that was of importance to the people of Canada. That does not inspire confidence on the part of members of the house in giving to the government wide powers which would be exercised by the very minister who, although not exercising emergency powers, challenged the ordinary legal requirements in the way he did in that particular case.
Then we come to a fact which should be recalled and emphasized. Not only is there this emergency power and the provision under the emergency act for the publication of orders in council and for a review, which the innocent might think gave some real protection. In addition there is a provision in the Regulations Act, section 9, subsection 2, which reads this way.
The governor In council may by regulation exempt any regulation or class of regulations from the operation of section 3, section 4, subsection 1 of section 6, and section 7, but every regulation made under this subsection shall be published in English and in French in the Canada Gazette within thirty days after it is made and shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after it is published in the Canada Gazette or, if parliament is not then in session, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.

I have discovered that there are some members of parliament who are under the impression that this provision in the Regulations Act calls for the publication of orders that are referred to as exempt from the ordinary publication. It is not the orders that are exempted that are to be published. It is the order exempting some other order which is published in English and in French, and then the order exempted is never published.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in these times, which may be normal times during the lives of most of us here, there should be no single secret order in existence which this government has passed at any time. I know there is one such order in existence. I have had no notification of any other but I am not certain that I would be notified of any other. There have been occasions when orders have been passed and no notification has been given either privately or publicly. I repeat that I am not satisfied that the order which is exempted from publication is an order which should have ever been passed.
I can conceive of circumstances where it may be necessary to withhold certain details of some order, but parliament should not be in ignorance of any single act of the government. This parliament should not be in ignorance of any course the government is following. There is no secret act of the government in relation to the security or privacy of the individual which they should be able to put in the form of an order in council and then withhold from parliament. They should be made known at least in understandable terms which explain what they are doing. When we realize that there is this power of exemption, exercised so far as I know at this time only in relation to a single order which I do not propose to discuss in detail, then it should also be realized that the government could change its course at any time and exempt any number of orders in council. It is no use saying this government would not do anything of that kind. Although they may at times give every appearance of believing in their own omniscience, they are not immortal. Unhappily, day by day we learn that people are subject to the ordinary impact of the tide of time. The laws we pass should be laws that it is safe to entrust to any group of individuals, and the propriety or otherwise of any law under our system cannot be measured by the confidence anyone expresses in the temporary occupant of any particular office of government. It is the principle at stake, not the individual who administers this or any other law, which should determine the wisdom of the course that is followed.

On other occasions when emergency legislation of this kind has been under discussion reference has been made to that great book by Lord Hewart of Bury, "The New Despotism". There is a very recent book to which reference has been made on different occasions in this discussion, and that book is "The Passing of Parliament". It has a very suggestive title when we are considering a subject of this kind, because that book deals with the whole trend of administrative law up to the final stage. I would suggest to some hon. members, who belittle arguments against legislation of this kind, that they read the thoughtful discussion of this subject by Professor Keeton, in which he stresses the trend of administrative law through its innocent stages up to the final stage which brought the nazi government into power in Germany.
An interesting reference to the subject mentioned in this book appeared in the 59, Law Quarterly Review, pages 134 to 144. I should like to quote these words, because they do refer to this subject, and of course refer to a situation that no one here would be prepared to admit as an immediate possibility. At least I submit that the words have a measure of relevancy which can only be alarming to those who have followed the trend toward still greater powers in the hands of the executive. I am quoting from the Law Quarterly Review at the pages I mentioned, and this refers to what happened in Germany:
The decisive thing was not the invalidation of law by emergency powers during the critical days of 1923, but the getting used to it. In the most quiet times between 1924 and 1929 it would have been possible to draw some conclusions from the experience gathered and to bring the problems of emergency measures under legal control by defining conditions and limits, review and repeal, and by regulating the relations between the different authorities concerned. But neither the parliament nor the government and its professional legal advisers nor the lawyers energetically endeavoured to create such a legal order. There was no feeling for the necessity of law and rules in the face of these doubtful and dangerous situations. When after 1930 Germany was continuously ruled by emergency legislation, when chancellors changed, but the emergency powers remained, people did not know and became indifferent to whether the emergency measures were within the law, hard at its border or beyond its limits. Acknowledgment of half-legal government made illegal government possible.
May I repeat those last words?
Acknowledgment of half-legal government made illegal government possible.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what those words say in simple terms is that it was the acceptance of emergency powers, and the refusal to challenge those emergency powers even though they had not gone so far as to alarm the people at that time, which ultimately
Emergency Powers Act made illegal government not only possible but apparently inevitable.
In this same book we find reference to the delegation of law, and the lawyers in this house know the old Latin maxim delegata potestas non potest delegari. I repeat the argument that has been made before, an argument that has more force than ever in view of the interpretation which has been placed upon emergency legislation of this kind by the privy council. We are the representatives of the people, and this is the supreme authority. It is not our right, let alone our duty, to delegate to the government our responsibility for the freedom, of our people and the economic conditions of this country. We are asked to do just that under this legislation, no matter what innocent assurances may be given of the harmless intention of the government.
Then may I refer to this book I have mentioned, "The Passing of Parliament", and to what it says at page 190:
A survey of our political and social history during the past three-quarters of a century suggests two important general conclusions:
(1)	That the increasing fondness for executive power is not the monopoly of any one political party. It is, or has been a characteristic of all, though with different degrees of emphasis.
(2)	The usurpation of government by the departments is dangerous per se. It becomes very much more dangerous, however, when it is allied with a collectivist philosophy . . .
I mention these particular statements, Mr. Chairman, because the arguments I am putting forward are arguments which relate with equal emphasis to any political party. I do not for one moment suggest that the criticism I am directing to this legislation is because it is put forward by a Liberal government. I hope I would put forward the same criticism with equal vigour if any Conservative government proposed it.
My view in this respect has been consistent not only in this legislative body but elsewhere. I believe also that one of the great dangers in entrusting wide powers of this kind is that we find that when administrative laws are passed they are handled by departments, and the departments become the lawmakers. Even the ministers do not know what is happening.
We have had strong evidence during this session of how little some ministers know of what is happening in their own departments. We even had the incredible report given to us that 1,100 odd reports of great importance had never at any time come to the attention of the minister in charge of one of the most important departments. That is an added reason why wide administrative powers of this kind should not be conferred upon a government which has demonstrated

Emergency Powers Act its weaknesses all along the line in dealing with powers conferred upon them in this way.
We have this resolution before us; we are asked to declare that it is expedient that emergency legislation of this kind should be re-enacted. Not one argument has been placed before us to demonstrate why it is expedient. Not one illustration of any kind has been submitted to the members of this house to indicate why the government needs this emergency legislation, and could not deal with any situation that might arise by the ordinary processes of parliament. Let the government suggest a condition which could not be dealt with satisfactorily by the members of parliament while parliament is in session or a parliament quickly reconvened, as it has been under other circumstances. Let them illustrate to us the kind of circumstances which they say demand emergency legislation of this kind to be continued.
It has been pointed out to us how unimportant the things were that were done. We point out, and it cannot be denied, that the things that were done last year did not needi this legislation at all. Before we are asked to deal with this-and my words are directed to the Liberal members of this house-as representatives of the people let us have some explanation of why we are delegating our responsibilities here in parliament. Let them give us some reason. I would hope the Liberal members would ask for that, even at this stage of the debate. Let us have some reason why the executive should be given these wide powers, no matter how little it is intending to exercise them.
In view of the cogent arguments that were put forward by the hon. member for Lake Centre, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Eglinton, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and other hon. members in this house. I earnestly hope the Minister of Justice will finally deal with this matter in a way that is in keeping with the request that is now before the house, that we declare it is expedient that we confer upon the government powers never contemplated under our constitutional system.


Mr. Blackmore:: Just to clarify this whole situation in our minds, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister, whichever one feels disposed to answer. Suppose there had been an act comparable with this act which is now proposed. Suppose it had been passed in the early part of 1939 and it then became necessary to go to war with Hitler. Would the
[Mr. Drew.l

government have called a session of parliament to declare war or would it have declared war under the powers conferred upon it by the Emergency Powers Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I have not been a member of this government at any time during which it has been necessary to declare war, but my understanding has always been that a declaration of war is not made by our country until the matter has been submitted to parliament.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mention was made of an order in council passed under this act but which has not been laid before this house. Are there any such orders in council? If so, how many are there?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: There is one about which, when it was passed, information was conveyed to the leaders of the three groups in the house. There is only one.


Angus MacInnis: Was the order brought to the attention of parliament as laid down in this act? If not, why not?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: The exempting order was brought to the attention of parliament. Because it was an order dealing with security, the information about it was given to the three leaders; and it was explained to them how the matter was being handled.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to leave no doubt about the fact that I do not know how the powers under that order are being exercised. In so far as an order of this kind is concerned, I repeat what I said before. While it was indicated to me after it had been passed-and I emphasize that point-we were not consulted in regard to it. We were informed after it had been passed. I wish to make it quite clear that while I know the nature of the order-and having regard to the circumstances under which the nature of that order was indicated to me I do not feel myself at liberty to say anything more about what that order is-I say with the utmost emphasis that I do not agree that this or any other government under our system should be permitted to pass an order and exempt it from publication unless there is an act clearly determining exactly the kind of order that can be made in that way, in regard to security or any other matter of that kind.


Angus MacInnis: The Leader of the Opposition says that he has been informed of the order but that he was not consulted. I do not think there is anything in the act which provides that members of parliament, whether they be leaders or otherwise, have to be consulted before an order is made. But there is a provision that the order must be tabled in this house after it is made. If an order

has not been tabled, I do not think it is satisfactory just to give information about it to a limited few, no matter whether those few are leaders or no matter how highly they are respected in this house. Such action is not laying the order before the house.


George Alexander Drew: I want to make it quite clear that I was not suggesting that it was necessary for the government to consult the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else in the house. That is the very point I wish to make. I say that because I certainly accept no responsibility for a system of this kind. I also agree with what has just been said, namely that it is not sufficient that the contents of an order be indicated to a few.
We are seeking to carry on the parliament of Canada under parliamentary rules. Unless the nature of the order is most clearly defined by legislation, I submit that at no time should there be passed by this or any other government any order which limits the freedom of any individual or the rights of any of our people. I am satisfied that without any breach of security or without in any way weakening the efforts of the government to maintain security, the field within which any action of the government may be taken in relation to the freedom of any individual can be clearly and explicitly defined; and I believe that it should be defined. That is what I was seeking to point chit previously.
While we may object strenuously to administrative law, the least those of us who believe in our federal parliamentary system should ask for is a clear definition of the terms under which the government may pass regulations and the field in which they may be passed. Otherwise we simply abandon to the government all the rights of this parliament; we are merely a parliament by tolerance of the government, and nothing more. This is, in effect, the passing of parliament. Except for such authority as the government chooses to leave with us by its restraint, now that we have the wide-open interpretation of the Nolan case, the passing of the Emergency Powers Act is in fact the passing of the Canadian parliament as a federal democratic institution.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to enter into a controversy with regard to this secret order; but what is the justification for it under law? Where, under the emergency legislation, does the government secure the power to permit of that? I am not going into any of the particulars. I have my own views on that matter, but I am not placing them before the house. However, where in the legislation passed by the house in 1951 was there any provision for the government
Emergency Powers Act to arrogate to itself the right to determine that those powers exercised under the statute could in fact be exercised under secret order? Is it a matter of regulations?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When this subject came up for discussion this evening I sent out for the statute under which I think the matter comes. I am speaking now from memory, but I think my hon. friend will recall that when we passed the Regulations Act which requires the tabling of orders in council generally, a provision was put in it to the effect that we might have an order in council which was not tabled-which was secret-provided we tabled the order in council relating to it and making it secret. I expect to get the Regulations Act.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Leader of the Opposition read it a few minutes ago.


John George Diefenbaker: I was under the impression that that power was conferred only with respect to the Defence Production Act.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is in the general Regulations Act. The hon. member will recall that I agreed with him a couple of years ago that all the regulations having the force of law and imposing any obligation should be published in the statutory orders and regulations and should be tabled regularly but that there were certain classes that might be exempted. I think the Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago read the provision which applies to an order that is exempted from publication in accordance with the general rule of the Regulations Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes. We found ourselves in a rather bad position some years ago when I referred to a secret order on one occasion. I was just looking it up a moment ago. It was on December 6, 1945. I then referred to the existence of a secret order in council and I found myself challenged with the statement that there was no such thing. Then three or four months later it was recalled that there was such a thing. For that reason, to put the matter in the mildest possible way, I think secret orders in council are dangerous in their import and certainly go a long way toward the adoption of principles that are the negation of parliamentary government. I will say no more about that matter at the moment.
However, I come back to some questions that I was asking just about five o'clock. I know the minister has been waiting for the opportunity of answering them. Perhaps I might restate them in summary form. The questions were generally to the following effect.

Emergency Powers Act
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-to reduce them; to deny them admission; to determine what products should be manufactured and what products should not be manufactured-that under the authority of this act the government could, with or without compensation, take over any or every business in Canada; that under this legislation it could take over the Canadian Pacific Railway, Canadian Pacific Air Lines, or any ships owned by that or any other company; that it could take over every radio station in Canada or direct their operations; that the only restrictions on newspapers that it could not exercise would be that of censorship or the suppression of publications or writings? In fact, under this legislation I suggest-and I am asking the minister for confirmation- the government asks power to take over every telegraph and telephone company in Canada, provided it desires to do so; that indeed there is no field of human endeavour in Canada that the government could not invade or that it could not appropriate.
I ask that question because, as I read the generality of the section in question, it provides that the government may do anything it deems necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada. Its decision would be final in that regard, under the Nolan case. The only omnipotent power it cannot exercise is that it cannot arrest, except in respect of penalties imposed, in which case the ordinary law would apply. It cannot exclude people from Canada; it cannot deport them. It would have the power to cancel Canadian citizenship, if it chose to do so, whether by birth or by naturalization. It would have the power to do all these things, with the exception of arrest, exclusion or deportation of any person, or the censorship and control and suppression of publications and writings.
Do I overstate the case when I say that those are the powers this government asks for?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 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. He has taken about three minutes, by the clock, to list a long series of powers, and he wants me to assure him, yes or no, as to whether all the powers on his list could be exercised under this act. Anxious as I am
to oblige him, I do not think I can commit myself so instantaneously to so all-inclusive a list.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall break it up, then.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If it is his contention that the act has that effect, then I would suggest that he make his own speech to that effect, and I shall be glad to reply in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is the answer I expected. The minister dare not say that those suggestions are not correct. But in order to give him an opportunity, and because of the immaturity of his consideration of this subject, I am going to give him the opportunity to answer them one by one.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 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.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister in effect has given the answer that over and over has ended parliamentary government, because the Prime Minister does not deny that once an emergency is declared, property and civil rights go out the window. The Nolan case decided that finally.
Then, sir, with the Minister of Justice advancing this bill before the House of Commons, and required to give reasons, I know of no answer given that equals the one nqw articulated by the Prime Minister-"These powers no doubt can be exercised; these are the things we ask for." Mr. Chairman, does that not give some indication of the comprehensive completeness this government has set for the powers it desires; and yet says, "Well, we ask for them, but they will not be exercised."
Sir, when the Prime Minister gave that answer just now he in fact emphasized the necessity on the part of the Minister of Justice to give us more reasons than have been produced as yet as to why parliament should turn over to the executive powers to do everything in this dominion-yes, everything, except for a few limitations as to censorship, arrest, exclusion and deportation.
Surely no one has given a more complete answer in the negative to the contention of the government that it requires these powers. If those tremendous powers are required, we are beyond apprehended war; we are in a position where parliament no longer can constitute itself as the protector of democracy. It would be too slow; a symbolism of democ-

racy, too slow for the needs of defence. Surely the government, by those words of the Prime Minister, has established beyond any doubt that asking for these powers is as unjustifiable as it is a denial of democratic government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice said he was waiting to give a certain reply. I expect we are going to receive that reply.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I dare refer to the absence of the Leader of the Opposition from the chamber the other day, but at that time when it seemed to me appropriate to make a full statement in respect of the bill I went at some length into the statements made when the bill was first introduced by the Prime Minister, setting out the reasons why these powers were being sought.
At that time I discussed at some length also the observations my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition himself had made, in agreement with the Prime Minister, as to why the course the government was following at that time was the correct one. It may be that my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition would like me to repeat those remarks. However, other members have already heard them, and I do not think any purpose can be served by my repeating them now. Indeed I believe I would be proceeding contrary to the rules in that I would be guilty of repetitious argument.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I agree there would be no use in the minister repeating them, because I have read them and they contain no single indication of the need for this legislation, not one. And I would point out something that occurred within the past few minutes and which, I suggest, should not be overlooked. When the hon. member for Lake Centre asked a certain clear and understandable question of the Minister of Justice, a question the minister must have understood perfectly well, he evaded it by saying, "The questions asked me are such that the hon. member, as a lawyer, would know I would not feel like replying for a couple of weeks", and he left it at that. Then the Prime Minister gave the best possible answer to a statement of that kind by rising in his place and stating very correctly what we have been contending all along, and that is that this act, subject to the reservations in section 68108-140
Emergency Powers Act
2(2), transfers to the government all the powers that could ordinarily be exercised by this parliament.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I 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 did not attempt to say that all the things he had enumerated could be done. I said if they were things that it was within the power of parliament to do and not excluded by the reservations, that they would be also within the power of the executive to do, but that they would not be any more apt to be done by the executive than they would be apt to be done by parliament. I am sure the hon. gentleman did not mean to convey that parliament was depriving itself of the power; it was depriving itself of being the sole body who could do it.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister was perfectly clear. What he indicated and what is undoubtedly correct was that, subject only to these rather meaningless reservations- and they are meaningless-in section 2, subsection 2, in so far as the enactment of administrative law was concerned, anything that this parliament could do is transferred to the government for legislative enactment, subject of course to the review that is provided by this act.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Subject to parliament doing it at any time. Even without the government having acted, the powers of parliament remain as complete as before; only parliament has said that the government may also do those things, but if it does they must be brought before parliament for review. That does not take from parliament the right of parliament to do them itself.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that in theory what the Prime Minister has said is correct; but in practice, under our parliamentary system, it has no meaning. Under our parliamentary system if a government, with the habit of such wide and sweeping majorities as this government has acquired, presents legislation and that legislation is on the statute books, we know perfectly well that a private member would not be able to introduce legislation which would repeal legislation that had been put before us and passed by a majority supporting the government. In fact no government that expected to survive many days in the house would

Emergency Powers Act present legislation which they expected would be carried by such a narrow margin that the life of the government would subsequently rest upon the attitude of parliament toward that legislation.
We know from the point of view of practical circumstances that if this legislation is passed it will remain on the statute books until the government decides it is to come off, and that would mean as long as this government is able to command the support of parliament and wishes to continue this legislation. True, this is to be extended for a year only; but we have seen where this has been continued for eight years after the war, following the exercise of emergency powers of a similar nature during the war itself.
What we actually see here is the extension of emergency powers into the fifteenth year, because we have been carrying on with emergency powers in varying degrees since 1939. But the Emergency Powers Act that is now before us grants powers only less powerful than those exercised in 1939 to the extent that there are limitations under subsection 2 of section 2. I have pointed out before that those limitations are largely illusory.
In the first place in the case of arrest, the only arrest in which the government presumably would be interested under the emergency act would be an arrest in relation to regulations passed under the act. Under the act they could carry out an arrest in relation to penalties arising under the regulations which had been adopted under the provisions of section 3.
So far as censorship is concerned and the suppression of publications, the wide powers conferred here would make it possible for the government to exercise full control over any production, over any publishing house, or over any communication in a way that would not make censorship in the ordinary meaning of that word necessary, but which would achieve the same result.
The only other exception is in paragraph (c) which reads:
(c) expenditure of moneys otherwise than in accordance with an appropriation by parliament except expenditure of moneys from any fund or account established by order or regulation in connection with a scheme of control for the purposes of that scheme of control.
A scheme of control under this act could be related to any type of production, to the Canadian Pacific Railway, to the aluminum production, to the iron ore production and so on. It would be possible to exercise a plan of control for the taking over of that production and to raise moneys in relation to that


plan which would not be subject to any restriction under this act. Therefore the limitations are illusory and very narrow in any event.
I think the Prime Minister has stated clearly what every lawyer in this house knows, that no matter how wise any member of this government may think the government will be in exercising powers conferred upon it, the powers that are conferred go so far as to permit the government to do anything by order in council that might be done at any time by this parliament. Yes; it could go further and do something-this is very important-or do anything that ordinarily could be done by any provincial legislature in this country.
Where is there a single limitation that would prevent this government invading the whole field of provincial jurisdiction? There is not a single reservation in this act, except those to which I have referred and which are largely illusory in effect. So far as the provincial governments are concerned, this government could also invade their authority. But remember that the provincial governments and the members of the provincial legislature would not have the imaginary protection that we have, because they would not be able to do anything about it.
We have the imaginary protection in that there is a tabling of these orders within a certain time if the house is sitting, and if we are not sitting within a certain time after we reconvene. But the provincial legislatures can be deprived of all their powers and have no recourse of any kind. Under the Nolan judgment the courts would have to declare that if the government in its judgment had decided there was an emergency which called for the exercise of the powers in the order in council which was passed, it would not be open to them to canvass the circumstances under which that order was adopted.
I know some hon. members may be impatient at the persistence with which we are putting forward this argument, but I repeat with the utmost emphasis that the Minister of Justice need not refer to the fact that I did not hear him give an explanation. I have read it in Hansard, and I agree with him that it would be quite useless to repeat it because not a word in what he said gives an explanation of any kind as to why this act is necessary.
We have placed before us in the name of the Prime Minister an act which delegates to the government, subject to the terms of publication and otherwise in this act, every power that could be exercised by this parliament or by any provincial legislature. We are asked to adopt that simply because we like

the smiles on the faces of members of the government and because everybody on the other side says it is perfectly safe to entrust them with any power at all.
That is the only argument that has been put forward. I do think, if not out of respect to the members of this parliament and the people who elect them, the members on the other side should out of respect to the traditions of our parliamentary system insist that we have some understandable explanation as to why this act should be passed, instead of having it just dropped in our lap with the remark, "Here, take the act; we have a majority and it is going to go through."


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I think most members of the house like myself who have not had legal training must feel a little confused with all the legal explanations that have been coming from both sides of the house during the last day and a half. I feel something like the coloured gentleman who was arrested for stealing chickens. There seemed to be a pretty definite case against him. A friend of his met him on the street a few days after when he thought he should be in jail, and he said, "Rastus, didn't you steal them chickens?" Rastus said, "I thought I did until I heard my lawyer talk to the judge." That is about how I feel in connection with this Emergency Powers Act.
I think we have had some clarification in the last few minutes, and now some of us understand it better than we did before. We realize that what we are doing here is giving the government powers equal to those of parliament, with the few exceptions that have been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and others-very minor exceptions I would say. Those powers may be exercised when parliament is in session as well as when parliament is not in session.
Why should we give the governor in council the power to do things that would ordinarily be done by parliament when it is in session? The Emergency Powers Act would be more sensible and logical if it provided that the government should only exercise these powers when parliament was not in session. Then when parliament was called the powers given to the government by the Emergency Powers Act would lapse and parliament would again become supreme. Then it seems to me the government would be on much stronger ground in asking for powers of that kind. There would be much greater certainty.
I do not profess to have all the fears that members of the official opposition have that the government may misuse its powers. Of course there is always the danger that a 68108-1161
Emergency Powers Act government may misuse its powers; but fortunately, as things are now, if members of the official opposition were on the other side of the house and the members of the government were on this side I do not think I would have any greater fears that they would misuse their powers.
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.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I want to ask the minister one or two questions. They may have been cleared up and I may have missed the answers, although I have been trying to follow the debate as closely as possible. Will the minister outline to us just 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? In the second place, 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?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's questions, may I say that the orders in council that have been passed themselves indicate that no facts have arisen during the past two years which would make the possession of the powers covered by this statute absolutely essential. But I thought -I had rather made clear, indeed had laboured the point on two or three occasions previously, that the nature of emergency powers is this. Where a government is in the emergency of apprehended war or the emergency of the changeover from war to peace, which was the basis of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, the necessity for the executive government having these powers arises from the fact that unforeseen need for their use can arise. The mere fact that need has not arisen during the preceding year or two years is no guarantee at all that it may not arise two days from now, two weeks from now or a month from now.
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

Emergency Powers Act 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-


John George Diefenbaker: That is a new emergency.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -war was to break out-


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the emergency of an apprehended election.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -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.
Perhaps I might point to another practical instance of this sort of thing, the War Measures Act itself, which was put on the statute books in 1914 at the time of world war I and has been permitted to remain there ever since, even during times of peace, in order to provide for wartime emergencies when they arise. As I have pointed out before, the real significance of the present statute is that it provides a method by which emergency powers which it is prudent to have in times of apprehended war, and which otherwise would be available in any case under the War Measures Act, may be exercised in such a manner as to provide parliament with a proper measure of control over actions taken by the government pursuant to those powers.
The Leader of the Opposition says-and I think this statement is also repeated by some of his followers-that the necessity of prompt tabling of these orders in council within a matter of five days, and the power which is given under the Emergency Powers Act to any member of parliament, any member of the opposition, to put a resolution upon the order paper seeking annulment of any order in council passed by the government which he thinks is an abuse or improper use of its powers, is of no practical significance. Why? Because he says we all know that since the opposition is a minority in parliament it will not be able to get the resolution passed and in that way will not be able to challenge successfully the action which the government has taken in the particular order in council.
But surely if the same process of reasoning is applied to a bill which the government brings into parliament, rather than handling the matter by order in council, then when this bill commands the support of the government


majority, every member of the opposition is in substantially the same position of disability in relation to that bill as he is in relation to the resolution by which he seeks annulment of a government order in council. That disability is, I suggest, inherent and unavoidable in our system of democratic government which provides that when we have had an election and the will of the people has become known, the government is formed by the majority in parliament. Of course when it is formed by the majority it cannot remain a government unless it retains control of the majority of the members. As long as it has that control it is in the nature of things that when it introduces a piece of legislation it will be able to get it passed or cease to be a government. By the very same process in reverse it is in the nature of things that when an order in council passed by the government under its emergency powers is attacked by annulment proceedings then, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly says, the likelihood is that the application for annulment will not be successful. But in all these cases-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Ten o'clock.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would you let me finish the sentence? In all these cases is not the important thing, at which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition, all members of the opposition and all members of the house are aiming, that whatever is done shall come before parliament and be discussed by parliament?


Howard Charles Green: Before it is passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before it is passed or after it is passed.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, oh.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But the point here is that if an order in council is passed under the War Measures Act you have no -means of getting it before parliament in the way that is expressly provided under the Emergency Powers Act.


George Alexander Drew: We are not asking for the War Measures Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I know, but the War Measures Act is there; and whether or not my hon. friend asks for it, if conditions arise, upon the existence of which it becomes available, then my hon. friend not asking for it does not make it any the less available.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will continue consideration of this resolution respecting the Emergency Powers Act. Then we will take up Bill No. 107, to amend the Popt Office Act, the resolution concerning the revision of the Yukon Act so as to discuss the point of order under
Business of the House
standing order 60, and also the resolution to approve and confirm the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean signed by Canada, the United States and Japan. We may have time to take up some bills.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 23, 1953