1953-02-06

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne (Grand Falls-While Bay) presented the first report of the standing committee on marine and fisheries, and moved that the report be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (SI. John's West):: I
notice that the Minister of Fisheries is back in his seat, and I wonder if he can tell us when the report of the joint committee on
the fisheries of Newfoundland is likely to be brought down.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: I was told down there that it would be at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Graydon:: They did not tell you much.
NEW PROCESS FOR CANNING LIVE LOBSTERS Mr. A. M. Robichaud (Gloucester):	I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the Department of Fisheries any knowledge of the new process for canning live lobsters and marketing them as such, recently advertised by a Boston firm?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper.


Gordon Graydon: These are live lobsters.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre):	Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of
Finance received representations for legislation relieving Canadian National Railways employees of the necessity of treating pension fund refunds as income in one year? If such legislation is necessary, will the minister consider including it in his budget proposals of February 19?
Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: The answer to both questions, Mr. Speaker, is in the affirmative.



CANADIAN VESSEL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. Paul Martin (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Paul Martin (for the Minister of
Transport) moved the third reading of Bill No. 40, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Yesterday the member for Winnipeg North Centre asked two questions. First he asked why we proceed with this appointment by an act of parliament rather than, as the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act states in section 13, by a joint resolution of the House of Commons and Senate.
I am informed that in 1933, when the basic statute was passed, it stated that the auditors should be appointed by a resolution of parliament. The first appointment of an auditor under that act was in 1934, and the phrase "appointment by resolution of parliament" was considered. The law officers advised the government of that day that the only way the appointment could be made was by an act of parliament.
Without going into an elaborate explanation I draw to the attention of my hon. friend the debate of 1934, which is reported in Hansard. Then in 1936 the change I have outlined was made. Instead of using the phrase "resolution of parliament" it was changed to "joint resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate". However, by that time parliament had become accustomed to proceeding by way of a bill. This, as hon. members will appreciate, provides added control over legislation beyond what is provided in a resolution because a bill comes
1680	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways-Auditors to the members of both houses for attention more frequently than would be the case were we to proceed by a joint resolution. Therefore in consequence, despite that change in the statute in 1936, there has never been any change in procedure. We are today suggesting the appointment by way of an act of parliament just as has been done every year since 1934.


Mr. Knowles:: There was another point.


William Moore Benidickson: The other question that
was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was the question why there was no reference in this bill to a repeal of other legislation after enactment of the revised statutes. I draw his attention to the fact that this is an annual appointment and it refers to a continuous audit. There would be no desire to repeal the legislation of last year which was an appointment of auditors for 1952. This is an appointment for one year, 1953.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary assistant for going to the trouble to get the answers to those two questions which I put to him yesterday. It seems to me that the answer he has given to the second question is not only satisfactory but quite reasonable. I am, however, still interested in the answer given to the first question.
It seems to me that what he has said-if I may paraphrase it-is that the government is following custom rather than the statute. If it can be established, that the custom we are following is better than the provision laid down in the statute, it follows that it would be a good idea to amend the statute. Otherwise, does it not make a mockery of the rule of law and the importance of all of these fine details that we write into acts of parliament from year to year?
As the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, the wording that is now in the statute to which I drew his attention yesterday was put there in 1936. He admits that the statute was passed after the custom of doing it by act of parliament each year had been established. In other words, parliament knew what that custom was when it enacted in 1936 that it be done by a resolution of both houses in parliament.
As I indicated yesterday, in the end result there is no difference whatsoever. What we are talking about is not a matter of substance, and it is not even a matter of legality. It is a matter of procedure. In view of the importance that attaches to the laws that are passed by parliament and to the precise terms that are in them if it has been de-


cided to follow the custom rather than the law I suggest that at least the law might be changed to conform with the custom.


Mr. McLure:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are not in committee.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When will the reports and statements of the Canadian National Railways be ready for the committee? Can we receive them at least a week beforehand?


William Moore Benidickson: Customarily the auditors' report is available prior to March. It is usual for the committee on railways and shipping to assemble in March just as soon as the financial statement of the railways for the past year and the budget for the coming year are available.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution: 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. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposiiion):: Is the Prime Minister going to make a statement now?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has a statement to make.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I will make it as soon as the house goes into committee.


George Alexander Drew: I hope the statement will be
made now, because I think it would be an advantage if the statement were made in advance of other statements that will be made. The question before the house is whether it is expedient that a certain thing be done; and I would hope that we would have an explanation as to why it is expedient.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Speaking to the point of order which my hon. friend has just raised, may I say that I understand the motion which is before the house is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair in order that the resolution might be considered in committee. There is not a great deal that can be said upon the subject of the Speaker leaving the chair. If it met with the approval of hon. members I

think it would be much better it, immediately when we get into committee, I would begin with the statement I was going to make. Then there would be opportunity for questions and the like.


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


George Alexander Drew: No. I want to indicate to the minister that I propose to speak at this time. If he wishes to let his statement stand over, that procedure is perfectly satisfactory to me. But if on the other hand he would prefer to make a statement, it can be done in that way.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but I would point out that the real issue which is before us is whether it is expedient that a new act of this special nature be introduced. That is the issue much more than is the content of the measure itself.	I am therefore suggesting that it
would be wise for the minister to place before us an explanation as to why it is expedient that we should consider the introduction of special legislation of this nature.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the motion which is before the house is that the Speaker do now leave the chair so that we can discuss in committee the expediency of the resolution which will then be presented to the committee. I have little to offer with regard to the wisdom of the Speaker leaving the chair. If my hon. friend would like to lead off on that subject, it is all right with me.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to a decision that you made on June 18, 1952, as reported at page 3375 of Hansard. I read these words:
After giving this matter my careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that if there is no objection to the consideration of the resolution in committee of the whole, the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair should be put without debate. If any members are opposed to the resolution, and do not think that it should even be considered in the committee of the whole, or if they require additional information before agreeing to the motion, they should be given an opportunity to speak on the motion. The minister should endeavour to answer the objections which have been raised and to give the information requested.
It is in relation to that ruling that I propose to speak; and if the minister does not propose to speak, I shall go ahead.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before my hon. friend does so, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be desirable-on the point of order-that the whole of the extract to which he has referred
Emergency Powers Act should be put on the record. The paragraph immediately preceding the one which he read is as follows:
I should point out that the motion is for the Speaker to leave the chair, etc. It is not a motion to adopt the resolution. However, under our present practice members have been debating it as if it were such a motion. The minister makes an affirmative statement, frequently going into details, with the Speaker in the chair, and other members follow. The result is that a full discussion of the resolution takes place at this stage. I am sure that is not the procedure contemplated by standing order No. 60, nor is it in accordance with Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling, in which I concur.
It will therefore be seen that the Speaker's ruling which my hon. friend has invoked for the purpose he has in mind is dead against him.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it is always extremely convenient to read the first part of a ruling and then say that the conclusion is against the position that is taken. I have read your conclusions, which you said had . been given to the house after careful consideration, and it is on the basis of that ruling that I am rising now to discuss the matter before the house.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is that you leave the chair for the purpose of considering a certain resolution. In the case of emergency legislation of this kind, which is unusual legislation in this house, I submit that it is appropriate that we immediately decide whether we should take any steps at all to renew extraordinary legislation of the kind that we have had before us. I use the term "extraordinary" with the dictionary meaning of that word in mind. It is out of the ordinary to initiate proceedings designed to delegate to the executive the powers which are ordinarily exercised on behalf of the people of Canada by those who were sent here to do the business of parliament on behalf of those people.
The fact that we have already had an act of this kind in effect does not dispose of any of the objections to proceeding at this time to consider unusual legislation which confers upon the government the power to deal with almost every aspect of the life of the people of this country, subject only to certain reservations of a very limited nature. That surely is extraordinary legislation. Therefore I do submit that before we should even consider asking you to leave the chair for the purpose of having a discussion in regard to this, we should immediately place before the house reasons why no such steps should be contemplated at this time.
We are asked to say that you should leave the chair so that we may consider the desirability of introducing legislation similar to that which has been on the statute books

Emergency Powers Act now lor nearly two years. That legislation was passed over the objections of hon. members who pointed out that in the event that there should be a threat of general war, or such disturbance as might threaten the peace and security of the country, there was legislation already on the statute books under which the government could act at any time without waiting to convene parliament. Nevertheless this legislation was passed. It has been in force for nearly two years.
I submit that before a single step is taken to consider the reintroduction of legislation of that kind, we should ask ourselves today what evidence has come to us from the experience of the past few years which suggests any reason why we should suspend the ordinary authority of parliament in the way that is suggested by this resolution. It is not enough to say to hon. members that no injury has been done to the rights of parliament. I would contest that statement if it were made. I would concede, however, that the extent to which the wide powers of this act have been invoked is not sufficient to arouse any considerable concern in the minds of the public as to what the real effect of this act could be. We should be considering not what has happened but what could happen. We should consider the fact that while we are told from time to time that this government feels secure in office, conceivably another government may be in office while this act is still in force. That government also would have this act before it.
Legislation we pass must not be passed with the comforting assurance that the individuals who will be immediately entrusted with it can safely be given wide powers. We must see what wide powers are conferred and decide whether it is wise that any government at any time should have those powers. It is in that light that I think we should consider the proposal now before us.
We were told before in the preamble to the act which was adopted that an international emergency existed which threatened the security of Canada. No one can be in any doubt about that fact. One of the things which threaten Canada and every free nation of the world today is the loss of their personal freedom, which in our case is assured by our parliamentary democracy. For that reason we should be asserting the full authority of this parliamentary system of ours by the retention by parliament of its powers over the business of the people, at a time when the system itself is part and parcel of the struggle in which this whole world is engaged.

In the preamble to the act which will expire within the next few weeks it was said:
And whereas it is essential that emergency powers be conferred to enable measures to be taken as urgently required from time to time to carry out adequate defence preparations, to regulate the economy of Canada to meet the needs of defence and to stabilize the economy and to safeguard it from disruption that may result from defence preparation in Canada or from emergency measures taken in other countries, in order that defence preparations may not be impeded;
Then the act went on to say:
And whereas it is preferable that the necessary emergency powers be exercised under special authority from parliament rather than that the War Measures Act-
-therefore this act should be passed. What parliament was asked to do on that occasion, Mr. Speaker, was to pass an act which gave the government wide powers over the whole Canadian economy. These were the specific subject matters covered by the act:
(a)	control and suppression of maps, plans and photographs;
(b)	control of communications and means of communication;
(c)	control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels;
(d)	transportation by land, air or water and the control of the transport of persons and things;
(e)	trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture; and
(f)	imposition and recovery, in connection with any scheme of control, of fees or charges payable to the Receiver General of Canada or into any fund or account established by order or regulation for the purposes of the scheme of control.
Just let us think of what is covered by these words. First of all there is control and suppression of maps, plans and photographs. I am sure it will be said, "But that of course only means a limited type of photographs." The words are "maps, plans and photographs". Under this there is no limitation to the maps, plans and photographs that could be brought under the control of the government.
Indeed, that has already been held in the Nolan case, where the order in council obviously went far beyond anything that was contemplated when these emergency powers were originally conferred. The Nolan case, in fact, is a warning to us, and one of the reasons we should reconsider this matter carefully today. That case says in effect- and it will be kept in mind that it is a judgment of the privy council-that no matter how unrelated to the ordinary purposes of the measure itself the conduct of the government may be, if the government has decided that it will proceed under these emergency powers, that decision stands.

The judgment, in itself, is one reason we should pause today before making a single move to prolong extraordinary machinery which places in the hands of the government the power to deal with broad aspects of the economic and social life of this country, under the words I have just read in these various headings.
Let us think of what the government can control under the "control of communications and means of communication". That means that the ordinary communications between our people, one of the basic rights of a free people, could be stopped at any time. The courts, under the Nolan judgment, would be bound to say that no matter how far the government had gone, that order would stand.
Then we find that the government has "control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels." There again, under wide and unrestrained powers the government can control the operation of our harbours, our ports and territorial waters, and the movement of all the ships using them. These are powers so wide as to control the whole export business of this country, because it involves control over the movement of ships.
The next paragraph refers to "transportation by land, air or water and the control of the transport of persons and things". No wider power could be conferred. The whole movement of goods and of people is left completely under government jurisdiction and whim. They may make such decisions as from time to time they may regard as desirable, according to their idea of what is desirable.
Then we have the declaration that the government may control "trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture". Mr. Speaker, this covers the whole economy of Canada. "Production" means production of all kinds. It means production by farmers; it means production by miners; it means production by forest operators. It means production of every kind from which the daily livelihood of our people is gained. And then, in addition to that, there is unlimited control over manufactures, which means the product of all the machines which give to our production in this country such tremendous scope and flexibility.
Then we have the declaration that it has all these wide-open powers, unrestrained by control, to determine how there will be "imposition and recovery, in connection with any scheme of control, of fees or charges payable to the Receiver General of Canada or into
Emergency Powers Act any fund or account established by order or regulation for the purposes of the scheme of control".
We were told, when this subject was discussed before, that there were exceptions which did leave the people with some possibility, some assurance, of freedom. That is in section 2 (2) of the act which 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;
(b)	censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings; or
(c)	expenditure of moneys otherwise than in accordance with an appropriation by parliament 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.
The exemptions and the protection here are almost illusory. "Censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings" seems to be a wide-open protection. It is a protection that certainly should exist, and that need not be discussed. But when we are told that the government protects the people of this country from arrest, let us see what it is in respect of which this protection is given. It protects the people from arrest, "except as incidental to proceedings under section 3". And section 3 provides that the governor in council may prescribe penalties-
*-by way of fine or by way of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or by way of both fine and such imprisonment, that may be imposed for violation of orders or regulations made under this act and may also prescribe whether, and the circumstances in which, the said penalties shall be imposed upon summary conviction or indictment.
This simply means that, in relation to any of the subjects covered in section 2 (1), where the government makes regulations which must be observed in respect of any of these matters, if there is a breach of these regulations there may be arrest and all that follows arrest, without any restriction or any protection being afforded by section 2 (2) of the act.
1 can remember it was pointed out that no such wide powers as these had been exercised at any time. The suggestion was made that we need not be concerned about how wide these powers are because up to this time the government had not exercised such wide powers. In a very substantial measure that is so. Actually we are called upon to ask ourselves, before we take a single step in this matter, just why it is necessary that this should be done. Why are we asked to reintroduce an emergency

Emergency Powers Act act of this kind? What has the government found it necessary to do under the act which indicates a need for a continuance of its powers?
If the government is going to rest its case upon what it has done already, then let us see what it has done. These are orders passed under the act from May 1, 1952, to date, so far as I have been able to ascertain. First there is P.C. 2306, which was a consolidation of the previous regulations respecting great lakes seamen's security regulations. These regulations had to do with security on the great	lakes	and	the screening	of
seamen, with the declared intention of preventing communist activities in these very important operations.
The second order is P.C. 3197, passed on May 30, 1952. This was merely an order pursuant to the addresses of both houses which extended the act for a further year.
The third	was	P.C.	4116	passed	onSeptember 24, 1952. This was a partial revocation of	a previous	order	passed	on
September 26, 1951, respecting the power of the board of grain commissioners to defer the weighover at any terminal elevator.
Then there	was	P.C.	4410	passed	on
October 30, 1952, which was an order in council respecting pilots' licences under the Aeronautics Act and radio proficiency certificates under the Radio Act. These again ostensibly related to security and provided for the opportunity to screen those engaged in certain important activities.
No. 5 was P.C. 4525 passed on November 19, 1952. This was an order revoking previous order in council P.C. 1608, which provided the authorization for minting a new five-cent coin of steel. So far as I have been able to ascertain these are the orders in council that have been passed since May 1 of last year.
Let us see what this means. We may be told that it was not a very momentous order that was passed in regard to the five-cent piece. Let us be quite clear about it. It did not need any Emergency Powers Act to deal with that. Here was a subject that certainly called for no such wide powers. What was there relating to the world-wide tension or what was there relating to the threat from without and danger to our peace and security in the content of the five-cent piece? What was there that threatened the economy of Canada in the fact that there was steel in our five-cent piece at that time?
This does seem humorous, but the fact remains that the very absurdity of the proposition that this should be regarded as an emergency illustrates that this act is being used for matters that have nothing in the world to do with any such emergency as (Mr. Drew.]
was described in the preamble. This simply was a convenient way of dealing with something that the government decided was not important enough to bring to parliament. If the government really wants to tell parliament, "We do not think you should be bothered with ordinary details of this kind" then let them present a bill to us which will properly describe its real purpose. But do not come to us and say that you need an act based upon the presence of world-wide disturbances in order to deal with the Canadian five-cent piece.
Let us look at some of these other orders. One was simply an order implementing the recommendation of these houses that the act should be extended. However, there were two orders which I suggest should be considered. I believe that these orders are much more important than they appear on the surface. One was an order dealing with great lakes seamen's security regulations, and the other was an order in relation to the issuing of pilots' licences under the Aeronautics Act and radio proficiency certificates under the Radio Act.
The only reason for an emergency act is to have stand-by powers to deal with something that needs to be dealt with when events are crowding around in a way that make it impossible to wait for parliament to be convened in the ordinary way. The only justification for giving the government emergency powers at any time is that the very pressure of events, the demand for immediate action makes it essential that the government should not wait to convene the people's representatives to pass laws that would be required. No such emergency from that point of view arose in this case. In fact there was every reason why this act should not have been invoked for that purpose.
Over and over again the government has said that it was not prepared to deal with communist activities in this country by any law that would deal with those particular activities as such. Let us for the moment disregard the merits or otherwise of that argument. From the government's point of view, let us accept their contention. They say in effect, "You cannot define communism." They say in effect. "We must not under any circumstances exercise anything in the nature of thought control; we must not do anything that will impair the freedom of the individual to think and to express his thoughts." Having said that in the house and having refused to let parliament pass on laws which would define offences of this kind in the way they should be defined,

the government then say, "Although we cannot define the offence, we will not let people work because they have offended and are doing things that we cannot define."
Either there is an offence that can be defined, or there is not. If there is, it should be covered by our Criminal Code; if there is not, it should not be in the hands of this or any other government to deny to any Canadian or any other free citizen the right to work and maintain his family by his work.
This is not a case of the degree of confidence in the government. We would indeed he very strange on this side of the house if we expressed too unrestrained confidence in this government after some recent events. Nevertheless if we were in the unusual situation that notwithstanding all the disclosures there have been of the way in which this government has acted behind closed doors, we were prepared to say that this government is so good, this government is so reliable and this government is so efficient that we will delegate to the government all the powers conferred upon us under our constitution by the people of Canada, then I would say that we would be denying our right to sit here in this house of parliament if we said that this government at any time, secretly and without any definition of the offence, was going to be able to say to any individual whether or not he has the right to work. That is exactly what this means. That is exactly what these orders in council provide.
It is not enough to say to us, "You wanted action in regard to communism, and this is one way we can deal with it." If we are going to deal with communism-and I for one believe we should under laws which clearly define the offence, not under that name but under the nature of the offence-then I say that should be done by parliament and should be considered with the utmost care before the freedom of any individual is placed in jeopardy. Certainly there was no emergency of the kind described in the preamble which justified the use of this act in that way.
Then the other order in council was one which partially revoked an emergency powers order dealing with the handling of grain. Events are not yet crowding in around us in a way that denies us time in this parliament to deal with the way in which grain should be handled. Let the government bring before this house such legislation as is required to deal with grain of any kind or with other food products, and let this house determine what powers the government shall have to deal with matters of this kind.
Emergency Powers Act
The recital of the orders in council which were passed demonstrates perfectly clearly that during the past year the government did not need this act on a single occasion. It should not have used the act to deal with the subjects which are covered by the orders. Therefore the government themselves have demonstrated that during the past year, with all its international strains and pressures, they really did not need this act. What is there that they see looming ahead within the next few months that calls for the re-enactment of legislation of this kind? That is something that should be before the members of the house before we take a single step along the road of delegating our responsibilities to the executive.
The Emergency Powers Act provides that the government may take such steps as are necessary to stabilize and safeguard the economy as well as to protect this country. These are strong words. On the surface they have an appeal, but let us see what really could happen in a case of this kind. Let us see what the record of the government is under wide-open powers and consider whether we should not say right now, before a single step is taken, that the members of this house do not think this government should have any power whatever which is not clearly defined by law, except from a purely administrative point of view.
Let me give an illustration of the kind of thing this government has done where it had power to act by order in council. Hon. members will recall a man named Kurt Meyer. We are still waiting for some reasonable explanation of why that German general, sentenced to death, was spirited out of the country by order in council which permitted him to get back to his homeland before the members of this house knew that steps of that kind were being taken. Whether Kurt Meyer should have been found guilty and condemned to death or whether he should not is not for us to say at this moment. Nevertheless Kurt Meyer had been found guilty and was in prison in this country. Parliament was sitting. Parliament was capable of dealing with the matter but the government, without consulting parliament, meeting behind closed doors, spirited out of the country a man who had been found guilty of responsibility for the cruel and merciless way in which a number of young Canadian soldiers were killed during the last war.
Let us take another case, perhaps not so tragic in its impact, perhaps not so dramatic in some aspects although more dramatic in others. Let us recall what happened to the ships which were so generously provided for
1686	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act the Ming Sung company to carry contraband up and down the Chinese coast. That has very much to do with whether hon. members should be prepared to extend; wide-open powers to a government without any restraint and definition upon those powers. Hon. members will probably recall the first incident connected with the Ming Sung ships and the money which this country will lose as the result of the activities of the government.
It will be recalled that on April 7, 1949, the estimates were before the house, and there was an item in the estimates calling for the payment to certain companies of sums which were due in connection with the construction of those ships. It was the opinion of the law officers of the crown that the right of the government to act in the way it had was open to question. For that reason an item was brought forward in the estimates and not only dealt with as the provision of a sum of money to carry out this obligation but also to provide in this interesting way the statutory power to do what previously the government had no right to do.
It was pointed out that there was no legislation under which the government had any right to undertake an operation of that kind. It was pointed out that the item in question not only provided money but in effect was the first legislation before the house giving the government any authority for this strange and, in the end, disastrous transaction. This was the answer on behalf of the government as recorded at page 2433 of Hansard for April 7, 1949:
We are coming to parliament and asking it to approve or disapprove. If parliament disapproves, the government is defeated. If parliament approves, the item will be confirmed by parliament. But it will not be permitted to stand. It will be dealt with now.
That, of course, is an example of the moderate and very reasonable way in which the government has dealt with matters of this kind from time to time. "You are going to deal with it no matter whether or not there is any law. This is the law"-and they might have added, "In our opinion we are the law." The item was passed, and that was the authority for the payment at that time in connection with this strange transaction.
Then, as we know, these ships got into western Pacific waters and were being operated by the Ming Sung company. That company had its head office in what is now communist China, and so that the ships might operate conveniently for the communist government a Canadian subsidiary, the Ming Sung Company of Canada Limited, was 

incorporated and given the authority to operate these ships. Then just in case they should find any trouble in rendering assistance to the communists along the Chinese coast, the government gave the unusual permission to this company to operate the ships without the usual provision that Canadians would be in charge of them. They went further, and just so that every convenience would be provided for these ships trading with communist territory it was provided that the Canadian flag would be used on them; and though we asked over and over again that this authority be withdrawn, it was only recently that we learned that some months ago it was withdrawn at a time when the withdrawal had no earthly effect one way or the other.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if I might interrupt my hon. friend for a moment on a point of order. I am sure we are all very much interested in this description he has given-


An hon. Member:: You should be.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -but I would point out that the orders in council he is discussing-and I think he will admit this-were not passed pursuant to the Emergency Powers Act at all Surely, sir, upon a motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair my hon. friend should at least restrict himself to a discussion of the orders in council that have been passed under the act which we are seeking to extend. I would submit that the remarks he has been making for the past ten or fifteen minutes have all been out of order.


Mr. Ferguson:: They are hard to take, too.


George Alexander Drew: I have made no suggestion that the order in council was passed under the Emergency Powers Act. What I am pointing out is the way in which this government has exercised wide-open powers, and I will go further and say that at a subsequent time the government gave this strange authority without even an order in council. They gave it by an oral direction. That is one reason I feel that hon. members should be particularly careful in extending to this government any such special powers as are provided by an act of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. On the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice, I agree with him that the orders in council which are passed under the provisions of the legislation are the ones, if any, that should be discussed. I do not think I can object to the Leader of the Opposition referring to other orders in council that have been passed, but they should not be referred to in great detail nor become subjects of discussion.


George Alexander Drew: I do not propose to refer to them in detail. I was pointing out that in

this case the government had acted in relation to this particular transaction, which results in a loss of $12-5 million to the taxpayers of Canada, without any attempt to place before parliament, which was sitting regularly from time to time, the subject matter of this extraordinary transaction. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) even reached the point of failing to comply with existing legislation with regard to the tabling of orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Does not the hon. gentleman think he is perhaps getting away from a discussion of the orders which would be allowed under this legislation?


George Alexander Drew: I do not say this in any way to dispose of what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, but I have made the point I wished to make. What I am pointing out here is an example where the government, by a contract of this kind, has lost $12-5 million of the taxpayers' money and has greatly assisted the communists in China by handing them these ships in this manner.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am rising to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no objection in the world to my friend referring to this subject at the proper time. If he raises it in this particular debate, we might desire to go at great length into a discussion of the Ming Sung affair-


Some hon. Members:: No fear.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -but under those circumstances the debate in this house would get a long way from the point we are discussing. All the discussion would be entirely beside the point, and that is why I feel the hon. member should confine his remarks to the subject before the house.


George Alexander Drew: I can assure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing I would welcome, and I am inclined to think many hon. members would welcome, more than an extended discussion of this subject by the government. We have been waiting for a long time to find out what does lie behind this utterly tragic transaction.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Of course I could not allow such a discussion at the present time. I think I have made my ruling clear, which is that I cannot object to a reference being made to other orders in council but a discussion of them definitely would not be in order at this time.


George Alexander Drew: I have pointed out why I think hon. members in this house should decide now that they are not going to take a single step delegating their responsibilities under
Emergency Powers Act our constitution to an executive which does not justify such a delegation of powers, even if under our principles of parliamentary procedure such a delegation could ever be justified, as I submit it could not at a time like this. Let us remember that in war, insurrection or events of that kind, real or apprehended, there is legislation now on the statute books which the government could invoke at any time if it found it necessary to deal with a situation which we cannot anticipate at this time. Anything short of that affords plenty of time for this parliament to be called together. Anything short of that demands that this parliament should be called together to determine what will be done about any matter of major importance before action is taken.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. member permit a question? The legislation to which he refers as being on the statute books at the present time; is that the War Measures Act?


George Alexander Drew: Certainly. That is the legislation which the government pointed out could be used in the event of war or insurrection or apprehended disturbances of that kind calling for such action. Not one of us wants to see legislation of that kind invoked unless circumstances justify it. But the circumstances which would make it impossible for the members of this house to come together, circumstances relating to events of that kind which would deny the ordinary opportunity to consider legislation, are circumstances, as the government has pointed out, which would give the government power to act under legislation of that nature. I am not suggesting for one moment-and I do not want any distortion of my words to appear in the record subsequent to my remarks-that the War Measures Act should be invoked at this time or under circumstances similar to those which now exist. On the contrary, I am emphatic that it should not be invoked. I am emphatic that no emergency powers should be invoked or put on the statute books of this country which would delegate to the executive powers which at this time could be handled in the ordinary way by parliament.
This is not something that affects Canada alone. This is not something for our parliament alone. Most of us, I suppose, would have a fairly comfortable feeling of confidence that we had a deeper perception of the principles of parliamentary government than countries which only recently have acquired parliamentary government. I suppose, for example, that all of us in this house would confidently assert that we had a better appreciation of the principles of parliamentary government than members of parliament in Iran. Yet let me recall an incident that took
1688	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act place just a short time ago to point out that this is a subject that has to be dealt with in different countries from time to time. On January 18 of this year the speaker of the Iranian house resigned because he refused to put before the house an emergency measure which would delegate to the executive powers which he claimed had been conferred by the constitution upon members of parliament.
Doubtless there are refinements in the constitution which make a distinction between the position of the speaker in that house and the position of the Speaker in our own. Nevertheless, with those refinements and differences, it is worth while recalling what the speaker of the Iranian house said at the time he resigned because of the demand that he place before the house an emergency act that would delegate the powers of parliament to the executive. I refer to a report in the New York Times of January 19, with the dateline Teheran, January 18. The report reads as follows:
The speaker said the constitution provided for a separation of powers-that is between executive and legislature-and a violation of that principle would mean submitting to autocracy and despotism and re-establishing dictatorship in Iran. As the plenary powers bill violated that principle (by putting legislative powers in the premier's hands) Mr. Kashani declared it could not be placed on the agenda. The fact that such a bill was approved five months ago, he said, was no excuse for repeating the mistake.
I am simply reading this to point out that in other jurisdictions, and even in a country where democracy is still comparatively new, the principle has been recognized that it is not proper in anything approaching ordinary times for the elected representatives of the people to delegate their responsibilities to the executive, and in that way to deny to the people who elected them the protection that is afforded by keeping the functions of the country under the control of the elected representatives.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, there are no invidious comparisons between this house and that house in respect of any aspect of its function. I am indicating that a very clear principle has been asserted there, as it has been asserted in the British House of Commons, as it has been asserted here on many occasions in the past and as I hope it will be asserted by members of this house at this time.
Without mentioning the debate and without mentioning the subject that was under discussion, may I say that I recall the extremely interesting comment that a certain member would like to oppose a measure but that, although he would like to do so, he could not vote against the government. I am not going to attempt any definition of the


state of mind that statement indicates; apparently there has been some objection to that procedure. But I indicate that there has been on the part of some members a reluctance to assert their authority.
May I reassert the proposition that the genius of our parliamentary system lies in the recognition of the principles which guarantee to the people of Canada the truth of the general statement that democracy is government of the people and by the people through their elected representatives in parliament. Government by the executive is not democracy. By this bill we are asked to suspend democracy at a time when throughout the world democracy is challenged as it has seldom been challenged before. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we should not take one single step toward suspending democracy here in Canada, no matter what assurances we may have as to the good intentions of the government.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe we should clarify our standing order with regard to debates on resolutions of this kind so we would not have the situation which has developed here today and which has developed on other occasions; that is, a controversy as to whether a debate on the subject matter of the resolution is allowed on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair.
I should like to draw to the attention of the house the fact that the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair is one that may have to be settled by a vote. Surely the members of the house, before having to vote on a matter of that kind, should know for what reason we want the Speaker to leave the chair. As the matter stands today, we want the Speaker to leave the chair in order to consider a motion for the continuation of emergency powers. It seems to me that when the members agree to that motion without a discussion, they are in fact agreeing that it is desirable to have a continuation of these emergency powers.
I see that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) shakes his head. When it comes to a matter of interpreting procedure in this house, may I say that while I have a great regard for his legal training I prefer my own point of view. I believe I can bring to the matter as much logic and experience as he can, if not as much legal training.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't be so modest; you can bring a great deal more.


Angus MacInnis: My wish would be that we clarify our position either by a new standing order or by some other procedure of that

kind. Let me point out that when a similar resolution came up tor discussion in 1951, without any debate or any hesitation whatsoever the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke for the resolution. He was followed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the leader of the C.C.F. group and later by the leader of the Social Credit group. Those proceedings took place on the motion with the Speaker in the chair. That measure was for one year. When the matter came up for consideration in 1952, at the last session, the same procedure was followed, namely discussion with the Speaker in the chair.
Why should there be such great hesitation about the making of a statement by the Prime Minister or, if he would rather have it that way, by the genial Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), in the same way that one was made in other years? We would then know the purpose of the resolution. The reason for continuing the legislation would be outlined. As a matter of fact, if that were done I doubt whether there would be any need for an extended debate after the Speaker had left the chair.
I am pointing these things out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate what the hon. member has said.


Angus MacInnis: I am not raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I value what the hon. member has said, especially in view of his long experience in the house. I believe there is considerable merit in his remarks. One objection, however, is that the minister who introduces the resolution has no right of reply. He makes his statement. Hon. members then speak and express their opposition to it and ask for further information; but the minister who introduces it can do nothing about it because he has no right of reply. If the procedure suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) were introduced, I would think it might also be advisable to allow the minister to reply. That is merely a thought that occurred to me and I thought I should bring it to the attention of the house.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think that would be a difficult matter, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, in a debate of this kind, although the rules do not provide that the mover of the resolution should close the debate, I believe he could do so with the consent of the house. I do not believe the house would at any time refuse to give that consent to whichever minister was moving the motion. But then again, that is merely a matter of procedure;
Emergency Powers Act and surely we should deal with procedural matters in such a way as to facilitate the business of the house.
I would much prefer to have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) make a statement on this matter because it would help me to make up my mind whether there is reason for continuing this legislation at the present time. I cannot follow the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in his violent objection to continuing it now because that objection was not put forward at the time the emergency powers were adopted in 1951, nor at the time of their extension in 1952. The world situation has not greatly changed since that time. But there is a point on which I agree with the Leader of the Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but at the same time I do not want the record to be incorrect. We objected strenuously to this measure both in 1951 and in 1952.


Angus MacInnis: For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that I was basing my opinion on Hansard. I find that the resolution carried in both sessions without any formal vote, or without even any mention of "on division".


George Alexander Drew: No; that is not correct.


Angus MacInnis: The Leader of the Opposition says that is not the position. But in 1952, at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who was the last speaker, the record shows that the motion was agreed to.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: In 1951 it was passed on division. The date is March 6, 1951.


Angus MacInnis: I do not see it.


John George Diefenbaker: It appears on page 981 as follows:
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Alexander Drew: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


Angus MacInnis: We are talking about two different things. The hon. member for Lake Centre is talking about a bill that was based on the resolution; I am talking about the resolution itself. On page 533 of Hansard of 1951 I find the following:
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
I do not see that there has been any change in the international situation since that time. If the events of the last few days develop as some people are afraid they may, perhaps the situation is more grave now than it was even in 1951.
1630	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke to the Emergency Powers Act resolution on February 20, 1951, he referred to a brief that had been presented that morning by the four central labour bodies, namely, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour and the dominion joint legislative committee of the railway transportation brotherhoods. He quoted a paragraph from their brief, which I should like to quote now, as reported at page 497 of Hansard:
The free world now faces the most ruthless and powerful aggressor in history. The best it can hope for is long years of heavy defence expenditures. a large proportion of its manpower and resources diverted from productive work to a great effort for sheer survival. In this effort Canada must play a major part. We have no choice. The enemy is no longer at a safe distance. He is on our northern doorstep. Our share of the free world's industrial potential is large and important, far larger and more important than at the outbreak of war in 1939. If we fail or falter, our allies may be critically weakened, and disaster may overwhelm us all.
The Prime Minister put that forward as the view of organized labour in this country, and I agree that it was a very clear outline of the situation as it then existed. The Prime Minister said he felt that that was the view of the Canadian people, or a large portion of them. He then went on to say why the government was taking this action instead of invoking the War Measures Act. He said the government took that action because of the psychological effect that the invoking of the War Measures Act might have.
Because of the little use the government has made of this legislation in the last two years, and because of my understanding of how the War Measures Act could be invoked if an emergency arose, I believe the government could act just as quickly by invoking the War Measures Act as they could by exercising their powers under this legislation. Therefore for this reason there is really no necessity of having emergency legislation on the statute books while the War Measures Act regulations are in suspense, as it were. They may be invoked and used as quickly as these regulations.
In other years the members of this group supported the resolution. That was particularly true when it came up first in 1951, because we felt that the legislation could be used in a way in which it was not used. That is, it could have been used for controlling prices which at that time were climbing fairly rapidly and putting a heavy burden on a great many of our people. The government did not use it for that purpose. They let prices rise and permitted those people to suffer.
[Mr. Maclmus.l

The point I wish to make now is that so far as we are concerned there is one factor that has been removed, because prices are becoming more stabilized and they are not likely to start rising in the near future the way they have done in the past. In any case, since the government did not use the powers they had to protect the interests of the small people, I do not think there is any reason so far as we are concerned to give them an extension of this legislation. Therefore I am in a quandary with respect to making a definite statement as to whether or not we need these emergency powers at the present time. If the Prime Minister had made a statement I am sure he would have helped me, and I think those behind me, to make up our minds.
Perhaps I can close these few words, that have not been very enlightening, by quoting a short paragraph from the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he concluded his remarks in the session of 1952, as reported at page 2576 of Hansard. I should like the government to know the underlying reason why we supported the emergency powers legislation at that time. The hon. member said:
It is our contention that in giving these powers to the government parliament is not simply giving the government a convenient way of dealing with ordinary matters; parliament is giving the government power to deal with extraordinary matters. The extraordinary situation, both on the defence front and in terms of economic matters here at home, is the reason for legislation of this kind. We support the legislation, but we call upon the government to make use of it in the interests of the Canadian people.
I said before that the government has demonstrated in the past few years that it is not going to make use of it for the benefit of the Canadian people, and we would hope that they might find some way of dealing with whatever emergency situation exists at the moment other than through an extension of the Emergency Powers Act.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced by anything I have heard thus far that the government needs an extension of this act. That does not mean to say that I may not be convinced before the debate is over. However, I would have been in a much better position to judge of the government's need had I been able to hear a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or the Minister of Justice (Mi-. Garson) before I rose to say anything about it. I did listen very attentively to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and I must say that he impressed me with his reasoning. I will have to hear a pretty good

speech from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) before I shall be able to lean his way.
Let me make clear in just a few sentences, if I can, how I feel about this whole situation. The reason a government asks emergency powers at any time is to have stand-by authority to take immediate action to meet an emergency. That is particularly true while parliament is not in session. I am ready to grant those powers to the government at any time, and I think in the past I have taken that position with respect to the government's requests.
On the other hand, when it is possible for the government to call parliament into session to deal with a situation concerning which there is no particular emergency, I am opposed to delegating to the executive powers that members of parliament should exercise, so that the executive can exercise those powers as a convenience.
I think the situation was summed up very well last year by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in the quotation the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) just read. He expressed what I have in mind, and in much better terms than I could express it at this time.
I am opposed to having the executive of this parliament exercise emergency powers as a convenience to do things that are just ordinary, and that do not need to be done in order to meet an emergency. I do not think that is good government; it is a denial of democratic principles. And on our part as representatives of the people, and as legislators, it is a shirking of our responsibility. The people expect us not to do that sort of thing.
In his contribution to the debate the Leader of the Opposition outlined what was done last year under the act. If I am to judge from that, then I would say the government did not have very much use, if any, for the Emergency Powers Act last year. It looks to me as though they used it as a convenience to do ordinary things, and not by any means as a necessity.
If this is so I am tempted to ask this question. Why in the world should we grant the government an extension of a measure to do the same thing next year? On the other hand, in honesty one is bound to say that if the situation last year were such as to make it essential that we grant these emergency powers to the government, then in logic we would have to say that the international situation has not changed sufficiently to warrant our withholding those powers this year. That, of course, is an argument on the other side.
Emergency Powers Act
Under the circumstances I think I shall withhold my judgment until I hear what the Minister of Justice has to say. I warn him again that he will have to make a pretty good speech if he wishes to convince me that we should grant the government these powers again this year, particularly in view of the fact that there is now on the statute books the War Measures Act which the government can invoke to meet any emergency which may arise. Therefore I shall withhold my decision until I have heard the minister.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this resolution is of great importance to the parliament of Canada and, more particularly, to the Canadian people. The issue raised by it is perhaps one of the most vital to be faced at this time.
I regret that although the resolution stands in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) he has not seen fit to make any explanation in opening the debate, and apparently is not greatly interested in the discussion. He may have appointments elsewhere, but I am sorry he is not in the house to hear the debate on this resolution which, I repeat, stands in his name.
I say the resolution is of great importance because it involves our whole structure of parliamentary government. As hon. members know, since 1914 we have had on the statute books of Canada a very unusual measure known as the War Measures Act. It became necessary to enact such legislation at that time, upon the outbreak of the first great war. It is not the kind of legislation liked in a country operating under a democratic system of government, because it gives far-reaching powers to the cabinet, as distinct from parliament.
In effect it takes away from parliament the right to consider a wide field of subjects. We all agree that it is the type of legislation which should not be used to any great extent. The act governs not only the eventuality of the actual outbreak of war, invasion or insurrection, but also covers apprehended war, invasion or insurrection. Action is taken under that legislation by the cabinet of the day sitting behind closed doors, with no opportunity for debate and very little opportunity for the public at large to keep in touch with what is enacted, which is one of the very serious objections to governing a country by order in council.
At the end of the war, in 1945, another measure was passed which was supposed to replace the War Measures Act which had been in effect by proclamation from early in September 1939 until this new legislation

Emergency Powers Act in the winter of 1945. The new act was known as the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, and came into force on January 1, 1946. It contained practically all the powers of the War Measures Act, and we understood at the time would be in effect for only a short time, until there had been an adjustment of the various problems brought about by the war. However it remained in effect until another act was passed, in 1947, known as the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act which was assented to on May 14 of that year and was to continue in effect until April 30, 1951.
That measure continued as law a group of orders in council which had been passed either under the War Measures Act or the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. When the bill was first introduced there were 57 orders in council listed in the schedule, and for that reason it became known as the Heinz bill. As it went through the house some of the orders in council were dropped but the bill still retained its name. As I said, it stood until 1951.
Then on March 21, 1951, another bill was assented to known as the Emergency Powers Act which has been in effect ever since. This resolution now before the house is asking for legislation which will continue the Emergency Powers Act in effect until May 31, 1954.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has pointed out already the powers given to the cabinet under the Emergency Powers Act, and I do not intend to repeat his statement in that regard. But I do point out that the powers contained in the Emergency Powers Act are nearly as far-reaching as those in the War Measures Act. When one examines carefully the terms one realizes that the Emergency Powers Act contains very far-reaching powers.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, to the house and to the Canadian people that the time has come to restore the supremacy of parliament. Let us put whatever powers are needed by the government on the statute books, rather than letting these powers be exercised by the cabinet sitting in secret behind closed doors and passing orders in council. Let measures be brought down in the ordinary way and be debated in this house. By the time a measure has been debated here most of the merits and failings will have been gone into pretty thoroughly, and each of us will be in position to know whether the legislation is good or bad.
This process of debate has another great value in that it is reported by the press gallery and distributed to all parts of the nation. The

people out in the constituencies are able to keep accurate track of what is being said in the house and thereby to judge for themselves the merits or demerits of a measure. I suggest that that is one of the strongest points in a democratic system of government. But you lose all that when you allow legislation to be enacted by order in council.
How many times were Canadians brought up in court and fined or sent to prison for failure to comply with the terms of an order in council about which they knew nothing. Time after time a man would be charged for a breach of some order or some regulation passed under the provisions of the War Measures Act or one of the acts which superseded it after the war. That Canadian in many cases had no chance at all to know whether or not he was breaking the law.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. member not agree that there has not been a single instance of	that	character	under	the	Emergency
Powers Act?


Howard Charles Green: If there has not been an instance of	that	character	under	the	Emergency
Powers Act it is because the government has not used the act. Therefore I cannot understand why we are asked to extend it for another year. I do not believe there was a lawyer in Canada who knew all the various orders in council or regulations which were in effect, and it was impossible to advise a client without a great deal of research. In many cases it was impossible to get the printed material in order to find out what the regulation was.
I believe these drastic powers should be taken out of the hands of the cabinet. This is a club-that is all it is-and it should be taken from the government. Ever since the War Measures Act was put into effect in 1939 we have had government by threat. There has been altogether too much government by threat. I have a very good example of this in a statement made by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). We are always grateful for the statements he makes from time to time, because they usually tell the real story. On September 8, 1950, the minister was being interrogated about some of these powers while the house was in committee, and he replied, as reported on page 460 of Hansard, as follows:
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.
There you have in the words of the most powerful minister in the government one of the main reasons why we object to legislation of this kind. We have had enough government by threat in Canada.

I had thought that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) might argue that it was necessary to extend the Emergency Powers Act for another year in order to further our preparations for defence. However, he did not see fit to argue that or any other point, so I shall have to deal with the subject as though he had made that argument.
I suggest it cannot be argued successfully at the present time. Preparations for defence primarily involve the Department of Defence Production and the Department of National Defence. Two years ago this same Minister of Defence Production was wise enough to have all the powers he required, even in the event of war, placed in a statute known as the Department of Defence Production Act which was passed in the spring of 1951. That act, which is now law and which was debated on the floor of the house, gives the minister in question all the powers he would require even if this country were at war. I questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on that point on March 5, 1951, and the questions and answers will be found at pages 908 and 909 of Hansard for that date. The first one is as follows:


Howard Charles Green: Then may X ask the Prime Minister whether any further powers would be required to carry out defence production if we were actually in a third world war?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not anticipate there would be.
Then further on I asked another question, and the passage reads as follows:


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister has said that this bill as presented contains all the powers that would be required in the event of a third world war.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not want to promise the house that if we ran up against something where the courts said this was not good enough we would not come back to parliament: if we thought it should be done, we would ask parliament to authorize it; but I think the law officers have drawn this in language that should be sufficient to cover all the enabling powers apt to be required.
It so happened that I was trying to prove to the house that this was a war bill. The Prime Minister had not heard the early part of the discussion, and when I went on to point out that his very words proved that it was a war bill he became very indignant and there was quite a flurry. But there you have the Prime Minister's own admission that this legislation-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What is the date of that?


Howard Charles Green: March 5, 1951. You have the admission of the Prime Minister that the Defence Production Act of 1951 gives all the powers the department would require even in the event of war. The same Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Commerce
Emergency Powers Act has also had an act placed on the statute books known as the Export and Import Permits Act. There is this much to be said for him. He has brought these measures to the floor of the house and had them debated, and these measures have given him the powers he required. He has not tried to get these powers by order in council.
Then we have another example in the National Defence Act. Under that legislation the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is given all the powers he could require. Therefore I repeat that there is no excuse on this ground for retaining the Emergency Powers Act for another year. Parliament sits far more frequently now than in earlier years. It is the practice to adjourn rather than prorogue so that members can be summoned here quickly. The requirements should be met by legislation passed in the ordinary way rather than by orders in council passed by the cabinet.
The fact is that this government have not the will to give up these wartime powers. They are addicted to arbitrary powers. Only two members of the present government have ever been in a cabinet at Ottawa which did not have these wartime powers of legislating by order in council. I refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). They are the only two cabinet ministers in the present government who have had any responsibility for running the country at a time when these drastic wartime powers were not in effect. The rest, from the Prime Minister down, have only known order in council government.
Seventeen years ago today parliament met for the first time after the 1935 election as a result of which the Liberal party took office. For only three and a half years of the intervening period has parliament been supreme in Canada and free of dictatorial powers resting with the cabinet. Now we are asked to extend this servitude of parliament and of the Canadian people for a further year without a cabinet minister even getting up to explain the justification for any such step.


Mr. Tuslin:: Shameful.


Howard Charles Green: Each year they come here and say. Oh well, we need these powers for another year; we cannot get along without these order in council powers. Just trust us for another year. We have been good boys for the last year. Then of course the silent majority of supporters surrounding them in the house whoop and yell, the bill goes through and the cabinet get these powers for one more year. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is time the Canadian

Emergency Powers Act people asked when this sort of business is going to stop. I am afraid the answer is, only when the present government is thrown out of office.


Mr. Sinnoit:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: Surely.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: How many times were these emergency powers used in the last five years?


Howard Charles Green: I do not suppose the hon. member who has asked the question would have the faintest idea of what emergency powers are.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Would you mind answering the question?


Howard Charles Green: One of our greatest problems has been to find out how and when these emergency powers were being exercised. Quite often we have found many months afterward that a very important power has been exercised by order in council which has been kept secret. I doubt very much whether the government itself knows how many times these powers have been exercised in the last five years. But it is far too often. That is one sure thing.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It is quite obvious I have not an answer yet.


An hon. Member:: Ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson).


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, if all those who wish to raise objections have done so, I believe it is my duty to answer the various objections, and I will be glad to endeavour to answer those that have already been made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, the minister does not presume by what he is saying to close the debate?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. That was the reason I was raising the point. I am really rising on a point of order because I do not wish to put myself in the position that I cannot answer any objection any member of the house may wish to make. If there are any others-


John George Diefenbaker: We are still waiting for an explanation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have a right to hear from the government as to what they think about this legislation.


Solon Earl Low: It is not only a right; it is an obligation on their part.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is an insult.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a most interesting and revealing performance. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) introduces the resolution and, no doubt for good reason, is not now in the house. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) waits until arguments are advanced against the granting of powers before he will explain why the powers should be given. This is certainly an interesting innovation in this parliament. The government simply asks for blanket powers and gives no explanation as to why these powers are requested. One is in a position, therefore, of finding it most difficult to argue a case. One can only argue that the same reasons actuate the government today as were used by way of explanation in 1951. Certainly some of the conditions that prevailed in 1951 exist today.
At that time, as I read Hansard, the explanation of the Prime Minister as to the reason for these powers being requested was that the War Measures Act could not be used because the Canadian people might fear that was not justified by the facts. Another reason given was that it would be necessary to have these powers in order to fight inflation. No doubt the same arguments apply today, for the cost of living is much the same as it was in 1951, subject of course to the fact that in the last few months a face-lifting operation took place whereby the face of the cost-of-living index has been altered and instead of the cost of living being about 184 on the basis of 1939, the cost-of-living index today is some 115-7.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One index goes down and the other goes up.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it is a most interesting performance. One of the reasons for asking for these extraordinary powers in 1951 was to meet this dread threat of the cost of living. It is merely a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that this may be an election year, so the cost-of-living index was altered and does not look so bad. That was one of the reasons given, and I am going to deal with that.
Another reason was-I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) by his interruption of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) still has this in mind-that the government wanted the widest possible powers so that no matter what they would like to do, the law officers would have drawn a law sufficiently wide to cover the most extraordinary matters that might arise. The Minister of Justice laughs, but that was the explanation given by the Prime Minister in 1951, that the resolution was drawn in the widest possible

terms so as to assure that if the powers ever have to be used the law officers want them wide enough so that they can be used effectively.
On the motion for third reading of a similar measure last May, the Progressive Conservative party stated that the measure passed on division. At that time few members of parliament, if any, had read the judgment of the privy council in the Manitoba barley case, Nolan, Hallet and Carey. That was a most interesting case, Mr. Speaker. Some years ago the Minister of Justice was loud in his praise of our courts in Canada. You will recall th_t he said we had just as fine judges as there were in Britain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would be very much interested if my hon. friend could trace any connection between the Nolan case, under a totally different statute, with the single question of whether Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair to consider a resolution dealing with the Emergency Powers Act. I would suggest his remarks are entirely irrelevant and he should not be permitted to continue.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Talk about demanding
power; you grab it on every occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all hon. members want to discuss the reasons why the Speaker should or should not leave the chair, and their remarks must be directly relevant to the resolution. I do not know how the hon. member proposes to relate the Nolan case to this resolution. I would like him either to do so or to discuss some other feature of the resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the interruption from my hon. friend bears all the earmarks of a frivolous one, because the Nolan case deals exclusively with the question of what is an emergency. It dealt with an emergency under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, of which the present act is the direct descendant.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is not the topic now under discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: Have we arrived at a point where the only difference between the act under which the Nolan case was decided and the present one is a difference of name? It is the same old act with a new name. Surely, sir, we have not arrived at a point where the whole question of emergency cannot be discussed under this resolution, when emergency was defined by the privy council and the emergency is the same kind of emergency that is provided for in the present
Emergency Powers Act legislation. Indeed, the privy council referred in detail to the whole history of emergency legislation from the War Measures Act through the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, chapter 25, 1945, and thence into the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, of which the present legislation is heir-at-law with a different name.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise to a point of order, I would point out to the hon. member, who does not seem to be aware of the fact, that the emergency which was invoked under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, and which was in question in the Nolan case, was the post-war emergency, and is clearly referred to in the judgment of the privy council as such; whereas it was made quite clear by the Prime Minister in introducing the legislation now under discussion in 1951 that the emergency which we are discussing is the post-Korean emergency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That was agreed to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) during the debate in 1951, and when I have the opportunity of taking part in this debate I shall quote his statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, may I ask Your Honour to consider this aspect of the matter? The Nolan case was dealt with under another act because that happened to be the act on the statute books at that time. But supposing-I am not saying whether the government was right or wrong in the Nolan case because I have different views on the substance of the matter-the government had had to deal with the Nolan case when the Emergency Powers Act was on the statute books; would it not have had power to deal with it under that legislation? If that is the case, is it not relevant to the discussion of a measure which proposes to continue the emergency powers under which that type of action might be taken?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not happen to have the Nolan case before me. 1 would have to read it through to determine whether or not the emergency referred to can be discussed under this act. I think it might be simpler, and probably in the interests of the dispatch of business, if the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) were allowed to continue.


John George Diefenbaker: I am very happy to have had the explanation now from the minister that the emergency that we are meeting here is the post-Korean emergency. Well, that is not what the Emergency Powers Act of 1951 says. What it says is:
Whereas an international emergency exists that threatens the security of Canada;

Emergency Powers Act
And whereas it is essential that emergency powers be conferred to enable measures to be taken as urgently required from time to time to carry out adequate defence preparations,-
Nothing to do with a post-Korean emergency.
-to regulate the economy of Canada to meet the needs of defence and to stabilize the economy-
Nothing about post-Korea. This is a new explanation.
-and to safeguard it from disruption that may result from defence preparations in Canada or from emergency measures taken in other countries, in order that defence preparations may not be impeded; . . .
I am glad to have that explanation from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), for it is the first time that we have ever heard that we are in a new kind of emergency. First we were in the post-war emergency of the transitional powers act. Then we were in an emergency that the Prime Minister described as one that needed action in reference to inflation and one or two other matters. Now we are in the post-Korean emergency.


Gordon Graydon: The pre-election emergency.


John George Diefenbaker: I am now going to refer to the emergency doctrine at the time my hon. friend the Minister of Justice gave the house the benefit of that sage observation as to the nature of the emergency. I was dealing with the question of how this case found its way to the privy council. When the right of appeal to the privy council was abolished, my hon. friend said that our courts in Canada knew conditions in Canada; that these courts were composed of outstanding men-and there was no argument about that fact-and he pointed out that in Britain there was a court that did not understand our conditions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that my hon. friend has attributed to me remarks which I have not made. If he would just kindly refer to exactly what I did say, I should greatly appreciate it.


John George Diefenbaker: At the moment I have not the reference before me, but I am saying that is what the Minister of Justice said; and I will produce the record.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Produce it now.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to enter into any argument about the matter. He claimed that if you appealed cases to the privy council, you weakened the prestige of the Supreme Court of Canada. Then the first thing he did-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot see how that matter has any bearing on the resolution before the house at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, he got there. After creating this final court of appeal in Canada, he appealed the case that his department had lost before the-


Mr. Speaker:: Has that matter any bearing on the resolution? I greatly doubt it.


John George Diefenbaker: I will put the matter in this way, Mr. Speaker, and then there can be no objection. The courts in Canada- the trial court in Manitoba, the appeal court of Manitoba, and the Supreme Court of Canada, with the exception of two dissenting judges, Mr. Justice Kerwin and Mr. Justice Estey-generally came to the conclusion that the cabinet was not supreme and that its declaration of an emergency was not of itself sufficient to permit the interference with property and civil rights in the provinces; whereas, as you know, Mr. Speaker, under the doctrine of emergency the dominion government may invade the jurisdiction of the provinces, may interfere with property and civil rights, may destroy the fine balance of the constitution. The courts in Canada held that the courts were still supreme and that if a government were to make a declaration, through the governor in council, that an emergency existed, the courts could still examine-some of the courts so held-the matter in order to ascertain whether there was such an emergency or whether or not the order in council fell within the ambit of the powers granted under the transitional powers act. But when the matter came to the privy council, the privy council-of course, being far removed from Canada- examined the situation, and its judgment is as follows, and it is most interesting. It is recorded in 1952, 6 Western Weekly Reports, new series, part I, at page 23 and following. I want to point out one or two things that the privy council held.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend at what page the report starts? I am following from another manuscript.


John George Diefenbaker: Page 31. I do not know how we are going to synchronize our reading, Mr. Speaker.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Where does that report start?


John George Diefenbaker: I am at page 31.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Where does the report start?


John George Diefenbaker: The report starts at
page 24.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is seven pages along.


John George Diefenbaker: There may be different sizes of pages.


An hon. Member:: This one is more accurate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One is the first copy and the other is the official copy.


An hon. Member:: You have a government copy.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have reached the point where we not only cannot agree on the law but cannot even agree on the location in the law book.
To get back to the point I was making, the privy council, when it referred to the economic power granted under the regulation, held as follows:
How, then, can a court of law decide that the vesting-
That is the vesting of property.
-was for another and extraneous purpose or hold that what the governor in council has declared to be necessary is not in fact necessary for the purposes he has stated? There is no warrant at all for presenting this as a case in which powers entrusted for one purpose are deliberately used with the design of achieving another, itself unauthorized or actually forbidden.
Then after finding that the court must accept what the order in council says, namely that there is an emergency, it finally says this at page 36:
For here the words that invest the governor with power are neither vague nor ambiguous; parliament has chosen to say explicitly that he shall do whatever things he may deem necessary or advisable. That does not allow him to do whatever he may feel inclined, for what he does must be capable of being related to one of the prescribed purposes, and the court is entitled to read the act in this way.
Then it goes on finally to say:
If rights so historic as a man's right to sell his labour where and at what price he pleases or a man's right to use his own property in his own way are avowedly placed under the governor in council as subjects of control and regulation, what peculiar sanctity can the law give to the ownership of consumable goods, so that this particular form of private right is to be exempted from any action in pursuit of the authorized purposes?
What it says finally is this:
Yet this is an enactment framed for the purpose of meeting an emergency that imperils the national life; it authorizes action over the whole economic field and extends to purposes outside the territory of Canada herself; it embraces purposes such as the maintenance, control and regulation of supplies, prices, transportation, the use and occupation of property, rentals, employment, salaries and wages, which have no meaning if they do not involve-
And I emphasize these words.
-a deliberate and consistent interference with private rights, including private rights of property. And the power of the executive to pursue these purposes, while the national emergency continues, is conferred by parliament without express reservation and in the amplest terms that statutory language can employ.
That is exactly the situation in the present legislation. When the present legislation was passed in 1951 the decisions of the courts
Emergency Powers Act were against the executive having these powers. The Manitoba case had been decided. When, on May 26, 1952, these powers were renewed in this parliament, the wording of the decision of the privy council was not before parliament and no hon. member had any conception of an interpretation such as that being given to the powers of the government.
This is a serious situation. When a government, power hungry in the days of war, persists in that attitude in the days of peace, the situation becomes serious indeed. The minister says now that the justification is the post-Korean situation. Well, if the postKorean situation has indeed created an emergency of a state of war, as the Prime Minister said the other day, then the legislation is not necessary. The Prime Minister said the other day that we are at war. If that is so, then the legislation is not necessary and certainly there can be no justification for the government asking for the abdication of parliamentary control and giving to the executive of this country the power to control every type of business in Canada, the power to deny an individual an appeal to the courts, the power to do absolutely that which parliament itself would permit only in the gravest situation and under the most serious conditions.
I am not going to read what the Leader of the Opposition read but I ask you, sir, where is there anything in the present situation that would justify a government interfering with provincial rights in this country to the degree to which the powers under this legislation will permit? What is there today that will countenance a government, by a majority of parliament supporting it, rewriting the constitution year by year and so continuing to invade the field of provincial legislation? That in effect is what is being done. Here are the powers. And before I read them again I point out that the Nolan case says that the courts can no longer look at the question as to whether there is justification for the preamble in which the emergency is declared. What the judgment means, in effect, is this:	If we pass this power there is no
control in Canada over any business that the government cannot and may not with the authority of parliament do, thereby varying the principles of our constitution.
We shall give them the powers they need. The answer of the Prime Minister last year was that we need the widest possible powers because our law officers want them so wide that they cannot be challenged. That is going a long way. In other words, it is in effect placing parliament in a position of conferring

Emergency Powers Act right that will not be challengeable and certainly today under the authority of this case are not challengeable.
Somebody may say that I overstate the case, Mr. Speaker. Let me quote from one who was qualified enough to speak before the Liberal federation. I refer to Professor Corry of Queen's university. This is what he said when he spoke to the Liberal federation last year as quoted at page 2566 of Hansard:
The discretionary powers exercised by our government nowadays in time of peace are wide enough to cause concern.
These are the words of a friend of the Liberal party. These are the words of a speaker before the federation. He went on to say this:
The practical certainty of cold war, if not actual shooting war, for an indefinite period means a still further substantial increase in the powers of the dominion government.
He is still using the expression "dominion" although it is ostracized in some circles. I continue:
What is our answer to Abraham Lincoln's question:	Is a government which is strong enough to
deal with serious crises not also going to be too strong for the liberties of its citizens?
If, as seems likely, we are to have a considerable measure of order-in-council government again, we should also be considering seriously the establishment of one or more committees of parliament to examine, not the substance and policy of the orders in council but the effect that the powers and procedures contained in them will have on individual rights and freedoms.


Mr. Pouliot:: The hon. gentleman spoiled his speech with that quotation.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. I like to call as witnesses those who are regarded by my hon. friend as authorities.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder sometimes why this government pursues this course. Why does it ask for powers such as these?
(a)	control and suppression of maps, plans and photographs;
(b)	control of communications and means of communication;
Why ask for the power to control harbours, ports and territorial waters? We can understand one or two of these. If we were in a situation of grave danger we could understand these powers being asked for, but we now know that our situation is just post-Korea. Then they ask for the power to control transportation by land, air or water and the control of the transport of persons and things. What more absolute powers have ever been asked for in the days of war than these? Then they ask for the power to control trade, exportation, importation, production and manufacture.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Exploitation.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Jean-François Pouliot: Go on; you are in good
form.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, under normal circumstances the house should proceed to a consideration of public and private bills. My understanding is, however, that the bills are to stand. I need only say, therefore, that there being no business to be considered in the hour for private and public bills, the house will resume the business interrupted. The hon. member for Lake Centre may proceed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not
contending that there is a deliberate intention on the part of the government to secure dictatorial powers. But certainly, in view of the interpretation given to this question by the privy council in the Nolan case, there is a demand on the part of parliament that we should consider the powers here asked for. If the government is not prepared to accept a diminution of those powers, then, so far as parliament can achieve it, a stop should indeed be called.
Let me add this, that the use of powers asked for under this legislation would obviate the necessity of parliament's ever being convened during the period. We do not believe in a dictatorship. A book has just been published by a great British economist and political scientist, Professor Keeton, in which he points out that the elements of dictatorships are as follows:
1.	A one-party organization in which, although there is a wide power of criticism within the party, no external opposition is tolerated;
2.	An all-powerful executive, which can put into effect the program decided upon by the party, without substantial impediment or modification, especially that which might emanate from an independent parliament, and
3.	An economy which is moulded within the framework of a comprehensive plan, and in which all the more significant activities are government monopolies, subservient only to executive control.
All those things, with the exception of the first, are possible under this legislation. The minister says that powers have not been used during the last year. If they have not, and during the last year we have been in the post-Korean emergency to which he referred, what is the justification for their being asked for again, particularly in view of the judgment of the privy council?
Emergency Powers Act
These powers permit of rigid dictatorship within the periods between sessions of parliament. These powers constitute a denial of the rights of the individual under the powers of the constitution. These powers invade the rights of the provinces. These powers make the government-and by the government I mean the executive, the cabinet-all-powerful in the country. I feel that we in parliament have a responsibility to end this trend.
Two years ago the Prime Minister said that one of the reasons this legislation was to be introduced was to afford an opportunity to control inflation. There has not been any use of the powers for that purpose of which I am aware. The government has had within its own power the opportunity to do something. It could do it through a reduction of taxation. It could assure, in part, the defeat of inflation by encouraging production.
These are alternatives to the powers the government is asking under this legislation, powers that are available to a government that is prepared to act. I ask the minister to explain in detail why the government today finds it necessary to continue to disregard the constitution, and to destroy the rights of the provinces as effectively during the period this legislation is in effect as though section 92, which grants powers to the provincial legislatures, had no effect whatsoever.
Why these powers? How are they to be used? When are they going to be used? I would ask the minister once again to give consideration to what Professor Corry referred to in the reference I made a while ago in which he dealt with the setting up in parliament of a committee similar to that in the British parliament, whereby members of all political parties have placed before them in that permanent committee all regulations and orders passed that in any way derogate from the rights of the individual.
Surely that is not asking too much. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra pointed out that no lawyer in this country has any idea of the orders in council that have been passed, and that because of this he finds it difficult to advise a client. As a member of the House of Commons endeavouring to follow these orders in council, I can say that I have no conception whatsoever of many of these orders in council, and what they stand for. Those are the orders in council that we know of.
There are also orders in council that can be passed on the instruction or upon the suggestion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or the Minister of Defence Production or whatever portfolio he may be described by at the moment. He
1700	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act can have orders in council passed that are secret. Surely there is no justification today for that. He can pass orders in council that place, above the courts of law, those who are favoured under the order in council. He can pass orders in council to preserve, from any liability before the courts, any company or person in Canada who is liable in damages for failure to carry out a contract in connection with defence production, and that covers almost everything.
I sum up. First, let us put an end to this trend. We know now where it leads. We know now that it places the government above the courts because the law officers word the orders in council wide enough to cover any eventuality. We know now that only the government through the governor in council can determine whether there is an emergency, and whether there is or not may not be examined by the courts. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has stated, by that fact parliament abdicates its responsibilities and the courts have become in effect, under orders in council passed under this legislation, merely instruments to determine rights, but are denied the opportunity to investigate whether or not property and civil rights may be invaded or the liberties of the subject interfered with. Keeton has summed up the situation in these words:
Behind the high sounding generalities of present-day politics, the issue is really a very simple one. It is whether we should accustom ourselves to the ant-like existence of the fully-integrated and planned state, or whether we believe that individual initiative and increased opportunity are more likely to produce more tolerable conditions of life for the bulk of our citizens. In the long run, it is impossible to preserve freedom of the mind when the power to choose has been removed from the citizen in more and more areas of his daily life. In the end, there will have been produced something approximating to the planned stagnation of the Chinese empire. That would be an odd fate for the people who built the common law and who were responsible for the Magna Carta, habeas corpus, and dominion status. Yet the threat is real, and the hour late. Our present predicament presents a challenge which it is impossible to ignore.
Surely parliament will not again in 1953 renew the grant of absolute power to a government now that the courts have determined that that government in the exercise of that power is above examination in so far as the determination of an emergency is concerned. If we adopt that attitude we in fact place the cabinet in the position of being restored to the same powers that cabinets had in the days of Sir Robert Walpole.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
tMr. Dlefenbaker.l


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not going
to speak?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I think possibly I should speak shortly to indicate the reason why in my opinion I should not speak on a motion of this sort. The question as to the method by which a resolution of this sort is introduced into this house was referred to His Honour the Speaker in 1952. After reserving it for consideration for some time he delivered his view concerning it, as reported in Hansard of June 18, 1952, at page 3374, in these terms:
On May 20 the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) requested me to consider standing order No. 60 and to give my opinion as to its proper construction. On June 4 and 16 there were further discussions on this standing order, which reads as follows:
Then Mr. Speaker goes on to quote the standing order which it is not necessary for me to quote at this time. Then Mr. Speaker continued:
All hon. members who have taken part in the discussions agree that the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider a resolution preceding a money bill is debatable. In my opinion that is the correct view so long as subclause (a) of standing order No. 38 remains in its present form.
The question on which there is some difference of opinion is the extent to which debate is to be allowed. This question was considered by Mr. Speaker Glen on the 23rd of February, 1942. At that time he ruled that the debate should be directed to the negative of the motion and should be general with no reference to details.
I should point out that the motion is for the Speaker to leave the chair, etc. It is not a motion to adopt the resolution.
That is what my answer would be to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). The adoption of a resolution takes place in the committee after the Speaker has left the chair and the house is in committee. I continue the quotation:
However, under our present practice members have been debating it as if it were such a motion. The minister makes an affirmative statement, frequently going into details, with the Speaker in the chair, and other members follow. The result is that a full discussion of the resolution takes place at this stage. I am sure that is not the procedure contemplated by standing order No. 60, nor is it in accordance with Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling, in which I concur.
After giving this matter my careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that if there is no objection to the consideration of the resolution in committee of the whole, the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair should be put without debate. If any members are opposed to the resolution, and do not think that it should even be considered in the committee of the whole, or if they require additional information before agreeing to the motion, they should be given an opportunity to speak on the motion.

As they have done today.
The minister should endeavour to answer the objections which have been raised and to give the information requested.


Howard Charles Green: Why did you not do that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Let me finish the quotation.
Accordingly in my opinion the practice of the minister opening the debate on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to consider in committee of the whole a resolution preceding a money bill should be discontinued.
When the discussion on this subject was before the house the other night a number of members expressed concern over the difficulty which the Speaker would have in keeping the debate within the limits of the above interpretation. I realize the difficulty but all I can do is to ask for the usual co-operation of all hon. members.
That is the rule of the house as it stands and as it has been interpreted at the present time by Mr. Speaker. Still dealing with the point of order, I would point out that the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East, to the effect that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had followed a different practice when this act which we are considering renewing was introduced as a bill in 1951, would hardly apply because at that time this ruling by Your Honour had not been given. The Prime Minister was following the practice which prevailed at that time.
Then the hon, member for Vancouver East referred to the fact that when this bill was renewed a year ago the Prime Minister, in leading off for the government, got up to speak at once. But I would point out to my hon. friend that on that occasion, as I think all members will recall, the renewal of the legislation which was taking place was under section 4 which authorized its renewal by an address of the House of Commons and the Senate. So that obviously it was not in the nature of the resolution we have before us at the present time.
I want to make these points clear because I think that I can claim to have been one member of the house who has tried at all times to show to my fellow members the proper courtesy that is their due under the rules, and in taking the position that I have I am merely trying to follow the proper rules. It may be said, as I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) interjected a moment ago, why not explain the reasons for this action? May I suggest that we are dealing with a piece of legislation which is already upon the statute books after having been debated at very great length indeed in 1951 and after several suggestions for its amendment had been introduced by members of the opposition, had been received in a most co-operative
Emergency Powers Act spirit by the government, and had been incorporated into the legislation in the very terms that they were suggested by members of the opposition.
I remember that on one particular occasion I conferred with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and a wording was adopted. I asked him on the floor of the house if he was satisfied with it and he expressed his complete satisfaction. The fact is that in the consideration of this measure the house was not divided on a single occasion except on the third reading, not on the principle of the bill on second reading but on the third reading, and at that time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) interjected almost as an afterthought, as it appears in Hansard, the two words "on division". Surely in relation to legislation of that sort it is not asking too much of the members of the house that the rules of the house be followed, and hon. members could at least permit us to get into committee in order that there, in accordance with the rules, I might get up and try to give as full a set of reasons as I can for the extension for another period of one year of a bill in respect to which this house, when it was considered before, did not see fit to vote formally.
It is for that reason that I respectfully submit that I should continue to follow the rules of the house, and in a reasonable way I would ask members to let us have the vote upon this motion. When we get into committee I will give a full explanation of our reasons and submit myself to the answering of any questions which hon. members of the opposition may see fit to ask.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Surely.


Howard Charles Green: Does he not think that the question involved here is the wisdom or lack of wisdom in extending the measure for another year? He has completely overlooked that point in his remarks, and if such is the case then His Honour's ruling last year clearly applies when he used these words, as found at page 3375 of Hansard for June 18: The minister should endeavour to answer the objections which have been raised and to give the information requested.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend's first question, this is a resolution seeking to introduce a money bill, and the reason we are considering the resolution and are asking the Speaker to leave the chair is that it is leading up to a money bill. Otherwise there would just be an amendment to an act, first reading of which would go

1702	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act through in a perfunctory manner, and we would be discussing it on second reading. We have nothing at all to hide. More than that, with great respect, having listened to many of the reasons that have been brought forward by members of the opposition which in my humble opinion proceed from a misconception of the bill and, in the case of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), of some of the legal principles involved, I think that we can resolve these matters much more readily by following the rules of the house and discussing them in committee. In the exchange that takes place there I think that perhaps I might be able to convince my hon. friend, more rapidly than I could in the house, that he was wrong on some of the points he raised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. So that there will be no misunderstanding, I think I must rule now that the minister has spoken to the resolution-or was he speaking to a point of order?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I	was	speaking to	the
resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: I	must declare that	theminister has spoken to	the resolution	and
he will not have the right to speak to the resolution again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I	am	amazed that	the
Minister of Justice does not recall that when he got up to speak just now he started out by saying that he wished to speak briefly to explain why in his view he should not speak. I certainly thought it was a question of privilege or a point of order to which he was speaking, and that any speech of substance he might make would be made later in the day.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order now, I bowed a moment ago to your ruling that I had spoken on the resolution. I was certainly of that view for this reason. I cited to the house Your Honour's interpretation of rule 60 and then went on to explain that in answering any objections I could very properly be quite brief because we were dealing here with a bill which had been considered and passed with some measure of approbation upon the part of members of the opposition. I pointed out that it was not at all unreasonable-and in these matters the purpose of the rules and the purpose of the attitudes we take should be reasonable in order to expedite the business of the house-to ask members to bear with the government in order to get the resolution into committee where we could discuss it to greater advantage and in accordance with the rules of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it now settled that the minister has spoken?


Mr. Speaker:: Under the rules, on a resolution of this type the minister who introduces the resolution, or who speaks for the minister whose name appears on the order paper, has the right to speak once only. He has no right of reply, and I must declare that the Minister of Justice in this instance has already spoken and he will not have another opportunity to speak to the resolution on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention, if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had been speaking on a point of order, to deal with that point of order, but now that his remarks are regarded as a speech of substance or alleged substance I will deal with them on that basis.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, on a
question of privilege, if this is a substantive motion I believe the minister would have the right to close the debate. If it is only one of those motions that are not debatable then I understand, as explained by the Minister of Justice, that he would speak only once. But if the hon. member says that it is a substantive motion-we say it is not, you know-then I think that according to the rules the minister would have the right of reply and of closing the debate. I should like to have a ruling on that point.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that if this were a substantive motion the minister would have the right of reply, but as the Minister of Public Works has said this is not a substantive motion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Wrong again, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I did not say the motion was a substantive motion. I said that the minister had made remarks which I referred to as alleged substance rather than a point of order. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that parliament is being insulted here. We have brought before us a very important piece of legislation, legislation which proposes to give to the government certain wide emergency powers. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) says that all that is being asked is an extension of powers that the government already enjoys. Even if that is all it is, an extension of what is now on the statute books, I suggest it is a very important piece of legislation. Yet, despite the importance of

this piece of legislation, the government does not explain it nor tell us why it should be passed, but rather sits quiet and allows five members of the opposition to speak before the Minister of Justice goes even so far as to explain why he thinks he should not speak. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the greatest insults that I have seen handed to parliament in a long time.
The question before the house is one on which there is obviously a strong difference of opinion. I take it from the fact that the resolution is introduced-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does my hon. friend not agree with the interpretation of rule 60 that I just put to the house?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it we are back to the point of order now, rather than on substance. If I may get back to the point of order and the minister's frequent claim that he was keeping within the rules of the house, I will submit for his consideration that I think he was not following the decision that he quoted from Your Honour. In that judgment delivered in June, 1952, Your Honour suggested that if there was debate directed to the negative the minister should then reply. There has been debate directed to the negative. There have been several speeches taking strong objection to this measure, and yet the minister, who refused to defend it in the first place, now even refuses to answer the arguments that have been made against it. For him to claim that he is carrying out the rules is, I think, not at all consistent.
As for rule No. 60, and the interpretation thereof which Your Honour gave last June, I would remind the Minister of Justice that today, during the midst of the remarks of the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), Your Honour gave what I thought was an amendment of your own opinion. Your Honour suggested that maybe the difficulty was that this was not regarded as a substantive motion, and the difficulty lay in the fact that the minister moving it does not have the right of reply under the rules of the house. I think there was a general feeling around the house when that discussion took place between Your Honour and the member for Vancouver East, that the simplest solution to this impasse to which we have come would be either for the house to agree by unanimous consent or for the rule to be changed so the minister moving a motion of this kind could have the right of reply. Apparently the Minister of Justice
Emergency Powers Act does not want to speak to the motion in the first instance, and he does not want the right of reply.
I still feel that we should be told why the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is not here. The motion is in his name, and not in the name of the Minister of Justice. It is quite properly in the name of the Prime Minister, because the measure has far-reaching implications. It may well be that the Prime Minister has important business which keeps him away from the house this afternoon. If that is the case, I suggest that the leader of the house should have proposed to us that we go on with other business. After all, when this measure was introduced in 1951, it was in the name of the Prime Minister and was moved by him. He made the first speech, without quibbling over questions as to whether or not he should speak at that stage. Similarly in 1952 when the resolution was brought in to provide for the continuance of this measure, the Prime Minister moved it and stayed here throughout that debate. I suggest it is just as important a piece of legislation today as it was in 1951 or 1952. If it is not possible for the Prime Minister to be here and pilot this legislation through this afternoon, we could deal with some other piece of business.
I would point out also, since the Minister of Justice keeps rising on so many points of procedure, that the Prime Minister, in whose name this motion was moved, has not yet spoken. If the Prime Minister came back into the house and asked for the right to speak to this motion, since it is his motion and he has not yet spoken to it, I believe that Your Honour would give him the right to speak. If there were any procedural doubt about it, the house would give unanimous consent to him to speak, because of the obligation we feel the Prime Minister has to tell the house why we are being asked to support the measure. The Minister of Justice keeps making so much out of the desire to have Mr. Speaker leave the chair and for us to get into committee of the whole, as though there were some particular significance as to where Your Honour is at a particular moment. After all, it may be that lawyers like the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) can say that it is a vote on a motion for Your Honour to leave the chair, and nothing more. It is clear in Beauchesne, however, that it is a vote on a motion for Your Honour to leave the chair for the house to go into committee on a certain resolution.
The minister says the vote is not on the substance of the resolution. But supposing the vote taken at the end of this debate

Emergency Powers Act were in the negative, would the government say that that was not a defeat of the government, that was not a defeat of the emergency powers measure, but merely a defeat of a motion for Mr. Speaker to walk out of the chair? Oh, no, they would say that an important measure that was mentioned in the speech from the throne, and that the government thought parliament should have passed, had been defeated by parliament, so away we would go to the country on that issue. As a matter of fact, it might be a good issue upon which to go to the country, so as to get the views of the people on this very issue.


Mr. Argue:: They would not dare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I do not think they would dare go to the country on the issue of the rights of parliament in relation to the executive branch of the government. So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there has been from the ministerial benches a great deal of quibbling on a point of order, behind which they are hiding and refusing to deal with the merits of this measure before the first vote is taken. Whether or not it is a recorded vote, it is a decision of the house. When this debate ends and it is decided whether or not Your Honour leaves the chair, the decision then given is not just on the question of whether Your Honour should stay in the chair or get out of it. The decision is on the question as to whether or not we think there should be any further dealing with a resolution calling for the introduction of emergency powers legislation.
Before I go further, Mr. Speaker, may 1 make it clear, as the member for Vancouver East did, that we in this group supported this legislation in 1951. We supported it again in 1952 when the government asked the house to pass a resolution to the effect that the measure be continued until 1953. As a matter of fact, if I may say so, on looking over the debate of 1952 I think I made a better case for the continuance of the legislation than the government did.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Do not be too modest.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: That may not be high praise.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Why don't you keep up the good work?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the member for Vancouver East pointed out, and as I indicated last year, the support of this group for the continuance of this legislation was clearly based on certain conditions. It was on the condition that this legislation be used, not for ordinary matters but only for extraordinary matters that might have to be dealt


with. I made it clear also that one of the reasons we were interested in this kind of legislation was because of the need, in the name of the people, for there to be some control over prices, over the economy of the country, so that we might not have runaway inflation, with all the dire consequences that flow from that phenomenon. We pointed out last year that the government had failed to use its powers during the twelve months it had legislation for this purpose, but that we were prepared to give them another twelve months in the hope they would use the powers for the good of the people. No such use has been made of those powers. As a matter of fact, the need for it in terms of materials control, priorities and so on would seem to have lessened, if one can judge from the estimates in the Department of Defence Production and so on. But at any rate the plain fact of the matter is that the powers were not used for the purposes that we had in mind when we agreed to their extension; and it seems to us now that a government which certainly does not enjoy the confidence of a great many of us in this house, nor the confidence of the country, should not be given a further extension of powers of this kind.
I felt particularly proud of my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis)-I am always proud of him but I was particularly so today-for the reasonable speech he made earlier in this debate. From the way he spoke I think it was fairly clear that we were dubious about agreeing to this legislation. But despite that doubt, he left the door open and gave the government a chance to make a case for it if it had one. But despite that reasonable appeal-that reasonable offer-to the government to state its case, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) not only refuses to rise and do so but he rises and makes a speech on a point of order, thereby ruling himself out of court so far as his right to make any further speech on this matter is concerned.
I can tell the government that the slight doubt about this whole matter that we over here in this group had earlier this afternoon is no longer slight. We now feel that the issue is clear. We feel that what we have here is a government that wants wide powers, that does not want to explain why it wants them, that does not want to make a speech about the matter but just wants parliament to agree to the extension of these powers. To say that they were passed last year or the year before is hardly an argument. It might have been a point for the minister to make if he had spoken first.

But after five or six members of the opposition have spoken and have indicated disagreement with this legislation, surely the time has come for the government to make a case for this legislation, if it has one; and I greatly doubt that it has.
As I have already said, even if it had a *case, any confidence that any of us ever had in this government is completely gone, and we have no thought of giving them powers of this kind.


An hon. Member:: We never had any
confidence in the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends behind me are reminding me of the fact that we never did have confidence in this government; but even our non-confidence has grown because of some of the things that have been happening within this past year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member is just
carried away with himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The members of the government still think they have the confidence of the people of this country. There is one way they can find out, and they will be very surprised when they make that test.
One of the reasons I was hoping we would have a speech from the government side before this-after all, I am the sixth speaker on this side and there has been no word from the government yet-was so that we might have a summary of what has been done, if anything, under the Emergency Powers Act during the last twelve months. A year ago-in May, 1952, it was-when the house was asked to extend this legislation, the Prime Minister gave us a report of the government's stewardship under this legislation. He told us how many orders in *council had been passed under the Emergency Powers Act. He described each of them. At least, he described all but one of them, and I will come to that matter in a moment. But at any rate we were given an account of what had happened during those twelve months. I should like to know whether more or fewer orders in council were passed this year than were passed last year under the Emergency Powers Act. Some questioning took place a while ago. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) wanted to know. whether the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) knew how many orders in council had been passed under this legislation during the past five years. That was an odd question because this legislation has not been in effect for the last five years; it has been in effect for only two years.
Emergency Powers Act
I may say that during the first year there were, in fact, only nineteen orders in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act. I am referring to the year from 1951 to 1952. The Prime Minister detailed those for us *last year. As I say, he told us that there were nineteen. Of those nineteen, fourteen were still in effect when the Prime Minister spoke to us on May 26, 1952. Those fourteen were as I shall now indicate.
There were five dealing with great lakes seamen's regulations, three having to do with priorities control, two with respect to control of transport, one that had grown out of the foot-and-mouth disease, one that had to do with the operation by United States government agencies of radio stations within Canada, and one that had to do with the exempting from customs duty of gifts having a value of less than $25 if sent home by troops overseas. I think the figures I have given add up to thirteen. The other one of those fourteen which was still in existence a year ago was P.C. 3486 of July 4, 1951, which, by government decision, had been exempted from publication. In other words, that is a secret order in council, the terms of which parliament does not yet know.
In addition to those fourteen that were still in effect when the Prime Minister spoke on May 26, 1952, there were five others. Obviously some of those fourteen may since have been repealed or rescinded. Incidentally this is the kind of information that I think the house was entitled to have if the government had not followed the insulting course to which we have been subjected today.
With respect to the other five I may say that the Prime Minister a year ago, at the time he spoke, indicated that those five had been replaced by legislation, or by proper statutes. One of them had to do with the Defence Services Pension Act; another had to do with discipline in the armed forces. A third one had something to do with the agricultural products board. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is good at getting things done when he wants them done- except the South Saskatchewan dam. A fourth one had to do with the use of other metals than nickel in the Canadian five-cent piece. It is not worth much any more anyway. The last one had to do with the postponing of the weighing of grain under certain conditions.
I recite those nineteen orders in council, fourteen that were still in existence and five that had been replaced, not just to put a bit of history on the record but to indicate the kind of use that was made of this legislation,
1706	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act in the light of such information as we had been given up to that time. The last five orders in council that I referred to were certainly not emergency matters at all. As a matter of fact they were all just cases of the government's using the Emergency Powers Act as a convenience, as a means of getting something as law before parliament would pass the actual legislation. As to the other fourteen, with respect to some of them-for example, the one having to do with the foot-and-mouth disease-the Prime Minister admitted that there was probably other statutory authority, that they really did not need to use the Emergency Powers Act. So when you add it all up, it looks as though the use of the Emergency Powers Act during its first year was simply a use for convenience, and that there was little done that was in terms of security. One does not know, of course, what was in that secret order in council of July 4, 1951; but in the main it was simply a matter of convenience to the government during that first year to have this legislation on the statute book. I suggest that we should have been told before this what the story has been during the second year. How many orders in council have there been? Were there more than nineteen? Were there fewer than nineteen? Incidentally, hon. members must not get the impression that the government holds itself down to nineteen orders in council a year. Those are just the orders in council under the Emergency Powers Act. That does not include the orders in council that come under the legislation over which the Minister of Trade and Commerce and of Defence Production is in charge, and it does not include orders in council under all the other pieces of legislation, most of which make provision for some form of order in council or other.
As hon. members know, we get a book every once in a while containing orders in council that have been made and tabled in the house, and to keep up with them would require quite a secretariat indeed.
What has happened during the past year? Have there been any that could not have been effected under other legislation? Have there been any in connection with which the purpose could not have been served by legislation of this parliament? After all, we are here most of the year now. There is not ever a very long break between sittings of parliament, and if the government really believed in parliamentary democracy, in parliament being in charge rather than just the executive, I do not think they would have asked for this kind of legislation at all. As the hon. member for Kamloops reminds


me, if they believed in responsible government, which is supposed to be the essence of our form of government, our form of democracy, I do not think they would be asking for any further extension of this legislation.
It may be argued that the world situation is still a precarious one, and no one would deny that. Some of us are quite concerned about some of the things that are happening, even happening in the country to the south of us, in terms of changes in foreign policy, and we do not know just what may be ahead; but in that connection may I remind the house that when the Prime Minister introduced this legislation on February 20, 1951-it was the occasion when we were at the same stage that we are at now, only on that occasion the Prime Minister chose to speak -he said, as reported at page 497 of Hansard:
Moreover, the enactment of an emergency powers bill will not prevent the proclamation of the War Measures Act if the situation should become more critical than it is now.
He went on to say-and I read this because it has a bearing on the sentence I have just read:
Of course it would not prevent the proclamation of the War Measures Act if we got into a state of actual conflict.
The Prime Minister was saying there what we all know that in a state of actual conflict there is nothing to prevent the government from proclaiming the War Measures Act. The Prime Minister went further than that on February 20, 1951. He said that if conditions became more critical than they were then, but even short of actual conflict, it would be possible for the government to proclaim the War Measures Act. Well, so long as the government has that residual power, that residual right to proclaim the War Measures Act, it could deal with anything that was a real emergency, and therefore I do not see why it should ask for the continuance of this legislation any longer. It is convenient for the government to have this legislation, I know, and they like to get things through in the easiest possible way. To pass an order in council in cabinet meeting over in the east block is much easier than getting a bill through this House of Commons, but surely that should not be the basis on which decisions of this kind are made.
We feel-I think it could be said even of this government

that they would be a bit reluctant to proclaim the War Measures Act in any situation that was short of actual conflict. With respect to the relationship between parliament and the executive I think it is good for that reluctance to be there and for the government to be held in check to that extent. So long as they have not

got the War Measures Act they will be careful; they will come to parliament more often. But if they get this Emergency Powers Act before them it is obvious from their record that any time they get into a little jam, any time they want to put something else into the five-cent piece besides nickel, any time the Minister of Agriculture wants a change in one of his pieces of legislation, any time you need to amend legislation that you want changed when parliament is not here, well you just pass an order in council under the Emergency Powers Act and that will do the trick until parliament gets back to pass legislation. Well, that is playing fast and loose with the whole set-up of parliamentary and responsible government, and for my part, though we gave the government these powers two years ago and extended them last year, the plain fact of the matter is they have not used them for the purposes that some of us had in mind when we gave those powers. Rather, they have used them just as a convenience, and I do not think they should have them any more.
I do not know what the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) had in mind when he asked as to the number of orders in council that had been passed under this legislation. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice was prompting him or not, whether he was hoping to get out the information that there had not been very many. That may well be the case. I do not know. It may well be that there were fewer than nineteen in the past year, which was the number the year before. If that is so, if there were very few occasions on which it has been necessary to use this legislation, I would suggest that it should be abandoned because of disuse, because having it there as a convenient piece of machinery that the government can use is bad for democracy and bad for relationships between the executive and parliament. We have had those bad relationships not only in terms of the legislation itself, we have had a terrific example of it today in the way in which the government has dealt with this matter, and in my view parliament should not consent to the passing of the motion for Your Honour to leave that chair.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks at this stage of the debate 68108-109
Emergency Powers Act I feel the house should be given a picture, in capsule form if possible, of what has happened to date.
There was moved this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a resolution that stands on the order paper in his name. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) asked if there was not going to be a statement from the government at this stage, whereupon the Prime Minister said that he believed the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had a statement to make. The Minister of Justice interjected to say he preferred to make his statement in committee of the whole.
The Leader of the Opposition pressed the point that this was a matter of some importance, and that he felt there should be a statement with Your Honour in the chair. Despite that urging on the part of the Leader of the Opposition the Minister of Justice chose not to speak at that stage, nor did anybody else from the government side of the house offer to speak.
There followed the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and then the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). That made four speeches from the opposition side of the house, all more or less opposing the motion that Your Honour leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on this particular resolution,
At this point-and I am relying upon my memory, but I am prepared to subject what I am saying to the reading of Hansard when it comes out tomorrow-at that point the Minister of Justice rose and started to speak. He said something like this, "Mr. Speaker, if all those who have any objections to raise have stated them, I feel it is my duty to reply". I place emphasis upon the word "duty" which the Minister of Justice used at that time.
In other words he was at that point prepared to follow up the suggestion made by Your Honour in 1952 that, there having been speeches directed to the negative of the question on a motion of this kind, it was his duty and responsibility as a minister to reply. I rose on a point of order to make sure the Minister of Justice did not presume that he was closing the debate. He replied that he certainly was not closing the debate. He said that he was rising on what really was a point of order to make sure that there were not others who wished to speak in opposition to the motion because, as he said-and I remember this particularly well-"I do not

Emergency Powers Act want to be put in the position where I cannot answer objections that are raised against this legislation".
When from this side of the house we made it clear that there were others who did wish to speak, the Minister of Justice took his seat. For a moment it looked as though the question was going to be put. Some of us complained that it would be an insult to this House of Commons if the matter were concluded without a speech from the government side of the house. The Minister of Justice still sat in his seat.
There followed then the speech of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). When he finished, again there was silence from the government side, and Your Honour was about to put the question. At that time I asked if the Minister of Justice was not going to make a statement. He got up and said that he was rising just to speak briefly, to explain why it was his intention not to speak at that stage. Well, his brief remarks were not exactly brief; and at the end of his remarks Your Honour took the position that the length at which he had spoken, and the extent to which he had dealt with the substance of the matter, made his remarks a speech, and that therefore he would not be able to speak again in this debate.
In other words at that point the Minister of Justice did the very thing that earlier he said he did not wish to happen. Earlier he had said, "I do not want to be put in a position where I cannot reply to objections to this measure", and then a little later on he put himself in the very position that he said he did not want to be put into.
So the result is that, not counting the speech made by the Minister of Justice- because he did not deal with the merits or demerits of the proposal before us and therefore it should not be counted-there have been six of us, including myself, who have taken part in the debate, and all of us on the opposition side of the house. All of us have expressed either misgivings or outright opposition to the measure.
I suggest that this is a very strange situation indeed. This afternoon I used words which I thought at the time maybe were strong; but, on thinking it over, I am satisfied those words were quite proper, and suited the situation. It seems to me that the government is insulting parliament by asking us to agree to legislation of this kind without even making any statement as to why parliament should be asked to vote for this measure.
I indicated this afternoon that a year ago the Prime Minister did not hesitate to tell us why he thought parliament should agree


to the extension of the Emergency Powers Act for another year. I even gave some of the details that were in that speech-details of a kind to which I think we are entitled on this occasion. So far today we have had no explanation at all, and it simply leaves us on this side of the house with the feeling that we have here a government which is not only seeking wide powers and seeking to have parliament delegate parliamentary authority to the executive, but wants that to be done without even telling parliament why, in the government's opinion, it should be done.
I suggest as strongly as I can that the reference to rules and to points of order is irrelevant. If this debate were out of order Your Honour would not let it -carry on. There is no question as to our right to speak, and there is no question as to the right of members on the government side of the house to speak as well. As a matter of fact, since so much has been said about the rules in the book, may I remind hon. members of citation 214 in Beauchesne's third edition which suggests that His Honour the Speaker is supposed to alternate speakers between the two sides of the house. Well, we cannot but sympathize with Your Honour today owing to the fact that nobody on the other side has tried to speak. And so Your Honour has had to see a succession of speakers on the opposition side.
The suggestion has also been made that members on the other side of the house are just following the rules. Well, standing order 38 makes it clear that this is a debatable motion. Standing order No 60, to which reference has been made so often, does not preclude debate at this stage. It says that before a motion of this kind can be dealt with it must be referred by the house to a committee of the whole house, and it is clear from standing order 38 that a motion to refer this matter to a committee of the whole house is a debatable motion. It is that right that we are exercising at this time. As I said this afternoon, the government may argue all it wants that what we have before us now is simply a motion that Your Honour get out of the -chair, but everyone knows that if this motion were defeated the government would not treat it as a defeat of a procedural motion; the government would say that what the house had done was to deny any further consideration of a major government proposal.
This is a major proposal; it was included in the speech from the throne. It is before us as a substantial proposal in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and I am satisfied that if the house were to stand

on its rights as a free parliament in a democracy that believes in the parliament of Canada being superior to the executive branch, if taking that position this house were to defeat the motion that Your Honour leave the chair, that would be correctly and properly interpreted as a defeat of the proposition that is before us, namely, that the Emergency Powers Act be extended for another year.


Solon Earl Low: Let us do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) says, "Let us do it." I am advising that the house should do it. I realize that the government would not like to face the country on this issue of the relations between the executive and parliament, but I think the people of this country, after some of the things that have been happening during the last few years, would be glad to have a chance to express their opinion on that very issue.
I was saying that if this vote were resolved in the negative it would be treated as a defeat of the proposal for the extension of the Emergency Powers Act. Similarly, I suggest that if this vote is resolved in the affirmative that is not just a motion that Your Honour get out of the chair and sit somewhere else; that would be a vote in support of the proposition that the Emergency Powers Act be extended another year.
I gather that my time is about up, or maybe it has more than gone, so I shall just conclude by saying that in addition to the demerits of the legislation itself, which I emphasized in my remarks before six o'clock, it seems to me that the performance we have had in this debate leaves us no alternative but to express in the strongest terms we can our non-confidence in the government and what we believe to be the non-confidence of the people of this country in this government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, if I believed that this question was simply one of procedure I would hardly have the heart to stand up and talk on the subject because I believe there are those who are much more familiar with constitutional and procedural matters than I am. But it does not seem to me to be that at all. As I understand it, it is really a question of the cutting down of the rights of the minority in this house. I am not able to see it in any other way.
I understand that we have heard questionings of the practice which has prevailed during the few years I have sat in this house. It has been questioned once or twice. As I see it now, we are having the matter pressed. The minister is refusing to take part except 68108-109i
Emergency Powers Act in the procedural sense in this resolution stage. To me this is a shrinking of the rights of the minority and it is because of that that I am on my feet.
I have always been most interested in the ample rights of debate that are given to the minority under our system. It seems to me to be evidence of the great wisdom of our ancestors. I have not been able to find anyone who could enlighten me in detail as to the way it arose. There is one interesting suggestion which was made to me once and which I have always carried in my mind, that perhaps it went back to the time when members of parliament had retainers at home, not in the legal sense, but men-at-arms, and it was considered better to give them ample rights of speech rather than have them go back home and perhaps put the matter to a very different test.
Whatever the rights may be that we have had under our system, the rights of the minority are certainly very amply protected. My own feeling is that that is of vast importance. I have often asked myself why it is that only the countries that share our form of government, and perhaps not all of them, are prepared every few years to have the citizens of the country put pieces of paper in boxes all across the country and at the end of that time obey, because that is what we do, the people who have the largest number of votes.
The results are often very unsatisfactory to us. They have been most unsatisfactory to me for a long time. Nevertheless one obeys the results, and I suggest we do that for two reasons. First, I think we like to think that we are sporting people and when we are defeated we like to take it in good part. But far more important than that, I believe, is the fact that we feel that the rights of the minority will be protected, that there will be ample opportunity for them to be voiced. Therefore I feel that any attempt of any kind to cut them down should be resisted, and that is the reason why I am on my feet.
I have found something that I have looked for for a long time, a short description of minority rights, rationalizing them better than I have ever seen them rationalized, showing why the rights of the minority are as amply protected under our system as they are. Before I read this may I say that although they are amply protected I cannot from my short experience feel that there has been very great trespassing. I cannot feel that time has been lost.
There have been very few cases when we have had what we might call a textbook illustration of the success of the opposition
1710	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act pressed to the point where it actually brought about a change of government policy on the spot, but the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) will recall that a year ago last December we did have introduced into this house a measure connected with the Public Works Act. He will remember that we on this side protested against it, perhaps with even more indignation than we usually do.


Alphonse Fournier: Do you think that this is relevant to the discussion on this matter?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am hoping that Mr. Speaker will think it is relevant to what I am trying to point out, namely, the rights, the privileges and the effectiveness of the opposition. When I have read the short passage which I propose to read I believe the Minister of Public Works will think it is relevant. At any rate I shall be very brief.
What happened then was that we in the opposition exercised our duty of protesting. We were fortunate in that case in that we attracted the attention of the press and the matter became of public interest. We are not always so fortunate in that way. The minister will remember that within two weeks the government for once saw the light. They saw that we were right and the measure was halted. I mention that because it is the clearest illustration I can think of of one of the reasons for the existence of the opposition.
I propose to read shortly from "The Procedure of the House of Commons" by Redlich, volume I, page 131. It seems to me that this sets out extremely well what an opposition is for. I quote:
As already pointed out, the distinctive characteristic of the procedure finally developed in the 18th century was the protection of the minority. This principle also can only be understood as one of the consequences of the cohesion which has marked the House of Commons since the revolution.
Note this carefully, Mr. Speaker.
The opponents who face each other are equally able and willing to undertake and become responsible for the government of the kingdom;-
Of course that is not something which we all agree with, but that is what the text writer says.
-more than this, they are ready to recognize each other's capacity.
He may be going a little far there.
The prospect of loss of power awakens in the hearts of the ruling party no fear of destruction for themselves and no fear of an attack upon the constitution for state and country. The battle is one upon an enclosed field. It is, therefore, quite in place that there should be rules of battle to assure fair play to each party. For both are members of a nation, one in fact and feeling. The majority holds the great advantage of being able to realize its wishes in the institutions of government; but, on the other hand, for this very reason


the minority ought to have all conceivable rights of expressing its views and aims, and ought to be allowed free use of all permissible weapons of speech and political tactics in its fight against the expression of the wish of parliament which is a consequence of possessing a majority. For it is just as much the interest of the nation to ascertain whether the majority can maintain itself as such against an able and powerful attack and make proper use of the great privilege of conducting the government, as it is to take care that the will of the ultimate majority shall be treated as the will of the nation.
Then there is this final sentence, Mr. Speaker, which reads as follows:
Protection of the minority is, therefore, in the British parliament no mere privilege of the minority for the time being; it is a vitally important institution developed in the highest interests of a nation ruled by parliament.
I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will say that he endorses all that and that nothing he is doing today contravenes that in any way. All I can say is that there we differ entirely. I feel that this is one of the instances we see so often where a little tenure of power makes power commonplace. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) smiles. He is not hearing this for the first time and its amuses him greatly, but nevertheless I do not hesitate to reiterate it because signs are never wanting that that is what happens, that when people have it for a long time they come to have complete confidence in themselves and they come to be completely convinced that more and more power for them is better and better for the nation. I do not like to say that in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He of course is an authoritarian.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I rather think the hon. member is getting away from the resolution before the house. May I ask him, to discuss the resolution, or should I say the reasons why the Speaker should not leave the chair so that the house can consider the resolution in committee. There must be some relation between his remarks and the resolution.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I of course will bow to your ruling, but the relation is this. The point I am trying to make is that what we are now discussing is in fact an attempt to diminish the rights of the minority. It is with that in mind that I am pointing out the general danger that exists in this house to the rights of the minority. It is for that reason that I mentioned the Minister of Trade and Commerce, notwithstanding his undoubted gifts, because I feel that respect for the rights of the minority is not his outstanding characteristic. I do not want to quote that much-quoted and well-known phrase about "getting away

with" things but I do feel that perhaps the minister has inoculated the rest of the cabinet and that even in his absence his spirit broods over it. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we have these emanations, shall I call them, from the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


John George Diefenbaker: Fulminations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Fulminations, the hon. member says. Coming to the bill itself, I want to say a word or two about the powers set out therein. We of course are deprived of the advantage of knowing what the government is going to do about this measure, and that seems so silly to me. It seems to me that common sense would have suggested that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) should have stood up like a man and told us the arguments that we had to face. But here we are. It is rather like fighting blindly because we still have to hear the reasons why we are being asked to vote for this measure.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege, I am as anxious as I can possibly be to stand up in the committee and explain the whole thing but my hon. friend will not give me a chance.


Howard Charles Green: Why did you not stand up when you had a chance?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You put yourself out of court.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not give us the reasons for voting for the motion?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have given the minister reasons which are perfectly satisfactory to us and which I think should be to all reasonable men, but I am not going to pursue that further. I merely want to point out the unfair disadvantage, inconvenience and absurdity really of the present position, which is that we on this side are doing all the talking, which we greatly dislike to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We would have loved to hear people on the other side. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) delivered a most moving appeal to the Prime Minister to speak, and I hope he is going to do so. In the meantime, as you will agree, Mr. Speaker-and I hope I am not irrelevant here-it would be a much more common-sense	procedure-perhaps
common sense cannot always be followed in this house-if we did know the arguments we had to meet. But we at least do know-at least I think we know-that the measure which is eventually to find its way on the
Emergency Powers Act statute books if the government members run true to form is the same as the one that is on them now. It is a continuation. Therefore all that we need to be able to do is to read and we can find out what the provisions are. I shall not go through them. I merely want to refer again to the extraordinary breadth of the one about trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture. That seems to cover a terrific amount of territory.
One other thing which we may not know but which we can more or less infer from the bursts of publicity, the fountain which spouts constantly and which tells us of the great doings of the government, is that they are not going to give the same reason for continuing this measure as they did last year. But that remains to be seen. That is my inference. In any event, I think they will be deprived of that reason. There is no reason that I can see for continuing this measure except, as I say, the feeling that power is a nice thing to have-and when you have it, keep it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who calls a spade a spade, referred once to having power. He said it was useful to have a stick or a club behind your back when you were negotiating with anyone. The Prime Minister would not use such -what shall I say-a rough illustration as that. I think the Prime Minister used words somewhat similar, that it was useful to have it as a stand-by, if I remember correctly.
In any event, as I understand it there is a stand-by, the War Measures Act, which could be proclaimed and which could do the job if it were necessary. It seems to me we have about reached the situation where these emergency measures should only be used in case of a clear emergency and not in the somewhat nebulous condition in which we find ourselves now. If I remember right, the government hesitated to act on grounds of emergency the other day, saying that there was not one, and now we are asked to pass legislation on the ground that there is one.
I do not think I have anything more to add, Mr. Speaker. I am very sorry if I was out of order but you helped me as best you could to get back. I should like to repeat before I sit down that I do believe that this measure is a chiselling at the rights of the minority. If they are too big, if they are too extended, then let us have it out; but let us know what we are doing and not do it by indirection and by chipping a little bit here and a little bit there. It seems to me that we got along very well with the procedure that was used in my early years in this house, and then it suddenly seemed to become unpopular on the other side of the

Emergency Powers Act gangway. Today we are witnessing a definite attempt to adopt an attitude of insistence. I still hope that the Prime Minister will speak and that we may have a complete reversion to the system which seems to me to have served us so well.


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


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad my hon. friends on the other side of the house are so pleased to hear me rise to make a few remarks.


An hon. Member:: Hear you rise?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is always encouraging to find that one is so welcome in the house even when one criticizes the government and that no one welcomes criticism more than the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself, who appears to think so little of his own resolution that he is leaving the house at this moment.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: 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.


George Alexander Drew: Or to listen to parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister has left on a very good note, Mr. Speaker. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister has other things to do than to listen to any particular hon. member in this house, but I would have thought-


George Alexander Drew: It is a perfect expression of their contempt of parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course it is, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, a perfect expression, a perfect indication, physically as well as verbally, of their contempt of parliament. Although there may be things-


Mr. Lapointe:: Are you parliament?


Mr.. Fulton:: Although there may be things which, from time to time, take the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, too, from the house, I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that there was not such a pressure of business that the Prime Minister, who found it possible to stay in the house without saying a word since eight o'clock-


Mr. Sluder:: How could he?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now my hon. friends are asking a question, Mr. Speaker. You will have observed that it was necessary for Your Honour to get up and start to put the question before I rose to my feet. There was an interval of a few-


Mr. Riley:: He probably regrets it now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who regrets it, my hon. friend? My hon. friend regrets it, I think. My hon. friend always regrets any opportunity being afforded anyone on this side to criticize the government.
I want to take up the suggestion that the poor Prime Minister, the leader of the government, has not had an opportunity to say a word on his own resolution, which is the suggestion being made by my hon. friend. This resolution has been under debate in this house since three o'clock this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and as I read the order paper I see it is a resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister of Canada.


Mr. Ferrie:: Read the resolution before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to read the resolution if the hon. member is unable to read it for himself.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: It is that the Speaker leave the chair, that is the resolution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member has demonstrated his ability to read, and now if he will demonstrate his ability to reason to the same extent that he can read, perhaps he can reach his own conclusions. But in case he cannot, I shall assist him in the process.


John George Diefenbaker: You have got a life job.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: That was a sober second thought.


Hugues Lapointe: Even he could not stand that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have only forty minutes-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Keep on going.


Hugues Lapointe: Why don't you attend the caucus?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend's caucus? I am not invited to them. I attend our caucus, which is worth attending, and we read about my hon. friend's caucus in the newspaper. We understand that a decision was arrived at there not to have an election. I can well understand why they do not want to face the people at the present time.
As I was endeavouring to point out when I was interrupted, this resolution has been moved by the Prime Minister. My hon. friends are endeavouring to suggest that there is somehow or other an unwarranted exercise of power being indulged in by members of the opposition, who have taken advantage of their position to prevent the Prime Minister from speaking to his own resolution. The fact of the matter is, of course, as is obvious to this house and as is becoming increasingly

obvious to the people of the country as a whole, that more and more the Prime Minister is becoming impatient with parliament, sharing the impatience of all his colleagues. This practice of putting on the order paper orders in his own name-


Some hon. Members:: There he goes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have not interrupted the hon. gentleman, but I think he should now discuss the motion that is before the house.


Alphonse Fournier: It is about time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You will recall that the Prime Minister rose on a question of privilege as he left the chamber. He having stated his question of privilege, I rather felt that I should be given an opportunity of replying to it.


Alphonse Fournier: You want to take the privilege away from him.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I had been rather generous to the hon. gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have, but my hon. friends opposite have not.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he complete his reply as quickly as possible, and then discuss the resolution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I might just point out to my hon. friends on the other side of the house that they have not shared your generosity, Mr. Speaker, because although you have been prepared to accord me an opportunity of answering, they seem to have been somewhat indisposed to hear the reply. This resolution has been before the house since three o'clock this afternoon. From that time multitudinous opportunities have been afforded the Prime Minister or any other minister on the government side to explain why it is expedient that this resolution be passed, and why it is desirable that the Speaker leave the chair. He and they have all carefully refrained from exposing themselves to the obvious weakness of their own case by attempting to undertake an explanation of the desirability of that move.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the Emergency Powers Act, which is the subject of the resolution before the house, was introduced in 1951 it was passed, with reservations, but generally speaking with the consent and approval of the house. February 1951, it is well to recall, was only eight months after Korea, and no one knew just what Korea would bring. No one knew whether it would extend to become a world-wide conflagration, whether in fact it would become that national and international emergency which at that
Emergency Powers Act time was the fear, whether expressed or not, which was in the minds of all members of this house and the people of all the peace-loving nations. We felt there was some justification for the introduction by the government of a bill, of which the title was the Emergency Powers Act, the act which it is now desired to extend for a further year by a bill to be based on this resolution if this resolution passes.
But I submit to you, sir, and to the whole house, that although there was justification for the qualified support of the resolution and the bill in 1951, there is no such justification for supporting the resolution before the house today. There are various reasons why that is so. The first reason is that the government has not, in any sense whatever, attempted to define either the emergency, by virtue of which it is seeking these powers, or the spheres within which these powers will be exercised. Not only that, but as was pointed out on several occasions this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), they have not used the powers in very many cases, although in many of the cases in which they were used they were used in respects of which it was entirely unnecessary to rely on emergency powers and what they did might far better have been done by ordinary legislative process. But now it is becoming increasingly obvious that the government, finding these emergency powers more and more of a convenience, are simply expecting the House of Commons to extend those powers without the slightest effort on their part to explain to the house why it should continue to surrender its control over legislation-which it is the task and part of parliament to exercise-into the hands of the executive. We are now being asked to pass this bill extending these emergency powers for a further year without one word of explanation.
Your Honour has indicated that it is perhaps not germane to the subject matter of the resolution before us to dwell at any greater length on the fact that the Prime Minister, who introduced it, does not even consider it appropriate to explain to the house why he thinks it is expedient that this legislation should be considered. I will not deal with that matter at any greater length; but I think it should be emphasized and should at all times be within the knowledge of every member of the house, and of every person throughout the length and breadth of this land, that the government which is asking this parliament to surrender for a further year its legislative responsibilities and control of the executive is asking that parliament do
1714	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act so without even the gesture of affording us one word of explanation as to why it is necessary to carry on that system.
Mr. Speaker, the situation which confronts this house and this country today is a vastly different one from that which confronted us when the Emergency Powers Act was first enacted by parliament two years ago. It is true that the situation in Korea is not settled by any means. There exists a state of war in Korea. Incidentally, it has taken considerable prodding and pressing on the part of members on this side of the house to persuade the government to admit that the situation amounts to a state of war. They used to call it "police action", as you will remember, until they found it rather inconvenient to explain it on that basis to the people of Canada whose families were disrupted and whose pockets were plundered by the taxes supposed1 to be made necessary for this thing. They found it rather hard to justify all those things by the term "police action".
It is true that we have a state of continuing war in Korea. But with regard to that situation the uncertainties which were present in February, 1951, only eight months after the war broke out there, are not now nearly as vague, indefinite or threatening as they were then. A method of dealing with that situation seems to have been contrived on the part of the peace-loving nations of the world. We must remember that not only is the situation far different in all respects from the uncertainties of the one which surrounded the outbreak of the Korean war, but that just recently in this house, in connection with another measure and in a discussion with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) as to the question whether or not an emergency existed, the Prime Minister said: After all, these matters are not so much matters of difference in definition as they are matters of difference in degree.
What, therefore, are we left with as a justification for the continuation of this measure? We are left with nothing more or less than the fact that the government is to say whether or not it thinks the emergency to be of a sufficient degree-not by definition but of a sufficient degree-to warrant parliament's continuing to abdicate all its legislative functions and all its legislative responsibilities. Yet although they say that the decision whether or not parliament should continue to be deprived of its legislative responsibilities and functions depends upon whether or not the emergency is of a sufficient degree to warrant it, they have the supreme effrontery this afternoon to introduce 

this resolution saying that we should continue to abdicate our responsibilities, without even the gesture of an attempt to explain to us what is the degree of the emergency upon which alone the Prime Minister said, some three days ago, justification for this or similar measures would depend.
First he tells us that the existence or otherwise of an emergency is a matter of degree and that it depends upon the determination of the government as to whether the necessary degree of emergency exists. Now he comes along and says "We are asking you to continue the emergency legislation", and he has the supreme effrontery to ask the Canadian people in their parliament to do that without getting up and saying what is the degree of emergency upon which he bases the request for a continuation of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, never could there have been clearer proof of the fact that this legislation should no longer be continued and that this government should be brought to a realization of its responsibilities not only to this house but to the people of Canada, and its responsibility to explain fully-if indeed it is possible to explain-why the parliament of Canada should continue to be deprived of its legislative authority, of the means by which -and by which alone-that parliament and thus the people whom the members of parliament represent can control the executive branch of the government, namely, the cabinet.
Until that explanation is given I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every hon. member in this house, that we would be completely lacking in the discharge of our duties as individual members representing our constituents and the people of Canada as a whole if we were to abdicate, without a word of explanation or justification, the very duties which those people sent us down here to discharge, namely the duty of investigating, controlling, checking and, if necessary, denying the measures which the government submits to us. After all, that is the supreme function of parliament and it is the supreme task of every member of parliament to exercise his judgment on behalf of the people whom he was elected to represent. If we simply refuse to allow ourselves for a moment even to be in a position to exercise that judgment, then we betray the confidence which the people who elected us placed in us when they sent us down here.
Hence, not only do I say that this resolution should be defeated because of the complete lack of explanation and the complete lack of justification which has been afforded to us as to why the Emergency Powers Act should

be continued; but indeed, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that the words of the Prime Minister himself, when he was speaking to the house in support of the bill in March, 1951, contained-if anything further were needed-an additional reason why the legislation should not be continued. The Prime Minister, when he spoke in support of the legislation in 1951, made it perfectly clear that it went far beyond what the government thought might be necessary. He came before parliament and he said: We are asking you to pass legislation which confers upon the government the power to enact, by order in council, all these things which normally would require the authority of parliament through a statute. Not only that, but also we are asking you to empower the governor in council to do things in fields which would normally be reserved exclusively to the provinces.
He said: We are asking you to give us these powers, but we are not asking you to confine these powers to fields and within limits within which we ourselves are prepared to say in detail that we need those powers; we are also asking you to entrust to us powers which might be far wider than anything which we ourselves can foresee that we shall need. That is what he said to us in March, 1951. I cite in support of that paraphrase of the Prime Minister's remarks this passage from page 807 of Hansard of March 1, 1951:
These things mean restrictions on some individuals and they are subject to contestation before the courts. It is therefore important to have the language so broad that the courts will not say: "You have gone beyond what parliament authorized you to do." I am sure there is contained here a good deal that goes far beyond what will be done by order in council or by regulation. But the Department of Justice feared-at least, that was the advice we obtained from the permanent officials-that if it was not drawn in the broad language that already had had the scrutiny of the courts and had been upheld by the courts, they would not guarantee that it would stand contestation. We were convinced that we should stay on the safe side and be able to support the legislation.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was saying this: There might be some misguided individual-and I am paraphrasing his words-there might be some misguided individual in Canada who would have the effrontery to challenge in the courts of the land some of the edicts which are passed by this government. Now, this supreme, almighty, all-powerful government cannot run the risk that an equally misguided court might conceivably say that this misguided subject was right in his interpretation of the law and that in fact this all-powerful, this omnipotent and benevolent government had exceeded the authority conferred upon it; because of the revulsion it would create 68108-110
Emergency Powers Act in the minds of the whole people of Canada to see this omnipotent and benevolent government challenged in the courts and turned down by the courts, why, we have to make assurance doubly sure that the courts can never find the government of Canada at fault. And therefore we will take not just the powers we need but we will take twice, nay thrice as many powers as we need and thus we will assure that no citizen who might ever be misguided enough, in his ignorance, to challenge the edict of the government need ever fear that in fact that misguided attempt would be upheld by the courts. And so he says: It is therefore important to have the language so broad that the courts will not say: You have gone beyond what parliament authorized you to do.
Mr. Speaker, what a principle! What a principle for a Prime Minister who says, and says with all the solemnity of his office: I uphold the principles of responsible government. There was never a more dangerous, more vicious principle enunciated, particularly, Mr. Speaker, when the government is asking parliament to hand over to the executive all its responsibilities, and with them all the safeguards which normally protect the citizen, which existed heretofore, and existed only as a result of the fact that parliament can call the executive to account.


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


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would much rather the minister made a speech on the subject, but since he appears to have deliberately denied himself that opportunity I will welcome his question.


Mr. Pearson:: Oh, so generous!


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the hon. gentleman regards this legislation as being as iniquitous as he has just described it, why did he not vote against it when it was before the house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the hon. gentleman and all his supporters, when we rise to speak, give every appearance of thinking we should not speak, and then they rise in their places later on and ask questions which show they obviously have not attempted to follow the arguments which are being made but to which they now appear to attach some importance; because when I rose this evening I dealt with that question, and I attempted to explain to the minister why it was in 1951, when the legislation was introduced, we said that although we had reservations, which were defined then and which I indicated again tonight, the situation at that time, namely February,

Emergency Powers Act 1951, was so uncertain that there might be some justification tor taking emergency powers.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out this afternoon and reminds me again that the Nolan case, to which he referred, had not then been decided, and it is true that we gave approval in principle to the bill on second reading. But the Minister of Justice will remember that we made certain specific suggestions when the bill was in committee as to how some of the undesirable features might be eliminated, every one of which-no, not every one, I want to be fair-but most of which were rejected by my hon. friend and his colleagues; and therefore, having given approval in principle in the hope that we might be able to make some improvements in detail, then when the government's vast majority defeated the suggestions for improvement in detail it was impossible for us to improve the bill and to remove those objections, which I have been pointing out to my hon. friend tonight.
And indeed, I am not one of those who say that they are always right.


Hazen Robert Argue: The government is getting worse every day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am willing to admit that I make mistakes, and it may well be that in 1951 we made quite a mistake in entrusting these powers to the government. Indeed I think I am convinced of it, and nothing convinces me more than some of the actions of the government-not only their actions related to this bill, Mr. Speaker, but actions in connection with incidents which have recently been brought to our attention, revealing their shortcomings with respect to accounting in national defence, and with respect to their responsibility to administer carefully and with economy the money that they have screwed out of the people by the excessive rates of taxation which they impose on them.


Hazen Robert Argue: They are going to loosen the screws pretty soon.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All these things and others, as I say, are beginning to convince me that we did make a mistake in entrusting these powers to the government in 1951.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should confine his remarks to any mistakes he made with respect to this measure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the thing in respect to this measure which above all others convinces me that we were mistaken is the supreme arrogance shown by the government in laying this measure before


us this afternoon, and the way in which they have brought before us a measure which is perhaps one of the most important to come before this parliament at this session, asking for the continuation of these emergency powers; and yet they do not bother to give the Canadian people the courtesy of an explanation of why it is necessary that they should be continued.
As I was saying when the minister interrupted, in order to take the pressure off, the Prime Minister said-


An hon. Member:: No pressure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister stated explicitly in 1951 that they were asking for powers far wider than any they might ever have to use. They did not justify them then. They have not justified them since; and they have not tried to justify them this afternoon or this evening.
And, Mr. Speaker, I say now that this parliament will be betraying a trust reposed in it by the people who elected it if they swallow that insult and continue these powers.
Then the Prime Minister in 1952 again favoured us with a speech-somewhat shorter than he made in 1951, but still a speech. There he took the opposite tack to the one he took in 1951. I imagine that the Prime Minister, finding that he said one thing in 1951 and another in 1952 which could not possibly be reconciled, used his discretion this afternoon to keep absolute silence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So he walks out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, so he walks out. In 1951 he told us the government was taking powers greater than it would ever need. In 1952 it was quite different. In 1952 the poor government, he says, far from seeking to impose upon, parliament and the people powers away beyond what is proper, does just the opposite, and saddles itself with responsibilities far greater than it had before. Here is what the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 2558 of Hansard for May 26, 1952:
In reality the purpose-
That is, the purpose of the legislation, -was to increase the responsibility of the government, subject to the control of parliament, to meet such emergencies as it might suddenly become necessary to deal with in order to preserve the peace, order and good government of the country in the then threatening international situation. It was not that the government wanted greater powers. It was passed because it was deemed to be a wise precaution to make it the responsibility of the government to act quickly if and when prompt action might be necessary, and to be able to take such action without proclaiming the more sweeping War Measures Act unless it became absolutely necessary to put that act into operation.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now I am sure that you, sir, and my hon. friend opposite who interrupts, and all the rest of us, will have great sympathy with the government because, poor creatures that they are, they have saddled themselves with this responsibility far beyond anything that they might ever have believed it was necessary they should assume.
I would be interested, I would be pleased, and my constituents would be pleased, and the constituents of every hon. member in the house would be pleased, to relieve the government of those responsibilities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the responsibilities of office, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the government feels that it has assumed these responsibilities far beyond what they should be called upon to assume, and if they are staggering under that burden, as the Prime Minister suggested in May of 1952, then why do they not come before us today and tell us why they must continue? Why do they not come before us now and say, "We do not want to have to continue this burden, and would gladly lay aside the burden which the responsibilities of our office forced us to shoulder in 1951. But for this reason, and that reason, and the other reason it is impossible, and it would be unwise for us to lay aside that burden".
But, no. Here they have parliament, a parliament not anxious to see the government saddled with this heavy burden, a parliament which would be glad to help the government share the burden and to relieve it of that burden. But, sir, we are denied an explanation. We are denied an opportunity. We are denied in the first place the right and opportunity to exercise our own functions and our own responsibilities. The government assumed them. And now we are denied the right to take those responsibilities back, although the government says that it is simply staggering under the load which it has thus reluctantly and unwillingly assumed.
This whole procedure is a farce.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This whole procedure is a farce-this whole procedure which the government invites parliament to go through is not only a farce but an insult. And the insult will not be redressed-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The insult will not be redressed until the Prime Minister, who introduced the resolution and asked parliament to approve it, appears before the House of Commons, of which he is the head and to which he is 68108-110 J
Emergency Powers Act responsible, and tells us why we should approve this resolution.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, certain developments since three o'clock this afternoon have been, to say the least, most astonishing. During my thirteen years- almost thirteen years-as a member of the house, I have not until this time seen anything like it. It has created suspicion in our minds. It has created doubts in our minds. As the situation stands at the moment we simply cannot lend our support to the motion now before the house.
The performance of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), the house leader, has been strange, to say the least. He has been nervous. He has been touchy. He has been on his feet more frequently than during any comparable period of time at least during the years I have been in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, he is making a sick man out of me.


Howard Charles Green: That is what you are, too.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must discuss the motion before the house.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not part of this resolution.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The minister may not be part of the resolution, as he asserts, but certainly his actions have-


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is going to discuss my appearance in the house and whatever I think or do, whether I smile or weep or do anything else, I think we should have a special debate on the subject. I may tell you, sir, that I could give the hon. member a true picture of myself in the time I have been listening to speakers from the opposition.


Mr. Adamson:: I have never been able to understand why you are not chosen one of the best-dressed men in Canada.


An hon. Member:: No bow tie.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would not want the Minister of Public Works to assume that my references to him give me any great pleasure. I simply made these references in order to indicate why the spectacle of the last several hours has appeared so strange to me.
This afternoon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) engaged in a rather astonishing performance. In his efforts to keep out of the debate he outmanoeuvred himself, and forced himself into the debate in a most peculiar fashion. Sometimes I have wondered whether it was not done by design, deliberately, so that he would not have the opportunity of
1718	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act doing the very thing we hoped he would do in connection with the matter now before us.
This afternoon my leader made a very fan-proposition to the house and the government. In effect he asserted that we were not in a position at that time to commit ourselves definitely with respect to the motion before the house. He anticipated that surely the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) or most certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)- at least some cabinet minister-would stand in his place and make a statement to the house. In fact I think he even assumed that if there was not a cabinet minister prepared to do it they might be able to push a parliamentary assistant into the procedure and let him take the consequences.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott).


Frederick Davis Shaw: Conceivably the hon. member for Springfield.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is quite a compliment.


Frederick Davis Shaw: In fact my leader had hoped that even before the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) had spoken, even before the acting leader of the C.C.F. had spoken, even before the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) had spoken, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), if not the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or some other cabinet minister, would have offered or would have fought for the floor in order to indicate two things; first, what has been done under the act during the past year, and second, what are the reasons why the government is asking at the present time for an extension of the act.
It was asked a few minutes ago: Why is it that certain persons voted for it in 1951, again in 1952, and are not prepared to support it at the present time? Conceivably the government has heard of the expression "loss of confidence". I am not going to assert for a moment that we had very much confidence in the government two years ago or a year ago, but I will concede that we may have had some. However, I am quite prepared to assert that we have less at the present time. Less can be very near to that point which could be designated as none. When the resolution was called this afternoon we had hoped that the Prime Minister would be here to indicate to the house those things which we anticipated the government would indicate to us. It was mentioned today that conceivably he was very busy. We will concede that point; we assume that he is very busy at all times. However, we could not understand why the government could not have deferred consideration of this measure until a day when the Prime Minister would find it possible to be here.


When I came into the house at eight o'clock I was delighted to see that the Prime Minister was here. I was amazed when I looked up later and noticed he had gone. He may be very busy tonight and I am prepared to concede that, but once again it should not have been difficult for the Minister of Justice to take the appropriate action so that this measure could be considered again at another time. I noticed recently that he and other ministers did that with respect to certain matters that were before the house.
We consider that this is one of the most important measures, if not the most important, that we shall be called upon to consider during this session. I note that in the preamble to the Emergency Powers Act of 1951 reference is made to the War Measures Act. This is what the preamble says in part:
-it is not desirable that the wide powers conferred by that act to interfere with the fundamental liberties of the individual should now be brought into operation:
On that basis the Emergency Powers Act would suggest that the powers conferred upon the government were very limited in extent, extremely limited, and in fact would have actually very little effect upon the people of Canada. Yet when I look at section 2 of the act I find subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). When I look at those I ask myself if there is any aspect of life in Canada today that would not be covered in some way or other by those six subsections of section 2. I shall quote the exact words of the subsections, which are as follows:
(a)	control and suppression of maps, plans and photographs;
(b)	control of communications and means of communication;
(c)	control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels;
(d)	transportation by land, air or water and the control of the transport of persons and things;
(e)	trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture; and
(f)	imposition and recovery, in connection with any scheme of control, of fees or charges payable to the Receiver General of Canada or into any fund or account established by order or regulation for the purposes of the scheme of control.
That is just about as all-embracing as anything could be. It becomes extremely significant when you look at section 3 and find this:
(1) The governor in council may prescribe penalties by way of fine or by way of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or by way of both fine and such imprisonment, that may be imposed for violation of orders or regulations made under this act-
In the first place the government is asking for authority to exercise complete and supreme control with respect to all those aspects of human life which I have just

enunciated, and then to be able to say to the Canadian people, "we demand the right as governor in council to prescribe penalties which may result in Canadian citizens spending up to five years of their lives in prison, probably plus the payment of fines". This is extremely serious. During the last war we gave support to the measure which this measure ultimately replaced, but that was because of the most extraordinary conditions which exist during a war when the very existence of the nation is at stake. After the war we gave support to the granting of extraordinary powers to enable us to pass through the transitional period. In 1951 we gave support. In 1952 we gave support.
But our loss of confidence in the government has been so great since 1952 that we are not prepared to accede to the government's request to give them these blanket powers, particularly when the minister has, should I say, refused to stand on his feet at this-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of order.


Frederick Davis Shaw: On a question of privilege, will the Minister of Justice let me finish my sentence before he undertakes to rise to a point of order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Finish the sentence.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Get some help.


Alphonse Fournier: Where is the rest of that sentence?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Let the minister go ahead and bring up his point of order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When my hon. friend suggests that I refused or was guilty of something which was equivalent to refusal, I think he is being very unjust indeed because I have made it as clear as I possibly can that the attitude which we have taken is in compliance with the ruling which Your Honour made concerning standing order 60 of the house. I am extremely anxious that the house pass this resolution and get into committee. Then my hon. friend may be quite bored for I will certainly give the committee plenty of explanation about the terms of the bill.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Had the minister allowed me to finish the statement I had intended to make, he would have heard me say that he had refused to stand on his feet and give us the information we wanted at this time. He did not let me say those three words. In the second place, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely amazed that Your Honour would permit the Minister of Justice to stand on his feet and imply that we have been out of order since
Emergency Powers Act three o'clock this afternoon, and that is exactly what he has done by the statement he has just made.


Mr. Speaker:: It is within the right of any hon. member to suggest that any other members are out of order. If it is brought to my attention I will decide whether or not they are in order. Never at any time can an hon. member be prevented from bringing to my attention something that he thinks is not in accordance with the rules.


An hon. Member:: Try again.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On another question of
privilege-


Hazen Robert Argue: This is the thirteenth time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -I am not suggesting for a moment that my hon. friend is out of order or in order. I find it keeps me busy to keep in order myself, and that is what I have tried to do today.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, so much for the point of order. May I suggest to the Minister of Justice that he might have been able to procure a greater amount of support for this measure if he had agreed to do what he could quite well have done-stand up as soon as the motion was put and indicate to the house that he was prepared at that time to tell us what had transpired under this measure during the past twelve months and list the reasons why the government feels that the house should be asked to give approval to the extension of these powers for one year. I am still trying to determine to my satisfaction why the minister did not do that. He has alienated certain support by not doing so, and certainly he has been responsible for a good deal of the time of the house being occupied in consideration of the matter.
I realize that the minister has asserted that there will be a more appropriate time, but I think that events have established the fact that he has already missed the most appropriate time. It has been pointed out several times today that in 1951, upon the moving of a similar motion concerning this measure, the Prime Minister was here to make a statement. I wonder why the Minister of Justice has not deemed it advisable to do the same thing today. I believe the same thing was done in, 1952 when a similar motion on the order paper was called. I say, I wonder why the Minister of Justice was not prepared to follow that course. But even more important than that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Prime Minister himself was not prepared to do it. Certainly I think in fairness to him someone should have indicated the reason
1720	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act for his absence, if it could be given. In fairness to the Prime Minister the Minister of Justice should have done that.
We can only assume that the government does not have a good reason. We cannot accept the reason, advanced by the Minister of Justice thus far. We must conclude that there is no good reason. The minister may say: If you allow us to get into committee I shall give you all the information that you may require. But let us not forget that in order to make that move we are being placed in a position where in fact we are giving endorsation of the government's proposal that the house resolve itself into committee for the consideration of a specific measure. I know that the minister is probably going to argue again that it is merely a motion for the Speaker to leave the chair. The minister has argued that, but I think stronger arguments have been advanced from this side of the house. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre drew to the attention of the house the consequences which would attend upon the defeat of this motion.


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


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will he not agree that it is on the second reading of a bill that a vote is taken on its principle?


Frederick Davis Shaw: That is correct; but by agreeing that Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair and that the house shall resolve itself into committee for the specific purpose of discussing this specific measure it places us in a position where we are agreeing that we will allow the government to take the first step toward the accomplishment of something, the wisdom of which may be highly questionable at this particular time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You can defeat the resolution in committee if you wish to.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Pardon?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You can defeat the resolution in committee if you wish to. All that is sought by this motion is that the Speaker leave the chair in order that the chairman of the committee-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -may put the resolution, and then my hon. friend can vote against it if he wants to do so.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It is difficult for me to understand why the Minister of Justice persists all the time in only putting half of the proposition. That is not the entire proposition at all.


I realize fully that there is a motion for the Speaker to leave the chair; but why put your period, or whatever other punctuation mark you want, at that point? That is not the end of the proposition. It is only part- of it. The resolution on the order paper is definitely a part of that motion. May I remind the Minister of Justice again that if he had agreed to make a statement, which undoubtedly need not have been a long one, he could1 have answered certain of the questions that are troubling us and have been troubling members of the house for a long time. What has been done during the past twelve months under the provisions of the act? What are the reasons for requesting extension for another twelve months? I am not saying he would, but I think the Minister of Justice could have answered those two questions in a few moments, in fact in less time than he took in the house this afternoon when he became almost hopelessly involved in a discussion of rules.
Let me remind the house, Mr. Speaker, that when my leader spoke this afternoon he advanced a very fair proposition as far as we were concerned. He indicated that under the circumstances which existed at that time he would await word from the government before we would make a decision with respect to how we might vote. That word has not been forthcoming. We anticipate that it will not be forthcoming. Therefore we must advise the house that we intend to vote unanimously against the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair and that the house resolve itself into committee for the purpose of considering the resolution which is before the house at the present time.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this parliament this seems to me to be quite an important question. During the debate several questions were raised which caused me to give some consideration to taking part in it. A short time ago a question was put to an hon. member on this side of the house. He was asked why he did not oppose extension when this matter came up a year ago. I am one of those members who have never supported the Emergency Powers Act or the extension of it. I am also one of those members who feel that it is a debatable question. I deem it my duty, in so far as I am able, to place on the record the feeling of the people of this country whom I have met in relation to these all-embracing powers that the government wishes to take away from parliament. Now, it is just possible that, if the people of this country did not feel the government was taking away too much power

from parliament, I might not be here. Therefore, it seems to me that if I were to support this motion that the Speaker leave the chair and this matter be discussed in committee I would be failing in my duty to seek an explanation for the necessity of this act. I may be wrong. I do not know too much about the procedure of this house as yet. I feel that this debate this afternoon has been a good thing. I feel that when an important matter like this is brought up, and the motion is that the Speaker leave the chair to discuss the resolution, there should be some explanation as to why the resolution should be discussed.
As I look back over the events I find that the act was passed in 1951 for one year, with the possibility of an extension. Without going into all the details which previous speakers have touched upon, I find that even when the government requested an extension of the act last year they did give reasons for requesting that extension. I have a notion that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) perhaps feels now that he could have saved a great deal of time, and it would have been a fairer thing, if he had given reasons this afternoon for requesting this extension. If this extension is not necessary, then the matter should not be brought before this house. It is true that the various arguments to which I have listened have been one-sided, and perhaps that is another reason why I should like to get in on a one-sided scrap.
This Emergency Powers Act covers a lot of territory. From what I have been able to learn during the debate this afternoon, these powers have not been used by the government to any great extent. I may be wrong again, and if I am I stand ready to be corrected. In most of the cases in which these powers have been used, the same emergency could have been met by other legislation. I notice that, according to section 4 of the act, if a real emergency arises the government has the power to proclaim the War Measures Act. I feel that if a real emergency does come upon us which requires the use of emergency powers such as those set out in this act, then it will be an emergency very close to actual war. If we ever meet that emergency, it seems to me the government has the power and would proclaim the War Measures Act at once.
The reasons which were given for requesting the last extension of the act do not seem to me to be valid today. At least, nothing has been put forward to convince me that we should be asked to consider a measure such as this. I must, therefore, agree with my leader that before any other step is taken we should have an explanation of the reason
Emergency Powers Act for requesting this extension, and an opportunity of deciding whether or not we want to consider this act. Apparently the explanation given when the bill was introduced in 1951, and when it was extended in 1952, was sufficient to satisfy the members of all parties that the house should go into committee to discuss the measure. The motion, therefore, was not debated. Since no explanation has been given today, I believe it is only right and proper that we debate the motion. It is the duty of every hon. member to state his reason for feeling that he cannot support the motion. I have a strong feeling that if I, after having listened to this debate, had remained quietly in my seat, I would have been met by people in my constituency who would ask why I had consented to allow the government to extend this emergency act without any reasonable explanation being given. The government is seeking to take away my rights as well as the rights of all hon. members in this parliament through the passage of this measure. As I understand it, if this legislation is passed it puts certain powers in the hands of the government by which the liberty of the subject could be curtailed, as well as the rights of property affected. Without any explanation given as to the necessity for such a measure, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the motion before the house.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I do not propose to debate this resolution at any length. I do not feel that I am competent to debate it at any length.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My hon. friends on the other side say "hear, hear". I do not know the gentlemen who said "hear hear", but I would not mind taking them on in a little debate, with competent judges, on any particular subject they would mention. I am here to explain my position or, I might say, my changed position since this afternoon. The resolution, as I see it, is:
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.
The terms of that resolution seem strangely familiar. They are familiar because I know that we have dealt with the same type of resolution before. On those occasions I supported the resolution because I thought the continuation of the emergency powers was necessary. Now, I want to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson)-I am well aware that no purpose is served by asking him because he will not tell us-what is the reason for extending these emergency powers? Why,
1722	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act and in how many cases, have these emergency powers been used since the last time they were requested? As I said, when I came into the house this afternoon I was resolved in my own mind that, provided we had a proper explanation of the necessity for this legislation, I would be prepared to support it. I expected to support it. I now expect to oppose and I shall leave it to the Minister of Justice to guess for himself the reason why. Before I voted for the resolution I wanted a statement from the Minister of Justice. Now, before I vote against the resolution, I should also like a statement from the minister. By the look of the clock, I imagine that the minister will likely have an opportunity to think about the matter over the week end.
While I am at it, I also want to protest the method employed by the minister this afternoon and this evening in the handling of this resolution. I say that in all sincerity and without any personal animosity. When the minister rose to speak tonight, in view of his previous interjections on certain points of order I think every member in this house- certainly everyone to whom I spoke in regard to the matter-thought that the minister was talking on a point of order. While he did not actually use the phrase "point of order" when he rose to his feet, when he reads tomorrow what he said tonight I think he will say that we have a fairly good case for thinking that he was in fact speaking on a point of order. Then having made a little speech on the point of order, as we thought, he promptly sat down and said, "Now I have made my speech; I can speak only once in this debate"; and he appealed to the Speaker and was sustained. He said: "I have done my talking; I can now talk no more and so I shall give no explanation of the matter."
I would also protest about another matter.
I see that this resolution is sponsored by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). When a resolution of this importance is entered upon the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister, I would suggest that it should be introduced by the Prime Minister. In other words, I think that either he should have been here to move his own resolution or, if that were impossible, the bringing in of the legislation should have been postponed until such time as he was here to introduce the resolution.
So far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to vote this government any power.
I think it now has too much power. I think that this procedure-and I think it is a sad thing-is just another example of the arbitrary acts of a government which has enjoyed power too long. We are becoming accustomed to it. As I have said, in our opinion this 

government now has too much power. In my present frame of mind at least, I certainly do not intend to vote them any more power for a year or for any other period.
I could cite examples of the kind of thing to which I have referred. I suppose the most famous example, and the one which will not soon be forgotten by the people of Canada, was the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) when he said: "If we want to do it, who is going to stop us?" I suppose the Minister of Justice tonight takes the attitude, "If I want to move this resolution instead of the Prime Minister, who is going to stop me? If I am going to get this legislation through the house, who is going to stop me?" May I remind him that in this parliament we at least have one thing. It is a great thing to live in a democratic country. We at least have our right to speak and to express our opinions upon the matter.
I remember when that legislation was introduced in 1951. I think it was introduced to cover a period of one year only. Since that time it has been renewed. I again ask the minister:	Why are these emergency
powers necessary? Why has no member on the government side spoken in this debate?
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have at least made my own position clear even if I have not contributed too much to the discussion of the subject itself.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many hon. members must be puzzled by the course which this debate has taken. I think we can all agree that it is unique. I do not think I have ever listened to a debate in which the minister who was supposed to introduce a motion did not make a speech and who, during the course of the debate, made one to show why he should not make one. As I review the situation I find that on the order paper there appears a resolution which reads as follows:
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-
In the course of his reasoning as to why he should not make a speech, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) referred to standing order 60. As it appears in Beauchesne's second edition, standing order 60 is as follows:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.

In the first place, this resolution stood for at least a day. Today it appears on the order paper and now the motion has been made that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole to consider this resolution. Under standing order 38 the motion is debatable, as I see it, under paragraph (a) or paragraph (i). The standing order reads as follows:
(1) The following motions are debatable:
Every motion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member speaking to a point of order?


An hon. Member:: He would not know.


William Joseph Browne: If you are
asking me a question, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am speaking to the motion, that the Speaker do now leave the chair, which I understood was argued by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier).


Alphonse Fournier: I did not argue it.


William Joseph Browne: Perhaps I am more in order than were those who preceded me, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member wants to adhere to the ruling which was referred to in this debate and which appears in the Journals of June 18, 1952, and if he wants to be strictly in order, he will direct his remarks to the negative of the question and state his reasons why he believes the Speaker should not leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole to consider that resolution. What I heard the hon. member say was that the minister should have made a speech on the resolution and should have given some explanation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would be in the negative, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) expressed his opinion a moment ago. I can well realize what his points of view are. But the ruling which is now invoked is one by which the members of the opposition can indicate their objections to the Speaker's leaving the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole to consider this resolution. The minister who is moving this resolution is adhering to the ruling as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister moved it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. He is adhering to the ruling as well by listening to the objections which are raised on the opposition side. Of course the only point which according to this ruling, as I understand it,
Emergency Powers Act might be arguable on the part of the opposition as to the attitude of the Minister of Justice has to do with this portion of Mr. Speaker's ruling which reads as follows:
If any members are opposed to the resolution, and do not think that it should even be considered in the committee of the whole, or if they require additional information before agreeing to the motion, they should be given an opportunity to speak on the motion.
That is exactly what the members of the opposition are doing now and have been doing for some time. Then the Speaker went on:
The minister should endeavour to answer the objections which have been raised and to give the information requested.


Howard Charles Green: That is what he has not done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister has explained the position which he was taking, and indicated that as soon as we reached the committee stage he would be very glad to give all the information which was required by hon. members. Members of the opposition still voice their objections and bring into the discussion the attitude taken by the minister, and that has taken much of the time of the discussion which I think should be relevant to the motion and should address itself to the negative of the motion. I suggest that perhaps we have heard enough as to the criticism of the attitude taken by the mover of the resolution. It has been repeated over and over again. It looks as though both sides tried to adhere to the ruling of June 18, 1952, and one reproaches the other for not having adhered to it properly. I think that we ought to direct our remarks to the negative of the motion and leave this procedural question for the time being.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, may I draw attention to the fact that the original mover of the motion was not the Minister of Justice but the Prime Minister. We are still hoping that at some stage of the debate, since the Minister of Justice is not prepared to reply, the Prime Minister may see fit to do so.


William Joseph Browne: As you read that ruling given by His Honour the Speaker in June, 1952, I think you said he considered that the minister, after hearing the objections to the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair, should then give his explanation why the Speaker should leave the chair. The Minister of Justice has declined to do that. His speech consisted of reasons why he should not do it. I know he is prepared to
1724	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act do it when we go into committee but our position is that he should do it before we go into committee.


Alphonse Fournier: You are commanding him to do it now.


William Joseph Browne: Yesterday we had similar resolutions on the order paper and the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), sitting behind the Minister of Justice, gave an explanation of one of the resolutions before we went into committee of the whole.


Alphonse Fournier: On a point of order, I should like to know what we are discussing. Are we discussing a point of order or the resolution. What is this, anyway?


William Joseph Browne: If the
Minister of Public Works cannot understand my language I cannot do anything to help him.


Alphonse Fournier: What are you talking about?


William Joseph Browne: I am trying to explain for the benefit of everybody. For the benefit of the minister I will start all over again.


Alphonse Fournier: I hope the hon. member will not be permitted to repeat what he has said, Mr. Speaker.


William Joseph Browne: The Minister of Public Works did. not understand it. What am I going to do? I should like everyone to understand it.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not try very hard to understand what you have to say.


William Joseph Browne: It is a very important point to have settled, and it does not seem to have been settled definitely by the Speaker in his ruling of June, 1952. When I refer back to 1951, at which time a similar resolution was introduced for the first time, I find that we had a debate lasting a day without any controversy on the point at all. On February 20, 1951, the Prime Minister moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to empower the governor in council to do and authorize such acts and things-*
This resolution that we are supposed to consider in committee is only an extension of the act that followed as a result of the consideration of that resolution in 1951. I cannot see how the Minister of Justice can be right tonight and the Prime Minister right on February 20, 1951. One of them must be wrong. The procedure is not the same.
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West).l

The procedure being followed now is different, and I am inclined to think the Prime Minister was right in 1951, and that this has been the practice that has generally been followed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of order, may I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the ruling in question made by His Honour the Speaker was after the Prime Minister had moved his resolution in 1951.


William Joseph Browne: I am quite aware of that, but the Speaker did not rule that the Prime Minister, in acting as he did on February 20, was out of order, because the Prime Minister gave an explanation of the matter when he introduced the subject.
There are half a dozen or more similar resolutions on the order paper today.


Alphonse Fournier: What happened last night on a similar resolution? Last night we had a resolution similar to this and the Minister of Resources and Development rose in his place and said he would answer questions in committee.


William Joseph Browne: No, he did
not say that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Winlers:: On a question of privilege, I think the hon. member for St. John's West may be confused. Two resolutions were introduced in my name. The first resolution introduced had to do with the bill on water conservation. The question came up as to whether the debate should take place with the Speaker in the chair, and hon. members will recall the controversy that developed at that time. It arose because some hon. members attempted to discuss the South Saskatchewan river project.
When the second resolution came up last night, having to do with the historic sites and monuments bill, I raised the point that the motion before the house was one that the Speaker should leave the chair and suggested that a debate at that stage might prove equally controversial, and asked permission of hon. members to make my statement in committee of the whole. Hon. members unanimously and very kindly agreed to that.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: It seems to me that we are not going to make further progress this evening, but I hope that, whenever we resume debate on the resolution, perhaps we can leave aside for the time being the controversial point as to when the minister should or should not speak. Because as long as this ruling is there-and it is one which has been adhered to, to a large extent-we shall not make any progress by always invoking arguments against or in favour of the ruling which has been made.

It seems to me that this is a matter which could be considered further by the committee on procedure. Perhaps that committee will eventually bring a solution to what has been a problem for some time. Shall I call it ten o'clock?


William Joseph Browne: May I move the adjournment of the debate?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since you have raised the point in regard to the practice that is involved, I would point out that there is a very definite reason behind the argument that has been made. It is the opinion of those who have been presenting this argument that the question is very much before the house as to whether the Speaker should leave the chair at all to consider this motion. It is our contention that he should not, and it is our contention that there is nothing in any decision that has been made that precludes the arguments being presented against this course being followed.


Alphonse Fournier: I agree with the
Leader of the Opposition, and probably he may be the only one who spoke to the point and who was in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Alphonse Fournier: I did follow his speech. He tried to discuss the negative of the resolution. He was perhaps at times a little out of order, but he tried to stick to it. But if one were to listen to all the other speeches, especially to the one by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-
Emergency Powers Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Alphonse Fournier: He was far afield.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the leader of the house announces the business for Monday, in view of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) I should like to clear up one point. I hope that nothing in my remarks will be taken to imply that I consider at any time that hon. members are not allowed to speak to the negative of the motion-that is, to explain their objections as to why Mr. Speaker should not leave the chair. I certainly did not wish to imply any such thing.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) has moved the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will continue consideration of the motion to go into supply, and call the following departments: external affairs, transport, labour, agriculture and justice. And then the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will move to refer his estimates to the standing committee on external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, February 9, 1953