1955-06-20

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: My colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs has asked me to table copies in English and in French of the following agreements: Agreement for co-operation concerning civil uses of atomic energy between the government of the United States and the government of Canada; agreement between the government of the United States of America and the government of Canada for co-operation regarding atomic information for mutual defence purposes.
These agreements were signed in Washington on June 15, 1955, and are the ones to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred in his announcement to the house on that date. The Minister of Trade and Commerce intends in a few moments to make an explanatory statement on the agreement concerning civil uses of atomic energy and the Minister of National Defence on the agreement regarding atomic information for mutual defence purposes on another occasion.
Copies of these agreements will be available in the joint parliamentary distribution branch.



STATEMENT CONCERNING AGREEMENT ON CIVIL USES OF ATOMIC ENERGY

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, as the agreement concerning the civil uses of atomic energy which has just been tabled is a somewhat lengthy and technical document, I think it may be helpful if I draw to the attention of the house its main features and their significance to Canada. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said last Wednesday when he announced that the agreement had been signed, the agreement has been made possible by the revision of the United States Atomic Energy Act in 1954. This agreement has been prepared in order to take advantage of the extension of the areas of co-operation made possible by the new United States act. This act now provides
for an exchange of information and other forms of co-operation in the following fields:
(1)	Refining, purification, and subsequent treatment of source material.
(2)	Reactor development.
(3)	Production of special nuclear material.
(4)	Health and safety.
(5)	Industrial and other applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.
(6)	Research and development relating to the foregoing.
The agreement which has just been executed is designed to take advantage of this fact. The preamble to the agreement records briefly the collaboration which has taken place between Canada and the United States since the inception of the atomic energy program in the war years, and establishes a general basis for future co-operation. The body of the agreement specifies the manner in which co-operation in the six areas I have just mentioned will take place.
The agreement, of course, confers advantages on both countries. From Canada's standpoint it will be of particular value that we will now have access to information on the several types of demonstration power reactors which are being built in the United States. This information will be most helpful in comparing the performances of the different types of demonstration reactors now under design and construction in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Another important benefit to the agreement is that it also provides for a more complete exchange of information in the purely scenti-fic field, which, of course, is fundamental to our progress in the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. While the purpose of the agreement is to further the civil application of atomic energy, it must be recognized that much of the information which will be exchanged also has military significance. Consequently, the agreement contains certain provisions relating to the safeguarding of such information.
The agreement marks a further stage in Canada's close collaboration with the United States in the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I ask the minister whether the agreement between Canada and the United States is the same as the agreement between the

Atomic Energy
United States and the United Kingdom. If not, what are the differences?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: I am told they are not exactly the same. I am not prepared to say what the differences are, but I think the differences are more particularly in regard to security regulations.
[Later: ]



EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, arising from the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce earlier this morning in connection with the agreement respecting the exchange of information concerning atomic energy with the United States, may I ask what is the existing arrangement between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom in relation to the exchange of this type of information? Does it stand on the basis of an agreement or is there simply a voluntary exchange apart from any formal agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no formal agreement in effect between the United Kingdom and Canada, but there has been a complete exchange of information regarding the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. In other words, the practice has been to exchange any information which will be useful to the other party. Since we are not making weapons we do not exchange information on weapons, but we do have a complete exchange of other types of information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may we take it that the exchange of information between Canada and the United Kingdom covers at least as wide a field as that provided for in the agreement between Canada and the United States which was tabled this morning?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. There has not been the variety of transactions between the United Kingdom and Canada that there will be between the United States and Canada; for example, the matter of raw materials is not at present important as between Canada and the United Kingdom, whereas it is important as between Canada and the United States. Aside from that, I think the range of exchange of information will be about the same between the two countries.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
An act to repeal an act of the present session intituled: "An act for the relief of Muriel Claire Wilson Hart".-Mr. Regier.
Mr. Speaker:: It will come as no surprise to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam if I tell him and the house that I have received from the law clerk an opinion in which he says:
The introduction of this bill should be ruled out of order for two principal reasons: First, it is a public bill to repeal a private act; and, second, it is absolutely of no effect.
As to the first point, the divorce act which Mr. Regier's bill is intended to repeal is a private act passed at the request and in the interest of only one person. This divorce act was carefully studied in the Senate divorce committee, which rendered its decision only after very serious consideration; it then passed through the various stages in the Senate and the House of Commons, and received royal assent without opposition. Even if this act could be affected by legislation, it would have to be done by private legislation as by no stretch of the imagination can this matter be deemed to have attained such proportions as would justify a public bill in the public interest. The decision of parliament has been, to use Mr. Regier's expression, that of the highest court in the land. In a divorce case, more particularly, it can be said that this is a decision of a court. Under parliamentary practice, parliament, except in a very extreme case of great public interest, could not by public act set aside a decision of a court that it has itself set up, whose procedure it has devised, and which is under its direct control. Until parliament decides that divorces shall be granted by public acts, because each case is a matter of general interest, annulling a divorce, if it could be done, should be accomplished by private legislation.
As to the second point, an act for the repeal of a divorce act is of absolutely no effect. Section 15 of the Interpretation Act states that every act shall be deemed remedial. Is this act remedial? Let us look at section 19, which, in part, states:
19. (1) Where any act or enactment is repealed, or where any regulation is revoked, then, unless the contrary intention appears, such repeal or revocation does not, save as in this section otherwise provided,
(b)	affect the previous operation of any act, enactment or regulation so repealed or revoked, or anything duly done or suffered thereunder,
(c)	affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred under the act, enactment or regulation so repealed or revoked.
If we ask ourselves what was the previous operation of this divorce act duly assented to, it was,
as stated in the act, that:
1.	The said marriage between Muriel Claire Wilson and Lawrence Hart, her husband, is hereby dissolved, and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
2.	The said Muriel Claire Wilson may at any time hereafter marry any man whom she might lawfully marry if the said marriage with the said Lawrence Hart had not been solemnized. The result is that the tie which united Muriel
Claire Wilson and Lawrence Hart, her husband,

Questions
has been broken, and the fact of repealing the act which did this would not have the effect of marrying them a second time. One might even ask: "Supposing one of the parties has married again since the divorce was granted, would an act repealing this divorce render that party guilty of bigamy?"
Once parliament has completely dissolved a marriage, it can no more adopt legislation to say that the said marriage has not been dissolved than it could, if a rope has been cut, affirm in its legislation that this rope has not been cut.
Therefore, I submit the proposed bill is out of order as it is contrary to the rules which make the distinctions between public and private bills; and it is frivolous since it can have no possible effect.
Respectfully submitted,
Maurice Ollivier,
Law Clerk,
House of Commons.
In view of this opinion, I declare the introduction of this bill out of order.



FIRST READINGS


Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce bills on the order paper. Shall they all be considered in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill No. 500, for the relief of James McMartin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 501, for the relief of Charles John Urban.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 502, for the relief of Joseph Adalbert Beaudoin, otherwise known as Georges Beaudoin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 503, for the relief of Donald John McGillivray.-Mr. Hunter.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	How many derailments were there on the Edmundston division of the Canadian National Railways between November 1, 1954 and May 1, 1955?
2.	What was the total cost to the railway of such derailments?
3.	How many regular section men were laid off on the Edmundston division between November 1, 1954 and May 1, 1955?
4.	What is the average length of sections on this division and number of men per section?


Mr. Marler:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Fifteen. Heavy traffic on this division during the war years greatly burdened the track structure. A major program of rehabilitation was begun two years ago, and it is expected that the greater portion of the work will have been completed by the end of the
present year. The total expenditures for such work will have amounted to approximately $4 million.
2.	The repair work to track and equipment was performed by company forces and the costs of such repairs are assembled under various categories in the company's operating expense accounts. In accordance with normal railway accounting practice, these costs are not itemized with respect to specific derailments. Certain of the costs are specifically identifiable, notably the cost of clearing and repairing track and claims in respect of injuries and damage to freight. The aggregate of these costs was $148,339.75. The cost of equipment destroyed and retired was $92,753. This amount is chargeable against the depreciation reserve which is accrued on a mortality basis which takes cognizance of retirements occasioned by accidents. The costs for repairs to other equipment includes unascertained portions attributable to accidents and to normal program maintenance carried out while the equipment was in the shops.
3.	None.
4.	The sections range from eight to thirteen miles in length, the average being 9-67 miles. The number of men per section ranges from three to four, the average being 3-24 men.


R.C.A.F. STATION, GIMLI, MAN.-LANDSCAPING
Mr. Fulion:: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence or defence production have any landscaping and horticultural work done at the Royal Canadian Air Force station at Gimli, Manitoba?
2.	If so, were trees or shrubs brought in from British Columbia for this purpose?
3.	Is the department aware that spruce and other trees grow naturally at or near Gimli?
4.	Are there any other army or air force stations in Manitoba where trees and shrubs were imported for landscaping and horticultural development?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Yes. Sod and soil was purchased through the Department of Defence Production and the work done by local labour.
2.	No public funds were expended for the procurement of trees or shrubs from British Columbia.
3.	Yes.
4.	Some trees and shrubs were procured for R.C.A.F. station Gimli, and for other R.C.A.F. stations in Manitoba, from the dominion experimental farm at Morden, Manitoba, the dominion forest station at Indian Head, Saskatchewan, and the provincial experimental station at Carberry, Manitoba. There was no expenditure of public

Questions
funds. Such beautification is carried on as a community project by personnel living on the station and paid for from non-public funds.


APPLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP, ONTARIO
Mr. Ross:: 1.	How many places are there in the province of Ontario where a person may apply for citizenship, and where are they situated?
2.	How many applications for citizenship were made in the city of Hamilton or county of Wentworth in the years 1951-52-53 and 54, and how many certificates were issued in those years?
3.	What is the total cost to the immigrant from the time of his application until he receives his certificate?
4.	In each case, who receives the money involved?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	52:County courts at Barrie, Belleville, Brampton, Brantford, Brockville, Caledonia, Cayuga, Cobourg, Cornwall, Goderich, Guelph, Kingston, Kitchener, Lindsay, L'Orignal, Milton, Napanee, Orangeville, Owen Sound, Pembroke, Perth, Peterborough, Picton, Sarnia, Simcoe, Stratford, St. Thomas, Walkerton, Welland, Whitby, Windsor, Woodstock;
District courts at Bracebridge, Cochrane, Fort Frances, Gore Bay, Haileybury, Kenora, North Bay, Parry Sound, Port Arthur, Sault Ste. Marie;
General sessions of the peace at Chatham, Hamilton, Kitchener, London, Ottawa, Sudbury, St. Catharines, Timmins, Windsor;
Court of Canadian citizenship, Toronto.
2.	Information not available.
3.	Statutory fee set out in schedule B of Canadian Citizenship Act provides for a fee of $10 payable to the clerk of the court.
4.	Answered by No. 3; the clerk of the court of Canadian citizenship, Toronto, deposits the money received to the credit of the Receiver General of Canada.


POST OFFICE INVESTIGATION, SEPT ILES, QUE.
Mr. Dufresne:: 1.	Did an investigator of the Post Office Department make a trip to Sept lies, Quebec, on or about September 20. 1954, and assist a day-labourer, Arthur St. Jean, in securing employment with the Iron Ore Company of Canada?
2.	Was the abovementioned labourer, one Marcel Belair, formerly wanted and questioned in relation to the theft of a large amount of stamps in a Montreal post office?
3.	Was the said investigator following instructions of the department and acting on its behalf on this trip?
4.	If so, what were the reasons for this trip and what was accomplished by the said investigator?
5.	Was an expense account submitted to the department by the investigator in connection with this trip?
6.	If so, in what amount, and were such expenses paid by the department?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	The trip was made in connection with a police investigation which is still in progress.
5.	Yes.
6.	$81.64 in expenses were paid by the department.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Hansell:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents which passed between the government or any official thereof, or any other person, firms or organizations, during the past year, respecting the appointment of Mr. James Stanley Carpenter as postmaster at Hillcrest, Alberta.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act, the Railway Act and the Tariff Board Act to provide for increases in the salaries of the members of the income tax appeal board, the board of transport commissioners and the tariff board.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of reports appearing in today's press in regard to the meeting between representatives of the Canadian government and the governments of the provinces, may I ask if it is correct that the government has retreated from its earlier undertaking to accept full responsibility for unemployed employables?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is very unlikely that the government has retreated from any position.

In any case, after the meeting has been held a statement will be issued from which the Leader of the Opposition may draw his own conclusions.


George Alexander Drew: That is informative.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he can comment on the press announcement that the board of transport commissioners are going to raise the freight rates on western grain by 10 per cent immediately, with a further increase of 10 per cent later on. Will interested parties be allowed to make representations before these freight rate increases take effect?


George Carlyle Marler: I shall certainly not comment on an order of the board of transport commissioners before it is made, but I will state to the hon. member that if an order is made those who are interested may make their objections to the order so given according to the provisions of the Railway Act. [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport supplementary to that asked by my colleague the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) . When this subject was raised on Friday by my deskmate the hon. member for Assiniboia, and when he asked whether the board of transport commissioners was considering this 10 per cent increase, the minister said he was unaware of the matter and that he would have to make inquiries. My question is the obvious one. Has he made inquiries and does he now know whether the board of transport commissioners is considering such an increase?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, all I can say in answer to the question of the hon. member is that I believe the matter is under consideration by the board of transport commissioners at the present time but that no order has yet been issued.



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE COMPLETION OF SESSIONAL WORK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. leader
Inquiries of the Ministry of the house, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), if he has any good reason to tell us that he thinks this house will complete the work of this session by the 1st of July.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hope springs eternal in the human breast.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the legislative program is almost complete, and I am hopeful that hon. members will find it possible to dispose of the items on the order paper with dispatch but at the same time with the caution and consideration that they deserve. Whether or not this will mean that we will get out by the 1st of July, I do not know.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.
[Later:1



WELCOME TO HON. MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER-KINGSWAY ON HIS RETURN FOLLOWING ILLNESS

Mr. Speaker:: I think it would be the wish of every hon. member that I express the pleasure of the house at seeing the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) back in his place again.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to be back. As far as I am concerned this is home.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, while I was absent in Alberta last week, the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked the following question, and I quote from page 4813 of Hansard:
In the absence of the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Conrad Hilton chain is now operating under a contract with the publicly owned hotel which is in process of construction in Montreal-in the absence of the minister the Prime Minister may prefer to take this as notice-has consideration been given to the effect under the Combines Investigation Act of the agreement made between the Canadian National Railways and the Conrad Hilton chain from the point of view of the restrictive practices outlined in that agreement?
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to the hon. gentleman's question is as follows. The combines branch has noted the reports about a management contract between the Canadian National Railways and the Hilton hotel group. Since the information before the branch does not indicate that the Hilton group has other hotel interests in Canada, any such contract would not appear to give rise to inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act.

Inquiries of the Ministry In other words, in so far as Canada is concerned this would seem to be a case of substituting one independent management for another, rather than a combination or merger between two groups already in the country.
There is also doubt that hotel accommodation could be considered an article or commodity, within the meaning of the anticombines legislation, which refers to combinations and mergers in respect of articles and commodities.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the reply just given by the Minister of Justice, might I ask if it is not correct that there is an agreement between the Conrad Hilton group and the Canadian National Railways to the effect that no agreement shall be entered into by the Canadian National Railways with any other hotel chain that might compete with the Conrad Hilton group?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, not having seen the agreement, I am sure that I could not say whether a clause of that kind is in it or not. In any event I do not know whether that would affect the validity of the answer I have just given.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, might I ask, if the Minister of Justice does not know what is in the contract, how does he know whether it infringes the Combines Investigation Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I thought my answer made this very clear. In case the import of my answer has not sunk home, perhaps I had better repeat it:
Since the information before the branch does not indicate that the Hilton group has other hotel interests in Canada, any such contracts would not appear to give rise to an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act. In other words, so far as Canada is concerned, this would seem to be a case of substituting one independent management for another rather than a merger or combination between two groups already in the country. That is to say, in order to make it abundantly clear, if the contract simply relates to the management of one hotel and is not an understanding as to prices to be charged between two competing hotels, there would not seem to be any possibility of conflict with the statute, regardless of any clause contained in the contract, such as that referred to by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the minister if he does not recognize that he has just raised a question as to competition between units of the Conrad Hilton hotels. That is not what we have in mind. It is restriction on the
(Mr. Garson.]

right of the Canadian National Railways to enter into other contracts with other organizations which may compete with the Conrad Hilton hotels. If that is not restriction I do not know what it would be. I must confess that I do not know how the minister can express an opinion if he does not know what the contract says.



DUMPING-REFERENCE TO ACTION TAKEN BY UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Has the government given consideration to the new regulations issued by the United States treasury with respect to the establishment of fair value on imports in relation to dumping, and also to the bill that was produced in congress last month on the same subject? Is the government satisfied that these measures do not contravene the provisions of the general agreement on tariffs and trade? If the government is of the opinion that they do, what action is the government taking in the direction of making representations in regard to either the regulations or the bill before congress?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice. I shall need to consult my officials before I give a reply, but I shall try to reply tomorrow.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the minister whether, with respect to the Brent case,-that is the case involving a deportation order which was raised in the house last week-he is in a position to say whether a decision has been taken to appeal; and if so, whether he expects that appeal will be dealt with in the near future?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's question I may say that preliminary steps have been taken toward the launching of an appeal. We anticipate that the appeal will come on for hearing at the October sittings of the Supreme Court of Canada.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe, Port Arthur (for Mr. St. Laurent) for the second reading of Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I continue this debate today with a good deal of encouragement. As I pointed out during the time when this subject was under discussion, the problems of parliament demand vigilance not only from parliament itself but from the press and from the public generally. That is, in fact, the very essence of a vigorous and vital democracy.
At first, as we must all recognize, little interest in this measure now before us was shown by the press generally. So far as many of the newspapers were concerned, this was simply another piece of legislation. Now the press and the public are showing interest and I trust that the government-and above all the members opposite who will be responsible if this bill passes-are showing an interest in what the press is saying. If we believe in the value of a free press we must also, I think, attach some importance to a general sentiment that is being expressed with regard to the legislation we are asked to consider. In addition to that letters to the press, which express public opinion and are in themselves a reflection of public opinion, show growing concern with regard to the extension of these wide-open powers without any limit as to time or other restriction.
I recognize the rule against quoting editorials which would reflect upon the government, and I do not intend to do so; but under the rules I am permitted to summarize the effect of those editorials and it is uniformly-with only two or three exceptions- one of condemnation of the attempt to make these wide and arbitrary powers a permanent part of our legislation. There were two very understandable exceptions. One was the Montreal Star and the other the Winnipeg Free Press. I mention these because they are very responsible newspapers with a substantial circulation which naturally affects the general thinking of many people. If I have omitted any others which have shown a lack of interest in the dangers inherent in this measure, then I apologize because that would be simply based upon the fact that they have not been drawn to my attention.
May I point out that even these editorials indicate the need for extended debate. At 50433-315J
Defence Production Act first it was obvious there was little understanding of the dangers inherent in what we are asked to do. Then, as the measure was examined and the effect of an extension of these powers was better understood, a vigilant press and a vigilant public began to indicate their opinion. Nevertheless, the need for further discussion and further emphasis is placed before us clearly by the editorials to which I have referred. In the case of the Montreal Star, they refer to the need for continuing the emergency powers act. They point out that it may well be accepted as the minimum that is required. It says, without quoting the exact words, that without the emergency powers act the government would be forced to invoke the War Measures Act.
It is necessary for me, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the Montreal Star that the emergency powers act was repealed last year. At that time when the ordinary consideration of that bill was before the house the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) clearly indicated that while there was still some reason for concern the situation had reached a point where it was not necessary to continue the emergency powers act. We are not being asked to consider that. We are being asked to consider an act which does not declare an emergency but merely tries to write into our permanent law wide powers which would have the effect of actually cutting right across the powers of parliament and the rights of provincial governments in relation to property and civil rights.
I would refer to the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. On some occasions I have not agreed entirely with the Winnipeg Free Press, but on this occasion I must say that this is one of the most amusing editorials that newspaper has produced. It points out that it is silly of the Minister of Defence Production to introduce this bill. Those are the words of the Winnipeg Free Press, not mine. It points out that he has offered no reason for a continuation of these wide powers. Then, of course, just so that everything will be balanced fairly, it says that the opposition is silly in its insistence upon the position we take. It points out we are silly because we do not understand the motives of the government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I concede right away that we do not understand the motives of the government. Ever since the resolution was introduced in March which declared that it was expedient that such a bill be introduced, we have been trying to understand the motives of the government in introducing this measure this year. The Defence Production Act will still be on the statute books untouched in any way, unlimited in its powers and fully effective until July 31, 1956. We

Defence Production Act certainly do not understand the motives of the government in introducing this measure. So that everything will be fair all round, may I say that I think this is the silliest editorial I have ever read. It does not even attempt to understand what the issue is.
Oh, how I wish that some of the Liberals who have read this editorial would look back to the liberalism of the Manchester Guardian. What a wonderful thing it would be if in the Winnipeg Free Press we heard the authentic voice of liberalism such as is expressed on the pages of the Manchester Guardian. I mention that because the Winnipeg Free Press does purport to express the true brand of undiluted liberalism.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Progressive.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker, the liberalism that is being put forward in this act is not liberalism nor is it progressive. This is a reversion to something that has not happened since the days of the Tudors and the Stuarts. This is an attempt to take away from parliament the authority of parliament over the whole economy, except to such extent as the government sees fit to leave this in our hands.
The Winnipeg Free Press does go on to give some practical advice. Perhaps this comes closer to the voice of the Manchester Guardian. It says that while it is silly for the Minister of Defence Production to want these powers, nevertheless it will not be so bad if the other members of the government will only exercise some supervision over this minister who is making a silly demand. It is important that we realize that the government is not able to exercise supervision; that this measure not only takes away the authority of parliament but it also takes away the authority of the government in most cases, and that it leaves to the pure, untrammelled discretion of the minister himself, the decision as to how far we shall remain as a parliament.
Actually, when the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) spoke about the true sentiments of liberalism, I could not help recalling the occasion when people were not vigilant, and they saw their rights disappear under the most earnest demands and under the most intense religious appeal. I think, as a matter of fact, there is a speech that would be worth rereading by a number of hon. members opposite, and I am placing this argument forward in all earnestness. This was a speech made exactly 300 years ago. I know that there are those who say, oh, do not bother about these old, dusty arguments out of the distant past. But let us remember that in January of 1655 Oliver Cromwell made a very important speech in


the House of Commons in Britain. He was urging wide powers that were not restrained by parliament, and he put forward the same idea that the people should trust him. Then, he used these significant words:
And the people being the blessing of God, they will not be so angry but they will prefer their safety to their passions, and their real security to forms . . .
The protector, as he described himself, but the dictator as he became known in history, in the name of God decided that it was in the interests of the people that they should not bother about forms like the mace, which he called a bauble, and decided they should have the kind of security that comes from arbitrary power. And so having decided that in the name of God it was wise that he should no longer be disturbed by that nuisance of parliament, he then closed that very famous speech with these words:
I think it my duty to tell you that it is not for the profit of these nations nor for common and public good for you to continue here any longer. And therefore I do declare unto you that I do dissolve this parliament.
Now, it may not be in the minds of any hon. members to go that far. But the fact is that the measure before us, which we are asked to embed, for all practical purposes, in the permanent laws of Canada, places it in the hands of the government to say exactly what Cromwell said 300 years ago last January.
Now, I still hope that hon. members opposite will examine this carefully, and that both the government and the members supporting it will take the advice of the Winnipeg Free Press in this instance. I know that many of them pay a great deal of attention to the Winnipeg Free Press, whether it is speaking the authentic voice of Canadian liberalism or the Manchester Guardian brand. But the fact remains that I wish they would pay attention to the need for supervision of the actions of any minister, and that they would therefore examine this act carefully and see just how far it goes. I hope that, with the change that has taken place in the thinking across this country, many hon. members will reread this act carefully. This act would be continued indefinitely by the amendments now before us. And, Mr. Speaker, in a world in which hope still springs eternal, I wonder if it is too much to hope that the Minister of Defence Production may actually have some little doubt about his own infallibility. That would be a wonderful and encouraging sign, that this debate and discussion have produced some results, results which we are seeing have some impact outside the house.

I have already pointed out what editorials are saying, one in a very responsible newspaper in eastern Canada which thinks we are discussing the Emergency Powers Act, and the other which agrees that the minister is silly in demanding these powers but thinks that the opposition is silly in criticizing the continuation of those powers.
For that reason every hon. member should realize how uncertain the government's position is. And obviously of course the minister is uncertain-and as he is leaving the chamber now I must direct my remarks to hon. members opposite, because it is their vote that is of importance and their decision that is of importance. Because we have seen so far-and I am glad to see the minister is now returning-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: He did not leave.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is always ready to put false information on Hansard.


George Alexander Drew: I am glad to have the minister back with us, because we are always hopeful that as a result of a vigilant press, a vigilant public, and a vigilant House of Commons, the minister may decide that he is not infallible, and may decide that an act for which he was responsible, and for the drafting of which he has told us he was mainly responsible, may be reviewed and revised.
There is one thing about the Minister of Defence Production, and that is that he always provides an interjection that is worth looking back to. The other day he said that it was drafted by a Tory. It is interesting to have the Minister of Defence Production describing himself as a Tory. I do not understand that remark. He added that, at the request of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) he was responsible for the group which drafted this act, and then on another occasion he said that he drafted it.
There is of course no argument that has been made by the minister or by any member of the government, or indeed by anyone on the other side of the house, which has told us why this bill we now have before us that gives powers to the minister indefinitely, which gives powers that will continue permanently on the statute books, should be continued beyond July 31 next-that is, unless we are not going to be permitted to meet before that.
There is one argument however that is clear, and that is the argument put forward by the socialists. They do not leave any doubt as to what they think this act should mean. They have made it clear that they think this act is an attack on capitalism.
Defence Production Act They think this is an act which should be used as a club over the heads of private enterprise.
Well, I am just waiting for a single member of the government to repudiate the explanation given by the socialists for their support of this act. In this case I agree with their argument, although I do not agree with the decision they make as to how they will vote. I can understand their vote. They believe in putting socialism into effect, without even having to consult parliament-and under the terms of this very act we are now discussing they can do so.
The government has not said, "We repudiate completely the explanation given by our socialist supporters. That is not the reason this act is before us". We are still waiting to be told why it is that they want to make this a permanent part of our laws.
Now, we should have not only an explanation from some member of the government, but we should have an explanation from the Prime Minister. I know of course that the Prime Minister is at the moment engaged in a conference. However, I am perfectly certain that the discussion here will be drawn to his attention; and as this debate will not be terminated for some time there will be opportunity for him to consider what is being said. I hope the Prime Minister will recognize that he should speak in this debate.
We have been told that this act is more restrictive than that in the United Kingdom or in the United States. Even the most cursory examination of the act will show just how remote from reality is that statement by the Minister of Defence Production. The Prime Minister is a lawyer, and as head of the government he is the individual entrusted by the Queen's representative for the responsibility of government; and he should clear away that misapprehension which is in the minds of hon. members.
There is another misapprehension in the minds of hon. members opposite, one which has been indicated in the speeches of those who have spoken. The principle at issue in the measure now before us is not that of the setting up of the Department of Defence Production. The bill now before us, as was pointed out by the minister-and it seems to have been forgotten by many hon. members-is a bill containing only two clauses. The first clause simply changes the salary of the minister from $10,000 to $15,000. That is merely a formal change, to make the payment of salary to the minister coincide with the salaries of ministers in other departments. There is no question of principle involved there. It is merely a formal adjustment.

Defence Production Act It is the second clause that raises the whole principle, and the only principle, before us in this debate. Clause 2 is the clause we must examine. It is a very short one stating that "section 41 of the said act is repealed".
That means only one thing, and it raises the whole principle we are discussing. This clause, if accepted, would strike out section 41 in the act, which reads as follows:
This act, except subsection (6) of section 4, shall expire on the 31st day of July, 1956.
Therefore, the principle involved is whether or not we shall embed in the permanent laws of Canada all these wide powers that were placed before us in 1951 when there was so much uncertainty in the mind of everyone at the time of the very severe war in Korea.
It will be recalled that on that occasion we had suddenly been forced to change our whole course. We had been giving up many of the military machines and weapons accumulated after the war. We had, in fact, been advancing into what we thought was a period of increasing peace. Then suddenly war, and bloody war, broke out in Korea in June of 1950. Then we were called upon to reverse our whole trend; we were called upon to change our thinking about defence. Suddenly we were called upon to improvise once again, as we have been called upon to do on other occasions. A hastily drafted bill was placed before us. At that time we made it abundantly clear that we thought the bill was badly drawn, and why would it not be badly drawn when it was drawn by the Minister of Defence Production? I say that simply because we know his attitude toward parliament. He has told us he thinks that some people think it is a good thing to have a forum for discussion, but he does not like that. He does not like parliament, and leaves no doubt about it.
He drafted the bill with the idea that he would not have to bother too much about parliament. We pointed out the dangers. They are on records Hansard shows exactly what we said at that time. We left no uncertainty. When any hon. member on the other side suggests that we are opposing simply for the sake of opposing, I suggest that they look back to what was said in 1951 when this hastily drafted bill was before us. We made it clear then that we wanted a Department of Defence Production, and we made it clear that we were not going to oppose the actual implementation of the request for a Department of Defence Production, and that we were not going to vote against the bill, and we did not because there was a definite time limit.
To that extent we took the assurance of the government that this bill contained powers that they would not continue. That was their statement; that was the assurance upon which I assumed-and I certainly have the right to assume-that hon. members opposite voted in support of this measure. We did not oppose the adoption of the measure at that time because the government had insisted that this was only a temporary measure. I made our position clear. I will briefly refer to what I said on March 2, 1951, as reported at page 847 of Hansard:
In so far as the bill sets up a department of defence production and gives proper authority to carry out the appropriate duties of that department, I feel sure there is approval throughout the whole of the house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what possibly could be clearer that that-approval throughout the whole of this house of the setting up of a department of defence production? That is not an issue before us. Nothing that is before us has anything to do with the continuance of the Department of Defence Production.
We pointed out, however, that while agreeing to the Department of Defence Production, we believed that at a time when we were fighting for democracy the very foundation of democracy should be preserved here in this parliament. We urged that there be a recognition that the measures in this act challenged the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law upon which our whole theory of parliamentary democracy rests.
When the motion came before the house three months ago that it was expedient to introduce the measure now before us, we urged the government to redraft the bill so that the Department of Defence Production
would operate under clearly defined powers. This is what I said on March 14 of this year, as reported at page 1987 of Hansard:
I would hope that the Prime Minister would seize this opportunity to carry out the statement which was made on behalf of the government in 1951 to the effect that some of the powers in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature, and to find how best the nowers that are needed can be defined and described without leaving the wide, unlimited powers which have existed over these past few years. It is not enough to say that these powers have not been employed. The very fact that these powers might be used to persuade somebody to do something without the actual formal exercise of those powers, is in itself a sufficient exercise of those nowers to put us on our guard at this time.
Other members in the house argued that the original bill should be redrafted, and that in any event it should not be renewed without some time limit. We had reason to believe that the government had listened to those arguments and was going to act upon them. Before the debate was closed that day and

the motion was adopted the Prime Minister assured the house that the government would give consideration to the views that had been expressed.
Since the Prime Minister gave the assurance that consideration would be given, surely he owes it to the house to say what the decision was and why, after due consideration, with three months to do it, no attempt has been made to redraft this bill.
Some hon. members opposite dismiss the whole discussion as though it were a discussion that had no relation to the problems before us. If that is so, why did the Prime Minister assure the house on March 14 that consideration would be given to these discussions? We want to know from him exactly why it is that this bill is now before us to perpetuate those powers without any restriction to the extent of their application.
The strongest argument against the adoption of this bill comes from the government itself, Mr. Speaker. Again it seems necessary to repeat. When this bill was before us in the first instance in 1951 the government emphasized that they would not ask the house to make this permanent law because it contained powers that should not be continued. Their argument is the strongest argument why this amendment should not be adopted by this house.
If that assurance means nothing, if the assurance on which hon. members permitted this bill to pass in 1951 means nothing, if those words are to be completely disregarded, how can any assurance which the government now gives have the slightest value at this time? If their assurance then constituted nothing upon which we were to rely, then how can we rely upon any statement now as to what they propose to do? I submit, Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons why the government should not proceed with this bill. I am making these arguments now in all seriousness to the government, to hon. members opposite and also in the hope that it may correct some of the misapprehensions which obviously still exist outside of this house. These are the particular reasons why it seems now that the government should not proceed with this bill.
First, it does not need to be dealt with in any event at this session. The present act continues, as I have pointed out already, until July 31, 1956. Surely it would be much better to wait until next session and in the light of conditions as they are at that time to place before this house an appropriate measure carefully drafted by legal draftsmen in keeping with conditions as they actually are.
Defence Production Act
The second reason why this bill should not be passed is that the act was adopted on the assurance that the government recognized that these powers should not be continued.
Third, it should not be passed because no time limit is placed on the duration of the legislation.
Fourth, the act as it stands is a denial of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law.
Fifth, the only legislation necessary is legislation continuing the Department of Defence Production. If the Department of Defence Production is continued and these loose and indefinite powers are omitted, then automatically the government can bring into effect a statute already on the statute books, the Defence Supplies Act, which is similar to the act in the United Kingdom to which reference was made by the Minister of Defence Production when he drew an incorrect interpretation that it was as wide in its powers as this act.
I urge upon hon. members opposite to pay attention to the things that are being said outside this house. After all, why do we support the principle of a free press? We support the principle of a free press because a free press is expected and I think has the duty to interpret public sentiment and to indicate what it believes the public wants and demands. Surely no one reading the editorial comment across Canada today can be in any doubt that the majority of the newspapers in Canada have come to the conclusion that the powers in the Defence Production Act should not be embodied in the permanent laws of this country.
An ingenious argument was put forward on the other side of the house. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) made an extraordinarily interesting argument when he argued in effect that a lot of this bill was ultra vires anyway. He argued that if some of these powers were exercised the courts would not permit them to be exercised. In case hon. members opposite are being beguiled by that argument and have any idea that the courts will protect them against the effect of this act because no emergency is declared in the act, I suggest that they should go back and examine the legal history of legislation of a similar nature.
If the court concludes that there was an emergency and that it can be understood from the discussion which took place at the time the act was being put into effect; if hon. members think that the courts will declare that the act comes under the general provisions of peace, order and good government, then I suggest that the hon. member

Defence Production Act for Rosthern and any hon. members who may have taken to heart the argument he made as perhaps salving their consciences to some extent in supporting legislation of this kind should examine a case which was decided in 1946 by the privy council.
I understand that it is not yet an offence to recite judgments of the privy council in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) still carries cases there although he has indicated that he does not think it is in keeping with our sovereignty to do so. He still goes back there, and then having gone back there he does not pay much attention to the judgment which he gets, as was the case last year.
There was a case decided in 1946 by the privy council and the judgment is to be found at page 193 of Law Reports, Appeal Cases, 1946. That case involved the attorney general for Ontario and others, appellants, and Canada Temperance Federation and others, respondents. I am not going to go into the details of that case except to say that it had to do with the Canada Temperance Act which was enacted many years ago by the parliament of Canada. All hon. members will realize that in the ordinary course of events the supervision of the disposition of spirits and the supervision of the conduct of those who have absorbed spirits come under provincial administration.
The parliament of Canada passed the Canada Temperance Act in 1878 and that statute, amended or replaced by subsequent amendments, is still on the statute books of Canada. Rightly or wrongly, certain provincial governments thought that it would simplify the administration of their liquor legislation and the control of the results of the sale of liquor if there was not conflict between the Canada Temperance Act and the provincial acts dealing with the same subject. This particular case was fought out in the courts and carried to the privy council which decided that although there was no declaration of an emergency in the Canada Temperance Act, having regard to what was said at the time and the nature of the act that was introduced, the court must assume that there had been something in the nature of an emergency in Canada in 1878 in regard to the consumption of spirituous liquors. That is an interesting bit of ancient history, but nevertheless the court decided that the government of Canada felt that there was an emergency with which they must deal and therefore they passed an act to deal with something that would ordinarily be under provincial jurisdiction without any question. They held that they were bound to take the position that the members of parliament

of that time must have dealt with the act in the belief that an emergency actually existed.
That is on all fours with the present case. Although there is no emergency declared by the statute,, this act was introduced with statements that indicated the belief that there was an emergency. We have had the statement of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) that there is an emergency and that the situation is more critical than it was in 1951 when the Defence Production Act was originally passed. Of course at that point it does seem to become necessary to recall that although the Minister of Defence Production had that opinion the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) did not share the same opinion. Just four days ago the Minister of National Defence, on more than one occasion in his speech, on at least three occasions, clearly stated that there appeared to be a lessening of the tension in the cold war. In fact, he used the rather appealing words toward the end of his speech that the present climate of international affairs appeared to be moderating. Last year, before the minister of national defence at that time was prepared to make any such statement, the government permitted the Emergency Powers Act to lapse. Now the Minister of Defence Production says that the emergency is greater than in 1951. If, at some time 40 or 50 years from now, a court were called upon to interpret this act, they could not overlook the statement of the Minister of Defence Production that this act was being put forward with that thought in mind. Just as the privy council decided, in the case to which I have already referred, in 1946, that there must have been an emergency in the minds of the members of parliament, a court at some distant date in the future would be bound to hold the same opinion and would say that the Minister of Defence Production, who had most to say about this act on behalf of the government, regarded the emergency as greater than it had been in the early stages of the very severe war in Korea.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, will my hon. friend permit a question?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did he note this statement from the speech he has just quoted, that there is today no absolute defence against atomic and thermonuclear weapons in the quantities in which they can be aggressively brought to bear on this or any other country? That statement has never been made in this parliament before to my knowledge. However, my hon. friend says there is no emergency.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, that is a typical statement by the Minister of Defence Production.


Mr. Dickey:: Typically correct.


George Alexander Drew: If the hon. member who is sitting next to him would contain himself, he might perhaps listen to an explanation of the act which would have prevented him from making some of the extraordinarily inaccurate statements he made in this house a few days ago.


John Horace Dickey: Such as?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence Production does not have to be bound by the words he spoke in 1951. He forgets what he says during the present session. On March 11 of this year, as reported on page 1967 of Hansard, he said:
I quite agree that all the powers set out in the act should not be continuing powers.
What powers should not be continuing powers? We have not heard yet. If he agreed on March 11, 1955 that the powers in this act should not be continuing powers, why is he asking us to continue these indefinitely by the bill of two sections before us? On the basis of the argument of the minister himself, no hon. member opposite, if he still purports to exercise his own judgment, should disregard the statement of the Minister of Defence Production on March 11 of this year that all the powers set out in the act should not be continuing powers.


George James McIlraith: Read the rest of the sentence.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member opposite has plenty of time to be heard; and we have plenty of time to be heard.


George James McIlraith: Why don't you quote it accurately?


George Alexander Drew: I am quoting it perfectly accurately.


George James McIlraith: No, you are not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Half a sentence.


George Alexander Drew: As a matter of fact, the additional words only strengthen my case.


George James McIlraith: Then read them.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Hon. gentlemen opposite are very fond of using halves of sentences.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. minister who has just spoken is in the habit of speaking from his seat. He is obviously more comfortable sitting than standing. Mr. Speaker, I shall
Defence Production Act read what was said, because it strengthens the argument that was made:
I quite agree that all the powers set out in the act should not be continuing powers; but I do maintain that if they were necessary in 1951, they are just as necessary today.
Do you forget that this act is in force today and it will be in force tomorrow and it will be in force up to July 31, 1956?


Clarence Decatur Howe: And 1958 and 1959.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not understand the meaning of statute, nor apparently the meaning of his own words. The law is there. What he is asking us to do is not to exercise the powers that were put on the books until July 31, 1956. He is asking us to continue indefinitely into the future powers which he said on March 11 should not be continuing powers. That is his statement. No, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence Production cannot even remember the effect of what he says. Yet he asks you to support him in the continuation indefinitely of powers which he said should not be indefinite.
Now, this act, of course, is an act that is part of a general trend which all hon. members should recognize. The hon. members opposite should not take so much to heart the contention that it is a time for us to reverse our course. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) did some fantastic special pleading the other day. He said that what we have before us is the question of whether we are going to have defence production or not. Well, there is not a parliamentary word that describes that statement of the senior member for Halifax. There is not a word that would be permitted by the Speaker within the rules of parliament that would adequately describe in its fantastic nonsense the statement by the hon. member that the issue before us is whether we are going to have defence production. Where in the bill before us is there any suggestion of that kind? Where in those two sections is that to be found? On the contrary, he has on Hansard, as every other hon. member has, the unreserved statement that all of us-every hon. member-want a Department of Defence Production. He has the fact that we supported that, when that was in fact the principle, as we pointed out. That is not the principle now. The only principle before the members is whether or not this parliament is going to submit meekly to the demand of the Minister of Defence Production, "With me it is all or nothing".


Mr. Diefenbaker:: In perpetuity.


An hon. Member:: He has said that before.
4990	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act Mr. Drew: Yes, I said that before, and obviously the hon. member needs to have it repeated, as some hon. members do, because that is the only argument that has been made. The hon. Minister of Defence Production is demanding his pound of flesh. He has not been happy about the way things have gone. With him it is all or nothing. Well, I should like to think what would have been said by some hon. members of the Liberal party of earlier days if they had been told this-and it is they who are being told, because it is their vote that is going to put this into effect along with the socialist vote, if it goes into effect. They are the ones who should be the most critical, and I should like to think of some great Liberals of other days sitting quietly in their seats and being told, "I don't care what any other hon. member thinks; with me it is all or nothing". That is the actual effect of this measure, and that is exactly what the minister has said. He wants the whole hog or nothing. I hope the hon. members opposite will realize that the principle involved is the writing into our permanent laws in perpetuity of an act that by-passes parliament, and in a substantial measure by-passes even the supervision of government itself. This problem of delegated powers is not one unique here, and the hon. members opposite should not be sensitive about discussion of this subject, because this is a subject which applies to all parties and in all countries where there is parliamentary democracy.
Under the demands of war, starting with the first world war, it became necessary under the immense pressures created to adopt measures which were not consistent with our parliamentary traditions. However, every hon. member who did recall the great traditions of parliament made it clear that we should drop those powers and powers of that kind just as soon as an orderly way of life-no matter what the pressures might be-made it possible to return to true parliamentary democracy.
The same thing has happened in Britain. The same thing has happened in Australia, in New Zealand and elsewhere. The subject has been discussed. In Britain a strong committee was set up to examine this question of delegated powers. This government does not like setting up committees that really have the power to act. It prefers a committee where the guillotine can be employed at the appropriate time. Unfortunately, the real effectiveness of committees has not been recognized. At Westminster operations are carried on with some regard for the committee system and a committee was appointed to examine into this question of delegated [Mr. Diefenbaker.j

powers and the authority of ministers under those delegated powers. I should like to read some words of Lord Justice Scott, who was the chairman of that important committee:
When a government bill is brought before parliament in a form which, even in regard to merely executive or administrative matters, gives a wide or unlimited discretion to a minister, and objection is made, the answer is sometimes given that the minister may be trusted by the house to use his powers with a wise and reasonable discretion. The answer may be perfectly bona fide: but temvora mutanturt and another minister or another government may use the unlimited powers indiscreetly or oppressively.
It is obvious that in the United Kingdom, as here, no matter what the law is, there are those who are prepared to say, "We trust the minister". Lord Justice Scott was pointing out that it is not enough to trust any minister but that our parliamentary system demands that we examine what any minister at any time can do under measures passed by parliament and that when there is delegated authority we should be particularly careful to remember the ancient legal doctrine delegata potestas non potest delegari. The ancient legal maxim that a person to whom powers have been delegated cannot delegate them to others rests upon the clear idea that if someone delegates power to a particular individual, then it should not be permitted for that individual to delegate them to some other person, a person wholly unknown to the person who has delegated the original powers.
This act flies right in the face of the ancient legal maxim. It delegates power and it permits the minister to delegate power and it writes into the law in perpetuity the delegation of those powers. The very fact that we now, in June of 1955, are called upon to make permanent an act which will not come to an end until July 31, 1956, is the best possible evidence that this government intends to make these powers permanent.
I want to point out another significant statement because this subject is one that should be of concern to every hon. member. This tendency has been a general tendency. When can we better discuss it, when can we better reverse the trend, than when we see it carried to this extreme point in this way? In a comparatively recent book entitled "Government by Decree" written by M. A. Sieghart we find these words, which have a direct application to what is under discussion:
The democratic method of law-making by a representative assembly is being superseded in many fields by the autocratic method of government legislation. Though this legislation is delegated and controlled by parliament, it can no longer be described as subordinate as it is usually equipped with the force of law. Owing to the

-wide discretionary powers conferred by the instruments of authority, it also enjoys to a great extent immunity from judicial control.
The government is thus being instituted as a second legislature and the ordinance changed into a law Whatever are the reasons for these changes it would be futile to minimize the dangers which result from the present lack of constitutional balance. These dangers are real dangers, despite the fact that they are so far not of an actual, but of a potential danger only.
Those words might have been written to apply directly to the problem now before us, but the very fact that those words were written in relation to the general problem of delegated authority indicates that members opposite need not be sensitive when we discuss this subject, when we argue that the time has come for all members to recognize what they are doing, and that this legislation provides the best possible opportunity that may ever be afforded to us to reverse this dangerous trend. As was said in the words I have quoted:
Defence Production Act which is important and I am going to read it. It is found in section 2, subsection (f), paragraph (iii):
(f) "defence supplies" means
(iii) articles, materials, substances and things of all kinds used for the production or supply of anything mentioned in subparagraph (i) or (ii) or for the construction of defence projects;
Now, Mr. Speaker, that means one thing only, that at any point where the words "defence supplies" are used in relation to the words "articles, materials or substances", those are things of all kinds which can be used in defence production. It is not just the guns or tanks or vehicles; it is the raw material that goes into them. Under this provision any mine in Canada can be taken over. Under this provision any forest property can be taken over. Under this act any operation of any kind producing things that are needed to go into defence production can be taken over. In other words, food products that go into the rations of the armed forces can be taken over.
The dangers are real, despite the fact that they are so far not of an actual, but of a potential danger only.
We believe that these real dangers threaten the system of which we have every reason to be proud, that of parliamentary responsibility and the rule of law.
What is the act that we are called upon to make permanent, Mr. Speaker? Let us remember that the act before us wipes out the limitation of time and makes the Defence Production Act permanent. Therefore let us see what we are asked to make permanent. We are asked to make permanent powers which have never before been conferred upon any individual since the famous Henry VIII clause so many years ago. That clause generally known to constitutional lawyers as the Henry VIII clause was the act of proclamation which made it possible for King Henry VIII actually to make orders which had the effect of legislation. We have now advanced into a more democratic period and instead of an act of proclamation giving powers to the king, we are asked to give them to an individual- not to the government but to an individual- the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), in most cases even without the supervision of his own colleagues. I am not going to go into detail about what is provided in the interpretation section but it would be well for some of the hon. members to read some of the definitions. Just to indicate how wide are the powers that are specifically given, we find that "defence supplies" means anything that can be used for defence. Here is a definition
Then, let me go down to another word definition, "investigator". We do not need to go to distant lands to find out how investigations can be carried out by people not responsible to parliament. This act gives the minister power to appoint an investigator without the members of the government even knowing who are the investigators. Are they trained investigators? Are they civil servants answerable to an oath of office and with their duties defined by law? Under section 2, subsection (k) we find this:
"investigator" means a person appointed by the minister to conduct an inquiry under section 29.
Anyone he names may be an investigator. Then, there is a very interesting definition which I do urge hon. members to read carefully. It is this:
"essential service" means the carrying on of any commercial activity including the generation or distribution of electrical energy, designated by the governor in council under section 30 as an essential service:
Well, in that case the government would know that; that is one of the few cases where the minister even has to go to the government.
Let us look at some of the sections and what they provide. Section 5 provides that the minister may do certain things on his own, without an order in council. Section 7 (2) provides the minister may do certain things without an order in council, and subsection 3 gives very wide powers to the minister. It permits the minister to remove any members, directors or officers of a corporation incorporated under this section at any time, and may appoint others in their stead or may appoint additional persons or

Defence Production Act
members. This applies to directors or officers of corporations set up under this act who engage in any activities that might be described as defence activities. What a power that is in a democratic country! What a power for influence the minister could exercise if he just called up and said, "Mr. Brown, I do not like what you are doing. Please look up section 7, subsection 3 of the Defence Production Act, and I do not need to do more than tell you that I should like you to carry out certain instructions you will receive." These are powers which a vigilant parliament should examine and examine carefully.
Then, section 9 is one in regard to the administration of the department and under which the minister can exercise certain administrative powers. That, of course, is strictly an administrative section.
Then, section 11 is a very interesting section. Section 11 begins as follows:
The minister shall examine into,-
Not under an order in council______
-organize, mobilize, and conserve, the resources of Canada contributory to, and the sources of ' de.J;e"?e applies and the agencies and facilities available for the supply of the same and for the construction of defence projects and shall explore, estimate and provide for the fulfilment of the needs, present and prospective, of the government and the community in respect thereto Ben<lraIly shall take steps to mobilize, con-faJ7r+-an^ co"ordmate all economic and industrial m/e,lPect of defence supplies and defence projects and the supply or construction thereof.
May I ask members opposite, in all earnestness, to read that section and to realize that this does not say that the minister may, it says the minister shall. 1 do not know whether or not he has carried out his duties, but under this he is called upon to do all the things that the royal commission on Canada's economy is being asked to do. Why set up the commission? If the government is going to make this section permanent, then the minister is bound to inquire into all these problems. He is bound to conserve our resources. Why not do away with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) ? All those things come under this section, which is going to be made a permanent provision, and the act does not merely say "may". Since fish is such a delectable item of food, he may even do away with the Minister of Fisheries under this provision, although of course his services would be too valuable to be dispensed with, I have no doubt.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is not very amusing.


George Alexander Drew: This is the act that has been described by the Winnipeg Free Press as silly and of course they are not my words. They say the minister is silly to try to have this act-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member's speech has been described by the press as an amusing speech, but it is rapidly losing its power to amuse.


George Alexander Drew: I did not start out with the idea of amusing the minister. I have no intention of amusing him, but if I can at least attract his attention I have achieved something that had not appeared possible on earlier occasions.
Now, let us see what powers are conferred by section 13. This section reads:
Where a government department has, under or pursuant to any act, power to obtain, for any purpose, information as to matters with respect to which the minister is empowered to require returns to be made, that department shall, if so *required by the minister, exercise that power for the purpose of assisting the minister in obtaining any such information.
Perhaps the Minister of Defence Production could get information from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that we have not succeeded in getting as yet. He would have the power, and in this case the records would be available, to request the information. If the Minister of Defence Production makes a demand upon the minister of another department, he may secure such information. Really, this could be a very useful provision as long as it ended as soon as it had been used.
Then, we have section 15. This is another section in which the minister has the power to do a whole series of things without the knowledge of the government and without any order in council. I ask hon. members to read section 15 carefully and then ask themselves if these powers are powers which have ever been conferred upon any minister, without even the restraint of the supervision which would be afforded by a discussion in cabinet council. The section says that the minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty and subject to the provisions of this act-well, the provisions of this act simply tell him he can do almost anything. He may go ahead and take over almost any material or service. He may-
.		 -purchase or otherwise acquire, sell, exchange or
lhe fact remains that this act simply sets Otherwise dispose of real or personal property.
up certain duties that do away with the need Oh, what a wonderful power that is! What for a number of the ministers. Why bother an interesting club that could be under
with the Minister of Northern Affairs and certain circumstances. Then he can 
National Resources (Mr. Lesage)?	_make loans or advances-

Would you not like to know that the minister, at the appropriate time, if he has those powers permanently, and the act is not going to terminate, can set the accounting date? And then, generally, if he has not enough power already, he can turn to paragraph (g) of section 15 and he can-
-do all such things as appear to the minister to be incidental to or necessary or expedient to the matters mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section or as may be authorized by the governor in council with respect to the procurement, construction or disposal of defence supplies or defence projects.
And may I urge hon. members opposite not to think that this means that the minister must go to the government. He can do all the things that "appear to the minister to be incidental to or necessary". Or, if he finds that not enough, he can then go to the governor in council.
But that is not all he is asking to continue under this act. I turn now to section 17-again, another section where there is no government control but where it is simply at the whim of the minister. That section says:
The minister may, on behalf of His Majesty, enter into contracts for the carrying out of anything he is authorized to do under section 14 or 15 and the following provisions apply with respect to every such contract entered into by the minister on behalf of His Majesty.
And the act specifically provides that under subsection 1 (e) of section 17-
A contract may be entered into by the minister without the approval of the governor in council if
(i)	in the opinion of the minister, the contract must be entered into immediately in the interests of defence.
Oh, what could stop him! The minister has said, "What is going to stop me?" Well, what could stop him? Whatever he does may be done without going to the governor in council; so that protection, which was illusory, is wiped out. And then:
(ii)	the estimated expenditure, loan or guarantee does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars, or
(iii)	competitive tenders have been obtained and the lowest tender, involving an estimated expenditure not exceeding fifty thousand dollars, is accepted.
And of course the government has the chance to do some reading after. It states that the "minister shall make a report to the governor in council in respect of any contract". Well, that is nice of the minister! He drafted the act, and he is really going to report to the governor in council what he does under section 17!
And then, under section 20-here again the government has no supervision. He has not been quite so kind to them in this case, because it says:
The minister may, on behalf of His Majesty, contract with any person that His Majesty will
Defence Production Act relieve that person from any claims, actions or proceedings for the payment of royalties for the use or infringement of any patent.
And so on. The minister has wide powers, without even asking the cabinet if they think it is appropriate. And yet this is the minister who rather boasts about the fact that he does not think too much about legal draftsmen.
Then, section 21

and this is another one under which the minister has very wide powers:	-
21. (1) A person who has entered into a defence contract shall keep detailed accounts and records of the cost of carrying out the contract and shall, or demand, produce to any person thereunto authorized by the minister every account, record or document of any description with respect to the contract-
And just listen to this.
-and with respect to his other business that may be required by the person so authorized and shall permit him to examine, audit and take copies of and extracts from the accounts, records or documents.
Someone suggests that they might get photostatic copies. It would not be necessary for us to wait as we are waiting now for the answers to some of the questions on the order paper. The minister would just say, "Tom, go down and visit-" a certain company whose name has been heard of-"and just find out if there is anything they are doing that we are interested in; and then also just get a few photostatic copies of some records there that I am not very satisfied about, myself, because I have not been able to find out."
And then turning to subsection 3 of section 21-and again, this is something the minister can do without any reference to his colleagues-
Where a person is a party to two or more defence contracts the minister may-
And this is known as an expediting provision.
- (a) by one order reduce the total amount that he is entitled to retain or receive under any two or more or all of the contracts to such amount as the minister may fix as the fair and reasonable cost of performing the contracts together with a fair and reasonable profit thereon;
And do not let us be told that this is a necessary order to protect the public purse. We want every protection for the public purse, and we want a great deal more protection than this minister has ever afforded the taxpayers of Canada. But we do not want powers of this kind in the hands of any minister, even with the authority of the government, by order in council-and most certainly we do not want it without any supervision of any kind.
4994	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
And then we look at section 23 and we find that the minister-not the governor in council-may do a number of things. This is one of them:
-the minister may direct that person to produce, deliver or store, or to construct, as the case may be, on such terms and conditions and within such period as the minister considers to be lair and reasonable in the circumstances, the defence supplies or the defence project or projects that would have been the subject-matter of the contract if it had been entered into.
And then section 24:
The minister may, where he deems it necessary for any of the purposes of this act, by notice in writing to a person who owns or has in his possession, custody or control defence supplies, requisition the supplies on behalf of His Majesty.
And then we go on to section 27, under which the minister may-
-authorize another person (in this act called a "controller") to carry on, until the minister otherwise directs, the whole or any part of the business of that person.
Then we find that under section 29 the minister may-
-whenever he deems it expedient, cause an inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter relating to or incidental to or arising out of a defence contract or any group or series of defence contracts or any dealings in or with defence supplies, and may appoint a person or persons by whom the inquiry shall be conducted.
Along with this we have the Inquiries Act, under which the government can act, and under which it ordinarily sets out the terms of reference. But oh no, that is a thing of the past!
Section 29(2) says that an investigator- that is, anyone appointed by the minister- -has all the powers conferred on commissioners by sections four and five of the Inquiries Act or which may be conferred on commissioners under subsection one of section eleven thereof.
And then we come to the really interesting part of the act which deals with essential materials and services. This is section 30:
The governor in council may, from time to time,
(a)	designate as an essential material any material or substance the control of the supply and use of which is, in his opinion, essential to ensure the availability of adequate defence supplies or for the construction or operation of defence projects; or
(b)	designate as an essential service the carrying on of any commercial activity, including the generation and distribution of electrical energy, the control of which is, in his opinion, essential for the adequate production or use of essential materials for defence supplies or defence projects;
to meet the requirements of the defence forces of Canada or for co-operative efforts for defence being carried on by Canada and associated governments.
When we read this section we know that the bill now before us should be called an act to suspend the constitution of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Alexander Drew: I hear laughter from the other side, Mr. Speaker. I hear laughter from the other side which is the kind of laughter-


Clarence Decatur Howe: From your allies down there.


George Alexander Drew: I know the socialists laugh with you because they want this act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is not the
socialists who are laughing.


George Alexander Drew: Because it is a socialist act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the Social
Crediters.


George Alexander Drew: Why would they not want it? This is exactly the kind of act that, if they ever have any hope of forming any government, they would devoutly pray would be on the statute books when they came into power, because they would not need to come back to parliament for anything. They could place the whole of our economy under completely socialist doctrine and they could nationalize anything under this section. Remember, the governor in council may from time to time designate anything that it regards as an essential material and then it could take it over.
Have we by accident stumbled on the real reason why this amendment is being put before us while the Defence Production Act is still on the statute books? Every lawyer here knows what is called the ejusdem generis rule, the rule that where something is provided, things of a similar nature are included in the terms of that provision. By no manner of means is the governor in council limited to hydroelectric plants in taking over what might be regarded as essential services at any time. It can take over any essential service, and the inclusion of the words "including the generation and distribution of electric energy" just makes sure that there is no reservation as to the kind of things that can be taken over. Gas, oil, could also be taken over and the pipe lines which would distribute them. Let there be no uncertainty about that. Why is it that at this stage of the session we have heard nothing about the pipe lines which are to carry the gas from western Canada? Why at this stage of the session, when questions are being asked whether this house is to adjourn by June 30, something which is very unlikely, why, at such a time have we not heard one word to explain what the government proposes to do in regard to pipe lines? Are they to be declared an essential service, and is the government now making sure that there will be permanently on the statute books legislation which will make it possible for

them to take over this control? Oh, the minister will ridicule that, but he can do it, and we have not heard any other explanation of the silence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is no more ridiculous than anything else you have been saying.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the minister of course is beyond hope.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just running on a level keel.


George Alexander Drew: Hon. members opposite are those who are going to be called upon to accept the responsibility if they support a measure of that kind. Under that, our socialist friends would be very happy because the government could nationalize the steel industry and could do exactly what the government in the United Kingdom did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Leader of the
Opposition permit a question?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I imagine he would like to have several questions. Is it not true that the powers in the section to which the hon. member is now referring, namely, section 30, and indeed all the other powers, are related to the question of defence, rather than to the general, wide socialist principles that he tries to read into this bill? May I ask the Leader of the Opposition what he would do with regard to defence supplies if he were the head of a government at this time?


George Alexander Drew: I have stated, Mr. Speaker,
exactly what could be done. Have a short bill continuing the Department of Defence Production, and then operate under the Defence Supplies Act, 1950, chapter 33, which covers all the powers that are necessary for the acquisition of defence supplies and which is similar to the law in the United Kingdom. That is exactly what should be done. When the hon. member asks, are these not all related to defence, may I say this may be done at any time when the government thinks that for the general purpose of its activities in this field it would be desirable to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Leader of the Opposition permit another question?


George Alexander Drew: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not want to be fair?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He does not like to get a legal opinion.


George Alexander Drew: Does the hon. member think that a little ohm is being used as military
Defence Production Act equipment by the army or that a volt or a horsepower of electric energy is part of our military equipment? If he thinks so, then let him make such an argument as he is nowmaking; but the fact is, this specifically deals with the generation of electric energy, which includes the units of power and everything else which may be taken over under section 30.


John Horace Dickey: For defence purposes.


George Alexander Drew: I challenge any one of these- no, the minister does not understand it although he drafted the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have practised law just about as much as you have, my dear friend.


George Alexander Drew: I challenge any lawyer who understands-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Are you a lawyer?


George Alexander Drew: I understand-


Clarence Decatur Howe: When did you practise, my friend?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: The minister makes comments of that kind without even knowing anything of what he is talking about.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have asked you.


George Alexander Drew: He does not know anything about it. If the minister will inquire from some of his associates he will find out. The minister knows perfectly well that under this legislation provision has been made for the taking over of services which may be extended to any similar service, and that under this legislation there can be no possible question about taking over the distribution of gas and oil, or any other similar activity if the government should so decide by order in council.


An hon. Member:: For defence purposes.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, well-


John Whitney Pickersgill: For defence purposes only.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is getting
rattled.


George Alexander Drew: I am rattled neither by the
interjections of the minister nor by the inane comments of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You sound rattled.


George Alexander Drew: No; the only rattling going on is in the mind of the minister himself, and he is completely rattled as to what the effect of this legislation is; but I am asking the hon. members opposite who have the responsibility

Defence Production Act of conferring those powers to examine this legislation and see what the powers are.
Since it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, will you declare it one o'clock, and I shall continue after.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Mr, Drew:: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was discussing the effect of section 30. I must confess that I found it most difficult to believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did not fully understand the application of section 30. From the interjections he made I would suggest that it is most important that he examine section 30 most carefully. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who sometimes displays, as to the legal aspects of certain documents, knowledge which indicates perhaps that his earlier training might have been other than it actually was, seemed to be under the impression that it was necessary that there be some unusual circumstances before section 30 would apply. With his continuous interjections I found it a little difficult to believe that he was being serious, but I now can see that probably he was. He seemed to have the idea that it was necessary that there be some unusual demands in relation to defence before section 30 would be applied. That section reads:
The governor in council may, from time to time, (a) designate as an essential material any material or substance the control of the supply and use of which is, in his opinion, essential to ensure the availability of adequate defence supplies or for the construction or operation of defence projects:
That does not suggest that any unusual situation must exist. It does seem to me that this is an appropriate time to point out that when we are discussing national defence we are not discussing a subject that is unusual. On the other hand, we are discussing the most definite basic subject which becomes the responsibility of any government or of any parliament. The first and most demanding responsibility of any government within organized society is to assure the defence of that society. That has been true from the beginning of history. In the minds of all of us there is unquestionably the hope that circumstances will be such that the need for defence will be as limited as possible. Nevertheless, I do not know of a single nation in the world large or small which has not recognized the responsibility for defence. Therefore the need of obtaining defence supplies is a continuing [Mr. Drew.)
need which lies at the very root of the continuing responsibility of any government in the ordinary aspects of society.
It is not an international emergency; it is not a domestic emergency; it is simply ordinary demands, and that is what this is. This is not emergency powers, this is something corresponding to the War Measures Act. This is the Defence Production Act; an act to call for the production of defence material. There have been times when we were in the happy position that only a relatively small amount needed to be spent on defence, but there has not been a day since Canada became a nation in 1867 that defence supplies of some kind were not required. Therefore it is a continuing responsibility.
All that the government needs to do to invoke the powers of section 30 is to designate at any time any material as being essential for defence purposes. There need be no declared emergency, such as a war. There need be no appeal to any other act on the statute books. The government needs only to declare that any material is an essential material for the purposes of defence production. Then in the case of services it provides:
*overnor " council may, from time to time, (0) designate as an essential service the carrying on of any commercial activity, including the generation and distribution of electrical energy, the control of which is, in his opinion, essential for the adequate production or use of essential materials for defence supplies or defence projects.
That means that anything that would go into the fabrication, the power needed for fabrication, or any stage of the production of the kind of defence material we would need at any time could be declared without any special declaration of any kind as an essential service by the government. That is the scope of this power. It was in relation to that wide power that I pointed out that there could be no possible question from the legal point of view that the inclusion of the generation and distribution of hydroelectric energy not only brought the generation and distribution of hydroelectric energy within the application of section 30, but that by the use of the ejusdem generis rule of law every other production of power or the production of coal, or, if you will, of atomic energy, or anything else that would go into the necessary industrial activities associated with defence production, or anything that would be of service in the nature of defence production, could be brought under the control of the government. That being the case, it is not necessary to state that any particular thing is going to be done. I repeat, I do not believe that any person with any appreciation of

the application of these statutes could reasonably question the fact that the control of the handling of gas and oil, the construction of pipe lines, the terms under which the gas and oil would be handled by those pipe lines and all other arrangements could be brought under the control of the government just as could hydroelectric generation and distribution.
Whether that is the intention or not, the obligation of all hon. members is not to say in their minds, as was said by the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press in the editorial to which I referred this morning, that we should try to understand the motives of the government. That is not our responsibility on this side or on the other side of the house. Our responsibility is not to place on the statute books any laws which in themselves create a situation that would be contrary to the fundamental and tested principles of parliamentary government. That is exactly what we are dealing with here; not with what any one of us might think this minister or any other minister may do, but rather what this minister or any other minister could do, and particularly what some minister in the distant future, who has had no part in this discussion and who might have an entirely different concept of the organization of our society from that which most of us share, might do when he found he had the powers conferred upon him by this act.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must examine section 30, not only from the point of view of the dangerously wide powers conferred, but also from the constitutional point of view. The essential services and the essential supplies covered by section 30 are services and supplies that in the ordinary course of events would be exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. We know from the case to which I referred this morning, decided in privy council in 1946, that if an act of parliament is passed here which is accepted as being within the wide interpretation of peace, order and good government, as was the Canada Temperance Act passed in 1878, once that becomes law and enters our statutes then it overrides provincial jurisdiction. It did in the case of the Canada Temperance Act, and it would in this case. Therefore, this section directly overrides the jurisdiction of the provincial governments over property and civil rights, as well as over resources and matters of that kind which are so exclusively within their power.
Do not let any hon. member shake his head and raise any question as to whether that is the case. Whether or not it is exercised is another matter; but whether it is exercised
Defence Production Act or not, the powers are conferred by this act to override our constitution. It was for that reason that I said before, and for that reason I repeat, that this act without any time limit, without any restraint, without any of the elimination of the unnecessary powers to which the minister himself referred as recently as March, properly should be called an act to suspend the Canadian constitution. That is exactly what it is. Whether or not the powers are exercised, the powers remain. The adoption of this measure without time limit, without any pretence that it relates to a special emergency, embedding, as it would, in the permanent law of Canada these wide powers, would be a retrograde step from which it might be extremely difficult for this parliament to return at some future time.
Some hon. members might ask why it might be difficult. I know that every hon. member has watched with interest what happened in Britain. They have watched with interest what happened in the case of the nationalization of the steel industry and the nationalization of other activities in that country by a socialist government. They know that, once this nationalization takes place, the unscrambling of the mess created is not something that is very easy to accomplish. With all the effort that has been made, it has been extremely difficult for a government which believes in free enterprise to end the chaos created by the nationalization brought about by the socialist government in Britain. We should not say to ourselves that we do not need to worry because we believe in the minister and he would be doing this. Ask yourselves whether it can be done; and, if it can be done, then ask yourselves if in good conscience you can put on the statute books legislation that would produce that result which some person who happened at some time in the future, even in the very distant future, to have the opportunity could bring about. Now, Mr. Speaker, the next section that deals-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, there are quite a number of sections yet to which I find it necessary to refer. I must, of course, examine this act, but if some of the hon. members object to the time that is being taken-


Some hon. Members:: No!


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most encouraging things that have happened since I came into this house. Now, after the obvious disinclination to listen that was expressed, I now have an indication from members on all sides of the house that they wish to hear more about this act, and I am going to comply with their request, because
*998	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act it is perfectly obvious that the effect of some of these sections was not clearly in the minds of some of the hon. members who spoke.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition a question. Does he not think I am enjoying his speech? I am enjoying listening to him very much, and if he keeps going till six o'clock I shall be here.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I know perfectly well that, no matter what any other hon. member might do, I only need to look across at the smiling face of the hon. member for Fort William to know that he does enjoy the debate here, even though his colleague from the riding next to his does not enjoy it so much.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are all interested to see whether you can equal the record of Huey Long.


An hon. Member:: He makes less sense than Huey Long.


George Alexander Drew: I confess that the minister who has just spoken understands the methods of Huey Long better than anyone else in my experience.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not a very smart retort.


An hon. Member:: Try again.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point we are making. I have no doubt that Huey Long was a nice baby at one time- not a Canadian baby, but still a nice baby. He grew up with the ordinary instincts, but he got too much power, and he went the way people go if they get too much power. We do not want to see anything happen to the Minister of Defence Production.
The next section I propose to refer to is section 31 because that section is another section that confers powers upon the minister without the necessity of his being too careful about others knowing about it, and this is one that I regret I must take some time to deal with. Section 31, subsection 1, deals with powers by order in council and it refers to the control of what are described as essential supplies and projects. Section 31(1) provides as follows:
31. (1) The governor In council may do and authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he deems necessary to control and regulate the production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition or use of essential materials or the supply or use of essential services for the purposes of (a) ensuring the availability of defence supplies or the construction or operation of defence 

projects for the defence requirements of Canada and for co-operative arrangements for defence being carried on by Canada and associated governments;
There, Mr. Speaker, is to be found an interesting innovation in our laws which was brought in temporarily. I have no doubt that this was one of the powers that the minister referred to when he said they should not be continuing powers when the act was originally introduced with a time limit, because under this legislation the government may, by order in council, exercise these wide powers not only on behalf of the government of Canada but on behalf of associated governments. This legislation really introduces a novel situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does he realize he is quoting from an act he says we should revert to, the Defence Supplies Act? That act is permanent legislation. He says we should go back to it. Why go back to an act that he is now about to criticize?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Defence Supplies Act is concerned, when I have occasion to discuss it in detail I will point out the very clear limitations to what are mentioned in the Defence Supplies Act as distinguished from this one. But the powers that are conferred here, as I have just mentioned, are powers by order in council. I now come to the next page and the powers that may be exercised under this same section 31 by the minister alone without that supervision which has been suggested from outside the house as being appropriate on the part of the fellow members of the government.
Section 31 (2) covers a tremendously wide field. Let those hon. members who still think that these powers-which after all the minister said should not be continuing powers- should be continued and which will be continued by this simple amendment now before us, take note of this subsection which reads as follows:
(2) Subject to the regulations, if any, the minister may, by order, as he deems necessary for the purposes specified in subsection (1),
(a)	require any person who produces, processes, deals in or has in his possession or control any essential materials to deal with, supply or dispose of materials in such manner and in such priority to that person's other transactions as the minister may prescribe;
(b)	require any person who produces or processes any essential materials to produce or process any such materials in such manner and in such priority to that person's other production or processing operations as the minister may prescribe;
(c)	prescribe the quantities of, the manner and circumstances in which and the conditions on

which any essential materials may be produced, processed, used, acquired or disposed of, either generally or within periods of time prescribed by the minister, and for these purposes may require persons to obtain permits;-
That power, of course, is one that could have very wide application.
_(d) require any person who supplies any
essential service to supply the service to such persons, to such extent and on such conditions as the minister may prescribe;-
Wide enough power is given there, power almost without limit of any kind.
- (e) prescribe the restrictions and conditions according to which an essential service may be supplied or used, either generally or within periods of time prescribed by the minister, and for these purposes may require persons to obtain permits;
(f) fix the maximum prices, either by determining the selling price or the mark-up, at which and the terms and conditions on which any essential materials or essential services may be sold or offered for sale by any person; and require any seller to refund to any buyer any sum or consideration received in excess of a maximum selling price so fixed;
Do not say, "Oh, well, this has not been used and this will not be exercised". If it will not be exercised, why put it there?


George James McIlraith: This is limited by the first
part you read.


George Alexander Drew: It is not limited in any way at all that has any effective control. This is not under order in council. This is by the minister and without restraint.


George James McIlraith: It is limited-


George Alexander Drew: It is by decree. This is the government without control by parliament. Then the next subsection, paragraph (g) reads:
(g)	prescribe the circumstances in which and the terms and conditions on which, for any purposes of this act, permits shall be obtained from the minister or from a person designated by the minister; grant general or other permits; and amend, suspend or cancel any permit;
(h)	require any person to furnish such information respecting essential materials produced, processed or dealt in by him or essential services supplied by him, or respecting his production and other facilities relating thereto, in such time and manner as the minister may prescribe; and
(i)	do such further things in regard to the production, supply, distribution and use of essential materials or essential services as may be authorized by order or regulation of the governor in council.
The last is just a little concession to the continuance even of government responsibility. In the remainder is the untrammelled power of the minister to do these various things. When it is read in conjunction with other powers to appoint inspectors, to appoint controllers and do the other things, this means that the whole of our society, for all practical purposes, is placed under the
Defence Production Act effective control of this government subject only to the extent to which it withholds the exercise of that power.
Let us remember that we are now asked to pass an amendment which would have the effect of embedding this statute in the statute books for any length of time. We know what happened in the case of the Canada Temperance Act. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) is gratified by the fact that it is still there; but there are those who feel that confusion arose between that act and some of the provincial acts. Nevertheless, whether it is right or whether it is wrong we know that, as the result of the decisions which have been made, the courts will hold that this act would be effective if it were passed. In order to make any of these things effective, offences are provided; and when we look at the offences we find that a number of these offences are not offences against known law. Here is where the rule of law comes in. Surely if there is one thing that is the pride of our system, it is that every Canadian shall know, in advance, what he can or cannot do under laws that he can understand. There is an old saying that ignorance of the law is no defence. That is a difficult enough thing, but surely it is doubly difficult when it is not a matter of even orders in council which must be published in the ordinary way but when the situation is that even ministers' orders can create offences which can produce quite serious consequences. In section 32 we find this:
32. (1) Every person who
(a) being required to make a return under section 12 tails to make the return or knowingly or recklessly makes an untrue statement in the return,-
Section 12 is one of those sections under which the minister himself, without the aid or supervision of the governor, makes the order. Then again:
- (b) fails to comply with a direction given to him under section 23.
Section 23 is another of those sections which is exclusively dealt with by the minister not by order in council but simply by decree of the minister himself.
Then, paragraph (c) reads:
wilfully obstructs a controller in the exercise of any of his functions under section 27.
Again, that is something done by the minister. The minister appoints a controller, anyone at all, and if there is what is alleged to be obstruction by any person who is supposed to have failed to act properly in relation to this person appointed in that way, he is declared to be guilty of an offence.

Defence Production Act
Then, paragraph (e) reads: contravenes or fails to observe any provision of this act or any order or regulation not mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d).
That means that any of the orders under all these sections I have mentioned would be dealt with under this section. The minister orders, and he does not even carry it out himself but appoints a controller and that controller may carry it into effect. All these offences can be created by some person untrained for the task, without any special knowledge, and simply because he happens to think that something should be done.
Then we find under section 32, subsection 2, the following:
Every person guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection 1 is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and if the failure to make the return of which he is convicted continues after the conviction he is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars for each day on which the failure continues . . .
That seems like a fairly heavy penalty for the failure to respond to the appropriate demands of some unnamed controller, so far as we are concerned or the government is concerned, appointed by the minister.
Then, section 32, subsection 3, reads:
Every person guilty of an offence under this act, other than an offence mentioned in subsection two, is liable upon summary conviction or conviction upon indictment to a fine not exceeding
. thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or to both fine and imprisonment.
Now, those are severe penalties, and penalties which should not be imposed on Canadian citizens except under laws that are clearly defined.
I know, Mr. Speaker, there have been interjections suggesting that we have overlooked the fact there are administrative laws in this country, not only of this government but provincial legislatures. Of course there are. In the complex society in which we live there has grown up a necessity for what is known as administrative law. But that administrative law can be defined and that administrative law can provide some procedure by which the government assumes responsibility. The fact that any of those things may have been done in the past, in this house or in any other house, is no answer to the proposition to which we have been directing attention, the dangers ahead. The time has come to get back to the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. There will be no better time for any of us to assert that principle than right now when this amendment is before us that would embed this statute in our continuing law.
Let us look at section 37. It reads:
No controller or investigator is responsible at law for any act or thing done by him in good faith in the performance of his duties or the exercise of his powers under this act and no action may be taken against a controller or investigator in respect thereof but nothing in this section limits or restricts the rights of any person against the crown.
The fact that there is a right of action against the crown is no satisfactory answer to the fact that these controllers or investigators, any Tom, Dick or Harry, appointed not by the present Minister of Defence Production but any minister of defence production now or 50 years from now, cannot be sued no matter how wrong their actions as long as they were committed in good faith. Certainly, that is going much too far. So far as this is concerned, the whole problem that is before us is whether or not we should delegate powers to a minister and the minister to people about whom we know nothing, about whom the government will know nothing and then, in turn, simply because in their ignorance of the law, they had acted in good faith in doing something very wrong, there is no right of action against them. That is exactly what this says. This invites careless and improper acts. Do not let it be suggested that careless and improper acts have not taken place.
There has been a gratifying increase of interest that has been indicated this afternoon. I am hoping that interest will increase. Nothing could be more gratifying to those who have been seeking to impress the importance of this upon parliament than the way in which we have been urged by hon. members opposite to continue with our discussion on this subject. There is good reason why that should be done.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Good entertainment.


George Alexander Drew: executive to a large extent judges in their own case. The sovereignty of parliament was threatened. All the time we were being called on to surrender more and more of our rights and privileges to the government of the day. This continuous erosion . . .
May I repeat that these are the words of Mr. Davies.
This continuous erosion was far more dangerous to liberty than any attack from the other side. We were awake to that and could resist it, but the drip, drip, drip of erosion was more likely to destroy the house.
I knew that hon. members would like to hear what Mr. Davies had to say on this subject.


John Horace Dickey: Talk about drips.


George Alexander Drew: I cannot imagine anyone in this house who is more of an expert on that than the hon. member who just spoke.


Mr. Sinclair:: After three hours of listening to you, he is an expert.


George Alexander Drew: I shall have occasion to deal with the Minister of Fisheries at another time.
This is an erosion of the very foundation of our laws. When Mr. Clement Davies was dealing with this subject he was not, of course, dealing with an act that went nearly as far as the one that is now before us. Hon. members have shown their interest in the effect of this, but when hon. members seem to feel that there is no real danger in a matter of this kind, may I point out that there was one of the most illuminating cases that occurred in Britain last year. It should be read by everyone who is being called upon to pass judgment in this case. I had pointed out the extent to which this act not only creates government by decree, by order in council, but also government by decree by a minister who, in turn, can turn over the whole responsibility to people whose names are unknown. I am sorry the minister is not present at the time I raise this particular case because it is one that has a very direct bearing upon this subject.
The case to which I refer is known as the Crichel Down case, and it was a perfect example of what happens when powers are delegated to those who have no direct responsibility to parliament. Of course, in the Crichel Down case, it was civil servants who are under an oath of office and not just any person without any responsibility either to the government or to parliament. Nevertheless the Crichel Down case was a very illuminating case, and one which should be in the mind of each member when he is asked to vote for wide-open provisions of this kind.
Defence Production Act
In that case the situation that led to the inquiry last year arose out of the fact that some 725 acres of land were taken over by the air ministry of Great Britain in 1940 to be used as a bombing range. This was done under the wide-open powers exercised during the war. When that bombing range was required no longer, then the property was transferred to the ministry of agriculture. In due course it was decided that these lands should be used for agricultural purposes. That was not an unreasonable thing for the ministry of agriculture to decide.
Then the question came up as to how they were to deal with these lands. A number of people wanted the opportunity to take the separate parcels which had made up that 725 acres. There were, in fact, four parcels that had been brought together under that single holding.
One of those who were applying for consideration was the husband of a lady who actually had inherited a right in the property. Therefore there was a special reason why his application should be considered.
Not only were these applications not given due consideration but they were treated with arrogance which did bring this to the attention of members of the government. As a result the government appointed a committee of inquiry-rather I should say they appointed Sir Andrew Clark, O.C., to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding this case. Sir Andrew Clark's report is a commentary upon what happens in any case of this kind. And I submit that the whole report, which can be found here in our very excellent library, could well be read by every hon. member before he should consider himself ready to vest these wide powers in the minister in this case.
Sir Andrew Clark explained it was difficult to understand the trend that led the officials of the department of agriculture to act in the offensive and arrogant way they did. He then pointed out that there were certain reasons why people who had applied should have been heard; and these are his words, in part, which I quote from this extended report:
It appears difficult at first sight to see how such a misconception could ever have arisen. It had, however, been the fixed policy of the socialist government never to sell any land that had been acquired by the government, whether compulsorily or otherwise, except under very special circumstances, and presumably this policy had become so firmly established that many civil servants were under the impression that there was no power to sell.
Sir Andrew Clark then reviewed the attitude of hostility shown by officials to those who were trying to obtain their land, and

Defence Production Act particularly to the application of Commander Marten, whose wife had a direct interest in one of the business properties. I submit that his words are significant when we are considering what we are being asked to do here in re-creating these wide powers which can be exercised at any time if the government so decides. This was what he said:
There was no excuse whatever for this attitude. Lieutenant Commander Marten acted perfectly properly throughout and was merely endeavouring to stand up for what he conceived to be his moral rights. This attitude was engendered solely by a feeling of irritation that any member of the public should have the temerity to oppose or even question the acts or decisions of officials of a government or state department.
Mr. Speaker, it is just like the minister himself in this instance. The minister does not think we should have the temerity to question what he asks, so he has left the chamber and is not even listening. But I am hoping that someone in his place will refer the Crichel Down case to him.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is of course one very interesting aspect of this because in the Crichel Down case there had been no wrongdoing of any kind. It was just a misconception of duty. There had been arrogance to the public. There had been the highly improper conduct of those who resented even the thought that any member of the public would question their lofty words. And, as Sir Andrew Clark said:
This attitude was engendered solely by a feeling of irritation that any member of the public should have the temerity to oppose or even question the acts or decisions of officials of a government or state department.
Now, the minister had nothing to do with it; the minister did not even know it. But Sir Thomas Dugdale, who was minister of agriculture, felt himself compelled to resign, without request, because at Westminster they have respect for the rights of the people and they have respect for the rights of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, if the same principle applied here we would see at least half the government changing overnight because of a situation of that kind. But of course the same principles do not apply. We have had the explanation here that the conscience of the individual member is his own conscience, and that they all go their own sweet way as they see fit. But at Westminster they have a sterner code. And therefore Sir Thomas Dugdale felt compelled to resign from the government because within his department there had been an attitude toward the public that was utterly impossible.
Now, in all earnestness-and I do repeat it in all earnestness-


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


George Alexander Drew: I am going to go ahead; hon. members do not have to encourage me. I am going to go ahead. But I do welcome the invitation, because this is the most important principle we will have to discuss, whether unlimited powers ought to be conferred, not merely on the government but on a minister, or anyone he wishes to delegate.
It was Edmund Burke who said:
The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
Many hon. members opposite originally- I am inclined to hope they are not so inclined now-were under the delusion that this act did not transgress the basic principles of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. I hope that many of them have changed their opinion in regard to that. It is unquestionably true that the acceptance of improper legislation is not done by people who intend deliberately to do wrong. On the contrary it is done by people who think they are doing right. And in these last few years, in the name of efficiency and expediency, much has been put on the statute books of this and other countries by people of different parties-and let me emphasize that-in the belief that there would be a more expeditious way of doing it.
An effort has been made to create the delusion that this act is necessary to provide our defence requirements. Well, it has not been necessary once in the last two years; and yet hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on defence requirements. If that is so, then let us know just exactly what circumstances would call for the exercise of these wide powers, not included in that act already on the statute books, which gives very wide powers indeed and, as the minister has pointed out, does go very far in conferring powers both on the government and on the minister.
Whether that is right or not, at least it is on the statute books; and we would be making a move in the right direction by stopping with an act that continued the Department of Defence Production and then relied upon an ordinary act for the purchase of supplies, such as has been found adequate in similar jurisdictions.
The necessity for weapons of defence is one which need not be emphasized. Everybody believes in that. Everybody believes that this should be done upon an expeditious and proper basis. And, make no mistake about it that, so far as the members of this party are concerned, we do not believe that there should be any profiteering out of the production of those things made necessary by the desperate demands of defence in a time like this.

Nevertheless, having said that, never should patriotism be an excuse for a break-down of our basic parliamentary democracy. Democracy begins at home. We are at this time being asked to support tremendous expenditures for the defence of this country, this democratic system of ours, for the right of our people to live under a parliamentary democracy.
If it is worth while to create armed forces, and if it is worth while to spend the enormous amounts that are being spent for that purpose, then, Mr. Speaker, I submit it is proper for us to consider a way in which we can assure the continuance of that parliamentary democracy right here in the first line of democracy, the House of Commons of Canada.
That is what is actually before us, just a simple act, two sentences: one, to change the salary of the minister, something that at the moment is not needed. Of course, the very fact they are doing that indicates they have another minister in mind, because the present minister is paid as Minister of Trade and Commerce. Therefore, it is quite clear that they are preparing for some other minister in this position. We do not know who it is. That is of course something that is not vouchsafed to us. I do not imagine that even hon. members opposite, who are called upon to vote, have been told who that other minister will be. In fact, it would be contrary to our principles of government if they were informed in advance. There may be quite a number of them who would hope that they might be chosen. It is a perfectly legitimate hope. Probably some of us might hope that a certain number of individuals would be considered for that post while this government still has that responsibility; but in any event it is perfectly clear that if this government thought there was going to be no change in the minister they would not even bother about that amendment because the present minister is paid as Minister of Trade and Commerce and of course cannot receive a second salary. Therefore, the very fact there is the amendment emphasizes the fact that, so far as their confidence in the present minister is concerned, it is someone else they have in mind when they are dealing with this legislation.
It is the second section that raises the fundamental and only principle involved. Shall powers which were temporary, shall powers which were described as recently as March of this year by the Minister of Defence Production as being powers which should not be continued, without any amendment be continued to an indefinite date in
Defence Production Act the future? Shall they become permanent on the statute books of Canada? That is the issue. There has not been a greater issue before the House of Commons since this house was set up under the British North America Act in 1867.
I regret that the minister is not present. The Minister of Defence Production interjected this morning, "Of course, the hon. member says there is no emergency." I say nothing of the kind. There is an emergency of the kind that always exists when conflicting powers are being built up. There was no doubt about it that there were many people who thought they were living in a period of emergency in Britain during the time that the wars with France went on for hundreds of years. There is no doubt about it, there was a feeling of emergency in Britain at the time that the Armada approached the British shores. There is no doubt about it that there have been many occasions since then when the people of Britain thought there was something in the nature of an emergency. But there is a vast difference between that and the kind of compelling emergency such as suddenly arises at the outbreak of a war when the ordinary activities are disputed, and when the ordinary supplies are not available. But that is a different thing from what we have today. In the years before the first world war and in the years before the two world wars great forces were being built up. Nobody was in any doubt that there were two conflicting forces growing in the world in the years before the two world wars, and particularly after 1933 when Hitler came into power in Germany. Everyone knew that, but we did not put on the statute books in Canada broad powers of this kind to be forever embedded in our legislation to by-pass parliament and to leave every individual Canadian in uncertainty as to what his legal rights were in the carrying on of his daily duties. We did not put on the statute books laws that permeated into every aspect of our society; we did not pass laws then which were regarded by the socialists as entirely in keeping with their own desires for a planned economy and the opportunity to exercise control over every aspect of that economy.
Our socialist friends are perfectly sincere in this; we know that it is part of their doctrine; it is part of their idea. But this is the first time that we have that idea declared so openly in support of a measure of this kind that has been placed before the house by the government itself.
If at this time when we have reached as high a measure of stability in the international field as we shall reach for many long years

Defence Production Act to come, if at this time, when the representatives of the 60 nations which signed the United Nations charter are now gathered at San Francisco to commemorate that event with some measure of satisfaction about the stability that has been attained, if at this time we cannot return to the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law, then it is difficult to imagine when, in the lifetime of any one of us, that possibility will ever present itself.
Yes, there is an emergency, a very real emergency, but it is not the emergency suggested by the Minister of Defence Production. The emergency is the threat to our freedom, to the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law-what Clement Davies said, the steady erosion of the basic principles of parliament itself. It is for that we are fighting; it is for that we shall continue to fight, no matter what happens.
Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, may I express my satisfaction that hon. members opposite, in their courtesy, asked me to continue longer.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will not expect me to follow in length the speech which has just been made. I am not joining in the filibuster; consequently, I shall not be so long. On this side of the house many will say I have made more sense than has the hon. member who just sat down.
In so far as the bill is concerned, I took the hon. gentleman's advice over the week end and I re-read the bill mainly because I was intrigued with his description of it as a socialist measure. When I found the bill standing in the name of the Prime Minister, I hardly thought that he could be referred to as the greatest socialist in the Dominion of Canada. If the opposition is attempting to sell that bill of goods to the people of Canada, they have a hard task ahead of them, because this very bill has been on the statute books for four years with all the present powers, and the people of Canada have been glad to accept its benefits.
I welcome C.C.F. support and I expected Tory opposition. The C.C.F. are right for the wrong reasons and the Tories are wrong for the wrong reasons. As I understand the position of the official opposition, and I had occasion to reread the speeches of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), they agree that the department should be established; they do not quarrel too much with the powers of the department but they then say that the chief objection is that the powers are given in


perpetuity, and they ask that there be a review after a period of two or three years. That, in my opinion, is a tenable position and I intend to deal with it in due course.
When the opposition speak of abrogating the rights of parliament, and the denial of the rule of law, they are much beyond this bill. Let me say to hon. members, and particularly to those who are wont to use the term "perpetuity", nothing is irrevocable. Parliament gives and parliament takes, and what parliament can do parliament can undo.


Mr. Regier:: Excepting divorce.


David Arnold Croll: They may on that, too. Parliament is sovereign and the Leader of the Opposition gave us an example. I remind you of it, too. When the Labour government came into office in Britain they nationalized steel. At that time the Tories said, "When we come into power we will denationalize steel." They went to the country, they were elected and when they came back into power they denationalized steel. I wonder whether the opposition ever hopes to gain power in this country.


An hon. Member:: Never.


David Arnold Croll: It is unfortunate if they have lost hope of gaining power. As an individual I merely say they must have hope of reaching power. If they have not faith in themselves, they cannot ask the Canadian people to have faith in them.
This is their theme song. All they are doing today and all they have done for some days is to play an old record which is a little more cracked than it used to be. It is the same record they played for the War Measures Act and the Emergency Powers Act. They spoke of abrogating the rights of parliament and the denial of the rule of law. Today we hear the same old story without even a new twist to it. I should have thought they would be up to something new after all these years.


An hon. Member:: Where are those acts now?


David Arnold Croll: They are on the statute books.


George Alexander Drew: Who introduced them?


David Arnold Croll: They are there for a purpose.


Mr. Macdonnell:: What about the Emergency Powers Act?


David Arnold Croll: I may deal with that after a little while. I shall have something to say about the hon. member's views before I am through. Two appeals have been made by the Leader of the Opposition. He made one appeal direct to the people through the press. He asked that a new interest be created, and

he wanted comment. He asked that that comment go to the point where the opinion of the people would be felt. The very length of his speech was for the purpose of focusing public attention. I do not argue with him about that, as it is a perfectly proper way to deal with a subject which he considers most important.
Then, in addition, he made an appeal to Liberal members. That is a perfectly proper thing to do, but I can tell him the reaction of Liberal members. We Liberal members reflect the Canadian people, and we have a common reaction when the hon. gentleman speaks. We cannot even hear him with our good ear. His arguments fall on deaf ears, but not on closed minds.
Let us consider for a moment his appeal to the people. I saw an editorial in the Toronto Star setting out their views, but I do not think that would be a fair example since they have never been known to be particularly cordial to the hon. gentleman. On the other hand the Montreal Gazette, an old Tory paper, thought the amendment suggested by the minister was a good one. Although they gave credit to the opposition for bringing about the amendment, they thought it had achieved its purpose.
Then there was an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press which I had occasion to read. While it brings us little comfort, it can bring my hon. friend even less. Then the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Journal both had editorials which no doubt pleased the hon. gentleman. Let me say that in so far as both those papers are concerned it is something like a mother acknowledging her own child with the father saying, "That's my boy." That is about all it means.
In so far as the appeal is concerned, I am doubtful whether it has got across even to the Sergeant-at-Arms. Certainly it has not permeated into the corridors. In so far as the people of Canada are concerned, they could not care less about this present issue, because there is no real issue.
We talk about the need for these continuing emergency powers. The Leader of the Opposition says the Minister of Defence Production wants all or nothing; that he has been singing the song in this house of all or nothing. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if the Leader of the Opposition were to sing, "I've got plenty of nothing".
It appeared to me that in the debate on the defence estimates, which took place the other day, we had a complete reply to anyone who thinks there is no emergency in this country at the present time. Because the Viennese 50433-316
Defence Production Act crowds have been cheering Molotov, because some alleged experts and columnists in the United States are suggesting that there is a thaw in the cold war, is no reason we in this country should not face the actual facts.
The facts are that the Soviets have this year increased their defence expenditures. In addition they have formed a counterpart to NATO under their own General Koniev. They have in addition cancelled their alliances with Great Britain and France, and as recently as a few days ago they stated publicly that they will grant no concessions at the summit conference which is to take place in Geneva. Sir Harold Macmillan, the British foreign secretary, who spoke in New York on June 18, is reported as follows:
He warned, in a speech at the Pilgrim's society in New York, that "this is just the time when to relax would be dangerous".
And again:
"I beg of you to help us to prevent our folk from being deluded into these specious snares. For this is just the time when to relax would be dangerous, and where we might lose in a few weeks the fruits of so much effort over so many years."
Whether we can afford to drop our guard, whether we can afford to relax, is a serious decision to make. It is my view that our forces need to be kept ready for war as our diplomacy needs to be kept ready for peace. That policy has paid us dividends during the last eight years. I do not think we in Canada need a Pearl Harbor to prove the point, to make us realize the precariousness of our position and that there is a continuing state of emergency.
I do not believe it has been sufficiently emphasized in this house that for the first time in our history we can be reached directly by an enemy. We can become a battlefield. That is not a very lovely prospect. There are many of us in the house who have seen battlefields. If the two great world powers become locked in mortal combat, we may well become a Balkan state.
In the light of all this can we afford to be unprepared? The opposition says that everybody is prepared to vote powers in an emergency, but if a greater emergency comes upon us it will be too late for those powers. We want the powers to avert that possible great emergency, and that is what we are asking for at the present time. Surely no one can deny that we are living in urgent times.


An hon. Member:: You have those powers.


David Arnold Croll: We want the right to exercise them. Of course we will have the power if this bill is passed.


An hon. Member:: A red herring.
500G

Defence Production Act


David Arnold Croll: The hon. member is a better judge of red herrings than I. When we say that we are living in urgent times I ask this house. How many urgencies make an emergency? How do we know when the urgency has ceased and the emergency has begun? We are not living in normal times. There is nothing normal about the present time when we are providing munitions of war. Whereas government by hindsight may appeal to some people, it cannot appeal to this government.
When I say that we need to be prepared, I want to be quite fair. I know that many members on the opposite side of the house who have spoken in this debate have served their country well, and some gloriously, under arms. If today their bodies were as young as their tongues and their hearts, they would serve again if the call came. But I am sure they would be the first to demand that their services should be supported by a department of government with power to assure a continuing flow of essential materials and supplies under every conceivable circumstance. I do not suggest for a moment that industry has not co-operated during the war. Industry has co-operated and does co-operate. Individuals do not. This bill is for the bad boys, and it keeps the good boys good.
What in effect does the bill say? The bill says that this government through the minister can interfere with property rights in the national interest. That is the effect of the bill.


An hon. Member:: For defence purposes.


David Arnold Croll: I ask this house the same question I have asked myself many times. Do we want a minister, a representative of the people, to exercise essential powers in an emergency, or are we prepared to leave those essential powers to be exercised by the great industrialists of this country, no matter how well intentioned they are? Let me give you some examples, as the Leader of the Opposition gave you some examples. Let us take the field of electronics, a very important field. Many important and essential patents are now in use. We need them. If we do not have them, they can well retard our defence effort and in some cases nullify it.
Is there anyone who will say we do not need the power to take and use these patents and to compensate people for them? We may be needing supplies such as strategic materials which are unavailable to us in the ordinary course of business. Is there anyone who will say that we should not have the right to take and use those strategic materials, and to compensate those people? In some instances one contractor alone may be able to fulfil a contract in this country. We 

need him to do a job of work, and he may well refuse to undertake that allotted task because it is unprofitable or for some other reason. Do we not need the power to influence his decision, so that his "no" may be changed to "yes" in the national interest?
Do we not need the authority to inquire and investigate? The powers that are being asked for under this bill are the same powers that are in the Inquiries Act. We need those powers. We are spending billions of dollars, and we have invested many billions of dollars in defence industries. If something goes wrong in one of these industries, we need the authority and the power to find the reasons and remedy the situation as quickly as possible, and get production rolling. In that sense it is quite different from the ordinary commercial transaction. As an example, if Eaton's and Simpson's get into an argument, one sues the other and obtains a judgment and it is paid. We cannot use judgments with which to fight the Russians. That is not enough. We need supplies, and we need to keep these supplies moving all the time, and in that respect these powers are essential.


An hon. Member:: There is the War Measures Act.


David Arnold Croll: That is not invoked until war is actually here. When the bomb drops, that act is not going to do any good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do the Tories want the War Measures Act?


John Horace Dickey: They would like to jump from the frying pan into the fire.


Mr. Philpoti:: Mr. Speaker, I made the point the other day that at least four members of the opposition had urged the invocation of the War Measures Act in certain emergencies, and the Leader of the Opposition challenged my accuracy on that occasion.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, let us assume for a moment that there is a strike in Chile or in Rhodesia. That is our source of copper. With supplies cut off as a result, is there anyone who suggests that we should not have the right to requisition copper and compensate the people for whatever we have to take? Should we not have the power to disallow an abnormal profit, to negotiate and to take such other legal steps as are necessary?
I ask, how is parliament stifled? The opposition have said they would like to have this bill reviewed every two or three years. I said I did not think that was an unreasonable request. The hon. gentleman from Greenwood said, "Unless we get that, we will fight it out all summer". Those are not his original words, but he took credit for them, and I understood what he meant. Let me say to

the hon. gentleman that not only are we prepared to stay here all summer, but whatever time it takes to do the public business, even into the fall. I know of nothing more important that we have to do at the present time; but I ask this house, why debate this measure every two or three years? Why not every year? Why not every session? Why not every month?


An hon. Member:: You can do it every month.


David Arnold Croll: You could do this under the present amendment, and I think the house might as well know what the amendment says. You may have endless debate on this bill at every session. You may have as searching, thorough, constant, continuing and unrelenting a debate as the members of the opposition wish to make it, because the debate lies in their hands. Here is all they have to do. When an order on electronics, or on steel, or on copper, or any other order is made under the act, within seven days from the time the order is tabled 10 members of the House of Commons of any stripe can move for a debate and the debate has to take place within four days. In my opinion that is the most expeditious machinery for causing parliament to act that I have yet seen in my years in this House of Commons.
There is nothing secret about it. Nobody is hiding anything. It is for all to see, and the wool is being pulled over nobody's eyes. In so far as the opportunity of the opposition to criticize is concerned, they have never had it better than they have under this present amendment. The hon. gentleman from Greenwood referred to it as a phony olive branch, and I think he said, "What do you think we are,-suckers?"


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What would be the vote at the end of it? Would it be a free vote?


David Arnold Croll: You know the rules of parliament as well as I do. I do not see you taking advantage of free votes very often. Those phrases are a little strange coming from the hon. gentleman from Greenwood. They are very expressive and very meaningful and they are nice catch phrases. I could not find out how he got to use them until I heard the debate the other night on the library of parliament bill; At that time the secret leaked out as to the hon. gentleman's use of colloquialisms. During the debate it appeared-no doubt it is attributable to this fact-that the librarian of the great library at Oxford, where the hon. gentleman pursued his distinguished scholastic attainments, did not have the qualification of a degree of bachelor of library science. I think that is
50433-316J
Defence Production Act the reason for his colloquialism. I suppose if the psychiatrists had an opportunity to examine and study what had given rise to that use of language, they would have said that it "inferiorated" the hon. gentleman, which expression is just about as bad as the phrases he used.
Let us see what is meant by the denial of the rule of law and the abuse of power. The right hon. minister who is introducing this bill has had extraordinary powers since 1939 under the munitions and supply act. He has had these wide emergency powers under the present act since 1951. He has had these same, exact, identical powers since then. In all the debate that has taken place in this house not one single, solitary example has been given of the abuse of those powers. Not even one instance has been given. That is truly an unparalleled record.
It is said that the minister loves power. That may be so; but no one can say that he loves power for power's sake. Otherwise they would have been able to bring forward an example here to indicate abuse of power. The truth is that power opens to him the doors of opportunity for public service and he has taken advantage of it. Some powers have never been used, but business knows that he would not hesitate for a moment to use the powers conferred upon him. So here we are, five days and 41 speeches later, still debating the bill. Surely this is a filibuster if I ever saw one.
Let me just make this observation. Filibusters are foreign to our concept of the institution of government. The introduction of a United States hangover into our political institution is unwelcome; because obstruction for obstruction's sake is new to this country. As I understand British political institutions] the role of the opposition is this, and I can state it in one sentence: You state your case and you take your chances at the next election.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that what Mackenzie King did in the debate on unemployment insurance in 1934, when he took up days and days, and the Liberal party with him?


David Arnold Croll: I do not recall what he did at that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was a filibuster.


John Horace Dickey: He took his chances at the next election.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Remember what happened then, when you are talking about filibusters.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Have we no right to carry this to public opinion?


David Arnold Croll: Of course you have.
5008	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what we are trying to do.


David Arnold Croll: But it is not necessary to indulge in constant repetition for the purpose of doing so. Get some arguments on the matter. Of course you can carry it to public opinion. You can carry on a filibuster. I am not arguing about that. I am merely pointing out that you are introducing something that is new, foreign and objectionable to the Canadian scene.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are trying to carry this to public opinion. That is part of our duty.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Huey Long.


David Arnold Croll: As far as personal rights and liberty are concerned, I should like to say this. If I thought otherwise than as I have expressed myself, I would take the first opportunity to attack this measure. I have done so on other occasions and I would do it again. I have perhaps less reason to play a political part on this measure.
If this bill had within it the seeds of dictatorship instead of the seeds of bureaucracy I would not for a minute support it. There is no denying that we have a bureaucracy in this country. We find that under certain circumstances, as a result of the great amount of work involved and in order that parliament may not be bogged down, we are obliged to delegate some of our powers; and in delegating those powers we are accused of dictatorship.
I have given the reasons why I support this bill. I think there is another observation that I should make in the course of the debate. There is a little bit more to this bill than just what meets the eye. I think the hon. member for Eglinton let the cat out of the bag when he had the exchange with the minister in the early part of the debate. Whereas the opposition are speaking of the great principle that is at stake, it is obvious that this is a bold, calculated political attack. From everything that has been said, from the inflection of the voices and from the invective directed at the minister, the conclusion is inescapable that this is an attack upon the minister in which the whole party has joined, hoping in this way to gain their greatest victory and at the same time bring upon us our most inglorious retreat. Their purpose is not to divide the country nor to divide the house. Their purpose is to divide the cabinet and to isolate the minister. That is their only purpose.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: They cannot do it.


David Arnold Croll: In this instance I think fidelity to the country and fidelity to the party are


fully compatible. I recall some words once said by Sir James Barrie. He said that God gives us memory so we can have roses in December. Time and time again the minister, in his statements, in his views and in his predictions has been proved right. The minister thinks that in this present emergency we need these powers and that the opportunities for review are adequate. Those views I share with him, and for that reason I support the bill.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, I think it was when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, our good friend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) inquired of the leader of the house whether we might get through this session by the end of June. He is likely quite aware of the fact that we would all like to get out where the climate is a little more comfortable than it is here in Ottawa at the present time. At the moment, however, as far as we in this party are concerned, it looks as though we shall keep this house in session as long as possible in order to bring forward our sincere views with respect to this particular bill.


John Horace Dickey: Unrepentant filibusterer.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), because whenever he rises to speak in this house he commands attention. However, I was rather amazed at some of the remarks he made. He seemed to regret, and said so very expressively, that the press of this nation has already spoken. I think that fact may have offended him, and I am sure it must have offended the minister who is sponsoring this bill. It is needless for me to recite all these editorials that have appeared in the press across Canada. They do, Mr. Speaker, I think, share the concern that we in our party feel if such a bill as this is finally enacted.
Perhaps I need refer to only one or two. Naturally I shall not do more than just comment on what the editorials say. I refer in particular to the one in the Ottawa Citizen, which is a newspaper well known to be quite friendly to the present government of this country. This editorial seems to emphasize the fact there is no need now to lay down a permanent policy based upon a permanent crisis. When the hon. member for Spadina was speaking in his usually impressive form, he did not dwell on what I thought was the crux of this debate; that is, the need for a time limit. I quite agree with most of what he said, and I am going to comment on some of his remarks. He did not mention our main complaint, the fact that there is no

time limit. The press of this country is complaining about that, too; let there be no mistake about that.
The Citizen goes on to say that these are not the kind of regulations suitable for the Canadian economy. I think every member in the house, regardless of party, must have high regard for a statement of that sort coming from an editorial writer who supports the Liberal party in this country. Let us not overlook this statement, which appeared in that same editorial, that Canadians should be given some assurance that they are not slipping a little at a time into a state-controlled economy. I am sure the Liberals in this house do not share the views our socialist friends have. I hope most of them do not, though I believe the socialists have been referred to by some leaders of the Liberals as Liberals in a hurry. Certainly they are supporting the government on this bill because it is right down their alley.
This article in the Citizen, which is so forcible and well written, I think is one that represents the viewpoint of many people in this dominion. It goes on to say that it might be fair to grant an extension of powers such as those in this Defence Production Act for a year, two years, or three years. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what the members of my party have been asking for since the opening of this debate. We make no apology to anybody for carrying on this debate, because we are sincere in our efforts and we do hope, before the debate is concluded, that the government will finally realize they have made a mistake. We hope the government will put a time limit on this measure.
In the early part of his remarks the hon. member for Spadina said that his party reflects public opinion. I am going to say here and now that there is no party in this house that has a mandate from the people to give any one minister the powers that would be conferred by this bill. He said it was all or nothing and he quoted a song, I think, "I've got plenty of nothing".
Then, he went on to ask, can we afford to be unprepared? We agree with that; we cannot afford to be unprepared. We are not objecting to the money that is being devoted to defence expenditures in order that together with our allies we may preserve some sort of system in this world. We do not object to defence expenditures. We would like to have a better accounting of them than we are allowed to get. All we want is value for the money spent, and the taxpayers in the country expect to get value for the money spent. We need to be prepared, and we agree with that. We have said so from the
Defence Production Act beginning of this debate; we have said so ever since I have been a member of this party whenever defence expenditures came up for deliberation.
I regret to say that this afternoon the hon. member for Spadina, who is a very good friend of mine and one of the most capable members of this house, made an effort to confuse the issue, but he did not succeed. He said the government wants power to ensure a continuous supply of materials. We do not disagree with that. Why should he quarrel with that idea or throw it to the house as an original idea, except as part of his argument to confuse the issue? We never did oppose a continuous supply of materials, and we never shall. He asks whether we want the minister to direct industry, or whether we want industry to take over. Well, now, in an emergency we expect that the emergency powers will be used. Let there be no mistake about that. We expect this government or any government in power during an emergency to have the power to give direction. Our complaint is, and it will be until this debate is finished, that the government should not have those powers on a permanent basis.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Are there not going to be any more elections?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Oh, we had
one in Ontario the other day, and the C.C.F. lost a lot of ground.


Joseph William Noseworthy: What will the Tories think about it?


Joseph Warner Murphy: The Tories got over 80 members. As a matter of fact I should like to see another election tomorrow, and I am going to say something about elections later.
The hon. member for Spadina said they wanted the right to obtain strategic materials. Did we say that any minister should not have the right? Are we attacking any minister or any government because of the right to obtain strategic materials. The hon. member said they wanted the power to investigate. We are willing that they should have the power to investigate, but we do not want those snoopers around such as we had during the last war, who were about as well qualified to perform their duties as-I shall not make any comparison, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes you have to call me to order for my conservative expressions. He says they may want copper from Chile. We are quite willing that the minister have the power to get all the copper he wants from any nation. As a matter of fact we are producing many raw

Defence Production Act materials today in this country that we would like to sell. We would like to have the government use them.
The hon. member says there has been an endless debate on this bill, and he objects to the continuation of the debate. He says the purpose is to divide the cabinet. Let me tell him that the cabinet is "frozen in futility and divided in disunity". Let there be no mistake about that. I sometimes wonder-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Every member of the cabinet now in the house thinks the same way.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes; you
mean about being divided. Well, we have one minister of the crown in the chamber at the present time, and for a while this afternoon we had two of them. During the course of the debate we have certainly had one part of the time, but the other ministers do not seem to feel called upon to be here.


Mr. Hosking:: You could not blame them for not listening to this drivel.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It is common gossip that they do not seem to be in accord so far as this bill is concerned. However, the minister is determined, as his last and final act, to get this thing through. I do not know for whom he is forcing it through. I do not know whether he has some person in mind who is to take over his portfolio.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I'll be here after you are, brother.


Joseph Warner Murphy: You and I
have been here together quite a while. I acknowledge and respect the ability of the minister. We have had quite a few clashes, but that does not take away from my respect for him. In fact he helps me out; and I hope at the next election he will come down to my riding and have me introduce him.
But as I look across at the treasury benches I am wondering what the minister has in mind. To whom is he going to give these powers? I cannot see anyone, with perhaps one exception. It may be that there is one over there who would like to take over from the present minister, and that is of course the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) who slithered onto the government benches off the slippery bow of a fishing boat on the east coast. He must have landed on an ant hill, because ever since coming to the House of Commons he has been squirming. He claims to be an historian. That may be his qualification for this particular portfolio.
We know, too, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has several degrees, and that he brags about them. Is he the

minister who is to take over these responsibilities? The people want to know who is going to take over this job.


Henry Alfred Hosking: It will not be you.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Oh, I am not
concerned about you little fellows from Ontario. You got your licking the other day. However, there is nothing I like better than to be interrupted.
I was referring to the responsibilities of this portfolio, and who will take over. Apparently the Minister of Defence Production is not to be the one, because it is common gossip that he will quit in October.


Mr. Cavers:: Wishful thinking.


Joseph Warner Murphy: This is a
strange measure-


Henry Alfred Hosking: You will be wrong again.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Well, I would not be wrong twice, because we were not wrong in Ontario. You will recall that we were not wrong there.
Coming back to these degrees required by a minister to take over such responsibility, I hope I may be permitted to tell a joke which concerned Hon. George W. Ross. Some of the lawyers in the house may appreciate it. He was called before the law society and, in passing, it will be recalled that he was at one time the distinguished leader of a political party in Ontario. When called before the law society he was to be given the degree of bachelor of law. Hon. members will keep in mind that this is just a story, and that it may or may not be true. When called before the benchers of the law society they said, "Sir George, you will have to answer questions asked by the benchers of the law society." He said, "Yes, I agree to do that". The treasurer, who was chairman, said, "Mr. Ross, what do you know about law?" To this Mr. Ross replied, "I don't know a damn thing about law." So it was recorded in the annals of the law society that Sir George, having appeared before the law society and having been questioned and having answered correctly, was given the degree of LL.D.
I just had that in mind when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was boasting about the degrees he had, and I was wondering if he was the one the Minister of Defence Production had in mind. But he is not the only minister in the cabinet who would want these powers.


James Sinclair: Is this the library bill we are discussing?


Joseph Warner Murphy: We in this party are prepared to see that a department

of government has the necessary power to take care of our defence purchasing. We admit as readily as anybody else that we are not facing a pleasant situation today. It is unfortunate that we have to spend two billion dollars each year for defence, but we cannot help it. We are hopeful that this may not be a permanent condition. However, while it exists we are prepared to admit that some department of government should have the power necessary to keep us in a position where we can accept our proper responsibilities as one of the allies for the preservation of democracy in this world.
I have been greatly surprised at the change shown by the C.C.F. since the resolution was introduced. I believe it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who said, as reported at pages 1996 and 1997 of Hansard, that there should be a time limit. I am not quoting exactly but I believe that is what he said, in substance. We in the official opposition, after making the proposal to the government that there should be a time limit, expected the government would pay some attention. If it had, this debate would not be continuing as it is now. Naturally we would object to some of the proposals in the bill.
Our objections were fully covered with exceptional skill by the hon. member for Eglinton and again today by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not intend to deal at length with those matters at the moment, but in common with other members of this party I object to the dictatorial powers set out in the bill. While I do not intend to comment in detail, I would call attention to section 5 of the act, where it says:
The minister may authorize any person, on his behalf and under his control and direction, to do any act or thing or to exercise any power that the minister may do or exercise under this act.
Then section 7 (3) is one which must concern many hon. members and many people throughout Canada. It says:
The minister may remove any members, directors or officers of a corporation incorporated under this section at any time and may appoint others in their stead or may appoint additional persons as members.
True, he has never exercised such powers in the past; but there they are. There is the pattern, set according to the C.C.F. philosophy, which would certainly be adopted by them if they ever formed a government, although we share the opinion of hon. members in the Liberal party that they will never have that opportunity.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes.
Defence Production Act


George James McIlraith: The section from which the member has quoted says the minister may remove directors. In privately owned companies the shareholders and the owners may remove directors. In the companies to which the hon. member has been referring, companies set up with public funds, how would he delegate the power to remove directors? Would he take those powers away altogether?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Well, Mr. Speaker, in this particular section there is nothing the minister cannot do.


George James McIlraith: How would you do it?


Joseph Warner Murphy: With respect to the economy of this nation-


John Horace Dickey: How would you solve the particular problem if it were put before you?


Joseph Warner Murphy: The senior member for Halifax made his speech the other day, and if he wants another opportunity we shall likely provide it for him a little later in the debate.


John Horace Dickey: Why do you not deal with the problems that are put before you, instead of just making a set speech?


Joseph Warner Murphy: I have not time to deal with it at length.


John Horace Dickey: You could have eliminated a great deal of what you have said already. A useful elimination would have improved your speech.


Joseph Warner Murphy: So many sections of this bill give the minister power instead of the cabinet that I am quite sure it must be very disturbing to thinking people of this country. In section 9 exclusive authority is given the minister to buy or otherwise acquire defence supplies and construct defence projects required by the Department of National Defence, and so on. Section 15 is rather amazing. The minister has power to acquire, utilize, store, transport, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of defence supplies.
Without any doubt this bill is a challenge to the Conservative party. I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that we Conservatives are not going to be content to sit idly by and watch the twilight of freedom darken into a totalitarian night under this or any other government which advocates such ideas and gives such powers to any minister.
This minister demands all or nothing, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister has said there should be a time limit. The Minister of Defence Production has also said there should be a time limit, but apparently

Defence Production Act a change has come about in somebody's thinking. It certainly must be in the minister's, because he defies his own cabinet, he defies his own Prime Minister and he defies parliament. He says, "I will tell you when this thing is going to be terminated; nobody is going to tell me, including my own Prime Minister". That is on the record, Mr. Speaker. I do not like to see that sort of thing on the record; I do not like to see that kind of remark made by any minister, whether he be a junior or senior minister.
I challenge this government. I say to them, if you think you have a mandate to pass this bill giving the minister such dictatorial powers, go to the country and get a mandate. I challenge you now, go to the country, have an election, and let the people tell you whether you are going to give one minister such dictatorial powers as are contained in the Defence Production Act. Go to the country. You will come back, but you will not form the government, I tell you that. You claimed a moment ago that you had a mandate. You have no mandate.


Mr. Hellyer:: If we did that you would not have a corporal's guard.


Joseph Warner Murphy: You never had a mandate. I probably would not smoke the same kind you smoke.


Mr. McCubbin:: You mixed that up.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I said a while ago that you have no mandate, and I have also commented upon-


John Horace Dickey: There is more of a smokescreen than fire in this speech.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I like comments such as that from the little member for Halifax. I respect his interruptions.


Mr. Cardiff:: He is the senior junior.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Is that it?
Before I conclude my remarks I want to put this on the record. I have challenged the government to go to the country. Get going. The last time you had an election in August. Have this one in September; any time after September 16 would be fine. If hon. members opposite have not read the July issue of the Reader's Digest I hope they get it, because I am going to read a little excerpt from it. It will be found on page 53. This was written by Curtis Bok, and reads as follows:
In one of his books, Curtis Bok recounted the historical fact that in one section of ancient Greece it was long the custom that when a man proposed a law in the popular assembly, he did so on a platform with a rope around his neck.

This is in quotation marks:
If his law passed, they removed the rope; and if it failed, they removed the platform.
The minister is determined to get all these powers. I never saw anybody so eager for something which was not necessary as the minister is for these particular powers. It reminds me of the statement of a squaw.
I am not comparing the minister with a squaw, but when she was talking about whisky she said: "A little too much is just right."


John Horace Dickey: Next joke, please.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The hon. member for Halifax must have got that. I knew the others would not catch it. The minister is hiding behind the skirts of the Prime Minister. He comes to this house like the ancient Athenian, standing on a platform with a rope around his neck. He says it is all or nothing. He says: "I will decide the emergency." In other words, he says "I live or die as a public figure on the proposition that this act must be accepted in toto or rejected in toto." That is what it is.
My esteem of the minister is already on record. Most of the speeches that have been made by members of the Liberal party have added nothing but praise of the minister, and of course that is repetition. Since I am already on record concerning my esteem for him, I do not need to repeat it. What we must keep in mind is that while we have a high regard for a particular person, the same person can make a lot of mistakes and the minister himself is no exception. As a matter of fact, for years he argued that crown companies should not be taxed, or they should not make payments in lieu of taxes. He did that persistently, perhaps because I was the only member in the house who advocated it. Finally he was apparently overruled by his associates. They had more effect then than they have today, because in 1949 the government introduced a formula respecting crown companies which concerned the Minister of Defence Production inasmuch as it was exactly contrary to his persuasive eloquence and opinions for years prior.
As a result of the formula which was announced by the government, this year the city of Sarnia will probably get $280,000. He was certainly wrong then, because the government adopted the formula which should have been adopted years before. The same minister certainly cannot claim he was right with respect to the arguments we had in this house concerning sugar beets some two or three years ago, when his temper flared and he was quite white, as he usually is when attacked; and at that time he was much perturbed.

As a matter of fact, we do not have to go back that far, Mr. Speaker. I had a resolution on the order paper calling for the setting up of a committee on research, suggesting that the government should accelerate research in this country. A year ago I did not have the opportunity to discuss it because of collaboration in the house. On February 3 the same minister to whom we are asked to give all these powers today said, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), "We shall set up a committee on atomic energy and research generally." He put the motion on the order paper but a few days ago said they are not going to set up the committee, and blamed the opposition for it.
The committee could have been set up in February, and it could have been set up a year ago. I realize, I am complimented to think, that the government recognized my arguments over the years for this research committee and more research in Canada when the minister put on the order paper the motion to set up a committee on research and atomic energy.
Of course that is not relevant to this debate. I cannot discuss anything about research.
I was glad to note that the Minister of Finance indicated in his budget speech that a royal commission to study the economy of this country would be set up. Only the other day the Prime Minister announced the membership of that commission. It is important to appreciate that the functions of that commission will be very important, and as a matter of fact are what we had in mind in asking for a committee on research.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member prefaced his remarks by saying he would be out of order if he discussed research, and then he proceeded to do so. I think he has been extended every latitude and perhaps now he might come back to the principle of this bill.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member is just normally confused.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am glad I am not like the hon. member. He says I am normally confused, but I would much rather be that than be abnormally confused. His interpretation reminds me of some eastern philosophy I read a few years ago:
I never saw a purple cow,
I never hope to see one;
But I can tell you, anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one.
I appreciate Your Honour directing my attention to my slight infringement of the 50433-317
Defence Production Act rules. I had hoped as a matter of fact that I might have been infringing the rules from the time I started.
The stand of the official opposition has already been indicated by the hon. member for Eglinton and again today by my leader. Several other members of my party have given our reasons for taking the stand we do. What is alarming to me is that as yet no member on the government side has given any reason why these powers should be granted for an unlimited time. I can understand the C.C.F. supporting this bill, and it is not at all unexpected to see the government members supporting it because when the minister says he wants it they just pop up and do what they are told. It is just the same as when the library bill came up. The minister sponsoring that bill stood up and said he would not accept the amendment. He shook his head, with the hair combed like Hitler's, and then he squirmed, although he does not squirm so much when he is standing up as when he is sitting down.
I asked him how many paintings had been purchased by the national gallery and the minister replied that it would take weeks to find out. I could take two secretaries and any member of the house and get the information in two or three days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member is ready to do that I shall be only too delighted to have him do so.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am glad the minister is so obliging. We want that information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Send your two secretaries along.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Even with the assistance of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I think we should not continue with this portion of the debate. I believe we had better get back to the principle of the bill.


Joseph Warner Murphy: These interruptions disturb my continuity of thought. The stand of our party has been amply stated. The war in Korea justified the special defence measures that were taken in 1951. While we opposed the powers that were granted at that time, as Canadian citizens we felt there should be no hesitancy in granting those powers but with a time limit.
Notwithstanding what the minister says, I do not think we are faced today with the crisis we were faced with in 1951. This is borne out by the statements of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)

Defence Production Act and Sir Anthony Eden. The extraordinary powers which are to be conferred upon the minister seem to go beyond what was required in wartime. During the war the War Measures Act was in effect and that conferred almost unlimited powers upon the governor in council.
Several suggestions have been made. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) suggested the other day that certain sections in the act be amended in such a way that some of the extraordinary powers would terminate at a specified time. That suggestion was made previously by other members of our party, but it was worth repeating. He suggested also that the expiry date be advanced by one to three years. The third suggestion put forward was that the act be split so the department could be made permanent-something on which there is general agreement-while the rest of the act would terminate unless periodically renewed by parliament.
We say the emergency is not as great now as it was in 1951. If war did come suddenly we have acts on the statute books to take care of the situation. Even if this act were passed with a time limit and with more limited powers, it would be in effect. Therefore we are not obstructing any action that would have to be taken by this government to put us in a position to accept our proper responsibilities.
There is no real need for the special and extraordinary powers contained in the act. Absolutely no reason has been given why there should not be a time limit if the act is continued. The unavoidable conclusion is that the real reason for this bill is the determination of the minister to hold on indefinitely to dictatorial powers.
I say in conclusion that it looks like the minister's last important act is to defy parliament and the other members of the cabinet.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) interested me particularly because of the loudness and vigour with which he put forth his challenge to the government to go to the country. My interest arose particularly from the fact that he failed completely to appreciate the humour of the situation. What is more serious is the fact that the subject matter before the house at the moment is not one that warrants humorous treatment. The challenge on the part of the official opposition that the government go to the country now on this issue is not to be taken seriously, but it would be interesting to observe how many of the official opposition would defend the government for calling an election at this time on this issue-


An hon. Member:: We would welcome it.


George James McIlraith: -and go out and explain to the public that it would be a proper use of public funds to have an election on this issue two years after the last election. Near the end of his speech, the hon. member told a great many stories. I confess frankly I was not able to get the point of many of them, but I do not necessarily blame him for that as it may be that I was not equal to finding the humour in them. However, I can claim no distinction for that. It seems that practically every member of the house was in the same position. But he did say that the stand of his party had been amply stated, after some 30 minutes of story telling. I think that is the true position respecting the stand of the party on this bill, as was exemplified from the beginning in the speech of the hon. member for Eglinton. I must tell him that I did him the honour of rereading that speech twice. It took 101 minutes to deliver, and it was not one of the hon. member's better efforts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Some Liberals have told me it was-the real Liberals.


George James McIlraith: It is notable for its repetition and lack of relevance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was certainly an effort.


George James McIlraith: On the last day this bill was discussed and again today we had the effort of the Leader of the Opposition. I took the trouble to refresh my memory from some notes I made at the time he was speaking, and it is very interesting on analysing that speech to note how much time the hon. gentleman-who does hold an honourable position in this house as Leader of the Opposition, a position which I respect and believe is of real importance under our system-took trying to take advantage of interjections to make smart retorts and irrelevant comments about irrelevant subjects.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about all the smart and irrelevant interruptions that came from the other side?


George James McIlraith: They were not ignored, I can tell you. It is very interesting to see on checking over my notes-and I am sure Hansard will bear me out-that the greater part of that speech was not addressed to the bill but to the rather free-swinging language with the members in general.
That is the privilege of the Leader of the Opposition. It certainly takes up time, and it may be proper for him to use the time he has in debate in that way. He must be the judge of the propriety of using it in that way.

He did at times deal with the bill; he read some of it. I leave that part of his speech with the suggestion that hon. members on all sides of the house check Hansard carefully, and check the Defence Production Act, and note the number of times the limiting clause in the relevant section was omitted. I am quite sure that if hon. members do that, they will dispose of the effort of the Leader of the Opposition very quickly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Give us those clauses.


George James McIlraith: I shall come to some of the specific sections in a few minutes. I am quite sure that while we heard from him a great deal about the supremacy of parliament, no effort was made to relate the bill to any breach of that principle.
We noted at the same time his appeal directly to the press, not through the Speaker. That, again, is his privilege. If he wishes to do that, he may. I still think it is not quite a parliamentary method, but if he chooses to use it, it is quite proper to do so. But I am quite sure if those same editors to whom he addressed so many of his remarks, and whose opinions he valued so highly, will read his remarks when they have a copy of the act before them, and read those parts of the sections he quoted as against the whole sections from which he was quoting, they will know how to deal with him, and will be able to deal with him much more effectively than I could deal with him.
I feel that the treatment of this subject has gotten out of context altogether. It is not one that should be batted back and forth as a jocular subject. I could not help noting from the interjections of the official opposition and from reading and listening to the remarks of many who spoke, that they seemed to be thinking about defence procurement in terms of the first great war. It was so apparent that they had not brought their thinking about what is involved in defence procurement up to date. The speaker immediately preceding me spoke about an abundance of materials in this country which one can now buy readily. However, defence procurement is no longer a matter of buying ready-made goods off the shelf. It is a vast enterprise involving the organization of industry for the production of very complex and very involved equipment.
I am frank to tell hon. members that I have found it very difficult on occasion to appreciate the complexity of some of the equipment. Perhaps no better illustration of that can be found than in the matter of ship procurement. It used to be that one 50433-3174
Defence Production Act looked mainly at a hull, and it was another shipbuilding job. Now there is such a mass of electronic equipment involved that certainly any limited comprehension I have of a technical subject like that is strained to understand even the most elementary things about such equipment. It takes a matter of three years to procure such articles.
The field of radar is one in which Canadians can take very great pride, for the Canadian effort in radar has been not inconsiderable. When you examine into some of the electronic devices and what is required to produce them, you realize that, after an emergency arises or a war begins, it is not just a matter of going out and buying them; it is a matter of intensive effort three or four years preceding the time that equipment is required.
Then when you deal with the procurement of aircraft and examine into the type of metals required, you find a degree of quality required in those metals that was not thought of even in 1951, when this bill was previously up for discussion. Those types of metals are neither developed nor produced, nor are the other engineering problems involved in putting them into the finished article worked out after an outbreak of war, if that equipment is to be of any use in any such war.
Then when you deal with the subject of our defence, it is no longer a matter, as it was 30 or 40 years ago, of a declaration of war followed by a slow-moving process, according to today's standards. The whole concept is so changed that it is difficult, I would respectfully suggest, for the best of minds to understand the revolution in the technique of war that has taken place ever since the conclusion of the last war 10 years ago. Any study of thermonuclear and other types of weapons and possible defence against their use challenges the imagination. I respectfully suggest that hon. members opposite have not brought their thinking sufficiently up to date on the whole matter of defence procurement or what is required today to defend ourselves.


Mr. Trainor:: Are you dependent on yourself for that information?


George James McIlraith: I am entitled to draw my conclusions from the debate, from observing and listening to hon. members opposite. I am entitled to deal with the speeches they make and to show wherein I think they are wrong. That is the way our system functions.
If hon. members opposite had been really concerned with the supremacy of parliament, I respectfully suggest they would have developed debate on the subject matter before the house; they would have tried to deal with
501$

Defence Production Act the issues I am outlining and to express their views on them. It may well be that I would differ with their views, but at least we would have them following the traditional parliamentary methods of expressing and discussing those views.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member really believe that these powers should be made permanent?


George James McIlraith: Yes. I shall come to that matter in a moment. I must say that the Social Credit party made their position clear. It seemed to me they were not using the right remedy to support their ideas, but at least they did the house the honour of clearly expressing their views. I happen to disagree with part of them, but they were clearly expressed.
To deal with the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, I would point out that he dwelt at great length on the phrases "the supremacy of parliament" and "the rule of law". He kept asserting and reasserting those phrases. However, he did not make any attempt to show wherein this act violated the supremacy of parliament or the rule of law. Two or three times I interjected while he was speaking, as Hansard will indicate, and also during the remarks of earlier speakers, asking what section they felt violated those rules.
It is extremely interesting just to look at the bill and see what is provided, because I could get no answer from them. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Lambton West made much of section
7.	That section gives the minister-and by the way, any legislation setting up a department gives the minister authority to exercise the power in the name of the department- the right to remove directors of a company or corporation incorporated under the Defence Production Act. It gives him that power. In any company the shareholders pretty well have the power-at least they try to have it-to control. They own the company, and in most companies they have the control. Here we have a public company created for the purpose of carrying out the procurement of certain defence supplies, where the crown or the taxpayers are the owners of the company.
Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the hon. member for Lambton West, when they attacked the power of the minister to remove any director of such a company, said how they would have the interest of the


public protected. Is that not an extraordinary position to take? In some way it is a violation of the rule of law if you permit the government to protect the taxpayers' money or-and I am not sure about this-maybe it is a violation of the supremacy of parliament. That is the extraordinary position in which they have put themselves.
Then you go on with some of the other sections of the act, and you find this about the violation of the rule of law. They read section 22 which provides for an appeal to the exchequer court. It reads as follows:
22. (1) A person affected by an order or direction made by the minister under section 21 . . .
And so on. He may appeal to the exchequer court. Where does that provision violate the rule of law? Do not we in this country believe that disputes between citizens or between citizens and the crown are to be settled by the courts? Where is the violation there?
Then they criticize some of the other sections. They talk about section 24, which is another section giving to a person who feels he has a grievance the right to appeal to the exchequer court. So you may go on all the way through the bill and find references, in case of dispute, to the exchequer court. None of the hon. members opposite have pointed out precisely what their objection is to that reference of disputes to the court.
There is one other matter in connection with the bill that I should like to mention. Much has been made of the right of the crown to appoint a controller. A great to-do was made about that matter today by the Leader of the Opposition. I should just like to draw to the attention of hon. members what the Leader of the Opposition omitted to read in dealing with that subject. The hon. member for Greenwood a few days ago, when speaking on the subject, omitted to read it but on that occasion I interjected and had it put on Hansard. Section 27 starts off in this way:
27. (1) Where the minister is satisfied that
(a) a person who has entered into a defence contract has failed or is likely to fail to perform the contract in a businesslike and efficient manner.-
Then the powers are given. But that limitation is there. The reference is to a defence contractor who "has failed or is likely to fail".
We on the government side were asked many times by speakers of the official opposition to assume our responsibility under this act. In the light of the difficulties of defence procurement, because of the materials required, I wonder what hon. member is willing today to take away from the government the right to step into the plant of a defence contractor when that defence contractor has failed to deliver the goods? Surely

the position is just the opposite to that stated by the Leader of the Opposition.
Then in the list of powers which the Leader of the Opposition read today, he omitted reference to a similar limitation. Of course that is a rather important omission. If hon. members will look at section 31 they will find that it gives the governor in council certain powers. Section 31 reads:
31. (1) The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he deems necessary to control and regulate the production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition or use of essential materials or the supply or use of essential services for the purposes of
(a) ensuring the availability of defence supplies or the construction or operation of defence projects for the defence requirements of Canada and for co-operative arrangements for defence being carried on by Canada and associated governments; . . .
Subsection 2 says-and this was the section the Leader of the Opposition made so much of this morning-
Subject to the regulations, if any, the minister may by order, as he deems necessary for the purposes specified in subsection (1) -
That is the limitation on his powers, and that limitation is not to be found in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition this morning.
A question then arises as to the exercise of the responsibility of a member of the House of Commons. It was quite proper for the Leader of the Opposition to ask members on the government side to be very careful how they exercised their responsibility as members. It was quite a proper appeal, but I wondered why he did not include his own supporters in that appeal.
Let me point out that anyone who considers this subject, and considers it carefully, is not likely to support the stand of the official opposition on this bill. Anyone who does consider that responsibility is likely to want the very best defence procurement we can get in this country. He is going to want, in order to achieve that purpose, the government authority exercising that responsibility to have such powers as will enable him to have all the defence potential of the country mobilized. He is going to want the defence authority exercising that power to have the authority to put in a controller and use the machinery and equipment of any defence contractor who fails to produce as required.
You know, it is a matter of concern these days as to whether we shall have enough defence, and in time. The whole concept of time has changed, and the idea repeatedly expressed in the words of some members of the opposition that "if the emergency arises we will give you the authority" is almost
Defence Production Act pathetic in that it reveals a failure to understand the concept of time necessary in this day and age.
There is one other thing. The language today from the official opposition is a little more moderate. They were concerned about the rights of citizens. Indeed, we had many splendid excerpts from good writers on that subject read to us by members of the opposition. Some of them read well and some of them read not so well, but some of the excerpts read on that subject were excellent. They were completely irrelevant.
I could not help but wonder why the official opposition, on this bill having to do with the use of property and not with the liberty of the subject, were concerned about the freedom of the individual. If they are sincere, and I must assume that they are, why did they choose this bill that has to do with the use of property-and not the use of property generally but the use of property with respect to defence materials and defence equipment only-as the battleground on which to make their stand? One wonders, and one can only hope that the great Conservative party can rise to a better standard of judgment than to choose a bill having to do with authority to use property for the production of defence equipment as the ground on which to fight the battle for human freedom.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I noticed that all hon. members opposite, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, seemed repeatedly to make personal references, for example to the absence of the Prime Minister. This reference is on Hansard many times today. The Leader of the Opposition of course did make reference at one point to the fact the Prime Minister was absent dealing with the heads of the provinces in an important dominion-provincial matter. I think all hon. members in the opposition, as well as on this side of the house, will agree that is the proper place for him to be on this occasion.
The other evening when one of the members was making that same observation, it was rather interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition was out of the chamber at the same time. Is this the real purpose, an attempt to attack the ministers personally?
I hope it is not. If it is, of course it is quite within the rules of the house and quite proper to attack them. I am quite sure that one at least of the ministers under discussion is well able to defend himself. I recall previous attacks at a time when I was more closely associated with the Minister of Defence Production than I am now. I know of no one in the house better able to defend himself than

Defence Production Act that minister. I recall the Leader of the Opposition raising the same kind of debate on the North Star aircraft.


James Sinclair: We had an election on that, did we not?


George James McIlraith: At that time the debate revealed a complete lack of comprehension of the subject matter by the Leader of the Opposition, just as this debate does. In any event, that is not what I intended to discuss. What I wanted to say is this. It has not been my habit to speak frequently in the house, but I have had an opportunity not given to many members of working in a junior and humble capacity in connection with the procurement of defence materials. I know something of the difficulties of such procurement, and if I may interject a personal note, I did go through that period and can appreciate the tremendous capacity of the minister responsible for that effort now, and of the publicspiritedness of that effort.
We in Canada are particularly fortunate in having had our defence procurement effort marshalled and administered during the last years by the Minister of Defence Production. I think that indirect attempts to belittle that effort, while they are perfectly within the rules of the house, are not conducive to an appreciation of the subject matter before the house.
Several times, Mr. Speaker, I have been asked if I intend to support this bill. I certainly intend to	support it,	because	Ithink it is a measure that is most necessary and urgent. To those hon. members who ask why not bring it on next July I say, have they thought about organizing a department on a permanent basis on the promise to bring forward a bill next July? Surely now is the proper time to deal with this subject matter. Surely now is the time we should have this subject dealt with. Surely the way to have it dealt with	is	through	debate	inparliament-not by threats that we shall be here until the end	of	July or	August	ifwe do not fall into line with the wishes expressed by opposition members. Surely the proper way is to have a full discussion and debate of all the arguments both for and against the bill. Surely also there is no abrogation of the rule	of law	if in any
possible dispute there is the right to go to the exchequer court.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill with considerable enthusiasm, because I believe it does not in any way give unnecessary powers. I believe it preserves the rule of law. I believe it was drafted in such a way as to protect the rule of law and to protect the supremacy of parliament.

It is interesting to note that on June 13, at the opening of the day's proceedings, a proposal for an amendment was offered by the minister. It was an amendment that would give very extraordinary powers to any 10 members-not to members of the government who have the responsibility, but to any 10 members-to bring any control power before parliament. Is that a violation of the supremacy of parliament? Is the provision for having all the estimates voted by the house a violation of the supremacy of parliament?
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if hon. members will think this thing through and will examine it carefully they will come to the conclusion that this is a proper bill to come before us now, and that it should have their support.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Howe versus Howe.


William Marvin Howe: Defence Production Act freedoms we hold so dear. Let me quote from Dr. Charles Malik, Lebanese statesman and rapporteur for the United Nations commission on human rights, as follows:
In this age of spreading socialism it is difficult to champion the cause of freedom; it is difficult to shout from the housetops that man cannot be absorbed by society, that he is by nature free to think, free to choose, free to rebel against his own society, or indeed against the whole world, if it is in the wrong. But unless we succeed in preserving and promoting man's inalienable freedom, we shall have traded away his dignity, and we shall have destroyed his worth.
He goes on to say that one of our freedoms is exemption from arbitrary control. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is why we are interested in this legislation; that is why we are debating it at such length; that is why we feel it is a danger to our freedom and to the democratic systems of our country.
What remarks have been made in support of one of the reasons they have given that the legislation is necessary. I am quoting from the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron), on June 8 as reported at page 4547 of Hansard:
It was not labour that went out on strike; it was capital that went on strike in 1939, and that was prepared to let Canada go down the drain if they could not have the terms they wanted from the government and people of this country.
I declare, Mr. Speaker, that 10 years after we finished one of the greatest wars this world has ever known, this statement is a direct affront to the teamwork that was shown in this country by industry, by capital, by the people themselves, and by agricultural organizations, that made possible the great contribution to our war effort. It was one of the greatest things this country has ever done. The statement of the hon. member was a direct affront to these people. The fact that this legislation is being put into force is a great affront to our great industrial leaders today, to the leaders of capital, of finance, of manufacturing, of the labour unions, and of agriculture.
Why do not some of the Liberal members rise in their places and speak on behalf of their own manufacturing organizations? Do you believe they want to have their organizations taken over under legislation of this kind in case of an emergency? Do you believe they are going to think well of this? I do not think they are. Some of them had better start thinking about it, too.
One other thing came to my mind with regard to this legislation. We are proud of our freedom and of our democratic way of life. We are proud of the things we have accomplished. We are proud of our humanitarian effort. We think some other things are

necessary. We set up organizations such as the Colombo plan. We give money to the United Nations for relief in the countries of the East and the Far East. We go over there to give them help.
Last year when we debated this question in the house, what was said? Part of our reason was humanitarian. The other reason was that we had a better way of life, that our democracy was greater, that our freedoms were more widespread than theirs. What are we going to do now? Are we going to lose face? Here we have legislation giving to one individual extraordinary powers. When they see that what are they going to say? Will they not say, where is your democracy now? Where is your great freedom? Where are the things you hold so dear? What are they going to say in the face of that? Somebody has said that this is the 41st or 42nd speech. It may be the 43rd, 44th or 45th. What is the reason for it? The minister has said he is not going to make any change, though he made a token change the other day.
Do you feel he is indestructible? Do you believe that he is always going to be there to carry on under this particular legislation? Is he willing to see somebody else carry it on? Some wonderful things have been said about the minister in the last few days. Probably he is well-deserving of them. What about his successor? Is he going to be able to carry on?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You agree he has a good name.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is time for outspoken leadership, for a clear declaration of policy and a reaffirmation of our faith in democracy. Therefore I have great pleasure in indicating that I am going to oppose this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
the house ready for the question?


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brani-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, whether this is the 42nd, 43rd or 44th speech, I make no apology for taking the time of the house at this time because I feel this is the most important debate that has taken place in this chamber for quite some time.
The hon. member for Spadina asked today, what are you worrying about; we have every opportunity in the world each year to debate this bill. Well, it is my understanding, according to the amendment the minister announced the other night, that any 10 members can indicate their wish to debate an order in council that has been passed. That is one thing. But would you, Mr. Speaker, allow a debate to take place on the entire

bill if the demand was to debate the one order in council? I believe not. I think the debate would be restricted to the particular order in council which was under discussion at that time.
This afternoon or this morning the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seemed to indicate that he did not understand how other things besides weapons of war could be called defence materials. I can assure the hon. member that, as a farmer, I know food is one of the greatest defence weapons we have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question so we can clear up the matter?
I had no doubt in my mind as to what were defence materials. My point was that the government could exercise those powers only in relation to defence needs.


John Alpheus Charlton: Would the hon. member
suggest that if a certain food became scarce in this country the government might not say that was part of the defence need, and would take over control of that particular food?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What would the hon. member do in regard to defence needs, with regard to food or supplies of any kind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let the army starve.


John Alpheus Charlton: Let me make it perfectly clear that we have never at any time tried to curtail the minister in any way in an emergency. When this bill was passed originally in 1951 we did not vote against it; we supported the minister at that time, a time of severe emergency.
We are objecting to section 2 of this bill, which gives the minister powers on a permanent basis. As was pointed out by my leader this morning, the best argument we have against this bill was the very argument that the government themselves used back in 1951 when this bill was first passed, namely that some of the special powers contained in the bill should not be of a continuing nature. They admitted that when the bill was first passed in 1951.
Very few ministers besides the Minister of Defence Production have agreed that there is a greater emergency at this time than there was in 1951. I believe he is the only minister who suggests that. Certainly the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not believe that; the Prime Minister does not believe that, and the Minister of National Defence does not appear to believe that. It leaves the Minister of Defence Production practically alone in stating that the emergency is worse now than it was in 1951.
Defence Production Act
As I said before, we are not objecting to powers being given at a time of emergency; what we are objecting to are these powers being made permanent and placed in the hands of one minister. The minister has been in receipt of many compliments, and I would not like to be different. In many ways he has done a good job, but he will not be with us always. I do not suggest that any man cannot be replaced with somebody just as good, but that is the chance we are taking.
We might as well agree that this type of legislation is the first step toward socialism.
I think most hon. members on the other side will agree with that. We have no objection to the first part of the bill setting up the department on a permanent basis and increasing the salary of the minister from $10,000 to $15,000. I can understand why the minister would want to have the department on a permanent basis in order to retain the members of it, but surely their reason for wanting to remain on the job cannot be said to be the same as the minister's. Are they demanding to have all these powers contained in the bill before they stay in the department. Why does the minister insist on these powers being permanent? What possible reason can he give for making these powers permanent?


Elmore Philpott: He gave it in the first paragraph of his speech.


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member made his speech and I wonder if he will let me make mine. We know the minister does not like to be bothered with parliament. He likes to get things done. He does not like to answer questions in the house. He probably does not want to be bothered with a lot of red tape that would hold him back in his business of doing the job. The minister offered an amendment to the house the other day but, as I said before, that debate would be directed at only one order in council, or probably two or three.
What happens when we cannot get answers to the questions we ask? On various occasions we have tried to get answers to questions, but the government has hidden behind the secrecy provision and has said that it is not in the best interests of the country that questions having to do with defence should be answered. How will we get questions answered if the minister will not answer them?
Surely parliament should decide periodically whether these powers are to be continued. Of course the minister does not agree with that, and in that connection I should



Defence Production Act like to quote from page 4542 of Hansard of June 8, where he is reported as follows:
Mr. Speaker, may I point out to my hon. friend that in 1947 I liquidated an act with powers equal to this, because I did not think it was needed any more. It would have remained liquidated except for another emergency. When this emergency is through we may wish to liquidate this act. I do not propose to be told now by any hon. member just when I will liquidate it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Hear, hear.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is the attitude of the minister; he says he is not going to be told. Now he says, "hear, hear", which is another indication of his utter disregard for parliament and the members of the House of Commons. Members of this house, in my opinion should be the ones to decide when there is an emergency and how long that emergency may last.
The attitude of the minister has been similar on other occasions. The first occasion was in connection with his statement of "What's a million?". Another case was the gold-plated piano for the defence department. The minister said that if they wanted a gold-plated piano he would give it to them. Then there was the other case where he said, "Who is going to stop us?" Now we have the minister saying, "It is all or nothing."
I could expect the C.C.F. party to go all out for this type of legislation. They think it is wonderful because some day they hope to be in power, and a bill like this is all that would be necessary to put their complete socialist program into effect in Canada. It is ready-made for them; it is all that would be necessary. Therefore we can expect to find the C.C.F. socialist party in favour of this legislation. I should like to quote what the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said as reported on page 4575 of Hansard of June 9:
The minister has come before the house and given hon. members representing all the people of Canada an opportunity to discuss the advisability of granting to him the modified amount of authority over the economy of Canada which he is asking for in this bill. That is all it amounts to.
The attitude of the C.C.F. party is that it is a modified amount of authority that is being asked for. Surely anyone who has studied this bill would not suggest that it is modified. I think it is rather unfortunate that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) made the statement he did the other night, and I think this was referred to by the hon. member for Wellington-Huron (Mr. Howe). I should like to quote what the hon. member for Vancouver East did say, as reported on page 4603 of Hansard of June 9: As I said, I have been listening most carefully to all the discussion that has taken place for two days. Most of all I have been interested in what 
my friends in Her Majesty's loyal opposition have had to say on this matter. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker-and I am going to express this only as an opinion, because otherwise I would be out of order-that they are putting up a sham battle and beclouding the issue because they are the official opposition and feel obliged to oppose anything brought in by the government.
That statement is most unfair, and the hon. member for Vancouver East knows very well that it is unfair.


Mr. Winch:: That is my opinion.


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member may have his opinion, and I am stating what I think of that opinion. Hon. members of the socialist party obviously are trying to becloud the issue. They do not want to get into too much difficulty with their own people who are not as socialistic as they may be themselves. They are trying to bring out that we are doing this just simply to oppose something. Surely no one in this house can say that we are opposing just for the sake of opposing. Surely no one can question the sincerity of this party in opposing this measure at this time, knowing very well what it means to the freedom of our country and the democracy that we love so truly.
The minister has had this measure since 1951, so we might well ask what have been the accomplishments under this act. That is one question I should like to ask. How many new naval vessels have we? We have no submarines as yet. Have we sufficient aircraft of the modern type? How many aircraft have been produced since the minister has had these exceptional powers that he claims to need? Has he accomplished the desired results with this legislation? Have we sufficient equipment of a modern type for the army? Can he or the defence minister say that the army of this country is sufficiently equipped to do the job expected of it? Of course they cannot.
So, after they have had four years to do something under this bill, I suggest to the minister that probably the accomplishments under this act could be questioned. If he has not done as much in the last four years, what could be expected in the next three or four? Certainly no one would suggest that the army, navy and the air force are equipped to the extent we would like to see, if the emergency conditions are as bad as the minister himself states.
What I wish to suggest particularly, Mr. Speaker, is how this bill could affect agriculture. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) in his speech this afternoon mentioned that we were not keeping up with the times and we were dealing with this bill as though we were back in the first world

*war. I wish to point out to him that it he knew anything about the way the farmers were treated in the first world war as against the way they were treated in the second world war, it would be evident that we are being very much up to date. We realize what could happen under this type of legislation. We know what did happen in the second world war. Farmers in this country took far less-mind you, they did not quibble about it-on the promise of this government of what they would be given after the war had ended.


George James McIlraith: If you look at the statistics showing the net income of Canadian farmers over the last 30 years-


John Alpheus Charlton: I imagine I have looked at them more than the hon. member for Ottawa West.


An hon. Member:: But do you understand them?


John Alpheus Charlton: I think I understand them better than the hon. member for Ottawa West. If he had spent as much time on a farm as I have he would realize what they mean to the farmers. I have studied these statistics. Can the hon. member for Ottawa West tell me that the farmers' net income is as high now as it was four or five years ago?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if I am being asked a question I shall answer it.


John Alpheus Charlton: You may answer it.


George James McIlraith: I just want to point out that the last statistics I have available at the moment, having had no warning of the question, show that the net income of the farmers of Canada was 18 times as high in 1948 as it was during the regime of his former leader, Bennett.


An hon. Member:: That is irrelevant.


George James McIlraith: It is an answer to the question.


John Alpheus Charlton: Perhaps the hon. member is quite correct when he says that it was 18 times as high. The fact that it was 18 times as high does not mean one thing.


George James McIlraith: That is my point precisely.


John Alpheus Charlton: I say it does not mean a thing. I stated in the house the other day that the net income of farmers has decreased by 48 per cent in the last four years. Would any other part of the economy take that reduction and say as little as the farmers have said in the last year or so? The price the farmers have to pay for the articles they purchase has
Defence Production Act gone up 50 per cent in the last few years, while the price they get for their produce has gone up by only 17 per cent. The net income might be 18 times greater, but the dollar value is down. I suppose the hon. member is referring to the thirties, when the farmer was not getting as much money.


George James McIlraith: That is right. He was getting nothing. There was an impossible government in office at that time.


John Alpheus Charlton: We have heard the same argument so many times from members of the Liberal party in this house, and it can get rather tiresome when everyone in this country knows that the depression began before the Conservatives came to power in the thirties.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: When the Grits were in power.


John Alpheus Charlton: When the Liberals were in power.


George James McIlraith: I did not suggest they started it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have put figures on record on many occasions, proving beyond any doubt that our exports of food products from Canada to Great Britain increased from the time the Conservative government came into power in 1930 over the exports in the 1928-29 period. Will the hon. member refute those arguments?


George James McIlraith: If they were relevant I would be glad to.


John Alpheus Charlton: If he looks back in Hansard he will find them, and I will be glad to repeat them. They are figures of the dominion bureau of statistics and the department in which the hon. member was at one time interested. I would be glad to have him refute these figures of the department for which he was parliamentary assistant at that time.
I am just stating how this bill could affect agriculture. The hon. member has made his interruption. He made his speech this afternoon, and I did not interrupt him. I am glad to answer his questions, and I shall be glad to answer any more he wishes to bring forward. I am just stating that under this bill the minister could destroy practically every advantage the farmers have, which they have worked hard to get over the last 50 years in this dominion. He could destroy all those advantages.
As was proven in the last war, the farmers took considerably less than world prices and were glad to do so when they thought it would help this country win the war. I wish to make it quite plain that they were
5024	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act very glad to do so, but on the understanding that those markets would be retained tor them after the war and that they would be paid reasonable floor prices for their products when surpluses appeared.
Section 2 (f) (i) of this act, as I pointed out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), reads as follows: Arms, ammunition, implements of war, vehicles, mechanical and other equipment, watercraft, amphibious craft, aircraft, animals, articles, materials, substances and things required or used for the purposes of the defence of Canada or for co-operative efforts for defence being carried on by Canada and an associated government.
That clearly states that animals, at least, are defence supplies, so there we have the first indication that agriculture would be definitely affected. Section 2 (h) reads: "essential material" means a material or substance designated by the governor in council under section 30 as an essential material.
Then we have under section 5 the point to which we take exception, something with which we had some experience during the last war. Farmers generally know best what can be produced on their own farms. It is assumed that the farmer making his living from the land knows best what should be grown and produced there. Yet during the last war there were some instances-not so much here as in other countries, I agree, but we had examples here-of men going around the country telling farmers what they were to grow and when they were to grow it. Those men could not possibly know a farm as well as the farmer himself knew it. In some cases the crop suggested probably could not be grown on that particular farm. Here we have section 5 which reads as follows:
5. The minister may authorize any person, on his behalf and under his control and direction, to do any act or thing or to exercise any power that the minister may do or exercise under this act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I say, during the last war we had some experience of officials coming around and telling people what they should do and when they should do it. Is the minister suggesting that he always gets the very best assistants; that he is always able to get assistants who know everything about all farm conditions in Canada, in the various districts, and who could tell better than the farmer himself what should be grown on that particular land? That is what is possible under this act. He could even purchase or expropriate the land under this act, and then put a manager on the farm and direct him as to what should be grown.
Section 9 (2) gives the minister exclusive authority. The section reads as follows:
9. (2) The minister shall have exclusive authority to buy or otherwise acquire defence supplies and [Mr. Charlton.!

construct defence projects required by the Department of National Defence, except
(a) defence projects to be constructed by persons in the employ of Her Majesty, . . .
And so on. Hence it actually gives the minister tremendous powers in so far as the agricultural population are concerned.
Then we have section 23. I suggest that under this section the situation could be disastrous. Under this section the minister can penalize anyone who is storing products for defence purposes. Although we probably have a plentiful supply of wheat at the present moment, a time could come when wheat might not be as plentiful as it is today. It could happen that anyone storing wheat, for instance, would have to take the loss if anything happened to that wheat. I just want to read this section 23:
23. (1) Where a person who has been requested to enter into a defence contract on terms and conditions that the minister considers to be fair and reasonable has refused or failed to enter into the contract, if the minister is satisfied that such person owns or controls facilities that are suitable for or can be adapted to the work required to carry out such contract and that his refusal or failure was without reasonable excuse, the minister may direct that person to produce, deliver or store, or to construct, as the case may be, on such terms and conditions and within such period as the minister considers to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances, the defence supplies or the defence project or projects that would have been the subject-matter of the contract if it had been entered into.
Subsection 2 is the one to which I have direct reference. It reads as follows:
(2) A person who stores defence supplies pursuant to a direction under this section is liable for the loss thereof or for damage thereto as if he had agreed to store them for reward.
A person could be advised or told to store certain perishable products. Then the official might not be around soon enough to tell him when to take them out, and some of those perishable products might spoil. In that case the producer would be expected to take the loss. I suggest that is unfair. Of course I am not suggesting that the minister would do it, but it is a possibility under that act.
Then under section 26, it is worthy of note, a producer could be instructed what to produce on the farm. I know of cases during the last war when sometimes farmers were told they should take their milk to a powdered milk plant instead of sending it to the cheese factory, for instance. In some cases, I know there was no truck going by that farmer's door to the powdered milk plant, whereas there was one going to the cheese factory. That is just an instance of how unreasonable some of these orders can be when all those things are not taken into consideration. I suggest that under this act it is possible to get into troubles of this sort.

Section 26 reads as follows:
26. The governor in council may make such regulations or orders as he deems necessary or advisable to require persons who produce-
That is the word I am pointing out particularly, Mr. Speaker; I refer to the word "produce".
*-or deal in defence supplies or construct defence projects to give priority in the carrying on of their business, in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by or pursuant to the regulations, to the production of or dealing in defence supplies or construction of defence projects to meet the requirements of the defence of Canada or of an associated government.
Ordinarily you do not produce automobiles and you do not produce guns; you manufacture them. However, you do produce food. I therefore suggest that this section would have just as much to do with the production of food as it would with the production of weapons of war.
Then another section that has a good deal of control is section 31, subsection 2. I have a number of sections here, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to read them all or read from them all. But under section 31 it is made plain that the producers would definitely be affected.
As it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: It is only one minute to six.


John Alpheus Charlton: Very well. As I said before, I wonder why the minister wants these extraordinary powers continued on a permanent basis. I have asked him what accomplishments there have been under the bill in the last four years. I think that is a reasonable question and one he probably could answer quite easily.
It has been suggested, of course, that the minister likes power. It is true that he has not used all the powers that were at his fingertips, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that another minister could come in, be power-hungry and want to use all the powers that are given here. As I said before, in a case of emergency we are glad to give the minister the necessary powers. But we object to the fact that they are to be made permanent, thus constituting a further step toward socialism. We do not think that is necessary or desirable in this country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. R. W. Mitchell (London):: Mr. Speaker, in common with all other members of this house, I listened this afternoon with great
Defence Production Act interest, as is our custom, to the remarks of the hon. member for Spadina. He commands, I might say, great respect from all members in this house and his remarks are dealt with in that light.
I was particularly interested in his use of the word "filibuster". He dealt with that word as though it were one of those naughty words that small boys are taught not to use. He dealt with it in much the same way as many people deal with the word "politician". If I disagree with his use of the word, it is perhaps more because of the definition he gave to it. If I correctly interpreted his remarks, and I hope he will correct me if I did not, he said it was obstruction for obstruction's sake. If such is the case, I should like to dissociate myself from the term "filibuster". If on the other hand he is prepared to go along with me and put a slightly different interpretation on the word, namely obstruction or delay for the sake of a principle, then I am quite happy to accept the word "filibusterer" as applied to myself.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, a filibusterer is an adventurer. I have, in times past, read novels of the early years of Christianity, the operations in England and on the seas where, in fact, the word was used to denote an adventurer. In that light I accept the hon. member's condemnation that I am a "filibusterer". In fact, Mr. Speaker, each and every one of us in this house, in all corners of the house, is an adventurer. We are adventurers, I submit, in the interests of democracy and freedom; we are adventurers for Canada. Surely if anyone is bound and destined to be an adventurer for Canada it is we who have the honour and privilege of sitting in this chamber. It is our duty, as such adventurers, to examine with great care everything that is brought before us for consideration, and to shun that which in any way, by any stretch of the imagination, may at any time in the future restrict our freedoms and to retain that which we deem to be good.
I do not believe in excessive verbiage, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe I can be accused of having excessively used the privileges which are mine in this house. I now join the hon. member for Spadina in entering this debate on its fourth or fifth day with the same deep conviction that he expressed in his remarks this afternoon. My convictions may be, and in fact are, somewhat different from his; nevertheless these convictions are born of a consciousness of a responsibility which each and every one of us bears, not only to our own constituents but to the citizens of Canada as a whole.



Defence Production Act
The hon. member for Spadina has had a distinguished career in the service of his fellow Canadians in many spheres. I have had, in a much smaller way, an opportunity to be of service in several different spheres. He and I, in common with many other members in this house, had the misfortune to witness the loss of freedom. We were present together, along with others in Europe, when freedoms were lost. They were lost because of carelessness and lack of interest. We witnessed the hopelessness and the degradation of those who, through their own lack of interest, lost that which is most precious to us and which was then most precious to them. As a result of those experiences the hon. member, in common with myself, is most conscious of our obligations and of our privileges, though I must confess that he puts a slightly different interpretation on those obligations and privileges than I propose to place on them tonight.
We on this side of the house will never attempt to argue that we are any better Canadians than those who sit to your right. Each and every one of us present in this house tonight is conscious of his responsibilities or he or she would not be here. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that some in this house have forgotten something. Some have become careless. But even much of what we do is not important, except that it indicates an attitude of mind. It is that same attitude of mind which resulted in the destruction and desolation which other hon. members and I were permitted to witness not so many years ago.
We require something other than dictation. We require leadership, education and a developed sense of personal discipline. If we need dictation, then I suggest to all members of this house that we in Canada have failed in our pursuit of the freedoms which we all cherish. Let us, therefore, urge development and education, but let us never dictate.
It is quite true, Mr. Speaker, as has been voiced by the minister and by others, that some will fail their country. But I submit that number represents a very small minority, and that the great percentage of Canadians will support everything that is for the good of Canada. Must we therefore dictate to the few and in so doing compel the many?
We have heard the statement that business was not patriotic and would not co-operate. We have heard the statement that some labour unions were not patriotic and would not co-operate. That I do not believe. It is only in isolated instances, as I mentioned before, that we hear of any such case. By the same token we hear about the failure

of modern youth. We hear about hooliganism and about youth running wild. That also I do not believe.
I submit for your consideration, sir, and for the consideration of the house that once again we are hearing about the few isolated instances, not about the many good Canadians who are going about their business in a law-abiding, normal and patriotic way. I have every faith, and I am sure every member in the house has every faith, in the youth of this country. Many members, among whom I was included, were permitted to have the privilege of taking part in what was called an adventure in citizenship. I am sure each and every one present who witnessed any or all of the functions connected with that adventure could come away with only one conclusion; that is, that the future of Canada is in good hands, without dictation.
It strikes me, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we have forgotten some of the basic tenets of democracy. We must not, as I said before, regiment all for the sake of the few. We must not convict society without a fair trial; and it is in that spirit that I have approached this bill. If I may repeat perhaps ineptly some words of Shakespeare, I would say that I, for my part, come here not to bury Caesar but to plead with him.
My predecessor faced a somewhat similar problem in the house not many years ago. He had the good fortune, or perhaps the misfortune, Mr. Speaker, to sit to your right; and when a certain resolution was debated and voted upon he found he had to stand almost alone in opposition to the granting of powers to the executive which should have been those of the House of Commons.
These powers, Mr. Speaker, were created during an emergency. We were in fact at war. They were created as part of an initial build-up which, in the words of the minister himself, was to last but for a few years. May I quote just one or two remarks of the minister when, in 1951, he said-
There is no particular significance to the date-
He was referring to the expiry date of the act we are asked to amend.
-other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to compare those remarks with those of the minister recently, when he said:
If we get back to a reasonably normal time and the powers are not required I think the government of the day will certainly come forward and revise the act voluntarily.
I ask the obvious question, which has been asked before. What is an emergency, and

what is normal? There we have a difference of opinion. We have a difference of opinion among members of the government themselves. I am not going to quote again the remarks already quoted of the Minister of Defence Production and the Minister of National Defence. Nor am I going to quote or refer to the various shades of opinion expressed in the press and elsewhere, other than to simply reiterate the fact that there is a difference of opinion as to whether or not there is an emergency.
Once again may I come back to what I consider the crux of this argument. That is not whether an emergency exists. The crux of the argument is, shall these admittedly wide powers be made permanent? That, on the one hand, is the contention of the minister. On the other hand, shall these powers in their present form be continued for a defined period, or shall they be continued for an indefinite period in a reduced form?
That is the argument. Let us forget the arguments about whether or not there is an emergency. Let us get down to the basic issue. Are we going to accept these wide powers on an indefinite basis or are we, as we in Her Majesty's loyal opposition contend, going to accept those powers either for a limited period of time or indefinitely on a reduced basis?
One of the reasons advanced by the minister for the extension of the department is stated at page 4501 of Hansard, where he said:
The necessity for extending its life is that it is impossible to hold the class of men we have in the department on the basis of temporary jobs.
It has been said time and again, but it still does not seem to sink in, that we are not advocating the abolition of the department. We are quite prepared to have the department continue-in fact we are enthusiastic about it-but there must be some restriction either on the powers themselves or on their duration.
In developing my next point I should like to place before the house a summary of the act, and in doing so I am not going to attempt to quote from it. I am placing on Hansard for the consideration of yourself, Mr. Speaker, and of hon. members, a summary of some of the powers. I think I am offering a reasonable and a fair summary of powers the minister acquires under the provisions of this act. They are these:
1.	He may compel any industry to accept any contract at a fixed price;
2.	He may requisition any supplies or services or order the production of supplies;
3.	He may fix prices of anything required to carry out the defence program or needed indirectly in connection with the program;
Defence Production Act
4.	He may require any contractor to return any profits which he considers to be excessive, subject to an appeal to the exchequer court;
5.	He may seize the plant of any contractor who he considers is not carrying out a contract efficiently;
6.	He may require anyone who has entered into a contract, voluntarily or otherwise, to make returns of whatever information is needed, and place auditors in any plant at any time; and
7.	He may reduce the amount payable to a contractor at any time during performance of the contract, or afterward.
Having summarized in that brief way the provisions of the act, without elaborating further I should like to ask Your Honour how the provisions of that act, the conveyance of those powers to any one minister, fits into expressions which have been made over the years by a very eminent lawyer, a person who has always been a champion of the rule of law and the supremacy of parliament. The person to whom I refer is, of course, the Prime Minister.
It has been my privilege-and I consider it a privilege-as it has been the privilege of many other hon. members to listen to speeches by the Prime Minister on this very subject. My colleague the hon. member for Greenwood referred to one such speech when he was dealing with the subject of Quebec law. I should like to refer to the presidential address of the Prime Minister to the Canadian Bar Association, which was delivered in October of 1931. He discussed an act known as the unemployment and farm relief act of 1931, and I quote from that speech:
There can be no doubt that our economic system is ill and were it not so. and were not the actual or apprehended gravity of its illness so great. I am sure the former president of this association, the Right Honourable Mr. Bennett, would never have suggested to a British parliament such a departure from ordinary British constitutional practice as is involved in the "act to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemployment and farm relief, and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada".
The Prime Minister went on to quote the preamble to that act. I consider that the preamble will be of interest to all hon. members on this occasion. It read as follows:
Whereas by reason of the continuing worldwide economic depression there exists in many parts of Canada a serious state of unemployment and distress; and
Whereas the partial failure of the wheat crop of western Canada has intensified the adverse economic conditions theretofore prevailing; and
Whereas it is in the national interest that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and other bodies in such

Defence Production Act
ways as the governor in council may deem expedient, and for that purpose should vest in the governor in council the powers necessary to insure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of all relief measures and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada;
And so on. Then the Prime Minister quoted sections 2 and 4 of that act. Having done so, he continued his address in the following terms:
A delegation by parliament of its powers in the widest possible terms to the executive authority, for the period during which the act is to remain in force.
May I remind hon. members that perhaps the most significant part of what I am saying now is that section 8 of the act provided that the act was to expire on the 1st day of March, 1932, less than one year from the time it was passed in this house.
The Prime Minister continued:
You will all remember the incisive study of the Canadian situation made just 10 years ago by Viscount Bryce, and which was published under the title of "Canada, An Actual Democracy". He saw us then through very clear eyes, noting many of our qualities and some of our defects, and in estimating the volume and force of public opinion in Canada as compared with European countries, he found that even the large issues were not discussed here on grounds of general principle, but rather on the merits of any particular proposal made.
Further on in his speech, the Prime Minister said:
Perhaps even he-
Referring to Viscount Bryce-
-viewing our economic situation as it exists at the present time and the dangers which it may portend, would feel that we were justified, without ceasing to look upon ourselves as an actual democracy, to indulge in legislation such as that above cited because of its immediate possible benefit, and without fearing that as a deviation from principle it might be setting a dangerous precedent.
I simply emphasize the Prime Minister's remarks at that time by pointing out that we were then in the midst of an emergency no less than we are at the present time; yet the wide powers contained were first of all granted not to the minister but to the governor in council. Second, there was a time limit attached to those powers of something less than one year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend would like to amplify a little. I do not recognize the legislation. Was that the blank cheque legislation?


James Sinclair: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The silly name the Liberal party gave it.


Robert Weld Mitchell: The Minister of Defence Production can refer to it in any way he prefers. I have heard that same language

used before. The legislation was there and had a time limit on it. The legislation granted powers not to a minister but to the governor in council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the Prime Minister condemned it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Another split in the cabinet.


Robert Weld Mitchell: By the same token, and in the same vein, may I also refer to the Emergency Powers Act. The preamble to the Emergency Powers Act is quite similar to that in the act to which I have just referred, which granted certain powers to the governor in council. I will remind the minister, if it is necessary to remind him, of section 4 which reads as follows:
Sections one to three of this act expire on the thirty-first day of May, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two: provided that if at any time while they are in force addresses are presented to the Governor General by the Senate and House of Commons, respectively, praying that they should be continued in force for a further period, not exceeding one year from the time at which they would otherwise expire, and the governor in council so orders, they shall continue in force for that further period.
That, Mr. Speaker, and the instance which I quoted of the unemployment and farm relief act, is the proper way in which these wide powers should be dealt with and delegated by this house if necessary.
I now desire to refer to some of the remarks made by the minister during his address to this house on June 7. One can come to only one conclusion; one can come only to the conclusion that the Minister of Defence Production does not have the same lofty concept of the law and of the rights of parliament that the Prime Minister of Canada has. I quote from page 4511 of Hansard:
As for the rule of law, there are numerous references to the right of appeal to the courts against the crown under this act. I would draw the attention of hon. members to section 37 which, while it does not permit court action against an investigator or controller in the performance of his duties, goes on to state that "nothing in this section limits or restricts the rights of any person against the crown".
I would remind the minister of the fight that was conducted in this house four years ago in order to convince him and the government that these last words, namely "nothing in this section limits or restricts the rights of any person against the crown" should be included in that section of the act.
The minister talks about recourse to the courts. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in any action between the subject and the crown recourse to the courts on the part of the individual is not the answer, because the cost is prohibitive in many cases. In this

case we have everything on the side of the minister. He has the power to put in investigators; he has the power to take this; he has the power to take that. The actions of the minister and of his subordinates cannot in many instances be properly redressed by damages.
Second, on the same page and further down the same column, the minister said:
This question was referred to the Department of Justice.
I had better read the paragraph before that, or the minister will accuse me of misquoting him.
Before the resolution on the present bill was concurred in on March 14, I gave an undertaking that the government would consider the request made by the hon. members for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and Peace River (Mr. Low). This request was to include in the act a clause which would make the powers of the department subject to review within a reasonable period.
This request was referred to the Department of Justice, and officers of that department pointed out that in view of the fact that a review of legislation is a matter which parliament can undertake at any time, an express provision requiring a periodic review of this kind would have no real significance. In order to require a review by parliament and attach to it legal consequences it would be necessary, for example, to provide that the act would expire at a stated time unless reviewed and reapproved or re-enacted before the expiration of that time.
Third, I quote from the same page, 4511, in the second column:
There is not the slightest suggestion in the act that personal liberties or freedoms can be menaced or abridged in any way.
Further down in the same column, there is this, which I ally to the same point:
It is in fact no different from the Expropriation Act which has been in force since confederation, and longer if we go back to English law.
Personal liberties are not menaced. I ask the Minister of Defence Production to read and reread the remarks made in this house by the hon. member for Prince Albert and by the Leader of the Opposition, and then ask himself if personal liberties are not being infringed. The minister in his speech raised the point that there is provision for expropriation, and he seemed to think this act goes no further than the Expropriation Act. The Expropriation Act deals with land, whereas this act expropriates the personal rights and privileges of many Canadians.
The fourth point I should like to refer to in the minister's speech appears at the bottom of page 4511:
A good deal has been said about section 32, dealing with offences, but no mention has been made of section 33, dealing with the defence of due diligence which may be made by any person charged with an offence.
Defence Production Act This is the great cure-all; this is the sop that is thrown to us. I ask you to consider this:
This clause gives the person who has been charged an opportunity to establish that he exercised all due diligence to comply with the terms of the act but failed because of reasons beyond his control.
Since when did Magna Carta depart from this parliament? Since when has a man been obliged to prove himself innocent? Since when has the onus of disproof been upon an accused person? Since when has the minister been able to go into court, have his own employees tell their stories, and demand that the accused person not only defend himself but prove that he used due diligence?
I further ask, what is due diligence? I challenge the Minister of Defence Production to define due diligence. Many eminent lawyers have attempted over the years, with varying degrees of success, to define reasonable care. There are going to be many lawyers in due course, if the powers of this act are implemented, who are going to have to exercise all their legal know-how in attempting to establish what is or what is not due diligence.
The fifth point follows, and I quote from page 4512:
In addition, we do not enjoy the leisure and time granted to earlier generations in dealing with threats to peace. When we act we have to act quickly.
That has been dealt with so many times in this debate with so little apparent effect on the hides of some hon. members who sit to your right that I sometimes despair for the intelligence of this house. The right hon. minister has those powers today, he will have them tomorrow and for 365 days from now. So far as we on this side are concerned he can have those powers for two years and 365 days from tomorrow, as long as an expiration date for those powers is inserted in the amendment which we are now discussing. Then the sixth point, and I quote again-


An hon. Member:: It gets tedious.


Robert Weld Mitchell: It does get tedious, does it not? I quote from the same page, 4512:
I can tell this house that generally speaking a government order does not receive the same attention as a privately placed order.
The poor, tired, old government.
The reason is that generally speaking the government cannot put on as much pressure as does the private buyer.
Any hon. member sitting on any side of this house who has had dealings with almost any government department can deny that

Defence Production Act statement. I would refer specifically to the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Finance and others. We know perfectly well that the minute we start dealing with any department of government the heat is on. Furthermore I dispute the first part of that statement, that a government order does not receive the same attention as a privately placed order. Time after time when coming to Ottawa we meet men who are coming here to seek government contracts; yet this poor government says it does not receive the same attention for its orders that is received by privately placed orders.
Seventh, and last, I quote the minister's remarks as reported on the same page, 4512:
I believe that when this country is supplying great sums for defence it is entitled to the assurance that those funds are being spent efficiently and carefully. For that reason I tell this house that as a minister of the crown I cannot conscientiously recommend that my department be deprived of powers which I believe are essential to that purpose.
That just in a k os mo weep. Ones again, for the last time, and for the sake of further emphasis if it is possible, may I say that it is not intended to limit the life of this department. We are quite happy to let the minister and his department have these powers as long as he tells us that they are not going to be his powers forever, that he is not going to be a dictator forever, that when the time comes in two or three years he will be prepared to come back to this house and request a further mandate as to those powers. If that were done we would support any such motion the minister might make.
(Translation) :


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, although many members of the house are eager to wind up as soon as possible this session which started January 7 last, it must be obvious that, as long as we members of the official opposition feel it our duty to remain here, we will not hesitate to do so.
If this bill was purposely brought before the house at the tail end of the session, at a time when we are already prostrated by the heat and when fair days beckon us to well deserved relaxation, so that the bill might be railroaded through the house, allow me to say that, between the prospect of recess and our duty of fighting such a dictatorial bill as this one, we did not hesitate and chose to obey the call of duty.

Let me first tell the house that I was greatly surprised to note that the sponsor of this bill is none other than the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He had to identify himself once more with a bill, the enactment of which would have the disastrous consequence of greater and more complete centralization, and be a threat to the supremacy of parliament. No one can convince me that the Prime Minister does not realize the seriousness of his action and does not foresee its nefarious results.
Mr. Speaker, either the Prime Minister of Canada plays a secondary role in the cabinet and must willynilly accept the advice and ambitions of his Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), or he voluntarily agrees to be his confederate in an energetic effort towards greater centralization in Ottawa, thereby once again violating the Canadian constitution.
If, for one as well as the other, such are the purposes they have in mind, they give a rather unworthy example and they shall bequeath to their political friends and successors the memory of a very sad end to a public career. I cannot believe that, at a time when we hear that these two prominent personalities will soon leave the cabinet, they have no more comforting legacy to offer than to have become, before their departure, the unchallenged champions of centralization.
The hon. Minister of Defence Production has vainly tried to make the house and the Canadian people believe that he really needs the powers he is asking for. The only people he has been able to convince are naturally those who, in this house, follow blindly their Liberal masters in every one of their words or deeds, together with the so-called "Liberals in a hurry"-under their true label, the socialists-who rejoice at the prospect that soon a law which they themselves could not have successfully introduced will be included in our statutes.
At a time as tragic as the present, those who have opposed the bill shall be the only ones entitled to call themselves the friends of the people, the faithful upholders of the constitution and the champions of a democracy threatened by a Liberal administration.
If the minister has succeeded in convincing the Prime Minister, the sponsor of this bill, that the dictatorial powers he is asking for

are in his opinion necessary, it means that there exists at the present time in Canada and in the world an alarming situation of an unsuspected seriousness. In this connection, there is something wrong somewhere and some statements must be made to clarify a situation unknown to parliament and to the Canadian people. Nothing in what the Minister of Defence Production has said until now justifies his request.
If we are to believe statements made recently by great statesmen, Sir Anthony Eden, Foster Dulles, the French prime minister and the chancellor of West Germany, it would seem that possible aggressors are at this time most willing to undertake diplomatic negotiations with a view to reducing world tension or the cold war and to establish real peace. Our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), while refusing to be drawn too far, has recently made some rather optimistic statements.
Are the Minister of Defence Production and the Prime Minister the only ones to have a clear insight into world affairs? Are not the great diplomats whose names I have just quoted in a better position than any of us here to tell us what the real situation is?
The powers required would be disquieting enough in a period of open warfare. They are more disquieting still when it is realized that everything points to the possibility of preventing a new world conflict.
If, by the introduction of this bill, the minister and the Prime Minister would have the parliament and the people of this country believe that things will grow much worse in the next few weeks or even in the next few days, they have a duty which they should not shirk, and that is to tell parliament and the people of this country what the true facts of the matter are.
Parliament having been given no indication of the existence of any immediate threat, and convinced as we are that nothing will be officially announced along these lines before the end of this session, I think that we have a right to suspect that the attitude of the Minister of Defence Production and that of the Prime Minister spring from altogether different motives.
Mr. Speaker, like most Canadians and all those who live in countries where the word
Defence Production Act democracy is not altogether devoid of meaning I have been until recently extremely worried by the threat to the free world, especially at the time when we were discussing and all but unanimously adopting the resolution regarding the rearming of Western Germany.
For the past few weeks, however, thanks to the discussions undertaken, although I still doubt the sincerity of the leaders of the Soviet republic, I have been more optimistic than ever and I am confident that, for some years to come yet, we shall be able to avoid a world war, a war which could lead only to desolation, ruin and death. I am confident that the Supreme Providence will spare us this frightful calamity and that destruction of humanity will be avoided. God, as I said, made the world and it is His sole prerogative to destroy it. Would that all believers in God never forget this solemn truth.
Mr. Speaker, the real reason, I repeat, is centralization, it is the turning over of dictatorial powers into the hands of a single man who, overnight, will become the czar of the Canadian economy.
It is the adoption of a nefarious policy which will allow a government lusting for power to exercise full control as it pleases, in direct violation of the most elementary principles of democracy.
In granting the Minister of Defence Production the dictatorial powers that he seeks, we would once again violate this sacred document, the Canadian constitution, and the rights of the provinces would be made to wobble on the edge of an abyss into which the Liberal federal government would want to see them engulfed and disappear. The government may attempt to deny that it holds such evil designs towards the provinces. It is nonetheless true that all its actions tend to that end.
Were a socialist government in power in Canada, Mr. Speaker, it could not introduce more dangerous legislation than this one with which we are dealing at this time.
It is easy to understand the readiness with which the C.C.F. group has been siding with the Liberals, has come to the aid of the government and has given it energetic support. The eagerness of the C.C.F. members to side with the government on the passing of this bill clearly shows that it is a danger-
5032	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act ously socialistic bill that they would have us insert permanently in our statutes.
We are the powerless witnesses of a Liberal shift to the left, that is toward centralizing socialism. And if this disastrous policy is maintained, we will be the sad witnesses of a Liberal party willingly turned into "the Liberal Socialist party", which will mean that, with its Liberal prefix, it will have become more socialist than the socialists themselves.
As far as I am aware, the C.C.F. members never dared advocate as dictatorial and socialistic a measure as the one now before us. So, in order to be fair, we will have to say from now on that if the C.C.F. members have been called "Liberals in a hurry", present day Liberals are but "ambitious socialists".
Not only does the Liberal party ask for powers which would surely be alarming and dangerous even during a war in which our country would be in danger of being attacked by the enemy, not only does it urge us to agree to a gross violation of our constitution, not only would it have each member of this house be party to the abolition, for all practical purposes, of the provinces and their sacred rights, but it would have us help it, through our agreement to this bill, to tread under foot those great principles so often expounded by the true leaders of a party which was great because of them, but whose unworthy successors are contriving to lead us, in giant strides, into the valley of humiliation.
What indeed is being done about the great principles proclaimed in the past with so much clarity and eloquence by Laurier, King, Lapointe and Cardin, to mention only a few of the now vanished Liberal leaders, who never missed an opportunity to demand the respect of parliamentary supremacy, not to mention their categorical autonomist statements? Yet, people often like to recall their memories on political hustings at election time, in the conviction that they may still bring and gain confidence and votes.
Mr. Speaker, if those absolute powers the minister wants are conferred upon him by the servile majority available to the Liberal party, the minister will no longer be administering an act of parliament, but he will henceforth be able to legislate by himself, thus monopolizing rights which belong to parliament alone.
Is the expression "supremacy of parliament" only a phrase of obsolete significance? And does the word "democracy", under 

Liberal rule, have no other purpose than to serve as a rhetorical ornament in an election speech?
The attitude of our friends opposite is inconceivable, and even startling, Mr. Speaker. They are greedy for power, and try by all possible means to continue sitting on your right; they are almost all ambitious one day to get a portfolio or some promotion. Yet they do not seem to realize-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I invite the
hon. member to tie in his speech with the second reading of the bill now under discussion? I understand this is what the hon. member is trying to do, but he might perhaps try to make his remarks more pertinent.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I am precisely discussing the bill. I do not think I have digressed from the subject, and I have every intention to continue in the same way, that is, the way you just indicated and which I have tried to follow since the beginning of my speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member and Mr. Speaker beg to differ in this respect.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, to come back to our friends opposite, they don't seem to realize that, on account of their childishness or their blindness with regard to their party, as things are going in the cabinet, they will all soon be out of public life.
With legislation such as this against which I am now protesting, we will soon be done with the democratic system under which we are living, to replace it by a totalitarian one. On the pretext of emergency or urgency, it could be decreed that the next elections will not be held or that they will be a single slate one. It could also be possible to mobilize not only our human resources but all the resources of the country. In a word, the government could control everything.
One might think that I am overdoing it somehow; nevertheless, the way the Liberal party is legislating now, we will be facing all those possibilities.
I remain sceptical, and rightly so, when I hear the sponsors of such legislation tell us that even if they ask for and obtain certain powers, it is not their intention to use them. Nothing could be more nonsensical, because if the legislator does not intend to use a law, why should he take the trouble to draft and discuss it? Why is the government then endeavouring to use its majority to have the bill passed? In other words, to use a comparison, what does a bandit mean to do as he enters a bank, brandishing a pistol, if not to shoot?

The existing Defence Production Act already confers upon the minister powers which are practically limitless, and one has but to read sections 28 and 30 of the said measure to realize how dangerous they are for the future of Canada, of the provinces and of individuals. Here is a paragraph taken from an editorial published in Montreal Matin, on June 14 last:
Sections 28 and 30 by themselves encroach upon our Canadian constitution and upon the rights of the provinces since the first enables the governor in council to annul the obligations which are imposed upon citizens by our provincial laws and since the second empowers the federal government to take control of the entire highway system and of the hydroelectric resources of a province. Ottawa has even the power under section 28 to exempt from any provincial tax any company or corporation entering into a contract with the Department of Defence Production.
Those few sentences found in that Montreal daily prove conclusively I believe that the powers already granted are such as to lead to marked abuse and to dictatorship, purely and simply.
In order to show to the house and to the Canadian people how much what is being done is an insult to the memory of former Liberal leaders, I shall quote various statements made by them, and in so doing show how unworthy of them are those who claim to maintain the same principles.
Here is what the late Mr. Mackenzie King said-Mr. Speaker, you seem to make a disapproving gesture. I cannot see why I should not be allowed, as others have been, to quote certain paragraphs dealing with the supremacy of parliament, since the bill now before the house tends precisely to violate it. I do not see why I should not be allowed to point out the contradiction existing between past and present Liberal leaders.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, the hon. member fails to see why I am opposing this. I shall try to explain it to him, if he will allow me to do so. When I indicated to him, by shaking my head that he was violating the rules, he was saying that the persons who had been on the government benches a few years ago were more worthy of doing so than the present occupants. What I then wanted to convey to him and which I am doing now is that the debate on the second reading of a bill purporting to amend the Defence Production Act should not serve as a pretext to criticize certain political men and try to make a comparison between the latter and those of today. Now, if the hon. member wants to prove the present ministers are not worthy of succeeding such political men, it seems to me that this is not the time to do so.
Those who have spoken about the supremacy of parliament did not criticize a
Defence Production Act political party in particular. They spoke in general terms about certain questions, of what we call the rule of law, the supremacy of parliament. But, when a member wishes to make a comparison between the political men of the past and those of our day, that is another matter. He then attacks the character of individuals.
He may, however, quote certain words dealing with parliamentary supremacy as long as they are relevant to the matter before the house, but he cannot launch into criticism of a party.
It is only when he showed his intention to do that very thing that I indicated, by shaking my head, that he had no right to do so.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, the mock trial, if there was one, is concluded as far as I am concerned. I would like to read to the house what the late Mr. Mackenzie King said on June 30, 1920. I quote from page 4540 of Hansard where Mr. King said:
(Text):
The business of the country should be carried on in the open on the floor of this parliament in such a maimer that the government will be obliged to take into their confidence not only the members of parliament but the people of the country whose money they are voting to expend.
(Translation):
Again, on January 21, 1935, he stated in the House of Commons:
(Text):
The whole spirit of the British system of government is that government is carried on, not by arbitrary powers secured by a mechanical majority but by the consent of the government as known.
As leader of the opposition in 1920 Mr. King also said:
The government must be by parliament and through parliament. It must not be carried on by cabinet ministers in their secret chambers.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, have the hon. members on your right forgotten the definition of liberalism given by Mr. Mackenzie King, a definition which many of them undoubtedly strongly applauded. I quote:
(Text):
Here is what Mr. King was saying then about liberalism:
The aim of liberalism is to seek a wider freedom for the masses in social, political, religious and industrial life, to restore the control of the people over parliament and to restore the control of parliament over the executive.
(Translation):
Have the Liberal party and its members forgotten that sensible statement made by their former prime minister or are they voluntarily forgetting all about it now? No, Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Defence Production Act Speaker, the Liberal party is no longer the same as in the past and on many occasions, like today, its excess of socialism surely leads it down the valley of humiliation.
The Defence Production Act authorizes the minister to delegate all his powers to any person he may designate. Such nonsense is inconceivable. I would like to quote what the late Hon. P. J. A. Cardin, former Liberal minister, stated on February 9, 1943, after he had broken all ties with his party. Let me quote the following from page 282 of Hansard:
We are fighting for liberty, we are fighting for democracy and parliamentary institutions. Yet most of our activities are in the hands of little potentates, men of no experience, dictators in the field that has been given to them for administration.
Later, on March 21 1946, as reported at page 172 of Hansard, another Liberal leader who is still sitting here as dean of the house and for whom, because of the firm stands he has taken in the past, I have always had the deepest admiration, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) did not hesitate to make a memorable statement which fits very well into the present situation. He said:
(Text):
We have fought a victorious war, after four years. We have talked glibly of the new order which was to follow it, and it almost appears to me-
Said Mr. Power.
-as though we, the victors, had taken on the manners and customs of the vanquished.
(Translation) :
The distinguished member for Quebec South gave his own version of the liberalism he has known and practised, protesting against the liberalism introduced in 1946 and which since that time has constantly leaned towards socialism. He concluded in these terms:
(Text):
If this is to be the funeral of liberalism, I do not desire to be even an honorary pallbearer at the funeral.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, history repeats itself today but with still more serious consequences than in the past; I dare believe that, to remain logical with himself, the hon. member for Quebec South will vote against this centralizing, socialistic and dictatorial legislation or will abstain from voting.
Was it not again that same Mr. Mackenzie King who said about liberalism, on February 27, 1933:
(Text) :
Liberalism stands as always for the principle of free parliament and for the supremacy of parliament.
[Mr. Dufresne.l
That is what Mr. King said. What about these people today? That is what I would like to know.
(Translation):
Again, it was Mr. Mackenzie King who, on March 1, 1920, convinced that parliament was a sacred institution, said:
(Text):
The British constitution has been the model for our own. To the fathers of confederation and to this parliament, it has been, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said on a memorable occasion, as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night to lead this nation toward greater unity and nationhood. It is not the restoration of the parliament buildings that is needed as much as the restoration of our parliamentary system of government.
(Translation):
Some ministers claim that we are having fun on this issue. Never has any such insolence on the part of members of a government been recorded before. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is true we are enjoying ourselves, if the gentlemen opposite would have it so. We are enjoying ourselves defending the supremacy of parliament. We are enjoying ourselves in making our system of government more truly democratic once more. We are enjoying ourselves fighting socialism under any form. We are enjoying ourselves by protecting the constitution of this country and by keeping out of this parliament that hateful centralization which leads straight to anarchy and dictatorship. That is how we are enjoying ourselves. That is, in fact, the only way in which we could think of doing so in view of the threat which this bill constitutes for our democracy. That is the type of game which the free men and women of this country have asked us to play when, by voting for us, they have sent us here as their representatives.
I therefore make an urgent appeal especially to my French speaking colleagues of Quebec, to whatever party they may belong. I am asking them to reject and fight this socialist legislation, which will forever endanger our freedom and our democratic institutions.
Without prejudice to anybody, may I be allowed to say that not a single province in this country is as jealous of its democratic freedom as Quebec. If we have the privilege to sit in this parliament, be it as Liberals, as Conservatives or independents, it is because the people of Quebec have given us credit for believing in democracy to the fullest extent of the term.
If we are sitting here, it is still because
our electors were assured that we would
oppose totalitarianism relentlessly and always,

Defence Production Act
no matter by whom and under what form Centre over some statement the Leader of it is introduced to us.	the Opposition had made.
It is a rallying cry that I am giving now to the Liberals of the province of Quebec and I ask them: Do you believe in our parliamentary institutions? Do you respect your past leaders who are the ones responsible for what you are today? Do you still approve the statements which they made in the past and which contributed to the success of your party? Are you ready to break away from the past and all the idols that were your previous leaders? Do you want to become ambitious and dangerous socialists? Do you agree to wrong your electors by supporting this dictatorial measure?
I leave it to my hon. friends to reply by a yea or a nay before passing judgment. I shall then know whether they respect themselves, their past and the people they represent.
Mr. Speaker, the peoples behind the iron curtain and the others who are deprived of freedom envy us and would like to be in our place. Many of those escaped from their own country in order to breathe here the pure air of freedom and democracy. Let us not tarnish in the eyes of the other nations the beautiful name of our country, which is synonymous with freedom and democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I have always been in the past, I am now and I shall remain an unrelenting foe of totalitarianism, communism, socialism and centralization. I am for democracy in its purest sense and I shall fight with the utmost energy any measure whose aim is to limit in any manner whatsoever the powers of our Canadian parliament, which are the most precious safeguards of our survival.
(Text) :


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


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the position of this group has been stated very clearly and concisely. I may say that nothing that has been said during the course of the debate has caused us to alter our position.
This afternoon on one occasion I think an outburst of mirth on my part was misinterpreted by the Minister of Defence Production. It was caused by the look of bewilderment or unbelief on the countenance of the hon. member for Winnipeg North


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we not even look around here any more?


An hon. Member:: Not that way.


Alexander Bell Patterson: That was what occasioned it, rather than the vehemence with which the Leader of the Opposition was declaring his views, which were at variance with those of the government and of the minister.
I may say, however, that I concur in the main points of objection expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. I was interested to listen to the contribution to the debate by the hon. member for Spadina. I am always interested in his contribution, and certainly some of the statements he made today were rather surprising. He, as well as some other hon. members, referred to the fact that it was difficult just to state when an emergency existed or when it came about. Further on, in reference to that same matter, he mentioned the purpose of this particular bill. He said it would make the bad boys good and keep the good boys good.
Well, I do not know. It may sound all right on the surface, but we are all aware of the fact that in some countries of the world that was exactly what happened. Legislation was brought in, or should I say measures were resorted to for that particular purpose, and certainly we in Canada have not had any too much appreciation of the methods that were employed in order to bring about the realization of that objective.
The hon. member for Spadina also suggested that we-I believe he was speaking for the government-should have the power to change their no to yes. He was speaking of industry and those who indicated any hesitation about fitting in with the government's plans and with their defence program. He said they should also have the power to investigate. Again some of these words remind us of some circumstances in certain countries that are not pleasant to recollect. He also went on to say that what parliament could do parliament could undo. Upon an interjection from the opposition side of the house he said the hon. member knew the rules of parliament on free votes, thereby indicating of course that there would be no free vote when it came to a matter of this kind, and somehow ruled out the possibility of parliament undoing what it had done on a previous occasion.
The hon. member for Spadina continued with the observation that the opposition was obstructing for obstruction's sake, and said



S036 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Defence Production Act that procedure was foreign to this country. As far as this group are concerned, at any rate, we have not been raising any objection or any obstruction whatsoever just for obstruction's sake. We see in this measure something we do not like, something we do not think is good for the country. Therefore, because of that fact, we are taking exception to it.
The hon. member for Spadina said the opposition had not got through their minds the important germ of the bill, and stated that it was playing the same record over and over. After listening to the hon. member's speech I can say that it was a replaying of the record we have heard from the government side as well, because he did his best not to bring the matter into the proper perspective. I would suggest that his words and his expressions beclouded the issue and tried to prove that those who were opposing the measure were doing so for reasons other than those we are raising at the present time. Therefore I suggest that possibly he has failed to understand, has failed to grasp the significance of the debate.
I should like to try once again to present and clarify the real reason we in this group are opposed to this particular measure. First of all let me say that we realize the importance and the necessity of this particular department of government. In the debates of the last few days on the defence estimates it has been brought very forcibly to our attention, not only by the words of the Minister of National Defence but by other speakers as well, that dangers continue to confront us in Canada. The world situation is not such as will bring too much comfort or too much optimism. It is true there are indications that some changes have taken place and are taking place, and we certainly hope they are sincere. We sincerely hope that the views, the plans and the objectives of Soviet Russia, for instance, have somehow changed. Nevertheless we do recognize the absolute necessity of a department such as the Department of Defence Production. Not only do we believe it is important that we as a nation keep on our guard, but that we do not succumb in any way to the suggestion that everything has changed and therefore we can reverse our entire defence program.
We are not in line with that idea. We believe we ought to be vigilant; we ought to be on guard. After all, no matter what we gain, if we lose our freedom we lose all. Therefore let me say that this group is in favour of the defence production department. We are not opposing this measure on that score. There are, however, some inherent 
[Stage Direction]
dangers in this measure. I believe it can become a fearsome weapon in the hands of an autocratic government or an autocratic minister.
I know many verbal bouquets have been handed the Minister of Defence Production. I realize that, and possibly quite a few of them are deserved. I do not know whether they are all deserved, but anyway we admit a great many of them may be. However, as has been stated on different occasions, we do not know who his successor is going to be.
The other day the Minister of Fisheries referred to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as the minister of fisheries. I do not know whether he had visions of himself occupying the shoes of the Minister of Defence Production a little later on, and had already assigned his particular portfolio to somebody else. I do not know just what was in his mind on that occasion, but I am reminded of a story in old testament history. Solomon, of course, was one of the great kings of days gone by. He was supposed to have been the wisest man who ever lived, but in spite of that fact we are given to understand that his rule and his reign were rather autocratic.
Mr. MacDougall:: He should have been wise; he had a great many wives.


Alexander Bell Patterson: That is why I sometimes wonder whether he was just as wise as we credit him with being, because he had so many wives. Anyway, the people were labouring under rather severe measures during his reign. Then, after he passed away, Rehoboam came to the throne, and the people sent their representatives to Rehoboam and said: "Your father was a wonderful man, but he was pretty hard on us. The measures under which we were forced to live were rather oppressive, and we would like some relief from those oppressive measures." Rehoboam said, "All right; you come back in about three days' time and I shall give you my answer." So Rehoboam called in the old men who had been his father's counsellors and said, "What do you fellows think about this request? Do you think I ought to accede to their request, lift some of their burdens and ease some of these measures?" They said, "Yes, we think you ought to do it, because if you do it the people will serve you forever."
Not satisfied with that, he called in the young men. He said to them, "What do you suggest?" They said, "Those old fellows, they are all haywire. Don't pay too much attention to them. We would suggest that you add additional burdens, make things heavier; tell them that your little finger is going to be heavier than your father's loins." So when

the people came back to him he heeded that injunction of the young men and placed additional burdens and restrictions on them, and they went away determined that somehow or other they were going to rid themselves of that oppressive ruler.
I tell that story to show that even although the present Minister of Defence Production may be wise and may be only a little autocratic, who is to know what the next man is going to be like? He may place additional restrictions upon us and his authority may be exercised in wider measure until we find that we have a program of regimentation and rigid discipline which none of us in Canada 'want to see brought to pass.
As we look at this measure we realize that it could be used for ulterior purposes. We hope it will be used only for defence purposes, but somehow or other there is a fear that we may be made the victims of a system of regimentation from within against which we are struggling to defend ourselves from without.
In submitting this bill the minister gave some reasons why he did so. He said that in order to have a department adequate to meet the situation they must have all these powers. We are not debating that clause of the bill, because we have no desire to be placed at a disadvantage in time of emergency. We believe the government should be in a position where they can make adequate decisions so we may be prepared for any emergency which may come to pass.
We are not opposing the measure because of the wide powers that are being conferred upon the government or upon the minister. Let me say that one reason we are opposing the measure is the deletion of the expiry clause. The Minister of Defence Production indicated that this would not make any difference as far as the bill was concerned, in view of the statement he made the other day and the amendment he proposed. If the inclusion or exclusion of any expiry date will not make any difference, why is such an adamant stand being taken in respect to it?
I say to the minister, include an expiry date; set it at two, three or four years hence, and I believe you will get the support of this group. But exclude it, and I say we will have no other alternative but to continue to oppose it, and of course when it comes to a vote we shall be forced to vote against it. What has the minister in mind? Is any project contemplated the realization of which requires these absolute powers and an indefinite period of time in order to bring it to fruition? I wonder if there is something like that.
Defence Production Act
I rose tonight to clarify the position of this group and, as I have said before, to state that nothing that has been said in the debate thus far has altered our views or our position. Let me say again that we are not opposing the bill because of the setting up of the department; we are not opposing the bill because of the increasing of the salary; we are not opposing the bill because of the powers that are granted. We are opposing it because there is no expiry date.


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the hon. member for Spadina and the hon. member for Ottawa West today it became fairly obvious that those on the government side of the house believe two things are permanent and will go on forever. Those two things appear to be crises and "C.D." Regardless of how much the Minister of Defence Production has accomplished in this country during the 15 years he has been in Ottawa, regardless of his great abilities and his great failings, the fact is that no minister is a permanent fixture. To argue that broad powers should be granted without a time limit under the Defence Production Act because of the ability, or anything else you want to call it, of the existing minister is to argue upon a basis of fallacy.


Mr. Pouliot:: May I ask a question? By "C.D." does the hon. member mean civil defence against tyranny?


Carl Olof Nickle: The hon. member may draw his own conclusion. The other argument that crises are permanent is of course just as invalid as the argument that any single individual is a permanent institution of government.
For the last four years this parliament, by the Defence Production Act, has vested in the present minister what might be called a short-term loan of certain rights and liberties belonging to the people of Canada. By this amendment to remove the time limit from the Defence Production Act the government is asking for a blank cheque by the parliament of Canada and drawn on the account of the people of Canada, payable in the rights and liberties of Canadians now held in that account. The great question is for how many of those rights and liberties would the cheque be filled in by the present or any future minister of defence production. To eliminate the safety factor of the act, the time limit and the right of parliament to review the broad powers vested in one man through this act, is to deprive the people of this country of rights which have been hard fought for and hard won.

Defence Production Act
I was looking at a book today called "Law and Order in Canadian Democracy" published by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. On page 2 appears a definition of democracy. This is a statement of Gaspard Fauteux, a former Speaker of the House of Commons, who aptly summed it up as follows:
In Canadian democracy the state is the servant of the individual; in other forms of government the individual is the servant of the state.
Then the author of this book goes on to make a comment of his own:
Some totalitarian states call themselves democracies-the country is run for the benefit of its people, but by a small group that holds absolute power; such a "democracy" demands the surrender of all an individual's rights, and the taking over of those rights by the all-powerful state.
Those of us in this group feel strongly that the people of this country have not yet reached the stage where they are willing to hand over to anyone or any group permanent powers that will deprive them of more of their democratic rights. A newspaper in the city of Calgary, my home town, came out with an editorial on Wednesday, June 15, dealing with this particular debate. That editorial is headed "A Fight that is Well Worth Waging". Without quoting directly from the editorial, let me say that it begins with a comment on the House of Commons new air-conditioning system and the fact that the air-conditioning system and time are on the side of the Conservative party, who are, as the newspaper says, putting up a brave and commendable fight against Mr. Howe's attempt to tamper with one of the fundamentals of parliamentary government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member realizes that he cannot quote from newspapers which comment on proceedings within the house. He prefaced his remarks by saying he would not quote, but I understand him to be quoting directly now. May I also say I do not think he should do by indirection what is expressly forbidden directly. In other words, if the article comments on proceedings within the house I do not think it is within our rules that the hon. member, though he may make such comments as he wishes himself, should quote from outside articles on the proceedings of the house itself.


Carl Olof Nickle: Abiding by your decision, Mr. Speaker, and without quoting in any way directly from the editorial but paraphrasing what one editor thinks, it might be said that the power the Minister of Defence Production wants, not only for himself but for his successors, regardless of who they might be or to what political party they may belong, is

dangerously far-reaching and as undemocratic as any which has been suggested in any piece of legislation in this or any previous peacetime year.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Carl Olof Nickle: The power the minister wants is the right to force any industry in Canada to accept government contracts at what the minister considers the right price, and the power also to seize any industry or industries if they fail to do so. That, of course, is a wartime power and one that has no place whatsoever in a democratic society at any other time than during periods of extreme emergency.
Now, if such a measure as this amendment to the Defence Production Act is ever passed by parliament-and the so-called filibuster staged by the Conservatives and Social Crediters in this house appears to be the only way of opposing it-it will put every industry in this country as well as the individual workers in those industries at the mercy of the government, whether it be the present Liberal government or a future Conservative government.
This editor in Calgary mentions one other point which has not been discussed in the house; and again, without quoting directly from his comments, this is what he suggests. There is another great danger in this amendment eliminating the time factor from this Defence Production Act, and that is the danger that any government could abuse these powers to force industry to contribute to its political campaign funds. During his remarks today the hon. member for Spadina somehow got around to the conclusion that my group in this house were taking the stand they were on this particular bill because we had no hope of ever forming a government in Canada. To that, let me say only this. We have not given up hope by any means of forming a government in Canada.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Two years.


Carl Olof Nickle: We shall try to hold to the absolute minimum the mess the Conservative government coming up will have to clean up. The hon. member for Ottawa West in his comments today somehow implied that the party of which I am a member was unpatriotic to some degree in trying to apply our amendments to this particular act in a way that would interfere with the legitimate defence needs of this country.


George James McIlraith: I never said any such thing.


Carl Olof Nickle: In that regard let me say only
this. Our objective is in no way connected

with any efforts to interfere with the legitimate defence needs of this country, but we do feel we must have safeguards to ensure that any steps taken by the government shall be based upon real grounds of defence needs, and not simply upon grounds which go under the guise of defence. The hon. member for Spadina wound up his remarks with the rather startling conclusion that the purpose of the Conservative party in this so-called filibuster was to try to divide the cabinet and defeat the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Defence Production.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is already divided.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, without attempting to claim any knowledge other than that which comes to all of us through the press of this country who in turn draw much of their information from the usual reliable and informed sources in Ottawa, I think it is fair to say that the cabinet is somewhat divided now on this particular issue. In fact the cabinet seems to be divided on two issues, both introduced by the Minister of Defence Production. The Minister of Defence Production has apparently demanded that the time limit be removed from this act and he will stand for no amendment to it other than the amendment upon which he has now insisted.
There seems to be, according to the press again, some division within the cabinet as to the propriety of permanently granting such powers to any man or any department. The other issue seeming to divide the cabinet in some way concerns this act. I refer, of course, to the division within the cabinet as to the proposal by the Minister of Defence Production for a revision of the government's natural gas pipe-line policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How about the division of the Tory party on that subject?


An hon. Member:: Solid as a rock.


An hon. Member:: Solid right through from ear to ear.


Carl Olof Nickle: As the nation knows, the Minister of Trade and Commerce suffered his first major defeat during his career in Ottawa when he was defeated by members of his own cabinet on the pipe-line issue a few months ago. If it is the wish of the minister's colleagues to give ground to him on one of the two issues now before us, I strongly urge that they defeat the minister on the issue on which he is so basically wrong, his amendment to the Defence Production Act, and go along with him on his amendments to a gas pipe-line policy which finally, at long last, makes a good deal of economic sense.
50433-318^
Defence Production Act
Mr. Speaker, I have been curious for some time as to what use is made of powers under the Defence Production Act. Referring back to the defeat within the cabinet of a pipe-line issue a few months ago-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Carl Olof Nickle: -I find that section 15 of the Defence Production Act gives the minister the power to make loans or advances to or to guarantee the repayment of loans or advances made to a person for the purpose of providing assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension and so on of a great host of items including manufacture, production, finishing, assembling, processing, transportation and so forth.
I should like to get from the minister, whose present policy or present reported policy is known, some information as to whether or not a year or so ago he made use of the powers vested in him under this act to make a pledge to the backers of a pipe line, committing his government and, through his government, the taxpayers of Canada, to financial support of an uneconomic project. It appears that during the year that elapsed between the time that pledge or commitment was made by the minister-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not only completely out of order but he is raising a slander based on another matter. Let us have a little bit of order in this debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is proper discussion on a section of the bill.


Carl Olof Nickle: There is no slander at all
involved in this, Mr. Speaker. I have a high regard for the minister. What I am asking is simply this. Did he make use of the powers vested in him under this act to make a pledge of financial assistance to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in the spring of 1954?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a slander.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Defence Production raised a point of order. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) for some time now has been dealing perhaps more with pipe-line policy than with the principle of second reading of this defence production bill. I do not think it is sufficient to refer to a section in the original act and use that section as the groundwork for somewhat extended remarks on what is, after all, another subject entirely. Hon. members recognize the hon. member's interest in the subject which he is attempting to discuss___


Clarence Decatur Howe: Financial interest.

Defence Production Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -but I am sure he will also realize that at this time we are discussing the principle of Bill No. 256, and that he must confine himself rather particularly to that principle.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on the point of order that has been raised. I draw your attention, if I may, to the fact that it was not simply a matter of raising a point of order, because the Minister of Defence Production did not content himself with doing that. He used words that, in my submission, are not parliamentary. He said that the words of the hon. member for Calgary South were a slander. As I understand it, those words are unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.
I am raising those two points. I am asking that you direct the Minister of Defence Production to withdraw the unparliamentary expression he used; and second, on the point of order I submit that the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary South are completely in order because he is drawing attention to a provision in the Defence Production Act which is directly germane to this whole matter. What he is pointing out is that under that section it would be perfectly within the powers of the minister-I do not say it would be proper-to give such a guarantee. The hon. member has asked if a guarantee of a particular kind were given.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am addressing Mr. Speaker, not some people who cannot keep quiet.


An hon. Member:: You cannot take it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think patience is a virtue. I am prepared to wait until this gabbling has stopped. I submit that the point of order of the Minister of Defence Production is not well taken. I think the hon. member for Calgary South is completely in order in asking the question he has put, as to whether a particular use has been made of powers which will be continued in the minister if the bill now before the house is passed-


Clarence Decatur Howe: What about
Cleopatra?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and if the powers the government seeks are made permanent.


An hon. Member:: It will be passed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How many times is the hon. gentleman allowed to speak?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you direct this noisy minister to withdraw his unparliamentary expression.


An hon. Member:: Take it easy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member for Eglinton would oblige me by speaking more directly to the point of order and less to the principle and subject matter of the bill. I have indicated that in my opinion the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary South were departing from the principle of the bill and extending to another subject entirely. Hon. members will realize that these are questions of opinion. It is sometimes extremely difficult to distinguish between a primary argument and a secondary argument, or to draw an exact line indicating when an hon. member departs from the principle of a bill and is entering upon some other subject which is not relevant.
I drew the matter to the attention of the hon. member for Calgary South, and I took it that he was in some measure concurring in my view and was continuing with his speech in another vein. With the leave of hon. members I am content to leave the matter at that and to observe what the hon. member for Calgary South does from now on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about the unparliamentary expression used by the minister?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will not sit down. What about the unparliamentary expression used by the minister?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I also observe that the hon. member for Calgary South has taken no objection to the remark. I am sure if the hon. member for Calgary South takes objection to the remark and if he feels that it was directed personally to himself, the minister would be glad to make whatever amends are necessary.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, the point I raised was this.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Carl Olof Nickle: Have powers conferred under this act been used by the minister to make commitments binding this government, or apparently binding this government, without his being required to advise his colleagues even in cabinet? My reference to a pledge of financial assistance to a pipe line made in the spring of 1954 arises from the fact or the apparent fact that the minister's colleagues were not aware of any commitment until the spring of 1955, or in other words many months after the commitment had been made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Carl Olof Nickle: The obvious point, Mr. Speaker, is that with such broad powers-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to move the adjournment of the debate?


Carl Olof Nickle: I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Nickle the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take first items 6 and 7, on today's order paper, being Senate amendments to certain agriculture
Business of the House
bills; then second reading of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; then the resolution having to do with amendments to the Criminal Code; then the resolution with respect to the Judges Act; then committee of the whole on the Canada Elections Act.


Mr. Hees:: Not the library bill?


Walter Edward Harris: No, not the library bill. The next item would be committee of ways and means to take customs resolutions only.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 21, 1955