1955-07-06

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in connection with a matter of privilege affecting myself and every other hon. member of this house. Yesterday I introduced a motion seeking an adjournment of the house to debate a question of urgent public importance, namely the negotiations which we thought were then being conducted between the government of Canada and the government of Poland in connection with wheat transactions. We have made it perfectly clear that what we were doing was seeking a discussion of procedure by which our money is handed out for deals of this kind. I am not going to extend the argument with respect to trade with communist countries. As I made clear yesterday, the matter has nothing to do with trade with communist countries as such but is rather a transaction by which the Canadian taxpayer is called upon to put up money to support these deals. When this matter was raised Your Honour took the motion into consideration and ruled that the matter should not be dealt with.
The grounds on which you made the ruling were grounds that have a bearing on the question of the privileges of every one of us if we believe we are entitled to accurate information in this house and to knowledge of the subjects that we are discussing passed on to us at appropriate times by the members of the government. As found in Hansard for yesterday at page 5682, Your Honour, in explaining reasons why you questioned at first the propriety of proceeding with the motion and why you subsequently ruled that it should not be proceeded with, had this to say:	.
As I recall it a question was asked Friday and the reply was given by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that this matter is still pending.
That was the transaction with Poland with regard to the sale of some 9 million to 10 million bushels of wheat. Your Honour continued:
The information given by the Prime Minister Friday was to the effect that the negotiations in
respect of this matter were not completely terminated. Therefore the matter referred to in the motion could not be a definite one. I have Hansard here for Friday, July 1, 1955, and I find that at page 5557 the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
"I know that the negotiations have been proceeding, Mr. Speaker, in what we consider to be a satisfactory manner, but I have not been informed that they have been concluded. The negotiations did deal with a large quantity of wheat, and did deal with the Insurance by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation of a substantial portion of the price to be paid within twelve months, I understand."
Then Your Honour continued:
Apparently that is the situation with respect to this transaction . . .


Mr. Marler:: "As of last Friday".


George Alexander Drew: Yes, of course, that was as of last Friday, but the minister will, I hope, recall, if he was in the house, and, if he was, he was an exception among the ministers-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What about yourself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Hees:: Listen to the wolves howling.


Mr. Garson:: You had better look at your own record.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask hon. members to restore order. While I am on my feet, perhaps I might clear up the situation by intimating to the Leader of the Opposition that yesterday I advanced two reasons. One, as I recall it, had to do with urgency of debate, and that was the main reason for the ruling I made. The second reason I stated was that the matter, in my view, was not of a definite nature because of the fact that in my estimation the negotiations pertaining to the transaction referred to were still pending. I quite understand the feelings of the Leader of the Opposition when he wishes to raise a point as a matter of privilege-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think you should-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think you should permit me-

Wheat-Negotiations with Poland


Mr. Speaker:: I want to listen to the Leader of the Opposition but I would ask him to give me a chance to conclude what I have to say. What I was saying was that I understand the feelings of the Leader of the Opposition with respect to a situation which apparently developed, and of which he gave us notice last evening when he rose to a question of privilege to indicate that, whereas earlier in the day we were under the impression that the negotiations were not terminated, on the other hand an item appeared in the press that day to indicate that there was a transaction terminated. At that moment the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) did make a statement to the effect that the situation would remain unchanged until his estimates are called for study.
Now, I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I will listen to him. I am not usurping the floor. I just want to point out to him for his consideration that I doubt very much whether his point is one which should be raised at this time on a question of privilege. I think it is a matter rather for debate. Having said that, I will hear further representations from him.


George Alexander Drew: So that there will be no misunderstanding, what I am saying is neither with any thought of questioning your ruling of yesterday in any way nor of reflecting upon Your Honour's decision; may I say that Your Honour made a ruling based upon two points. Your Honour did not say that one point was merely a minor interjection. Your Honour, in fact, devoted some time to that because Your Honour said, as appears at 5682 of Hansard for July 5, 1955:
I take that to be so from the debate and from the determination that has been shown by several members to debate the matter and also to insist that the debate not be postponed from day to day but that it be proceeded with with dispatch. Therefore, having this debate in mind as the first order of the day and having in mind also that we will eventually go into supply to study the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to agree with me that an opportunity will be found soon to discuss this important matter and that then he will probably find a more suitable occasion because the negotiations are still pending; it may be that the deal will fall through, in which case what is the use of having a debate today?
Now, that was the point Your Honour made. Those are Your Honour's words. It was in relation to that, and while this subject was still under discussion, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as reported at page 5638 of the same volume of Hansard, said:
Perhaps I could relieve the situation by saying that the position will be unchanged when my estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are discussed.

That statement was made after Your Honour's statement. It was made in the light of the Prime Minister's statement that the negotiations were still under way, and was open to only one interpretation; that was that the negotiations were still under way and would be under way when the departmental estimates were called.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when I raised this question at 5.30 yesterday after I had been handed a press dispatch which disclosed that the deal had actually been completed, as announced by Mr. Swartz of the company carrying out the transaction, I had assumed that the Minister of Defence Production or Trade and Commerce, in whichever capacity he sought to act, would inform us about the facts. Instead of that he said that the negotiations were completed that morning. I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) if it is not correct that this transaction was completed a week ago on Wednesday by an exchange of notes between the two governments. I ask the Prime Minister how that ties in with the explanation given on Friday that these negotiations were still under way, and how it fits in with his acceptance yesterday of a statement made by Your Honour that this transaction had not yet been completed and we would have a later opportunity to debate it.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is a very appropriate question of privilege at this time. When I raised the matter yesterday at 5.30, I had been handed a dispatch. I did not have before me a copy of Hansard, nor could I check the exact words or the sequence of the statements made. The statement made by the Minister of Defence Production was open to only one interpretation in the light of what had been said before and that was that these negotiations could be discussed when his estimates came up and that they had not yet been completed. Any other meaning would be senseless, in relation to what had already been said. I submit that there is a very real question of privilege and that Your Honour should take this into consideration, because we should not be called upon to get the facts from departments of government through the press of the country. The newspapers perform a great service but, great though that service may be, our system of responsible government suggests that we should get accurate information from the ministers themselves. And I place that matter before Your Honour for consideration and for appropriate action.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am rising on a question of privilege. I must say that yesterday morning, when the statement was made by the

minister, the words that appear on page 5683 of Hansard-
Perhaps I could relieve the situation by saying that the position will be unchanged when my estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are discussed.
-certainly misled me. I understood that the deal had not been completed-and may I say it is a deal of which I am fully in support. I wish to see our wheat sold, and I believe that what the government has done is quite justified. But I must say I regret to have to say-and I agree this morning with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) - that we have been misled. It is true, of course, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said, that there would be an opportunity to consider the matter in full. But I took it to mean that the deal had not been completed. But in the light of what has been said on prior occasions, as noted this morning, I certainly was misled, myself.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is unfortunate that I was not in the house on Friday when this question was raised. I thought all the facts of the situation on that date were known to hon. members. The Prime Minister's statement made on that day was perfectly correct.
We received, in the ordinary course of business, an application to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation for an undertaking to insure 85 per cent of the purchase price of a quantity of grain to Poland-a quantity of
250.000	tons. That application was considered by the officers of the corporation and by the financial officers of the government, and it was reported to me that the application was a good commercial transaction, and one that the Export Credits Insurance Corporation could recommend.
I placed that recommendation before the government, and the government agreed that the Export Credits Insurance Corporation could take on the commercial loan under section 21 of their act.


Mr. Fleming:: When was that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was prior to last Friday-I cannot say the exact date, but a few days prior.
The government has taken no action since then. The agent of the Polish government was informed that the Export Credits Insurance Corporation was agreeable to underwriting the transaction. Yesterday or the day before, I am not sure which, the agent of the Polish government bought in Winnipeg
50.000	tons of No. 5 wheat. Payment was 50433-362
6, 1955
Wheat-Negotiations with Poland made in cash by him, and the Export Credits Insurance Corporation has not been asked to underwrite that loan. Whether it will be asked to underwrite that loan, I do not know, because it is rather expensive to buy that kind of underwriting. But that purchase of
50,000	tons was made by the Polish government. It may very well be that later an application will be made for underwriting by the insurance company; and if it is made I am quite sure that the underwriting will be undertaken. That is the purpose of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation-to underwrite exports from Canada, where the transaction promises to be a good commercial transaction.
An attempt has been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to distort the situation by associating that transaction with another deal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now, we have listened to the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps you had better listen to me for a minute. The two are not related in any way. They are not arranged under the same legislation. We will be very glad to discuss the relative positions when the opportunity offers. What I am saying to the house is that, as far as the government is concerned, the position has been unchanged and will continue to be unchanged until my estimates are discussed, in this matter of the Polish transaction.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a further question of privilege, I would point out that at page 5718 of Hansard, when this matter was called to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, he is reported as saying this:
Mr. Speaker, the only comment that was made this morning was that the situation would be unchanged when the estimates were up for consideration.
These are the important words:
The negotiations were completed prior to today, and the announcement that was made today informs hon. gentlemen opposite but it does not change the situation.
I submit we are now entitled to know when the negotiations were completed and what the nature of those negotiations was. We are entitled to know that from the Prime Minister, who told us they were not yet completed.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the proper time for a debate, but I am not going to allow to go unchallenged the imputation that I did not fully and frankly inform the house of what had taken place or that I said anything that could mislead the house.

Wheat-Negotiations with Poland
The house must realize that this is not a sale of wheat by the government to a government. This was an application by the representative of the government of Poland to know if the Export Credits Insurance Corporation would issue a policy for 85 per cent of the purchase price of wheat for a period of twelve months. They were informed, after the matter had been considered by the government at one of these half-hour meetings that we have at two o'clock to do the business that is urgent, that, if an application were made, a policy would be issued under the usual terms and at the usual rates.
Now, I do not know what has taken place between the vendors of wheat and the purchasers of wheat since that time. The Minister of Trade and Commerce tells me there have been 50,000 tons purchased and paid for. As we understood it, the information that was sought by the representative of Poland was whether there would be the possibility of obtaining insurance on a purchase of 250,000 tons. It is about that that the information was conveyed to them that they could obtain that insurance. Now, the negotiations for the purchase of wheat take place between the purchaser and the wheat board, or there is a transaction such as I saw this morning, a transaction being made or negotiated with the representative of a private organization. That is the situation.
When I informed the house that I understood the negotiations were proceeding satisfactorily, that was the fact. We had said that the Export Credits Insurance Corporation would issue an insurance policy, if it were applied for, on the usual terms. The information we had was to the effect that the negotiations with those who were entitled to sell the wheat were going on satisfactorily but had not been completed.


Mr. Rowe:: But they were completed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think they have been completed at the present time. I have no information about anything but those
50,000	tons bought and paid for.


George Alexander Drew: The minister says they were.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The negotiations as far as we were concerned were completed. All we had to do was to say whether or not the Export Credits Insurance Corporation would be prepared to issue an insurance policy. We said that the insurance policy would be issued. But the whole transaction will not be completed until there has been an application for the policy and the premium has been arranged and the payment of the premium provided.
That is the situation. It is an ordinary commercial transaction. We may be making a

mistake in trusting the credit of the purchaser of that wheat, but we do not think we are making a mistake. The hon. gentleman refers to the Ming Sung guarantee, but that guarantee was given at a time when we were extending loans to all those with whom we had been allied in the last conflict because we wanted to start the ball rolling for the restoration of international trade. Had there not been a revolution in China this loan would have been repaid long since.
If unfortunately a world war should break out before the expiry of twelve months it might be that this obligation for the wheat would not be met within the twelve months, but we are prepared to be sufficiently optimistic about the situation to continue to sell our products abroad on the assumption that there is not going to be a world war within the next twelve months. If that turns out to be wrong, then we will have made a mistake and we will be subject to such punishment as the Canadian people may see fit to mete out. But there is no question of privilege on behalf of any hon. member of this house concerned in the question of our good faith in making that commitment in an effort to find a commercial market for the large quantity of wheat this country has to sell.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that there is no question of good faith in carrying out-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: -the transaction; it was a question of privilege in relation to what was said. Your Honour was misled and your words show that Your Honour was misled.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has read only part of what you said. What you said is to be found at the bottom of page 5682 of yesterday's Hansard, as follows:
It may be that the deal will be made, and at that moment the opposition may enter into its role and criticize the action of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say that as far as I was concerned my judgment was based mainly on the question of the urgency of debate. That was the first point I dealt with because I began my remarks by saying:
Standing order 31, when it speaks of urgency, means urgency of debate.
That is the point with which I dealt. Then referring to the reply given by the Prime Minister on the previous day I went on to explain further that if the matter was still pending it could not be a definite one. May I say at this point that the first part of my decision was the main part. I said a moment ago, and with all deference to both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. mem-

ber for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), that I did not think that the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition was one which could properly be raised by way of a question of privilege. I say this although on many occasions similar questions have been raised by way of questions of privilege. But are we not faced now with a dispute about certain allegations of fact? If we are faced with that situation, should we not consider citation 192 of Beauchesne, third edition, the last part of which reads as follows:
A dispute arising between two honourable members as to allegations of facts hardly fulfils the conditions of a privilege question, and, if deemed to be a matter to be at once entertained, it is more convenient to postpone other business rather than extend the area of privilege.
I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was quite right in raising the matter but it is one which tends to open a debate. Several rulings are to the effect that a question of privilege is not debatable. It is therefore not fair at this time to postpone any other business for the purpose of allowing a debate as between members of this house on a matter of this kind. The matter could be fully aired whenever the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce come before the house, and no doubt it will be aired at that time. I think that the point has been fully stated and that great latitude has been given. Without any further remarks on my part I should like to ask the house to continue its business.
Questions



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of special committee on estimates.-Mr. Tucker.

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved:: That items numbered 112 to 127 inclusive and item 529, in the main estimates 1955-56; items 653 to 656 inclusive and item 789 in the supplementary estimates 1955-53, relating to the Department of Finance and item 795 in the further supplementary estimates 1955-56 relating to the Department of Fisheries, approved and reported upon this day by the special committee on estimates, be referred back to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Kickham:: 1.	What is the tuberculosis incidence per capita by provinces in Canada?
2.	What are the per capita earnings in Canada by provinces?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: 1. Rates per 100,000 estimated population of reported cases (b of tuberculosis, 1954.
Canada?) Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C.
Tuberculosis
all forms 	69 1	123-4	93-3	21-7(a)	pulmonary . . , (b)	non-pulmon-	,. 56-3	118-6	65-7	18-4ary 	. . 3-6	4-8	27-6	3-3
(c) type not
specified	 9-2
102-2 99-6	95-6 91-8	27-0	88-6 88-6	63-8 52-6	83-1 78-3	115-6 101-82-0	3-8	-	-	9-1	4-7	13-80-6	27-0	2-1	0-1	-
(b Reported cases reflect not only the actual incidence but also the effect of case finding programs.
(2) Exclusive of Yukon and Northwest Territories.
2. The average weekly wages and salaries in the major non-agricultural industries as of April 1, 1955, were as follows:
Newfoundland, $53.26; Prince Edward Island, $47.53; Nova Scotia, $51.79; New Brunswick, $53.89; Quebec, $58.18; Ontario, $63.24; Manitoba, $58.02; Saskatchewan, $56.82; Alberta, $61.09; British Columbia, $64.66.
50433-362J
Personal income per capita in the calendar year 1954 was:
Newfoundland, $638; Prince Edward Island, $648; Nova Scotia, $917; New Brunswick, $795; Quebec, $1,052; Ontario, $1,470; Manitoba, $1,085; Saskatchewan, $867; Alberta, $1,152; British Columbia, $1,476; Canada, $1,196.


LETTER CARRIER SERVICE, NORTH SURREY, B.C.
Mr. Hahn:: 1. What steps are necessary to be taken by residents of north Surrey to make possible the inauguration of the letter carrier system?

Motions for Papers
2. Where will the letter and post boxes be located in north Surrey to facilitate the delivery of the outgoing mail when the letter carrier system is put into operation?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: 1.	Seven letter carrier delivery routes will be established to serve patrons in the area of north Surrey postal station when the requirements in regard to the provision of letter slots and the numbering of houses are at least 90 per cent complete.
2.	At strategic points as determined by the local postal authorities.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all letters and other communications which have passed between any persons and groups in the city of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and the national parks branch or any minister of the crown since the 10th August, 1954, containing requests to the park authorities or to the minister in charge of the department to have the services of William J. Halstead of Prince Albert in the Waskesiu national park terminated and discontinued.


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, I have had thorough inquiries made and there are no such letters or other communications.


Mr. Fulton:: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the motion might be allowed to carry. Then it would just be a nil return.


Jean Lesage: That is what it is.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all letters, correspondence and telegrams received by the Prime Minister and any department of government from Premier Joseph Smallwood of Newfoundland, and replies thereto, since the 1st of January, 1954, containing complaints of alleged unfairness and discrimination by the federal government to the province of Newfoundland, or containing threats by the premier to lead that province out of confederation.


Mr.   Sf. Laurenl@: Concerning the Prime Minister's office I can assert that there is no such correspondence, and from the information that I have so far obtained from all the other offices, there is none. However, I have no objection to the motion going through with the expectation that it will probably be a return that there is no such correspondence.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried. It seems peculiar that we adopt motions with the

expectation that the return will be nil. It seems to me that hon. members who find themselves with motions similar to this one might consider the possibility of asking leave to withdraw their motion.


George Alexander Drew: No. We had better have it in writing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are carried now. All hon. members will take note of your remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am referring to future occasions.



INQUIRY AS TO SALE PRICE TO INSTITUTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) asked me yesterday to obtain accurate information about the sales of butter. I have a statement from the agricultural prices support board with respect to the butter account as at June 30, 1955.
Total purchases at 58 cents per pound basis, 68,898,830^ pounds. Sales at the 61-cent basis, the regular winter season sales, to April 29, 1955, 18,769,042^ pounds. At the 56-cent basis, which was established for the purpose of exchanging the butter that had been carried over for the new season's butter, spring exchange program, May 1 to June 30, 1955, 9,290,222 pounds, which includes an estimate of 448,728 pounds for sales arranged but details not quite completed as of June 30. Total sales completed or arranged to June 30, 1955, 28,059,264J pounds. Estimated inventory of the 1954 butter as at June 30, 1955, 40,839,566^ pounds. There is a little discrepancy there in the figures, but it is very slight. This includes sales on the regular basis and all the sales were made on the regular basis with an understanding that the sales to the institutions were subject to a refund of 21 cents a pound; so that while it was at 61 cents, the net price they were paying was 40 cents a pound; and since it has gone to 56 cents the net price they pay is 56 cents less the 21 cents refund. The sale that was arranged with the Canadian exporter to have him take 1954 butter in a quantity equal to the unsalted 1955 butter that he was selling at world price to the European markets is on a refund basis of 19 cents. That is the situation. The institutions are getting a refund of 21 cents for such further butter as they are taking, and they are continuing to take some as they requisition it. They are getting it on the 56-cent

basis less a refund of 21 cents, and the export deal was made on the 56-cent basis less a refund of 19 cents.


William Earl Rowe: Has the Prime Minister any figures as to the amount sold to the institutions?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes. Up to the 30th of June the amount the institutions had taken was 1,983,897J pounds.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: That is at
the 40-cent basis?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, they got some of it since the 29th of April at the 56-cent basis. I have not got a break-down as to what quantity they took prior to the 30th of April and what quantity they have taken since. So that hon. members may have more comprehensive information than the statement I have made, perhaps they would like to have the statement as I got it from the agricultural prices support board follow my verbal answer in today's Hansard-


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 

REPORTED SALE OF HIDES AND CELLULOSE TO POLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the discussion that has taken place and the question I asked yesterday or the day before, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he now tell us at what stage the negotiations are for the sale of hides and cellulose to Poland and whether the arrangements
Inquiries of the Ministry are similar to those which were employed in connection with the sale of wheat?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know nothing at all about negotiations for the sale of cellulose or hides. This is something which, in a free enterprise country, is being arranged by the free enterprise vendors with the purchasers. To our knowledge they have not yet suggested that there should be credit insurance for the purchase prices of what they are attempting to sell for these foreign markets.


George Alexander Drew: I think the Prime Minister will agree that these are not free enterprise transactions until the government has given the appropriate permission which was actually fully described in connection with the wheat transaction. I am simply asking the question whether there has been any similar application for licences or permits as in the case of wheat.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no similar application. The wheat transaction was preceded by an application from the representative of the Polish government to know if they could count upon an insurance policy from the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, but there has been no such application in respect of cellulose or hides up to this time.
f Later: ]



SALE OF WHEAT TO POLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister? Is there anything further to be done or authorized by the government of Canada which would be necessary to enable the vendors and purchasers to complete the sale to and purchase by Poland of 250,000 tons of Canadian wheat as described by the minister today? If so, what further has to be done?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the Canadian wheat board is not going to part with its wheat until it is paid for. The purchaser apparently has, or that was the information we had, agreed to pay 15 per cent and was going to borrow 85 per cent from the bank after getting an insurance policy from the Canadian Export Credits Insurance Corporation. Now, what would likely be required would be for the purchaser to go through the proceedings that are necessary to get his insurance policy, to sign the proper note to get his loan from the bank and have the money available to turn over to the wheat board.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Daniel Roland Michener: I appreciate what the
Prime Minister says, and my question was whether there were any formalities still to be authorized by the government. I appreciate the process that must be followed, but has the government done all it has to do in order to authorize the transaction?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I imagine that the comptroller of the treasury will make sure that the proper documents have been signed and are in order before he will agree to the insurance policy being issued.


Daniel Roland Michener: That is, the documents in accordance with authorizations already given?
[Later: ]



EFFECT ON WHEAT BOARD OF SALE TO POLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister this morning that a private corporation has negotiated a sale of wheat to an outside country, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the authority of the wheat board has been altered in any way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I would love to be able to explain the marketing of western wheat to my hon. friend. It has been tried in the agriculture committee from time to time but he will never understand it. Why go into that particular subject on a hot day in the summer?


George Alexander Drew: That is a fine example of respect for parliament.


John Alpheus Charlton: In view of the minister's reply, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Are we wrong in our assumption that the Canadian wheat board have authority to sell all Canadian wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, they sell all Canadian wheat; but who resells it afterwards is a matter that is handled by the trade. The wheat board sell wheat to whoever bids the price they want, and is prepared to pay cash for it. I am not familiar with the details of the transaction that took place yesterday, when a broker bought for Polish account, and paid cash for 50,000 tons of wheat. I do not know whether he bought it from the wheat board or bought it from another trader. And I do not think it matters very much to my hon. friend.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government come to an urgently needed decision regarding the request of the Saskatchewan government in the matter of joint action to relieve victims of property damage due to recent disastrous flooding? Has the government given approval to a proposal to the administrators of the Canadian disaster relief fund to allow contributions from that fund to be made to a voluntary Saskatchewan disaster fund if one is set up?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): There has been no application that I know of from the administrators of the disaster fund to use any of the funds at their disposal in respect of the Saskatchewan or Manitoba situations. I am to meet representatives of the Red Cross this afternoon who have something over half a million dollars remaining in the fund that was created to relieve victims of the disasters in the United Kingdom and Holland. They wish to know, because this government was a contributor of $1 million, if they could use the money for the ordinary relief purposes attended to by the Red Cross. My own feeling would be that they should be told they can use it, that we have sufficient confidence in the administration of the Canadian Red Cross to entrust them with the disposal of whatever surplus remains in that other fund. But that would perhaps require a resolution of the house because when we got the appropriation it was understood that it was for European relief. After I see them and get full details, I will probably be asking the house to agree that whatever portion of our contribution remains in the account may be used by them for the general welfare purposes that are attended to by the Red Cross.
With respect to the specific question about Saskatchewan, we have not yet received an application from the government of Manitoba, and we feel we would like to deal with the situations of both provinces at the same time because they resulted from the same climatic conditions. I understand the government of Manitoba is endeavouring to get its computations in order to be submitted.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in view of the stress laid earlier by

both yourself and the Prime Minister on the opportunity of discussing trade questions on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, may I ask how soon these estimates will be put before the committee of supply?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am afraid I shall have to ask the hon. gentleman to direct his question to some other source of information than myself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid the Prime Minister is under a misapprehension. I was not directing the question toward him in particular. I was directing it to the government, and as the leader of the house is in his seat I shall relieve the Prime Minister of any responsibility for answering the question and direct it specifically to the leader of the house. How soon may we expect the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce to be put before the committee of supply for review?


Walter Edward Harris: For the past two or three weeks the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been asking me the same question. I have not been able to answer him any more than I can answer my hon. friend.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When will the minister be in a position to answer, because stress has been laid on the opportunity for discussion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and the urgency of this matter. You referred to it, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister referred to it.


Walter Edward Harris: The opportunity to call estimates usually arises after other business has been dealt with. It is hoped that other business can be disposed of soon and we can take the remaining estimates. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think the house would take about a week on the remaining estimates, and during that time the Department of Trade and Commerce would be called. The sequence in which the departments will be called, however, will be a matter to be determined at that time. In the meantime I take it that the hon. gentleman and the party to which he belongs would like, to dispose of the present debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We would like to have the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce before the house in view of the urgency attached to them in the light of the discussion yesterday and today.


An hon. Member:: You cannot have both.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the minister shares the wish to bring them on, too.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Lennard:: Mr. Speaker, have orders of the day been called? What about government notices of motions?


Mr. Speaker:: They were called.



REFERENCE TO TAKING OF PICTURES FROM GALLERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should address this question to the Prime Minister or to Your Honour. I should like to ask who gives permission for people to take pictures from the gallery while the house is in session. I ask the question because I saw a man in the gallery this morning taking pictures. Is it only the national film board that is allowed to take pictures or can other individuals also take them?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might answer the question. I have no general instructions with respect to these requests that come to me from time to time from various publicity organizations. But whenever a request is referred to me I always, with pleasure, take time to consult the four party leaders and, if they agree, a picture can be taken. I might add for the hon. member's information that I enforce a condition with respect to the taking of these photographs. The condition is that they be approved by the Speaker before publication. Whenever I receive copies of the proofs I will show them to the four party leaders, and if they agree with me then I will give consent.



PROTECTIVE STAFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to address a question to the proper minister, as I do not see the Minister of Public Works here. I understand that instructions require the members of the protective staff to wear their jackets under all circumstances. In view of the extremely hot weather we have had and the inhumanity of this regulation, would the appropriate minister give consideration to allowing them to remove their jackets during this period?


Mr. Speaker:: May I perhaps supply an explanation to the hon. gentleman. During the last two or three years members of our protective staff were allowed to go without tunics during the summer months. But at their request the board of internal economy has granted them a summer tunic, and that

Inquiries of the Ministry is the one that, by regulation, they are called upon to wear. It is at their own request.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are they lined?


Mr. Speaker:: Having gladly obliged an hon. member by answering his question, I would inform hon. members that usually questions are not asked of the Speaker from the floor of the house. If they want to come to see me, I shall be pleased to give them all the information. I thought perhaps I would oblige one hon. member, as I obliged another hon. member earlier, but if there is to be a round of questions I shall be glad to reply to all questions when my estimates are before the house.



PAGE BOVS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: Following the request that hon. members have made with respect to the consideration we should have for our staff, may I take advantage of this opportunity to point out to hon. members that for the last few days I have been concerned with respect to the page staff. The hours of sitting are long, and that requires long hours of duty by these boys. I would ask the house if they would be prepared to consider putting up with less service in the evenings so that we could organize a system of rotation and split the staff. I am sure our page boys, who always render good service, will appreciate the gesture of the house at this time.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. S. White (Hasiings-Fronfenac):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister in a position to comment on the correctness of a report in the press that a child in the village of Stirling had contracted polio after being inoculated with Salk vaccine?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am in a position to say that the report of yesterday that a child in the constituency of my hon. friend had contracted polio after having been inoculated three times with Salk vaccine is now followed by a report this morning that the child is up again. Physicians say that the child did not have polio. We are in the fortunate position in this country of having immunizations of close to one million, and not having had one mishap.



SUSPENSION OF IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM DURING SUMMER MONTHS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to ask the minister a question along similar lines. In view of press reports in the Montreal Gazette that the Salk vaccine program is to be suspended for July and August, can the minister tell us whether or not children who have received the first shot of vaccine will be able to receive the remaining two shots during July and August? If not, is there any chance that the effect of the first shot will be lost before the remaining shots of vaccine are given? I ask this question as it is my understanding that when a series of shots of vaccine are given to immunize persons against other diseases, they have to be given during a definite period of time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will undertand that I proceed entirely on the scientific opinion of those who are trained in this field. All those who have been immunized this year have received at least two shots. The provinces, in collaboration with the federal government, have decided that in view of the uncertainty that exists as to the desirability of vaccinations during the summer months it would be prudent not to proceed with the program during July and August. This is not really a new decision. This is a decision that was arrived at almost a year ago. There is no suspension of the program. The program is being carried out in accordance with an arrangement we made a year ago.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: On Monday, I asked the then acting prime minister if he would take note of a question which I had intended to ask of the Minister of Justice regarding reconsideration of the request of municipalities in British Columbia for increased payments under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police contract. I would ask the Minister of Justice if he has any comment to make upon whether favourable consideration will be given of that request?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The question which my hon. friend asked on Monday last was this:
I wanted to know whether the minister had received from various municipalities in British Columbia, including the city of Kamloops, a request

for reconsideration of the demand that payments under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police contract be increased?
The answer is, yes, we have received them from four municipalities. Then there was this further question:
If this request has been made, may we be informed whether favourable action is to be taken?
I presume by that the hon. gentleman means whether we would give effect to the request. In reply to that question, I would say that most careful consideration was given to this whole matter before we reached the decision that we have reached. No further facts have been brought to our attention which would seem to warrant a reconsideration of that decision.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a supplementary question? Were he and his department aware, in the consideration that they gave to it, of the fact that the demand for further payment was received by these municipalities after their budget and their tax rates had been set and that under our municipal act there is no provision for anything in the way of supplementary estimates? Could the minister reconsider whether or not this could be deferred for this year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Upon the point which my hon. friend has raised, we reached our decision, if I remember correctly, on April 4, 1955, and it was communicated immediately to the proper authorities through the proper channels in British Columbia. If there were any delays after that, I do not think we are responsible for them. I think it is apparent that this is a matter of detail into which it would be more convenient for us to go on the justice estimates.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings inquired yesterday if the damage to the gears of the Bluenose occurred on the first day of the trials, and also asked how long it would take to complete the trials.
The engine trials started on June 22 and the engines and gears were turned over slowly for approximately two hours. A trial of about four hours was carried out on June 23, when the propellers were driven through the gears from idling speed to approximately half speed. The machinery was shut down and the gears opened up for examination in 50433-363
Inquiries of the Ministry the evening. Accordingly, the damage was discovered on the second day.
So far as the second part of the question is concerned, I understand the trials of the main machinery, that is, dock trials, full power trials, speed trials, steering trials, stabilizer trials, auxiliary machinery trials and all the other miscellaneous trials of the equipment and machinery on board the ship require approximately 14 days to complete if everything goes well.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of National Defence come to any conclusion with respect to representations made on behalf of the corporation of the township of Toronto to release part of the Long Branch rifle ranges for necessary and urgent municipal services?
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Pallet!: If the minister has not come to a conclusion, would he then consider coming to a favourable decision in the light of the representations made by the corporation of the township of Toronto?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The whole subject has been under consideration for some time, and still is. When a decision has been made, I will be glad to make it known.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Has a new private car been built for the president of the Canadian National Railways, Donald Gordon?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many cars are in the possession of the Canadian National Railways, and as I do not carry that information with me day by day I shall have to make inquiries and let the hon. member know.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: A supplementary question. I should like to know the cost, and what they did with the old one.
5750	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act ATOMIC ENERGY



INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of a press report that the government of the United Kingdom has accepted an invitation from five European countries to a conference to discuss the use of atomic energy, may I ask if any arrangement is being made whereby Canada might have access to the discussions at that conference, or the information provided there.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I am not familar with the conference to which my hon. friend refers. I do know there will be a conference at Geneva in August, under United Nations auspices, to discuss atomic energy, at which Canada will be adequately represented. I shall however look into the hon. member's question, and give any information regarding that conference when I get it.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 5, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Brooks.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, at the time this
debate was adjourned last night-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I want Your Honour to be able to hear what is being said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: At the time the debate was
adjourned last night I had pointed out that one of the very important considerations in examining the effect of this measure is the fact that it is not emergency legislation, in spite of all that has been said. I propose-
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot even hear myself. I cannot even hear my own words at the moment.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That's a great help.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask hon. members not to carry on conversations behind the curtains, and hon. members in the house not to create a disturbance.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I propose to continue that discussion; but before doing so I wish to refer to an article in today's issue of the Montreal Gazette, because it has a direct bearing on the debate and certain aspects of it. Since the minister has left the chamber-I do not know whether he has started out on another fishing trip or not-and since the Prime Minister is not here, I would hope that the house leader, at some appropriate time, would draw to their attention the comments in this debate which, I would remind them, is being carried forward not at our instance, but at the instance of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). We are now dealing with the second reading of a bill which stands in the name of the Prime Minister, and was introduced on behalf of the Prime Minister by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). Neither of them is here; therefore I must hope that-[DOT]


Mr. Pickersgill:: We are dealing with an amendment, and the mover has not been here for days.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Fishing, and things like that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I refer to your own amendment.


George Alexander Drew: I realize of course that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) has only recently come into the house, and consequently is not yet aware of some of the practices here. But I was pointing out that the discussion was initiated by the Prime Minister, and that whatever amendments may be moved, no matter how many there may be, the fact remains that this debate was initiated by the Prime Minister-I note that now the Minister of Defence Production is	returning-who
actually brought the matter before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: You know, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of denying to any hon. member a full opportunity to enjoy himself by making noises, whether they are clear or whether they are not. But so far as any noises from the other side are concerned-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, I hear the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration coming into the discussion again-but just as an indistinguishable blur, and no words that possibly could find their way to Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege; unlike those raised by the hon. member, this is a genuine question of privilege.
Seme hon. Members: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member said he had heard me say something. His hearing must be exceptionally good, because I was reading a letter at the time and paying not the slightest attention to what he said.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I felt perfectly sure that the minister was paying no attention. He has been paying no attention to the business of the house at any time since he came in here.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it relevant to the second reading?


George Alexander Drew: I do not think so.


Mr. Speaker:: All right. We agree on one point. On the second point, is it becoming to the dignity and decorum of the house that in speaking we should indulge in personalities and keep count of the entrances of ministers or members on the one side or on the other? That has been done quite often. If one member keeps track of whenever the minister comes in or goes out or how long he stays in, we may have as a retort the same checking of members on the other side.
I do not think it becomes the decorum of this house to say that the minister is leaving, probably to go fishing, and then jump to another minister and say that his intervention was nothing but a blur. I want the Leader of the Opposition to be quite sure that I am not asking him to withdraw and I am not saying what he says is offensive. I am merely asking him, for his consideration, if he thinks that so many times in the course of a speech references of the type I have mentioned should be made.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that Your Honour is not asking me to withdraw, because this is one occasion I most certainly would not, if it had been asked-


An hon. Member:: How ridiculous.


George Alexander Drew: -and I shall explain the reason why.
Mr Pickersgill: This is the man who is upholding the constitution.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I must express my pleasure that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has stopped reading his letter and is now taking an interest.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Go back to reading your newspaper.


George Alexander Drew: We will be dealing with you in a minute.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the reason I say that is this. I made the comment for the purpose of explaining that
50433-3G3J
Defence Production Act at the particular point when I was making these remarks neither the Prime Minister, in whose name the motion stands, nor the Minister of Defence Production, was in the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Nor the mover of the amendment.


George Alexander Drew: I was expressing the hope-and I think a legitimate hope-that, no matter what disregard for the house the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration might have, there would be some attempt by other ministers present-and there are some-to communicate the debate to those who were primarily interested. Now the Minister of Defence Production is in his seat and that, of course, changes the whole situation and makes it possible to direct remarks to him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Direct your remarks to the Speaker for a change. Remember the rule of law.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Physician, heal thyself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The rule of law is for everybody except the Leader of the Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that it is not very many minutes ago that the Minister of Defence Production said to an hon. member of this house who had raised a legitimate and proper question-otherwise I know Your Honour would not have entertained it-that the member was not interested in the subject anyway. The minister who said that, and I am referring to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say to the hon. member that, if a point of order had to be raised, it should have been raised immediately after the offence was committed. Since no point was raised, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition should refer to that now.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not referring, to it with any thought-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I am not referring to it with-


An hon. Member:: Time's awasting.


An hon. Member:: Question.


George Alexander Drew: I do not intend to proceed until the Speaker can hear me. I am fully aware of the fact that it is the Speaker whom I am addressing, because the Speaker after all should hear. I would suggest to some of the hon. members opposite that it would be well if they stood when addressing their remarks to the Speaker, instead of raising such an uproar that it is impossible for the remarks in this house to be heard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I submit, sir, that it has
5752	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act never been a rule of the house that hon. members have to submit quietly to being bored. Any hon. member who cannot keep the attention of the house should resume his seat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that why the minister has sat down?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I got the attention of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask hon. members not to give any cause for a request for order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke about an uproar.


An hon. Member:: There is no uproar.


Mr. Speaker:: I think his remarks are exaggerated. I ask hon. members on both sides of the house to maintain order and, if they make interruptions, not to make them in a disorderly fashion. I should like to hear the Leader of the Opposition continue his speech.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is the uproar now? Mr. Speaker: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, one of the happiest events of this morning is to find the return of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to an interest in what is taking place. Nevertheless, he has propounded a new freedom.


An hon. Member:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Does the hon. member wish to raise a question of order? If so, I shall stand aside while he does so.


An hon. Member:: Wasting time.


George Alexander Drew: I shall gladly stand aside while the hon. member raises the question of order.


Mr. Speaker:: May I respectfully ask the Leader of the Opposition to speak to the principle of this bill?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak to the principle of this bill and intend to do so with some opportunity for my remarks to be heard. I was just about to say we have had a new principle of freedom asserted by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and that is freedom from being bored. I would suggest, if he does not feel it is his duty to sit in the house, that he get out and read his letters some place else.


An hon. Member:: You are still not talking to the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. gentleman talked about Oliver Cromwell. Now he is trying to expel members from the house.


Mr. Speaker:: It will not be possible to have a continuation of this debate in a reasonable way if hon. members keep rising on points of order or if the Leader of the Opposition, who has the floor, keeps inviting members to rise on points of order. I would hope that from now on we might listen to the Leader of the Opposition speak to the principle of this bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that the question before the house is one which has been presented by the Prime Minister and was placed before the house at the time of the second reading on his behalf by the Minister of Defence Production. As hon. members will recall, at the point before they started interrupting me I had referred to an article in today's Montreal Gazette containing the heading "Howe says no to compromise." This is an article by a gentleman who I think I can say with the utmost sincerity is one of the most highly regarded members of the press gallery. He refers in factual detail to the negotiations which were supposed to have taken place in regard to some compromise settlement of the debate before the house. I notice another heading reading "Bitterness between Howe and Drew?" This article, written by Mr. Arthur Blakely, reads:
Reason for the breakdown of negotiations, it is understood, is the bitterness marking Mr. Howe's personal relations with Opposition Leader Drew and some of his lieutenants.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Disregard all that and carry on. I would not bother to be worried one iota about your relations with me.


George Alexander Drew: I am glad the Minister of Defence Production agrees entirely with me that it is an entirely incorrect interpretation of our personal relationship. The fact is that we have the most cordial relations outside the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Speak for yourself.


George Alexander Drew: Those relations would be equally cordial inside the house if the Minister of Defence Production carried forward the debates in this house in a manner which did not invite comments of the nature that have been made and which he apparently does not like. Referring to the Minister of Defence Production, Mr. Arthur Blakely goes on to say:
He is said to resent personal attacks which have been made on him, and in particular suggestions that he is "dictatorial" and ruthless.
Mr. Speaker, if it becomes necessary for us at any point to emphasize the significance of the act which is supported by the Minister of Defence Production, that surely is the duty as well as the right of any hon. member of

this house without its being suggested that it becomes a personal attack upon the Minister of Defence Production. There have been occasions of course when the minister did not take kindly to some remarks that have been made, but in the very nature of debate in this and other similar bodies where free discussion takes place there are bound to be fairly vigorous exchanges. Those exchanges not only are appropriate but will be continued where they are justified.
This does raise the point of how some people have acted in regard to this act. There have been comments editorially in newspapers, which have however changed their opinions in most cases in more recent days, to the effect that this is an attack on the Minister of Defence Production simply because we do not say to the House of Commons, "No matter what the act says you must support it because, if you do not do so, you are raising some doubt about your reliance upon this omniscient minister.''


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the
hon. gentleman if these remarks are addressed to the bill? I do not need his comments upon myself; I do not welcome them and I do not value them.


George Alexander Drew: I am pointing out that in the discussion of this subject which is taking place fortunately there is a free press outside this house as well as here. There has been a mistaken idea expressed that the points we have raised in regard to the bill have constituted an attack upon the Minister of Defence Production simply because we have challenged the wisdom of the legislation itself. I point out that it would be a sorry day for this House of Commons and for parliament as a whole if we ever came to the time where we failed to examine legislation strictly upon the basis of the legislation itself and became confused as to the nature of the debate because some particular minister might for the time being be associated with the administration of that legislation.
The Minister of Defence Production has the responsibility of administering this act. We as members of parliament have the responsibility and the very high duty as the highest court of law in Canada to make sure that we do not put on the statute books laws which could be abused or which in themselves, regardless of who may administer them, could in any way affect the constitutional position or the rights of the people of Canada.
This measure has been discussed as emergency legislation. We do not know of the so-called compromise proposal, which is something not heard in this house. If the
6, 1955	5753
Defence Production Act proposal were anything that had been stated in the house there would be nothing new that came from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I say that with the highest regard for the speech which the hon. member made. It was a logical, clear and forceful speech. What he did however was to amplify and strengthen the argument which was made first in March, that the Department of Defence Production be made a permanent part of government for the acquisition of defence supplies and equipment. In March it was stated that the powers conferred upon the minister who from time to time may be responsible for the act should be powers subject to review and confined from time to time to powers which are necessary in the light of changing events. That was the precise effect of the motion by way of amendment that is under discussion in relation to the primary motion now before this house.
I repeat what I said before this article appeared, that if there have been any discussions or any negotiations they are unknown to me and I am rather inclined to think they are equally unknown to the Minister of Defence Production. No proposal has been made to me. I repeat that there is no need for the continuance of this debate. All that is necessary is that the government adopt the perfectly logical and sensible course of doing exactly what it said in 1951 it should do, and that it review the whole subject and eliminate those powers which it said at that time were excessive.
Today we have had a most interesting comment by the Prime Minister in relation to another subject. I shall not refer to that subject because all hon. members are aware of what it is and I might contravene the rules if I did. In relation to that subject the Prime Minister said that this government is prepared to deal with other governments on the assumption that we are in a period of steady and hopeful international trade and that therefore it is quite proper for the government to make cash advances which will benefit communist as well as other governments because of the confidence of the government in the situation that confronts us. But the position of the government is not the same with regard to defence production. It is prepared to trust the Polish communist government but it is not prepared to trust the people of Canada. That is exactly what this means.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: It means that it is prepared to go ahead and make these deals with communist governments on the assumption that everything will be steady. Yet more than a year before the termination of the act it
5754	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act seeks the renewal of these powers and is not prepared to wait until the next session to draft its legislation in the light of events as they then are.
It therefore becomes necessary to emphasize the fact that this is not emergency legislation. The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) over and over again has referred to the emergency. This act does not imply emergency, let alone use the word.
I would point out that far from this act just being another act in the continuity of emergency legislation, as the Minister of Defence Production said in his speech to the house on June 28, this act is an entirely different one. The other legislation of a similar nature did recite the emergency. For instance, during the early part of the war the government decided that it was desirable that it should not rely entirely upon the wide-open and almost unlimited powers of the War Measures Act which it was employing and did employ over a wide field. It decided that there should also be an act known as the Emergency Powers Act. That act spelled out in fairly detailed terms some of the things that the government could do by way of emergency under order in council to meet the situation. May I emphasize that it was by order in council, not by the act of any Individual minister; and even in that case the -whole act was governed by the reference to the emergency.
I know that hon. members opposite want to have the facts clearly in their mind in dealing with this subject. Let me therefore remind them that the statement that this is simply another act in the continuity of emergency legislation is one that is without foundation. The emergency powers act of 1951-which was chapter 96, R.S.C., 1952,- was described as an act conferring certain emergency powers upon the governor in council. This is the way in which the preamble read:
Whereas an international emergency exists that threatens the security of Canada;
And whereas it is essential that emergency powers be conferred to enable measures to be taken as urgently required from time to time to carry out adequate defence preparations, to regulate the economy of Canada to meet the needs of defence and to stabilize the economy and to safeguard it from disruption that may result from defence preparations in Canada or from emergency measures taken in other countries, in order that defence preparations may not be impeded;
And whereas it is preferable that the necessary emergency powers be exercised under special authority from parliament rather than that the War Measures Act be brought into force so long as p'-esent efforts to avert war are continuing and, moreover, it is not desirable that the wide powers conferred by that act to interfere with the fundamental liberties of the individual should now be brought into operation:


Then the act proceeds to deal with the powers of the government by order in council. But may I point out, Mr. Speaker, that it recites, first, that there was an emergency and, second, that this emergency was of a nature which called for this special legislation.
In 1945 an act was passed in succession to the War Measures Act. That act was known as the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, which was assented to on December 18, 1945. The preamble of that act read as follows. I believe it is appropriate that this be on the record to show how completely different this legislation is because any court dealing with the powers conferred upon the government by the act itself must of necessity examine not only the circumstances under which the law came into existence but also the declaration by the members of parliament who are presumed to have expressed their convictions and their opinions in regard to legislation which they supported. The preamble to the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, reads as follows:
Whereas the War Measures Act provides that the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
And whereas during the national emergency arising by reason of the war against Germany and Japan measures have been adopted under the War Measures Act for the military requirements and security of Canada and the maintenance of economic stability;
And whereas the national emergency arising out of the war has continued since the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan and is still continuing;
And whereas it is essential in the national interest that certain transitional powers continue to be exercisable by the governor in council during the continuation of the exceptional conditions brought about by the war and it is preferable that such transitional powers be exercised hereafter under special authority in that behalf conferred by parliament instead of being exercised under the War Measures Act;
And whereas in the existing circumstances it may be necessary that certain acts and things done and authorized and certain orders and regulations made under the War Measures Act be continued in force and that it is essential that the governor in council be authorized to do and authorize such further acts and things and make such further orders and regulations as he may deem necessary or advisable by reason of the emergency and for the purpose of the discontinuance, in an orderly manner as the emergency permits, of measures adopted during and by reason of the emergency:
Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows;
There in that preamble is the clear reference to an emergency. So it was with the other legislation that was dealt with. It
JULY e, 1955
will be recalled that last year the Emergency Powers Act was abandoned because the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) told us that although the situation was serious throughout the world, it was not regarded as necessary to continue these emergency powers. It is therefore clear, Mr. Speaker, that these are not emergency powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No one ever said they were, did he?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I will let Hansard speak for itself. Over and over again hon. members opposite have referred to the emergency. Over and over again an attempt has been made to create the impression that it is to meet an emergency that this act has been brought before us in this way at this time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is pure, unadulterated nonsense.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence Production has borrowed a phrase that was used earlier and has described what I have said as pure, unadulterated nonsense. In that remark the Minister of Defence Production has indicated one of the reasons why there have been occasions when certain things have been said from this side of the chamber that undoubtedly have been fairly strong in their comment upon what goes down as debate on the other side. Over and over again, Mr. Speaker, we have been told about the emergency.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quote me once.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hansard is full of it.


George Alexander Drew: Hansard is full of it, Mr. Speaker. We listened to the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) basing his whole speech upon an emergency. The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) created a great bogey of the dangers confronting us by the existence of the hydrogen bomb in the hands of the Russians, and created the impression that there was an emergency which called for the introduction of this act at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker,-


George Alexander Drew: Oh, look who is up now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -could I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he think the possession of the hydrogen bomb by Russia is a bogey, as he said?


George Alexander Drew: The interjection of the Minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was a question.


George Alexander Drew: -of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) will bear some consideration in itself-
Defence Production Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Why not answer the question?


George Alexander Drew: -because it shows how readily hon. members opposite can go right off the argument without a moment's delay.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Answer the question.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Defence Production had just said that no one had suggested there was an emergency, and now the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is suggesting that there is.


Walter Edward Harris: No, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked you a question based on your own words.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Answer the question if you can.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bogey of the Russian bomb.


George Alexander Drew: There are hon. members on this side of the house who have just as much reason to be concerned about defence and have shown that they are concerned about defence just as much as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. There are hon. members on this side of the house who have kept themselves fully informed in regard to these matters, and there is not one hon. member on this side of the house who has not mentioned over and over again the menace of the hydrogen bomb. In fact, we have emphasized the need for recognizing that but, you know, it is strange that some of us actually believe the Right Hon. Winston Churchill knows just as much about world affairs as the Minister of Defence Production and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. That may be a strange thing but we actually do believe that he knows as much about world affairs. He has stated in the House of Commons at Westminster that because of the very extent of the danger that is inherent in the hydrogen bomb the hope of general peace is greater than it was before. Without being certain as to his exact words, I am certainly very close to them when I say that he summed up his argument by saying that by a strange anomaly security may become the child of terror. That is the position.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman mind answering my question? I asked if he meant what he said when he said that the hydrogen bomb was a bogey. That is what he said, as Hansard will show. Is that what he meant?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that no one on this side has suggested that the hydrogen bomb is a bogey.

Defence Production Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what you said.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Defence Production raises our natural concern about the hydrogen bomb, the atomic bomb and any type of weapons, about which some of our members know something.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And about which the right hon. gentleman knows a hell of a lot more.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I insist that those words remain on Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before I am asked to, I withdraw that unfortunate expression.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker. I insist that those words remain on Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps we might leave that to the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister himself has requested that the words be withdrawn, and if I heard the expression correctly it is one which the minister himself would not wish me to repeat because it was made in the heat of debate.


Mr. Green:: In the heat of interruption.


Mr. Speaker:: That might describe the
situation more correctly. Therefore I am sure he will not object if on this occasion it is felt that the words should be expunged from the record.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker. After all, there are occasions when it is essential that those who are not in the house know the actual atmosphere in which debate is conducted. This was not in the heat of interruption or debate. It was in the heat of eruption. I think that hon. members of the house are not alone entitled to know the kind of remarks made by ministers in this house with regard to subjects that are under discussion, and I do not believe that these words should be expunged.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the Leader of the Opposition to ask him what he wants done with respect to these words.


George Alexander Drew: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the word "hell" is a word that is known to the public in general, and that it will not greatly offend the ears of hon. members or the reading public if that word, which appears frequently in books with infinitely more important significance than Hansard, should remain on the record.


Walter Edward Harris: On the point of order, I think it has been a well recognized practice that Hansard seeks to record accurately what is said in the House of Commons. However, we all know that on occasion one makes grammatical errors and other errors-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is the right word,
Walter.


Walter Edward Harris: -and that these inconsistencies, if you will, are permitted to be changed without changing the substance of the remark. I should think that the interjection that was made could be correctly interpreted without the one particular word being used.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps as the offender I might say a word.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask hon. members to consider this situation? In the heat of interruption-I am borrowing the words of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra

an interjection was made. I do not know what all the words were, but as I heard it the end of the sentence was "a hell of a lot".


Walter Edward Harris: "More".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I can assist Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to repeat the exact expression.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As nearly as I can recollect, what I said was that the right hon. gentleman, meaning the Minister of Defence Production, knew a hell of a lot more about this subject than the hon. gentlemen opposite. That is my opinion, sir. If you will permit me, I should like to add that I never asked to have the remark stricken from Hansard. I apologized to the house for using the word and I repeat my apology, but I have not the slightest objection, sir, to having it on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I heard the Leader of the Opposition make a request to me to have the expression expunged.


George Alexander Drew: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is not so, then I will not have it expunged. What is the wish of the Leader of the Opposition?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish it expunged. On the contrary, I want it to remain on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: All right.


George Alexander Drew: I think it is proper that those who read Hansard in and outside the house should know exactly the atmosphere in which debate is conducted by some of the hon. members opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it, therefore, that the Leader of the Opposition now wishes to carry on the discussion.


George Alexander Drew: Certainly. Without using any of the offensive words, may I refer to the remark of the hon. member that the Minister

of Defence Production knows a great deal more about this subject than members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Knowles:: That is not what he said.


George Alexander Drew: I hear the socialist allies to the left saying "hear, hear".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) for not hearing too clearly some of our remarks. 1 said in jest, "that is not what he said". I did not say "hear, hear". I was just having a little fun out of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition did not quote accurately the statement made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, for which he has apologized.


An hon. Member:: That is quite usual.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal now with an interjection by one hon. member who says, "That is quite usual", that there is an incorrect quotation. Hon. members opposite know that that is not so. They know quite well they have a chance to check me at any time in regard to any quotations I use. That is just one of the interjections which invite the very kind of comments to which Your Honour was referring earlier in this debate.
Now, so far as the interjection by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is concerned, I would point out that I gladly accept his explanation of the comment which was made. I was refraining from repeating the words which had caused so much discussion already, but certainly the purport of the remark, perhaps more emphatically, was that the Minister of Defence Production knew a great deal more about this subject than hon. members opposite.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: More than you.


George Alexander Drew: I would gladly wait for the hon. member opposite to ask the question he wishes to ask.


Pierre Gauthier: I never asked a question.


George Alexander Drew: It is just a meaningless noise from the other side.


Pierre Gauthier: I said "more than yourself"; that is what I said.


George Alexander Drew: I feel that it is worth while dealing with that subject. I was dealing with the fact that there were a number of hon. members on this side, as on the other side, who have very good reason to know something about the effect of weapons of this and other kinds. I say, without any reflection on
Defence Production Act the Minister of Defence Production and without a moment's hesitation, that there are a great many members on this side and on the other side who know a great deal more about the effect of weapons on human beings and what it means to be on the receiving end of those weapons than does the Minister of Defence Production. That is no reflection on him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have been closer to the offensive end of a machine gun held by a German sailor than my hon. friends have ever been.


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly the kind of argument that it is difficult-


An hon. Member:: That is the one you are bringing in.


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly the kind of argument that does make it extremely difficult to take the Minister of Defence Production as seriously as he would like us to take him. I am not in any way claiming any special knowledge of this subject beyond the fact that, if he cares to know, I have been within 30 yards of a German machine gun.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been within five yards.


George Alexander Drew: I think that probably the Minister of Defence Production would, on cooler reflection, regret the inference that he has left by that remark. Nevertheless I am not in any way referring to people personally. I am pointing out, and I would remind him that is what I said before, that there are hon. members on both sides of this house who have had the experience of knowing what the impact of these weapons is. The Minister of Defence Production has taken his full chances. We all know quite well that he narrowly escaped with his life in performing his services to this country. He was in Britain also at a time when there were many very unpleasant weapons arriving there. I repeat my statements, however, that there are those on this side and on the other side who have had a longer and more continuous occasion to know the effect of weapons upon human beings.
I had only mentioned that because of the highly improper suggestion of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickers-gill) that anyone on this side was minimizing the danger of the hydrogen bomb or the atomic bomb or any other weapons.


Mr. Reinke:: You called it a bogey.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member should really pay attention to what is taking place. I was pointing out that the Minister of Defence Production was trying to create bogeys by

Defence Production Act referring to weapons that have nothing to do with the effect and interpretation or application of this act. This act has nothing whatever to do with the hydrogen bomb. The Minister of Defence Production is not building a hydrogen bomb. This act has nothing to do with it. Any hon. member opposite who tries to create the impression that this act has any relationship to the construction or effect of the hydrogen bomb is trying to mislead the house and mislead the public. Certainly, the hydrogen bomb is the deadliest weapon that has ever been invented. The very deadliness of that weapon does create the hope of a great measure of stability, even under the pressure of terror itself. It has given hope to many people that we have returned to a balance of power, if you like, under which the full horror of a general war may conceivably be avoided. Please God, that may be the result. It should be the prayer and the hope of every hon. member, of every Canadian and every thinking human being. No hon. member on this side of the house has suggested for one moment that everything should not be done which will in every way strengthen our part in the common effort to preserve freedom and to clarify the confusing things that are in issue in this cold war in which we are now engaged.
But, Mr. Speaker, this attempt to wrap around this act the suggestion that some of these things have some bearing on the necessity for this act should be dispelled, and the very fact that hon. members opposite have made some of the interjections they have made this morning does emphasize the regretful necessity for continuing to discuss the subject and to emphasize the reasons why this act is in no way related to an emergency, but that it is a piece of legislation which the minister has described as permanent, and to use his exact words, it is being placed on the statute books as part of the law relating to defence which is exclusively a federal responsibility. Therefore, by that very fact it would only come in conflict with provincial legislation to the extent of the powers conferred by this act itself.
It being one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of the debate?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member does not wish to move the adjournment of the debate?


George Alexander Drew: No, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, shortly before we adjourned the Minister of Defence Production 

(Mr. Howe) challenged the suggestion that anyone on the government side of the house had spoken of an emergency. I do not need to go back over the numerous occasions upon which he has sought to create the impression of an emergency, because hon. members are well aware of the efforts he made along that line. But perhaps it would be best if I were to indicate the extent to which he has impressed the members on his own side with his arguments. It will be by their words that we can best indicate what impression they have gained about the situation.
Naturally the number on the other side of the house who are available to interpret the opinion is very limited, because we have heard from so few of them. However, in the intervening period I did have a short time to check up in this matter, and I have found, for instance, that on June 9 the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) made this very emphatic statement, as it is reported at page 4568 of Hansard:
There is a world emergency and it is perhaps the most serious emergency there has ever been in the history of the world.
This was in relation to the speeches that were being made on this bill. That was a clear enough use of the word "emergency".
Then the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) on June 20 took us to task in regard to this subject when he used these words:
We talk about the need for these continuing emergency powers.
The hon. member for Spadina described them as emergency powers. That is the impression that has been left in the minds of hon. members opposite in regard to this subject as a result of the interpretation that has been placed upon the act by the Minister of Defence Production.
Now, there is another aspect to this discussion that I think will bear examination, and that is the effort made by the Minister of Defence Production to justify his idea of emergency powers by what was done in another jurisdiction. I would not, of course, have thought of bringing this subject in, had it not been for the fact that it was introduced voluntarily by the Minister of Defence Production without having been raised in any way from this side of the house.
He attempted to show that in the province of Ontario, at a time when I happened to be the premier of that province, we had dealt with emergency measures in a way that even exceeded the powers he is now seeking. This is what he says at page 5381 of Hansard for this year:
The power act was amended in 1947 to provide that no action could be taken against the Ontario hydro in time of emergency. Another paragraph

provided that there was an emergency any time the hydro commission ruled there was an emergency. In other words, the legislation denied suppliers the right to take action in the courts against Ontario hydro in time of emergency and leaves it to hydro to say what are times of emergency. Talk about delegating the powers of government! Here there is first a denial of the courts and then a delegation of the power to declare an emergency.
However, that was not strong enough. In 1948 the matter was straightened out properly. The Header of the Opposition, who was then premier of Ontario, brought in legislation which for all time denied access to the courts of the land to anyone dealing with Ontario hydro.
I think hon. members, particularly hon. members opposite, are entitled to assume that the minister was not joking when he said that. I think hon. members opposite are entitled to measure his other assurances on the basis of the reliability of his statement in a case of that kind. Either that was an utterly senseless interjection, or it was actually used as an argument to convince members opposite, and presumably some members on this side, that these powers now asked for are not excessive, and that in fact even wider powers are exercised in certain other jurisdictions. For that reason, and regretting that it will take some time to do so, I find it necesary to explain exactly what did take place. I do so, of course, assuming that the minister put this forward with the expectation that he was being taken seriously by his own members.
The legislation of 1947, to which he referred, can be found in the Ontario statutes of that year, particularly at page 305 where an amendment to the Power Commission Act is set out. I would point out that what happened there was precisely what we have been saying should be done here-that if, in fact, there is anything in the nature of an emergency at any time, or if, in fact, there is anything that carries legislation out of the ordinary realm of legislation that respects fully the authority of parliament, then the circumstances should be declared under which that can be done. That has been our argument, and this offers an example of exactly the kind of situation that would be produced by an appropriate re-wording of this act.
The section to which the minister was referring was section 2 of an act to amend the Power Commission Act, and it reads as follows:
2. The Power Commission Act is amended by adding thereto the following section:
58a.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in this act or in any general or special act or in any contract heretofore or hereafter entered into by the commission or by any municipal corporation for which the commission supplies electrical power, pursuant to section 71, where at any time the commission is of opinion that a state of emergency exists by
Defence Production Act reason of damage to or destruction, failure or breakdown of any of its works, wastage of power, power demand in excess of its power resources or other matters restricting its ability to deliver power, and the commission so declares, the commission may, during the state of emergency,-
(a)	allocate and distribute its available power amongst the customers under such contracts and interrupt or decrease delivery of power under any contract during the continuance of the emer -geney; and
(b)	with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, regulate, restrict, prohibit and control the generation, transformation, transmission, distribution, supply and use of electrical power supplied by it,
in order to effect what is in its opinion the most economical, efficient and equitable use and distribution of such electrical power.
Now, that is a clearly stated, clearly defined exercise of the power, and it was in relation to a shortage of power in the province of Ontario at that time, as the right hon. minister well knows. Then I go back to what he said about the fact that in 1948, not satisfied with these wide powers which were clearly defined in their purpose and scope, as he said, we ended for all time access to the courts. I am afraid the only way to deal with this is to read the whole section. Therefore, I would read section 5 of the Power Commission Act, 1948, to which the right hon. minister referred. Section 5, as found in chapter 69 of the statutes of Ontario for 1948, is as follows:
5.	Section 58 of the Power Commission Act, as amended by section 7 of the Power Commission Amendment Act, 1943 and section 1 of the Power Commission Amendment Act, 1947 (No. 2), is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
58. (1) If any agreement heretofore or hereafter entered into by the Commission for the supplying of electrical power or energy by the Commission to a municipal corporation or for any other work or service to be done or supplied by the Commission to a municipal corporation contains any term or condition conflicting with or contrary to this act, the agreement shall be deemed to be amended in such manner and to such extent as to give effect to this act.
(2)	Subject to subsection 1, where the Commission has heretofore entered, or shall hereafter enter, into an agreement for the supplying of electrical power or energy by or to the Commission or for any other work or service to be done by or supplied to the Commission and such agreement has been or shall hereafter be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, it shall thereupon be valid and binding upon the parties thereto.
The following section, section 6, relates to it:
6.	Subsection 2 of section 58a of the Power Commission Act, as enacted by section 2 of the Power Commission Amendment Act, 1947 (No. 2), is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(2)	The Commission may at any time modify restrict, suspend or re-impose any order, regulation, restriction, prohibition or control, heretofore cr hereafter given, made or exercised pursuant to subsection 1.
(3)	The Commission may interrupt or decrease delivery of electrical power or energy in such manner and to such extent as it sees fit to any of

Defence Production Act Its customers who fails to comply with any direction, order, regulation, restriction, prohibition or control given, made or exercised by it pursuant to subsection 1 by such means as it may deem proper and may enter upon any land of any such customer and do whatever is necessary for that purpose.
(4)	Any municipal corporation or municipal commission receiving electrical power or energy from the Commission for distribution may interrupt or decrease delivery of electrical power or energy in such manner and to such extent as it sees fit to any of its customers who fails to comply with any direction, order, regulation, restriction, prohibition or control given, made or exercised by the Commission, pursuant to subsection 1, by such means as it may deem proper, and may enter upon any land of any such customer and do whatever is necessary for that purpose.
(5)	Nothing done under this section or under any direction, order, regulation, restriction, prohibition or control made or exercised by the Commission under this section or done to enforce or give effect thereto by the Commission, its servants or agents, or by any municipal corporation or municipal commission or its servants or agents, shall be deemed a breach of contract by the Commission or any municipal corporation or municipal commission or entitle any person to rescind any contract or release any guarantor from the performance of his obligation, or render the Commission, its servants or agents, or any municipal corporation or municipal commission, its or their servants or agents liable in any action-at-law or other legal proceedings for damages or otherwise.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It sounds a little arbitrary to me.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the right hon.
Minister of Defence Production says that sounds a little arbitrary. He thinks that is arbitrary. He does not think it is arbitrary to put into effect an act of this kind which does not even bother to say how or under what circumstances the minister, let alone the governor in council, may exercise these wide-open powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We at least let our munitions people go to court. The rule of law still applies.


George Alexander Drew: There is nothing, of course, that denies any right that is not clearly stated in this, but the minister knew perfectly well what the circumstances were. The reason I have read this is to explain that. Everyone in Ontario knows perfectly well that both in 1947 and in 1948 these provisions dealt with a power shortage that called for the allocation of power. It would have been utterly fantastic to have permitted every single consumer of hydroelectric energy to have a right of action in relation to any reduction in the amount of power when it was perfectly clear there was not enough power to go around. That is all that means. Far from there being any general provision-


Clarence Decatur Howe: But the legislation is still in effect, as I understand it.


George Alexander Drew: As far as that is concerned, if there were any circumstances in which there

was a shortage of power, the provision would still apply, and it only applies in a specific and clearly defined case. It applied in this particular case, as the minister well knows, to the results of the limitation of construction during the war; it also resulted from the cancellation of power contracts by the previous Liberal government in Ontario. That was the primary cause of the power shortage.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It seems to me you might let the suppliers sue the Hydro.


George Alexander Drew: The minister's sole concern about the problems raised here, which are clearly stated and clearly defined, is really in strange contrast to his suggestion that powers should be granted to him, and not even to the government, which have no definition and no limitation and are available for no specifically stated purpose except that he thinks it is desirable to take control of these things because of the need of defence production-not merely products that are actually in finished form and are defence requirements, but any of the raw materials or supplies that go into these. You cannot compare the two things. I hope hon. members opposite will realize that the interpretation given by the minister in this case is indicative of his understanding of exactly what is involved in this problem. He cannot even appreciate that in that case there was a clear definition of the circumstances under which this power was exercised and could be exercised, and that that is exactly what we are saying should be done under the act now before us.
Hon. members opposite have had some examples already of this particular thing. Using it only in its strict dictionary meaning, I say that this double-talk is the kind of thing that makes it extremely difficult for anyone to know when the minister is serious and when he is not. On the one hand he says that the Prime Minister does not regard this as an important bill. On the other hand he tells us that he can do the work here just as well when he is away fishing. He makes general statements of this kind in regard to these matters.
For instance, he tells us that powers which are clearly defined can scarcely limit such things as are in excess of those powers.
I am using this illustration to point out how wrong the minister is when he makes these observations, and most important of all when he tells us that this act is more limited in its application than the corresponding acts in Britain and the United States.
There are a number of cases where this act goes far beyond any act in Britain or the United States, and I will refer to two of

them in particular. The first point I would make is that section 7 of the act must be read in conjunction with the general power to take over all kinds of goods, supplies and services

I repeat "and services"-which the minister may think are desirable for the purposes of defence production. Section 7 reads:
(1)	The minister may, if he considers that the carrying out of the purposes or provisions of this act is likely to be facilitated thereby, with the approval of the governor in council procure the incorporation of any one or more corporations for the purpose of undertaking or carrying out any acts or things that the minister is authorized to undertake or carry out under this act.
(2)	For the purposes of this section, upon the request of the minister, the Secretary of State of Canada may, by letters patent under his seal of office, grant a charter under part I of the Companies Act constituting such persons as are named by the minister and any others who may thereafter be appointed by the minister in their stead or in addition thereto a corporation for any purpose mentioned in subsection (1).
(3)	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.
The remainder of the subsections contain the details relating to those corporations. But in those three subsections of section 7 there is power by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the minister to set up crown corporations to take over any of the undertakings which the minister can be empowered to take over under the general provisions of this act. This would include almost anything conceivable in the Dominion of Canada, including hydroelectric power plants, pipe lines, gas and oil production, forest operations or anything else of that nature. I know that it is said, "Where has this been done?" I emphasized this morning and I emphasize again that our responsibility as members is to examine what can be done in the hands of any government administering this act.
It is all very well for the Prime Minister to express his confidence in what may happen at the next election. Perhaps that is a perfectly human and natural thing for him to do, but the fact remains, as the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) will recall, that very sudden changes do take place. Sometimes a very large majority on one side is transposed into a very large majority on the other side. It is not our duty to speculate on these possibilities of change; it is our duty to enact legislation with the recognition of the fact that it is within the realm of human possibility that the public may become more or better informed about some aspects of our public affairs. In fact that is what we hope to do as a result of continuing this debate.
Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: In that case this legislation would not be permanent.


George Alexander Drew: What is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No legislation is any more permanent than the life of the government that sponsors it. Why are you worrying very much about the permanency of the legislation?


George Alexander Drew: I do regret that this has opened up an entirely new line of discussion. It is in view of the fact that the Minister of Defence Production is the minister who has been asking for these powers in the name of the Prime Minister and he makes the statement that no legislation has any more effect or is binding except in the life of the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that.


George Alexander Drew: I will ask the minister to state what he did say.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that no legislation is any more permanent than the life of the government that passes it. The next government can revoke it.


George Alexander Drew: No legislation is any more permanent than the life of the government which passes it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government does not pass it.


George Alexander Drew: In the first place may I point out that this shows just what is permeating the thinking of the minister, who outside the house is such a good and estimable citizen but who inside the house has so absorbed the esteem of his own power which is put forward from time to time by those behind him in enthusiastic terms. It is not the government that passes this legislation, it is parliament. I know the minister thinks that it is the government, but it is parliament. It is to the members of parliament that I am directing my remarks. I know what would happen if it were the government. That would be done now. At least I do assume that the minister extended the courtesy to the government of letting them know he was introducing this bill. However, that is something that naturally remains within the secrets of the government itself.
My remarks are directed primarily to the members who are being asked to support this legislation. Yet they are also being directed to the people outside the house who in this democracy have their opportunity to indicate to the members themselves exactly what they think about legislation of this kind. After all, we have been encouraged by the fact that interest in this subject has been increasing and we still do hope that there

Defence Production Act will be members opposite who-no, I see one hon. member nodding his head; in his case at any rate that is a forlorn hope and we will wipe him off. The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) apparently is not going to be beguiled by any argument.
Nevertheless the fact remains that arguments are made presumably on the assumption that reason and the traditions of this house and the principles that apply to parliament can bring some impact upon the thinking of members, and above all in a democracy which is responsive to the thoughts of the people. As the Prime Minister has quite correctly pointed out, it is highly desirable that the members respond to the opinions that they find being expressed. I do not think there is much doubt in the mind of any hon. member who has been following the press across Canada what the predominant opinion is, if the press of Canada at the moment expresses on its editorial pages the opinion of the people no matter what their political affiliation may be.
There is another reason why I should refer to the remark just interjected by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) when he says that any legislation is no more permanent than is the government which passes it. I shall leave that statement as it stands, having pointed out that it is not the government that passes it, and deal with the other aspect of it. One of the things which people have learned in some other countries is the obvious lesson that you cannot put the eggs back in the shell once they have been broken, or that in any event it is an extremely difficult process.
In Britain, where a government nationalized the steel industry, the transport industry and other industries over there, a government which was strongly opposed to the nationalization of steel and other industry and which stated that it would return those industries to private enterprise, has found that to be an extremely difficult operation. They have been struggling for some years now to unscramble the mess created by the action of a previous government in nationalizing the steel industry.
Hon. members opposite may say, "Oh, what has that to do with the situation here?" If we believe that we are dealing with legislation and not with the power of a single man or a group of men called the government, then we must recognize immediately that under this act-not in the name of any emergency, not in the name of any special need but merely by their decision that it is desirable from the point of view of defence production-they could nationalize the steel

industry, the aluminum industry, the nickel, industry, every mine in this country and every pulp and paper industry in this country..
Oh, yes; I recall the remarks that were made about the fact that we are concerned, about big business. What utter nonsense! This legislation does not limit itself in any way to big or little business. It applies to big business, to little business and to the individual. When the minister says there is: no section of this act that applies to the individual, it is difficult to take him seriously because over and over again throughout this, act there are provisions that deal not only with the freedom of the individual but with, the right of the individual to carry on his. own work under clearly stated laws; and that is the rule of law.
This is a thing that hon. members opposite-should examine. May I submit that unless an hon. member opposite is prepared to agree that the power should rest with this government, without consulting parliament, to nationalize any industry or any activity, then that hon. member opposite has no right to support this amendment. It is as simple as that. The amendment writes into the future as permanent law, to use the expression of the Minister of Defence Production, the power not only to acquire things needed but actually to have crown corporations set up that would take over any of these things. It does not mean merely nationalizing steel,, metal, forest products or things of that kind. The act expressly uses the word "commercial", and the government could take over a commercial operation as well if it thought that was desirable for defence activities.
Then as to those who still retain some appreciation of the fundamental concept of our federal system, may I urge them most earnestly to re-examine their attitude toward this act in the light of the clearly-defined authority of the provinces over property and civil rights, over the development of resources, and over other matters of the kind that fall exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. Under this act the minister is expressly required to carry out an assessment of the resources and, wherever those resources may be regarded as needed for defence production, to take over their operation if that situation arises. That cuts right across the British North America Act. That cuts right into the jurisdiction of the provinces. Then, just so that there would be no need to guess, the act expressly states that the right to take over these operations includes hydroelectric development; and there has been no more exclusive field of development in this country under the provincial

authority than that of hydroelectric development, whether by public or private enterprise. Also by the ejusdem generis rule of law, where reference is made to activities or enterprises including hydroelectric development, this applies to all other developments such as gas, oil, coal and other power and the transmission and distribution of those things.
Then, of course, we have the fact that it does not apply just to those things but that it applies to individuals; and there it brings you right within property and civil rights. In the defining section of the act which interprets the words, we find section 2 (i) which reads as follows:
(i) "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;
There you have a warning that this legislation not only applies to this great enterprise under provincial authority but any commercial service, large or small, which would fall strictly within the limitations of property or civil rights.
I have emphasized this matter, Mr. Speaker, because we should be examining this law with due consideration to what can be done and then finding out what the effect would be if someone proceeded to exceed the power. I am not overstating the case when I say that what we have before us now would be exactly like the situation which would confront us if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar-sen) came before this house saying: "I want to throw a little bit of a scare into some people. We have been having too much crime of a rather severe type and the ordinary threats are not enough. I think it would be well if we turn back the clock in form at any rate and introduced a section in the Criminal Code that those who do certain kinds of acts should be hanged, drawn and quartered." I know the minister would smile and say: "But of course you can count on me. This would never be enforced". But I am now quoting what the minister might well say as a parallel to this. He would say: "You have no idea how effective it would be in dealing with the narcotic traffic or some of these things if I had a law which will not be enforced but which I could point out might be enforced if they did not behave themselves." Of course every hon. member would say we would never have any such silly proposition put before us, but the fact remains that is the proposition that is put forward here-continue these immense powers indefinitely, put them permanently on our statute books, and then rely on us not to
Defence Production Act put them into effect but just to use them as a club behind our backs so that if anybody shows himself a little reluctant to obey what we order him to do we can then remind him that the law contains a provision of this kind.
That is exactly what the minister has told us. He has told us it is very helpful to have these powers and that the real use of the act is not something that is seen in orders but is actually more of a hidden nature. So these powers are real, and when the minister now tells us that they are only for the life of the government which passes them, without at the moment again referring to the incorrectness of that statement may I point out that we have examples in other countries of the long-range damage that can result from intervention in this field, long-range damage that cannot be repaired once the damage is done.
I come back now to the point I had reached at the time the minister made this remark and I proceed with the argument I was making. There are two extremely important sections of the act with respect to which no similar provisions can be found anywhere. As I was pointing out at the time the minister made his comment which I found it necessary to deal with, not only is there the acquisition of resources and supplies but the minister may then, with the approval of the government, set up a crown corporation in respect of which he does all the appointing and all the hiring and firing. What immense power in the hands of a single minister without even having to come back to the government for approval of the course he is following!
Then there is another section of tremendous consequence to many hon. members because there are hon. members who still attach some importance to fundamental legal principles. In section 32, subsection 5, we find a provision which should not be overlooked by any hon. member opposite or on this side of the house. That subsection reads as follows:
Where a corporation is guilty of an offence under this act, any officer or director of the corporation is a party to and guilty of the offence if it was committed with his knowledge unless he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence; and in any proceeding against a person who was a director or officer of a corporation when the corporation committed an offence under this act for being a party to and guilty of such offence, the burden of proving his absence of such knowledge or the exercise of such due diligence by him is upon the accused.
There is no similar provision, Mr. Speaker, in either the British act or the act in the United States. There is nothing that even mildly resembles this in the United States.

Defence Production Act In the British act there is a provision that where it is proved in court that an officer was an active party to a transaction the onus is on him to disprove his guilty association, but under the English act there must first be proof. But here, if any corporation, large or small, commits any offence, then the onus of proof is upon the individual.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the Howe idea of
the rule of law.


George Alexander Drew: What are these offences? Are these clearly defined offences? Why, no. These are offences such as failure to obey an order of a controller, any Tom, Dick or Harry appointed by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), someone without any knowledge of the law. If that person makes an order and it is not carried out it is an offence, and if there is an offence on the part of any company in that respect then the onus for disproving that an individual was aware of that and a party to it rests upon the individual himself. There has been no such breach of the rule of law in the history of this country as is contained in that section. Above all, there is a complete repudiation of the fundamental legal principle of presumption of innocence. I do hope hon. members opposite will pay some attention to these provisions and will simply ask themselves the question: Have we any right to continue indefinitely in the statute law of Canada these broad powers?
There is another very important provision and one which merely shows the extent to which a number of hon. members opposite have doubtless been misled by the statements of the Minister of Defence Production. He tells us that there is no case where the individual is affected. I have pointed out a case where the individual is affected, and it is not only under that subsection but under the whole of section 32 that the individual is affected in regard to laws that are not written, in regard to orders that nobody can anticipate in advance, in regard to orders that may be made by people with no knowledge of the law and probably no knowledge of anything else very much. Yet offences are created here which can result not only in heavy fines but in imprisonment as well. The minister tells us, however, there is no section in the act that affects the individual.
But it is not only that section; it is right through the act that this authority is conferred. I hope no hon. member opposite has overlooked section 15 and the effect of subsection (d) of that section. This is under the heading "Defence Procurement", and it is necessary to remember it is under the heading of "Defence Procurement" because

it shows the kind of things that are brought within the enveloping arms of the word "defence". Section 15 reads as follows:
The minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty and subject to the provisions of this act, . . .
(d) arrange for the performance of professional or commercial services.
What a delightfully euphemistic way of saying that the minister may mobilize professional or commercial services under any order he sees fit to issue. That is exactly what it means.
The minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty and subject to the provisions of this act,
(d) arrange for the performance of professional or commercial services:
Surely here is such an interference with the right of the individual, under completely undefined powers and powers unlimited as to time, in such a manner as has not been attempted except in the most severe state of war. When we are told that the government seeks to avoid the application of the War Measures Act, may I point out that we need not be told that the War Measures Act only applies when there is war or apprehended war. That is the only time it could apply. But there was a time when even this government held different views. This morning I read into the record a declaration in the preamble of the emergency powers act, 1951, which made it clear that in certain cases the government did not even wish the wide-open powers of the War Measures Act, and that it felt it was appropriate there should be legislation of another nature. For that reason it introduced the emergency powers act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when these wide powers are taken in conjunction with the right to set up a crown company, they are certainly not paralleled either in the act of the United Kingdom or in the act of the United States. There is no provision in the act of Great Britain for setting up crown corporations, and no provision in the 600 odd sections of the Defence Production Act in the United States. We alone go that far. The Minister of Defence Production may well repeat, as he has on earlier occasions, that some of these wide powers are contained in the Defence Supplies Act which is suspended by this act. But the Defence Supplies Act has no power so wide as this, and there is no way in the Defence Supplies Act for the government to nationalize industry or set up crown corporations along the lines I have suggested.
When we look at the effect of this act, particularly at the definite declaration that there is a presumption of guilt, then it does become necessary to go back into ancient law. It does become necessary to realize

that we are following a pattern which has not emerged now for the first time. Delegated authority is one of the most difficult aspects of modern government. But it is not new. Delegated authority was found necessary many years ago. The extension of that delegated authority led to abuses, then to corrections and to a reversal of the trend. Then, presently, delegated authority would be extended once again, and again there would be a check of those abuses. We are seeing here carried forward, as this government said it would not carry forward, delegated powers as part of our ordinary peacetime laws, which indicates that now is the time to reverse the trend and to take an historic stand that we have gone far enough, and too far, along the road of the delegation of the powers of government, not only to the executive but in this case to an individual.
Since there seems to be an uncertainty, not only in the mind of the government but in the minds of hon. members, as to the history of delegation, I think it would be appropriate to place on the record something of the history of delegated legislation, because that is what we are dealing with, delegated legislation embedded into the permanent law of the country. There are those, of course, who say, why go back into ancient history? But after all, if you do not go back into ancient history and do not examine what has happened before, it is precisely like a doctor attempting to perform an operation without having studied anatomy and the history of the various experiments which have been carried out during the long history of medicine. We are dealing here with the body politic, a more complex body even than the individual human body. In this case, the human body of the minister is out of the room, but I know that he is beyond the curtains and can hear me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Hon. members say, "oh".
Where are the ministers? There is one minister sitting in the house now, the minister of external affairs, at a time when we are conducting this debate. I most emphatically assert that it would be unreasonable for anyone at some future time not to be informed of this fact, because later on they might wonder at some minister indicating he was unaware of the arguments which had been made here, if ministers were not protected by information that they had not been present at this time.


Mr. Gour (Russell):: Where is the mover of the amendment?
Defence Production Act


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I heard an incoherent sound which I assumed was a request to be heard-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question was a very pertinent one. It was, where is the mover of the amendment which is now before the house?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: He has gone with the wind.


George Alexander Drew: The mover of the amendment before the house will be back presently, and I think the minister is well aware of that. If the minister is in any way concerned about that I simply repeat, where is the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in whose name the motion stands? Where is the Minister of Defence Production? Where is the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney)? Where are all the other ministers? The only minister present has made the interjection which has been made. Nevertheless, if the minister will look opposite he will find plenty of hon. members of this party who are here to take part in this debate.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Half of the seats on your side are empty.


George Alexander Drew: I was indicating that in a case of this kind, only because it does seem so obvious that certain of the history of delegated legislation has not been recognized, something ought to be put on the record which would show the rise and fall of delegated legislation and the danger of once starting this practice and the need for pulling back from it. This is not something new. It started in about the fourteenth century. A law of 1385 is the first clear example of delegated legislation and that law as a matter of historic interest provided that the staple should be held in England; but in what places, and when it shall begin, and concerning the manner and form of its regulation and government shall be presently ordained by the king's council, with the authority of parliament; and whatever shall have been ordained in this part by the said council shall have the virtue and strength of parliament.
You see, the tendency began in the fourteenth century when the law said that in whatever manner the government ordained, wherever the government ordained and without knowing in advance what happens, then people are bound by the ordinance. But even then, in the fourteenth century, there was a sufficient appreciation of the responsibility of the government that they did not permit the placing of such power in the hands of an individual. The law does bear a surprising resemblance in wording to that now before us, except that it is much shorter.

Defence Production Act
Then the next statutes which are the real foundation for the discussion of delegated legislation are those statutes passed in the reign of Henry VIII. The reference to those invariably arises in any discussion of our constitutional law. One of those, a statute which as a matter of fact would be covered by the present statute, was described as the statute of sewers, passed in 1531. There was delegation to the commissioner of sewers not only of the power to rate all land owners, and distrain and impose penalties for non-payment of rates, but it also gave legislative power- just as this act does-without defining the field within which the powers might be ascertained. It provided further that-
-all statutes, acts and ordinances heretofore made by the commissioner of sewers not being contrary to this present act or heretofore repealed are to be good and effectual forever.
You see, the illusion of permanence indicated in this house existed even in those days of Henry VIII. Here we were told only a few days ago about the expected permanence of this government, and the permanence of legislation. The minister has used the word "permanent"; and those who adopted the statute on sewers in 1531 thought it would be effectual forever. It did not turn out that way because, of course, in due course there was a reversal of the trend.
Then, as always happens, other acts were passed. Once delegated authority goes forward unchecked it increases in momentum. The most famous of these statutes, and the one which still is the outstanding example of delegated authority in early times, is the statute of proclamations of 1539 passed in the reign of Henry VIII. And that, Mr. Speaker, may I remind hon. members, did not go as far as the measure now before us. It enacted that the king, with the advice of a majority of his council, could issue proclamations which should have the force of an act of parliament.
That act for years has been evidence of dictatorship. That act for years has been regarded as Henry's departure from the historic concept of democracy, even in those days. It has always been given as the historic example of what should be avoided under any circumstances in modern times. It has been pointed out as the thoroughly bad example of parliament giving away its legislative powers. But the power to issue proclamations for certain purposes had in any event always inhered in the royal prerogative, and they had in fact already the force of law. So that all that was being done was defining a situation in which the council could do certain things.
These proclamations extended over all sorts of things. Henry and his ministers

found them so convenient that he extended these powers to cover coinage, prices-and of course this act is a price control act-food, drink, cloth; vagabonds and aliens. War and peace were matters which had always previously been considered as not being dealt with by proclamation.
What were the needs for that act? What was the necessity for that proclamation? This is the reason given in the preamble, and I am talking about the act of 1539, not that of 1955. The preamble gives two reasons: first, certain recent proclamations, particularly on religious matters, had been condemned; and second-and how reminiscent this is -
Sudden occasions may arise when some speedy remedy is needed, and there is no time to abide tor a parliament.
That is the act which has been condemned over and over again through the centuries; and the explanation given for it was that "Sudden occasions may arise when some speedy remedy is needed, and there is no time to abide for a parliament." In what way does that differ from the argument put before us today? Yet constitutional lawyers through the centuries have condemned what was known as the Henry VIII act, this particular act of proclamation.
Even at that time the public, which did not have the advantage of literacy we have today, which did not have the advantage of a rapidly distributed press, which did not have the advantage of radio or television-even the public of that day realized that this had gone too far. The result was that the act was repealed in the first year of the reign of Edward VI.
Time went on and another act very shortly after that, known as the statute of Wales, contained a section which gave the king power to make laws for Wales. However, I shall not go into that in detail for the simple reason that it applied to a local area. I might add that it was repealed in 1642. But once again we have to realize that the trend, once started, moves rapidly along unless people who see the danger are prepared at some point to say, "Let us go back and bring such delegated legislation as we need within properly defined channels."
We all know that the Stuarts were less tactful than the Tudors.


Mr. Croll:: I believe they paid a price for it.


George Alexander Drew: or six months from now. It would depend upon the political persuasion of the lawyer, though that should not colour his legal judgment; but he would have to say, "It is true that they have not exercised the power, but you might just as well realize that they have complete power and that your business is not secure at all. Your business may be taken over, your personal services may be taken over, if the government decide to do so." Any lawyer who recognized his obligations to his profession would have to advise his client accordingly, and his client then would have to take the chance as to what would be done. Obviously some hon. members will say, "All right, that is the chance we are quite prepared to take." But I repeat that it is the wording of the law, and that we should not be called upon to leave this in a speculative position and gamble with the security of our people under powers of this nature.
There can be measures of control over delegated authority, and we have pointed out how they can be exercised. We have made it clear, and let no one suggest anything else, that we are prepared to support delegated legislation in regard to the exercise of certain powers so long as the powers which the government itself said were excessive are removed and so long as the government places those powers under a proper time limit, only to be renewed from time to time by parliament itself. That is simple; that is what we have proposed over and over again. Make the department permanent. Unhappily within the life of every one of us defence is going to be a continuing responsibility of parliament.


David Arnold Croll: Will the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? As I understand the position, the government is asking parliament for powers subject to review and repeal by parliament, and the opposition is agreeable to the granting of powers for a fixed period subject to renewal by parliament. My question is, is not the difference between us one of method rather than principle?


George Alexander Drew: No. The hon. member has completely misstated the situation. The act now before us is not subject to review and repeal, beyond the fact that any act is subject to repeal. This act is not subject to review. There is no provision in this act anywhere that makes it subject to review. There is no time limit on this act if the amendment which has been introduced by the Prime Minister is passed, no time limit whatever.
Therefore there is a fundamental difference between us. What we say is precisely what was said in the early stages when this act was first brought forward. There are powers

that are acceptable and there are powers which the government itself says should not be continued. There is no need to repeat what has been said before. Hon. members opposite have asked, "Why did you not oppose this before?" Hon. members know that the same situation arises here and in Westminster and in other parliaments of our kind.
When the act came forward in 1951 for the setting up of the Department of Defence Production, we had to accept the act in principle. We had no choice, since to vote against that act on second reading in 1951 would have been to vote against the very thing we had been asking for before the government introduced it, a Department of Defence Production. The powers went with it, and we made it clear that we thought those powers were excessive and were wrong. But the government itself placed a time limit of July 31, 1956, on those powers and said those powers would not be continued past that time. The government said, not we, that these should not be continuing powers.
All we have said is, "Deal with those powers that you said must not be continuing powers. Make the Department of Defence Production permanent, plus sensible delegated powers properly spelled out and clearly understood by Canadians, and you will find us supporting such a proposition because we have supported it and have asked for it." When the hon. member for Spadina says that he understands the position of the Leader of the Opposition now to be such and such, may I remind him that that is the position we took in 1951; that is the position in March of this year, and it is the position we have taken since this act came before the house for second reading in the name of the Prime Minister.


David Arnold Croll: I did not misstate your position. You agreed that what I said your position was, is your position.


George Alexander Drew: No, I do not. I am pointing out that the mistake on the part of the hon. member for Spadina is that he said this act is subject to review. It is not.


David Arnold Croll: May I interrupt? We have lots of time. I said it was subject to review by reason of the amendment that was offered by the minister and by virtue of the statement that was made by the Prime Minister the day before yesterday.


George Alexander Drew: That does not make the act subject to review at all.


David Arnold Croll: The orders.


George Alexander Drew: It does not make the act subject to review at all. The Minister of Defence Production extended a rather moth-eaten
Defence Production Act olive branch in the form of a declaration that the orders made under this act would be tabled and that within a certain period of time after those orders were tabled this could be brought before the house. I have too much respect for the judgment and quick thinking of the hon. member for Spadina io believe for one moment that he is under any illusion as to what review that would give.
In the first place it would be a review of an order, not a review of the act. It is only the right to object. We have already seen over and over again when a motion of this nature is made that someone on the other side gets up immediately, as they have the right to do, after the objection has been made and moves the adjournment of the debate. That is the end of it. There is no assurance of anything else. It is the right to one peep and that is all. It is the right for one member to say that he does not like it. Even our friends over here would not have the opportunity to speak, because a member of the government would get up and move the adjournment and the peep would be all over. It would be one little objection, that is all; it would not be a review of the act.
It is no reflection on the word of the Prime Minister-what I am talking about now is parliamentary procedure-when I say that the assurance of the Prime Minister means literally nothing. It means nothing for two reasons. First of all he cannot give an effective assurance and, second, we have the right already. All he is saying is that we will have the right to a peep, just a little sound and nothing else.


David Arnold Croll: You mean a squeak, not a peep.


George Alexander Drew: Whichever you like. Then the axe falls, or the guillotine as it is commonly called in parliamentary terms. That is not an assurance. The hon. member for Spadina knows that very well, because there have been times when he has seen that right exercised in jurisdictions other than this. On a motion to go into supply there is a much more effective opportunity for discussion of these things.
May I point out that any opposition would be very stupid to avail itself of the assurance of the Prime Minister instead of dealing with the matter by motion on supply, when it has to go through to a vote. So there is nothing offered, even if you accept it as meaning something in itself, which it does not. Any opposition would be sublimely stupid if it availed itself of that right and did not wait for supply, when it can put forward a motion by way of objection in relation to a specified
5770	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Defence Production Act subject which would of necessity have to go through to a vote. That is why I say it means nothing.
Then there is another thing. While the amendment of the minister calls for the tabling of orders it does not call for the tabling of threats, and that is highly important. The minister tells us it is the threat contained in this act that he has found to be so useful. He has paid his tribute to industry, and in that he disagrees with government supporters to your left, Mr. Speaker; but he says he does not know what he would have done in certain cases if it had not been for the threat contained in this act. There is no place on the table in this chamber where threats can be tabled or recorded; that is not the rule of law.
That is the very thing we want to get away from. I know people say nobody is going to be injured unless he has done something wrong. I am not the only hon. member of this house who was in Germany or in Italy in the years between the two wars. I remember people, who were misled and who were not entirely vicious in their approach to the situation, who said of the nazi powers, nobody is going to be affected who does not do something wrong.
While in Italy I remember speaking to an Italian who had been educated at Oxford. I asked him about the 35,000 Italians on the island of Lipari in 1935. I asked him how he could reconcile that situation with the concept of democracy he had learned at that great university. His answer was oh, nobody who has not done something wrong needs to worry about it. It was a tragic commentary on that kind of argument that in time that very man fell under that same authority.
Let no one suggest that we are imputing to any member of this government motives similar to those which prompted the evil things that occurred in Germany or in Italy. But I have heard those arguments before under powers far greater than these in practice but not as great as these in form. Even in Germany, in a country which we sometimes forget had been developing a highly sensitive recognition of the rule of law, it was regarded as necessary to define in some substantial measure the delegated powers conferred upon the government that met in the spring of 1933. In form the legislation there did not go as far as does this legislation.
Having said that, let me never be misquoted. I emphasize, as I emphasized in March and as I have emphasized before, that I impute to no hon. member of this house anything but loyalty to Canada or anything but a desire to do the things that will be

best for this country. However, I argue that a course is being followed-undoubtedly with sincerity but nevertheless a mistaken course -which could bring about in this country at some time dangerous results which not one of us would wish to contemplate.
Simply dealing with the remark that has been made, may I submit that in dealing with legislation it should not satisfy us to say that this government would never do something of that kind. Can I even conceive the possibility that there are some of those on the other side of the chamber who would look across and say, "If the opposition should form the government, we know they would not do those things". But still we get back to the legislation itself and to the dangerous trend it represents.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if on this occasion we permit the government to abandon the clear undertaking under which this act was passed, and if on this occasion we permit the rule of law and the supremacy of parliament to be overridden in form, whatever the practice may become, then at this time in 1955 we shall have confirmed a course which will be regarded as a precedent at some future time and for all practical purposes we might just as well send the members of this parliament home.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has argued he has needed this power to do various things. He has not given us one reason 

not a single reason-why these powers should be granted. On the contrary, the very form in which the arguments were presented suggests the strongest possible reason why these powers should not be granted. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has naturally come to like the powers he exercises, and naturally he does not relish the idea of relinquishing those powers quickly. But the fact remains that it is the other hon. members of this house who are called upon to accept the responsibility for what is being done. The Prime Minister has summed up the attitude of the government once again, and once again has placed before us the problem that confronts us. In his speech on July 4, as reported at page 5643 of Hansard, he used these words:
-we are not prepared to put any definite time limit upon it at this time.
There, Mr. Speaker, is the trend we are all seeking to reverse; but it also is a statement that should place all members upon their guard as to what the position is. Even if we were prepared in 1951 to support the principle of the Department of Defence Production and, if you will, take some chances with these powers, we are now confronted with a different situation. We warned then

that once powers are conferred for a five-year period there was a great danger of their becoming permanent. We were assured that was not a danger. Now we see the real danger. We are not merely asked to extend these powers for another five years; we are asked to carry forward these tremendous powers indefinitely.
If this were 1951, Mr. Speaker, we would still point out all these dangers; but this is 1955. This is 1955 when thoughtful people, Sir Winston Churchill, General Eisenhower and others, are speaking about the increased hope for stability and security. In the light of that, let us see what arguments have been put forward by the Minister of Defence Production. The minister started his speech on June 28, as recorded at page 5376 of Hansard, with these words:
Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate, I feel that I am living in another world . . .
I admit there have been times when the minister has looked as though he would prefer to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I am paid to sit here. I will do it.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, I am sure of that. But the right hon. gentleman was the one who introduced another world. He introduced a world of unreality which did not have any relation to the bill. He told us about the transactions with the Avro company, the difficulties that were encountered there, the intervention of the government and the fact that it persuaded the parent company in Britain to appoint someone of the government's choice to run that operation. There is nothing in this act that was needed. None of these wide powers were called for, no order was passed under the act, nor was the threat of this act necessary. This government was the only real purchaser of those aircraft, and as a matter of fact the minister is ridiculing the house and the members of the house when he suggests to us that he needed any act of this kind to persuade them what to do. All he had to do was point out to them that otherwise the government was not prepared to deal with them, and they had no choice but to follow his request.
This government was the one taking the planes that were to be produced. In any event, in an operation involving a total of $122 million would it have been too much to have called the members of parliament together to deal with any emergency that might have arisen if that in fact had been necessary? I do not believe for a moment it would have been necessary, but if it had been we could have met. It would be much better if we did meet; and it would be much
Defence Production Act better if, for the purpose of that meeting, some of the aircraft that are used for less suitable purposes were employed for the purpose of bringing members of parliament to this house. I think that argument only emphasizes the unreality of the demands in connection with this act. The minister went on to say, as found at page 5377 of Hansard: If at this stage anyone knows what the argument against the bill is I am sure that I cannot be one of that number.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that statement has been one of the things that has contributed to this long debate, because the minister has not understood what the objection is. He has failed to realize that the objection is that the government has not carried out what it said it would, that the government has not removed those powers which it said should not be continuing powers. Again I simply want to place the exact words of the minister on record, because they draw a picture of that invisible club which the minister likes to use and which cannot be placed on the table. With reference to the rights and the powers under this act, these were his words as recorded at page 5378:
That right is not being used formally at the moment, but it is being used informally.
I had thought, Mr. Speaker, that the rule of law suggested that people knew what they could do and what they could not do, but the minister tells us they do not even bother to define what the duties are. They just use this club informally and in a way, of course, that they believe will produce results. Then we were told about a highly complicated gun. Where on earth is there a single place that this act applies to that highly complicated gun? That gun is going to take years to develop. He referred also to guided missiles.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, they are all built and delivered; that gun.


George Alexander Drew: That gun is built and delivered?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: Then of course the act is not necessary for that gun.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not now, no.


George Alexander Drew: So that was so much eyewash.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is just like the wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not necessary at the moment.


George Alexander Drew: We have at least eliminated that argument, but just what the argument was under those circumstances is difficult to imagine.

Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is difficult to imagine what you are trying to prove today.


George Alexander Drew: I am-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You cannot even read the act.


George Alexander Drew: -in the most courteous manner possible, trying to meet the difficulty expressed by the Minister of Defence Production in these words:
If at this stage anyone knows what the argument against the bill is I am sure that I cannot be one of that number.
I am still trying to explain to the minister what is the argument against the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Still rolling out words.


George Alexander Drew: Well, the words do roll out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure 75,000 words have rolled out since you started your speech.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no, that is an underestimate. This is one of the rare occasions when the minister has not exaggerated figures. But in this particular case the fact is that the argument is necessary if the minister does not know what the objections are. My hope, even at this stage, is that there will be some on the other side who will have the same kind of change of opinion which has been indicated by the press in their examination of this subject.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read your ten editors again.


George Alexander Drew: What was that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The ten editors, I say. We should go back to them; they like you.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly hear the Minister of Defence Production.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just carry on, then.


George Alexander Drew: He said something about ten editors and that we should go back to them. I am not exactly sure what that reference means.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Ask your colleague the hon. member for Greenwood.


George Alexander Drew: If the minister has only seen ten editorials opposed to the act, then I would suggest his office is less efficient than I had every reason to believe it was. Then we have this statement of the minister as recorded at page 5380 of Hansard, and he really tried to give us the creeps. He said:
You may be greatly relieved that those particular situations are behind me. I can say that now we

have started on a program of development that gives me the shudders, a supersonic plane and a supersonic engine.
Later he said:
We are just moving into the field of guided missiles . . .
Where is there anything in this act that is necessary to carry out the guided missile program, or that having to do with supersonic planes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You would not know.


George Alexander Drew: The minister says I would not know. I do know that the minister of defence production in Britain, who is responsible for a great deal more production than the minister here, does not need any powers of this kind in order to carry out not only the development of supersonic planes and guided missiles but hydrogen and atomic bombs as well.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He has the powers.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, you may not have heard the minister. He said the British minister has the powers. That is the trouble. That is why it is so necessary to continue this debate. The minister does not yet realize that the British minister has not the powers, and neither has the head of defence production in the United States. There the powers are defined. I can just imagine what would happen in the congress of the United States if anybody had the temerity to put a bill like this before that body and ask for its adoption. There would not be a chance of it passing. There would not be a chance of these powers passing in the House of Commons at Westminster. If the minister does not yet realize that the provisions in this act to which I have referred do apply to the general powers to take over personal services as well as property of all kinds, and that those powers do go well beyond the other two acts, then that merely shows how little he has appreciated the course that has been followed.
In view of the fact the minister himself emphasizes his failure to understand that the traditional practice is to delegate the powers of parliament only for a precise and definitely limited purpose, and since he does not understand what is involved in that section that specifically creates a presumption of guilt, I think it is necessary to deal with the whole question of the presumption of guilt because that is the very thing for which we have been fighting for a long time. It is that every man shall be innocent under the law until judged guilty by his peers.

I know the minister does not like to go back into distant, ancient history, but there are certain provisions that should be borne in mind. I know that Magna Carta was signed a very long time ago, but hon. members should realize that Magna Carta is the foundation of our law. There are many things included in it that were only of the period and dealt with unhappy events of a time long past. But there were certain fundamental principles that are still pleaded in court today, and that are still an essential, fundamental part of our law.
Section 9 of Magna Carta has a very direct bearing on these wide powers that are conferred on the minister alone, not on the government. These would have been held invalid under section 9 of Magna Carta without some overriding provision. Section 9 reads as follows:
Neither we nor our bailiffs shall seize any land or rent for any debt so long as the debtor's chattels are sufficient to discharge the same; nor shall the debtor's sureties be distrained so long as the chief debtor hath sufficient to pay the debt, and if he fail in payment thereof, not having wherewithal to discharge it, then the sureties shall answer it, and, if they will, shall hold the debtor's lands and rents until satisfaction of the debt which they have paid for him be made them, unless the chief debtor can show himself to be quit thereof against them.
Compare that with the power over debtors or over individuals conferred by this act. Then going on to some of the later sections, I find that section 39 is one that is perhaps the very cornerstone of the modern concept of individual rights. Section 39 reads:
No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against or prosecute him except by lawful judgment of his peers or the law of the land.
Then section 40 reads:
To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or defer, right or justice.
Reading those two sections of Magna Carta-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read them to hydro.	.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Read them to Howe.


George Alexander Drew: Even after I have read the sections of the hydroelectric act the minister does not yet understand them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that you cannot go to court against hydro.


George Alexander Drew: I pointed out before, and I point out again what I had hoped the minister would understand, that in the case of the hydroelectric provision, it was one which dealt in most explicit terms with cases in
Defence Production Act which there was difficulty about the distribution of power which resulted from the failure of the previous Liberal government in Ontario to provide the power that was necessary under those circumstances.
Section 45 of Magna Carta reads as follows:
We will only appoint such men to be justiciaries, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs as know the law of the land and will keep it well.
But oh, this minister does not bother about that. He wants power to appoint controllers, and inspectors who do not know anything about the law, and that is in direct contravention of the fundamental principle of Magna Carta. I know that is an ancient document, but it was regarded as of sufficient importance by the people of the United States that when they obtained a copy of it they sent it across the United States on what was called the freedom train so the people could see the fundamental charter of American as well as of our freedom. In case any hon. members think Magna Carta is an ancient, dusty document of no application, may I point out that there was a very recent decision in our own courts which came to its conclusion on the basis of the provisions of Magna Carta.
Then it will be recalled that over the years some of the provisions of Magna Carta were forgotten, as they have been forgotten today. The Bill of Rights was passed in 1689. Once again there were difficulties of an immediate nature which have passed into history, and which have nothing to do with the fundamental principles of the responsibility of parliament that were the main concern of those who drafted the Bill of Rights. Let us read some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, the other great cornerstone of our concept of parliamentary responsibility and freedom. I quote, starting at the second paragraph:
And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representation of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare;
1.	That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority without consent of parliament is illegal.
2.	That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by legal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.
Then I pass on to No. 4:
4. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal.
Read those provisions, and then without in any way clouding your judgment by your
5774	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act opinion of any minister, examine the powers conferred by this act and ask yourselves whether we are doing as the Bill of Rights says, following what our ancestors in like case have usually done. Those people had the temerity-no, those people had the good judgment-to say that they respected the traditions of their ancestors, and respecting those traditions, they laid down certain rules in regard to the full authority of parliament, which we are transgressing if at this time we embed into the permanent laws of the land an act of this nature, with no time limit and with no restraint upon the powers conferred.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Back to Magna Carta again.


George Alexander Drew: It would be helpful if the minister were to speak loud enough for me to hear, because I could then deal immediately with what he said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Excuse me; I just said to a member who had just come in that we were back to Magna Carta.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, the minister is not interested in Magna Carta nor is he interested in the laws of the present time, so long as he gets the powers he wants. The fact is that it is the powers he is asking for and the powers he demands that are keeping us here at this time. When there is any suggestion that we are here simply because of some whim of ours, let it be said once again that if the government had lived up to its word we would have dealt with this long ago. The government has broken its clear undertaking, and we are sitting here and taking part in this debate only because the government, having first of all said these powers should not be continued is now saying, on the demand of the Minister of Defence Production, "We must have all or nothing." That is the only reason we are still here.
If the right hon. minister is tired of hearing about Magna Carta, if he is tired of hearing about the Bill of Rights, if he is tired of hearing about the rule of law and the supremacy of parliament, then let him carry out the decent undertaking made by this government and this debate will come to an end just as simply as that.


An hon. Member:: "Simply" is right.


George Alexander Drew: That is all that is needed. There is no need for anything else. Just let the minister, for once, be prepared to operate under ordinary democratic laws, and the convenience of every member, including the minister himself, will be fully met.


Mr. Macdonnell:: And no one can deny that.
[Mr. Drew.)


Clarence Decatur Howe: More than four and a half hours in one speech.


Jean Lesage: Four and a half hours of repetition.


George Alexander Drew: But, Mr. Speaker, I did not mention Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights before, but I am going to. As a matter of fact I have quite a lot more to deal with that I have not mentioned before.


An hon. Member:: Get the Bible.


Jean Lesage: Yes, read the whole Bible.


George Alexander Drew: I accept the invitation to continue; I will keep going.


Jean Lesage: Read the whole Bible if it will help.


George Alexander Drew: When the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) says, "Read the Bible" I think that measures exactly the contribution he has made to this debate, when he brings in the most revered book in Christendom and suggests that it should be dealt with lightly in this way. That is typical of the interjections that have been made during this debate. I am reading textbooks that apply to temporal law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you dealing with them lightly?


George Alexander Drew: No; and as a matter of fact I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has made the interjection, liked any more than I did the way the Bible was brought into the discussion at this time. At least I hope he did not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it was the hon. gentleman who used the word "lightly".


George Alexander Drew: Just because of the hon. member's recent conversion to the support of this government on this bill I hope he will not go that far.
I wish now to deal, and necessarily so, with the question of the presumption of guilt. It is perfectly clear that hon. members opposite are not even yet prepared to recognize that in this act there is a provision not paralleled in any other act we have, or in any relevant act of a corresponding nature in the democracies.


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? I wish to be fair. In this instance, as always, I have listened with great respect to the Leader of the Opposition. However, he said for the second time this afternoon that on this question of the burden of proof there is no other case; that it is unparalleled, as I understood him to say, in Canadian legislation. I would refer him, then, as well as my brother lawyers in

the house-and I do this with great respect- to section 82 of the dominion Companies Act which, if I remember correctly, was passed in the year 1934, at a time when Mr. Bennett and Mr. Cahan were in power.


George Alexander Drew: That was neither a question of privilege nor was it in any way relevant. I do wish the hon. member, instead of interjecting an argument of that kind into the debate in this fashion, would get up and present his argument.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I shall be glad to do so.


George Alexander Drew: No, not at this moment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: -but after I sit down. The hon. member is going to have lots of time to present his arguments, and I hope that after I have sat down he will get up and do so. When he makes interjections of the kind he has just made, as a lawyer, I would point out that his interjection was wholly irrelevant. What he referred to in the Companies Act was in connection with certain specific acts in relation to clearly defined law. What I pointed out, and what the hon. member will realize if he will reread the section in the bill before us, is that this is a denial of basic rights and is not in relation to some stated responsibility, as in the Companies Act. On the contrary, among other things it is the failure to comply with an order of some controller whose name we may not even know- without any knowledge of law, appointed by the Minister of Defence Production.
There is no similarity at all, no similarity of any kind. Here we have a case where the minister can go out on the street and say, "Bill, here is an order for you to go down to such and such a place. Take them by the scruff of the neck and show them where they get off." And Bill goes down with the order and tells them what to do. If they fail to do it, then under a section of this act there is a penalty. And under that penalty, if a person is an officer of a company then both the company and the individual may be dealt with under these extremely severe provisions.
Of course I do not need to say to the hon. member who has just interrupted that it carries with it imprisonment for a period of up to two years. But I need to point this out because the right hon. minister still keeps on saying that it does not affect any individual.
Now, as to this question of the presumption of guilt and the presumption of innocence.


An hon. Member:: Longer.


George Alexander Drew: I hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre laughing when he
Defence Production Act sees me take up this book. Well, I will tell him that I have five or six more.


An hon. Member:: What a man.


George Alexander Drew: The fact remains that I do not know any member in the House of Commons who has been as free in his use of books as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If I were to produce 20 books today I still would not have used as many as he uses in any ordinary debate here. However, it so happens that it has become necessary for me to use these books because certain questions are involved. There is the difference between the rule of law and administrative law. The fundamental difference is that between our system and the system applicable in many of the countries of Europe. The whole idea of our law as against administrative law is that individuals will know what they can and cannot do. The bill before us is one that does not create defined laws, but simply creates a number of powers without any definition.
I refer to the Law Times of November 3, 1950, volume 210, page 237, and what I am referring to particularly is the presumption of innocence. This deals in fact with the basic difference between our rule of law and the administrative law of France. There are a number of expressions here that clearly show why we should not combine with administrative law the presumption of guilt. To the hon. member, who intervened a short time ago, for whose legal judgment I have respect, I would point out that I believe he has overlooked one very great distinction between the provision in the Companies Act to which he referred and the provision in this act. The provision in the Companies Act, whether it is good or bad, relates to clearly defined law within the concept of the rule of law. In the Companies Act the process is defined, the general procedure is set out, the duties of individuals are proclaimed, and penalties are imposed in relation to those stated obligations. That is the rule of law.
Under certain circumstances, whilst I do not like the removal of the full application of the presumption of innocence, at least there is a very marked and profound difference between that and the combination of presumption of guilt and loose, uncontrolled administrative law. Even if it may be defensible, and I am not arguing that it is, that there could be an assumption of guilt in any case under a clearly defined law such as the Companies Act, I submit that the very reference indicates how impossible it is to justify an abandonment of the presumption of innocence in the case of wide-open and loosely conferred administrative powers.

Defence Production Act
It will be seen that in this case we are conferring, not upon the government but upon an individual, certain undefined and general powers over the whole economy and over the daily lives of all our people, then giving to that minister the right without reference to the government, let alone to parliament, to allow controllers and administrators to do certain things, and finally creating certain penalties in relation to what the controllers may do. That is entirely different.
The section to which the hon. member referred in the Companies Act applied only to a very limited situation where it would be obvious that there must be knowledge on the part of the individual. That, at any rate, is the basis of the presumption. I shall concede that in all these cases it is debatable and I shall repeat what I said before, that I do not like the principle of the removal of the presumption of innocence in any case. How different it is when you delegate first of all undefined and unlimited powers beyond a government to an individual minister, and then give to that minister the right to delegate again to any individual with no knowledge of the law.
Even in the time of Magna Carta they said that people to whom responsibilities were delegated should know the law. In this case even that is not suggested. Being delegated to them, those powers take the form of law; and, if not complied with, not only is the company guilty but an individual associated with that company is presumed guilty until his innocence is established. That, I submit, is reason to refuse to accept this amendment, if there were no other reason in this whole bill.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a slight diversion from my main line of argument because of this reference to the Companies Act. I shall return to the reference I wished to make, on the presumption of innocence, in the Law Times. This article refers to the very problem, the combination of the administrative or delegated law and the presumption of innocence. It is written particularly from the point of view of a comparison of the French law and the English law. This deals with the administrative law from a very sympathetic point of view, but does emphasize the differences. This is what it says:
There are certain popular, misconceptions which seem to persist merely because nobody has ever taken the trouble to investigate and denounce them. One of the most stubborn of these is the opinion that, while in this country the rights of the individual have always been safeguarded by what is termed the "presumption of innocence", a person accused of a crime in France or other continental countries is obliged to prove that he is innocent of the accusations levelled against him.

So widespread is this fallacy that it has found credence even among the legal profession, nay, judges have been known to propound it on the bench as an illustration, by contrast, of the fairness of the English Law. This short paper is written in order to dispel a notion which Frenchmen and others have long regarded as a highly offensive and unjustified imputation.
May I intervene at this point in my own words. I emphasize the following words because they need emphasis, having regard to the attitude of the members to these extremely wide powers. I go on with the quotation:
In fact, no civilized country would nowadays entertain a general rule so barbaric as to impose upon every individual the obviously impossible burden of establishing that he is not guilty of any criminal charges which may be raised against him. The expression "presumption of innocence" appears to be of comparatively recent date; it is not to be found in that great work of the eighteenth century, Blackstone's Commentaries. But its modern meaning is perfectly clear: it is used as a synonym for the general principle that, before a man can be convicted of a criminal offence, it is the task of the prosecution so to convince the court of his guilt that no reasonable doubt is left. Consequently, unless a statute provides to the contrary, the burden of proving every fact and circumstance necessary to make out the offence falls upon the prosecution.
This general principle is by no means peculiar to English law; indeed, it seems to have been known already to Roman law. Ammianus Marcellinus tells of a reply given by the Emperor Julian to a prosecutor who complained, when his charge was about to be dismissed for want of evidence:
He then set forth, in Latin, the declaration that every man is innocent until proved guilty.
Whatever the defects of early criminal procedure on the continent, the fundamental rule that the accused must be proved guilty by legal evidence or discharged, has been recognized at least since the sixteenth century. Thus the first attempt to provide a criminal law for the whole empire of Charles V, the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina of 1532, provided by article 22: "Nobody is to be sentenced to criminal punishment on the basis of suspicion or denunciation, but only if he confess or be proven guilty." The Bavarian criminal code of 1813 drafted by Feuerbach stated even more definitely: "Nobody can be convicted unless certainty of his guilt has been established by positive proof." In German present-day criminal trials governed by the code of criminal procedure of 1877 the whole burden of proof devolves upon the prosecution, since in every case the non liquet operates in favour of the accused, and a verdict of not guilty must be returned if the evidence adduced by the prosecutor has not convinced the court. It was only under fascism and nazism that this principle was temporarily threatened. "The accused does not enjoy," the Italian lawyer Casabianca wrote in 1929, "the presumption of innocence; the verdict will attest whether he is guilty or innocent; until then he is simply an accused." He was propounding, there is no doubt, a revolutionary, novel doctrine.
There is precisely what we do not want incorporated as part of the permanent law of Canada. As this writer in the Law Times

points out when he is making a comparison between the two legal systems-I must say that ultimately he comes to the conclusion that the administrative law provides many safeguards-it was only under fascism and nazism that this principle was temporarily sustained. It is on all fours with what we have before us, delegated powers such as they had in Italy and Germany. This was the statement made in 1929 by Casabianca, one of the leading lawyers of Italy:
The accused does not enjoy the presumption of innocence; the verdict will attest whether he is guilty or innocent; until then he is simply an accused.
That is what this act says, that the presumption of guilt is on the person to show that he is innocent. For far too long that has been the law to be challenged today, and I do think that we could well bear in mind what it is. I do not know of a country today that pretends to be democratic which is so barbaric as to adopt the practice of assuming guilt. The suggestion by the hon. member, put forward in sincerity and good faith, that there is some similarity between this and the company law in my opinion only emphasizes the danger inherent here; first of all, you confer wide delegated powers, not to the government but to the minister, and then give the minister power to delegate to people we know nothing about. These may be people whose qualifications are in no way tested or examined or known, and yet anybody who disobeys their orders could be presumed guilty if there should be established any offence under such provision against a company of which they are members.
I want to refer to another article in the Law Times, in this case volume 212 under date of October 19, 1951. This is entitled "Burdens and Presumptions in Criminal Law" and is by a man well known to most lawyers in this house, Glanville L. Williams. He starts with this proposition:
The topic of the burden of proof and presumptions is one of the most difficult in the law of evidence, and recent cases have done little to clarify it. In particular, considerable confusion has been caused by failing to keep distinct two separate meanings of the term "burden of proof".
This article goes on to point out that burden of proof must rest clearly upon the prosecution because it is the prosecution which takes the responsibility of bringing a person into court and which must take the responsibility of showing the court how that person has broken any law. The very fact that this power is included in this act does indicate the immense danger inherent in a statute of this kind and why we so strongly oppose the continuance of the act in its present form.
Defence Production Act
Is it not possible for the government to avoid any embarrassment to itself by one very simple device? We are told that the government would lose face if it backed away from this debate at this time. To any hon. member who complains about the fact that we are keeping him here, to any hon. member who complains about the fact we are raising objections to this act over a very extended period of time, may I say there is one way in which the government could deal with this without in any way changing its position at this time. This way would still give the government and hon. members opposite an opportunity to take a second look at the legislation. I would think the statement of the Prime Minister this morning, which indicated his confidence in the immediate future, was contrary to the ominous warnings given us by some others in this house, and contrary to the ominous picture painted by the Minister of Defence Production. I should think that would provide a basis for the most reasonable solution of this situation which could possibly present itself. It seems unnecessary to repeat it, yet apparently it is.
The main act, to which there is simply an amendment before us, an amendment removing the time limit in the original act, remains on the statute books until July 31, 1956. Do not put forward two such contradictory arguments as the suggestion, on the one hand, that the government cannot employ men because of the uncertainty of the continuity of the department, and at the same time expect us to take the assurance that three years hence certain things will be done by the government. They do not go hand in hand. On the one hand the Prime Minister, with great assurance and certainty, talks about what he can assure three years from now, and at the same time the Minister of Defence Production tells us that he has difficulty in obtaining people to perform certain services if the act is not renewed in the usual way in the session immediately before it expires. They do not go hand in hand.
The truth is that the Minister of Defence Production is not putting forward that argument very seriously. He knows perfectly well that whatever assistance he needs is obtainable, and he knows perfectly well that he can get that assistance just as well if this act continues in its present form for another year and is reviewed at the next session of parliament. At that time we all will have seen how far events will have justified some of the confidence that is being expressed. We will have seen exactly what has developed; and with the termination of the act still several months in the future we could meet
5778	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act next spring and say, "Here are the conditions; in the light of these conditions these are the powers which the government needs under this act to deal with the problems of defence production."
Is it completely impossible that the meeting which is about to take place at Geneva could conceivably lay the foundation for some wider understanding which perhaps would at least stabilize the position throughout the world? Surely every one of us must hope that at some time in the future, the sooner the better, a modus vivendi between the free world and the communist world will be established. There have been times in days gone by when systems just as different as those we see today have found it possible to live in the same world without going to war against each other.
Not one of us in this chamber in any way approves of the doctrine of communism; but I think every hon. member is always conscious of the fact that our secret weapon against communism is the innate humanity of the people living under communism, which some day may assert itself. Less than 3 per cent of the people of Russia are members of the communist party. Ninety-seven per cent of the people of Russia are outside that select group of slave-drivers. As we have discovered when we came in contact with them, those Russian people have ordinary human sympathies, desires, hopes and aspirations not unlike our own, greatly though they may be limited at this time.
It should be our hope that this meeting at the summit to take place in Geneva so soon may at least produce cracks in the iron curtain. We might trust that through those cracks there would permeate the reinvigorating breath of understanding and new hope and a greater measure of sympathy for the appalling conditions under which those people beyond the iron curtain live today. Those hopes may not become a reality. Certain it is, however, that the Prime Minister of Britain, the President of the United States, the Premier of France and the Premier of Russia are not going to Geneva with all their entourage unless they feel that there is at least some hope of finding common ground to ease the pressures which today are expressed in our huge appropriation in this country for defence expenditure.
How much better it would be if we waited until next spring and at that time-with the Geneva meeting behind us, with the discussions that will take place in the ensuing months also behind us, and with a clear picture of the possibilities of understanding between the east and the west-decided what powers were needed. At that time let there 

be no doubt that we will give the same assurance we have given now. We will support the continuance of the Department of Defence Production and, under appropriate limits as to time and scope, we will support whatever legitimate powers are needed by the Minister of Defence Production to give to our defence forces the very best equipment and supplies they need. Let there be no uncertainty on that score.
The government could come before us now and say, "We have had a lengthy debate. We have already indicated that we do not agree with the views expressed by the opposition. Nevertheless we believe that in the best interests of an orderly examination of this act, which in its existing form will continue in force well past the termination of the next session-or at least let us hope so-at that time we shall be able, in a more orderly manner, to examine the powers which should be given." If the government did that it would be showing responsibility. If the government did that it would be showing its respect for parliament. If the government did that it would be showing its respect for the rule of law.
Not one single word has been said by anyone supporting the government in this debate to explain why these matters could not be deferred until next session. Not a single word of explanation has been given. Nor has anyone given a single explanation of any kind as to why these things which the government says are so important-such as the construction of guided missiles, supersonic aircraft, supersonic engines and matters of that kind-could not be placed before parliament in the ordinary way. Not one single word of explanation has been said on that matter. May I repeat that not a single word has been said in support of this strange provision under which this government could set up crown companies without parliament knowing about it-


Mr. Proudfoot:: That is your opinion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, if someone else wishes to speak, I will stand aside for the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Leader of the Opposition is through-


George Alexander Drew: No. Someone spoke on the other side.


John Hugh Proudfoot: I said, "That is your opinion".


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have relayed to me what was only a noisy mumble.
I now find that the words spoken by the hon. member who was sitting down, contrary to the rules, were "That is your opinion".


John Hugh Proudfoot: And I said it standing up.


George Alexander Drew: That is my opinion, Mr. Speaker. But let any lawyer in this house get to his feet and say I have overstated the case. Let any member of this house rise in his place and say that I have overstated the case. I say the government can appoint a crown corporation. Of course they can do that; there is no argument about it. It is as clear as it can be put into words.
Then what is the purpose? The purpose is to carry out any of these manifold and undefined undertakings which are entrusted to the Minister of Defence Production. That is the authority. There is no parallel authority for this purpose either in the act of the United Kingdom or in the act of the United States. Every power in this act must be read in conjunction with that special power, because every power in this act sets forward things that could be brought within the scope of the operation of one of these crown companies. Not a single word has been said that even purports to explain why that power would be required.
Mr. Speaker, this debate has gone on for some time and it will go on for some time yet. But if any hon. member feels there should be a solution of this problem, may I say that solution may be found in two ways. We have before the house an amendment which does nothing-


An hon. Member:: You said it.


George Alexander Drew: -but carry out the proposal of the government itself. It would write into the law the continuance of the Department of Defence Production and refer to the committee which seems to be the most appropriate one for the purpose, namely the standing committee on banking and commerce, the duty of redrafting this act to carry out the declared intention of the government.
I hope it will not be said by any hon. member opposite that it is too late in the session to refer this bill to the committee. Of course I know that argument would not be put forward by the Minister of Finance, because he referred the estimates of his department to the committee on estimates only within the last few days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They came back this
morning.


George Alexander Drew: That is right. That shows with what celerity this problem could be dealt with. That is exactly the situation. It shows that there need be no difficulty about dealing with the matter in this way. Then the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production could explain exactly what they had in mind when they said four years ago that
Defence Production Act there were certain powers that they thought should be discontinued. They could say exactly what those powers were and put them before the committee, and it would be for the committee to express its opinion. Then there could be incorporated in the act an appropriate time limit within which the powers could be reintroduced, just as they were reintroduced under other legislation put forward by the government.
If this government, Mr. Speaker, thought it was appropriate in time of war, and in what they described as an emergency period immediately after the war, to place a time limit of one year on powers and then come back for an extension, and to put a one-year time limit in 1951 on the emergency powers act, surely it is proper that there should be some time limit today.
After all, we must remember that the Prime Minister came to this house last year and said that although conditions were still serious and no one could be entirely satisfied with the international situation, nevertheless they regarded the time as appropriate to return to normal procedure. If it was proper for the Prime Minister to ask to return to normal procedure last year, why is it too much for us to ask now that they keep within normal procedure so far as the powers of the defence production department are concerned? The argument of the Prime Minister himself at the time of the termination of the emergency powers act was in itself an argument in support of the contention that we are placing before the house.
Surely there are two simple courses: Accept our amendment which carries into effect their own proposal, or come before the house and say it has been an extended debate, but at least to the extent that views have been sharpened on both sides of the house it has been a useful debate. With that information before us and with the growing confidence now inspired by the meeting at the summit at Geneva, which was not even thought of at the time the legislation was first brought into the house by way of resolution in March, we are going to make the suggestion that the bill stand over and it will then be given cool and careful consideration in the light of events as they are at the next session of parliament.
That, Mr. Speaker, would be the act of a strong government conscious of its own power to do the right thing. There can be corruption, Mr. Speaker, other than corruption in the handling of money and things of that kind. There can be corruption of power, and the insistence on naked power in denial of the assurance given by this government

Defence Production Act would be a barefaced corruption of power itself. Let us not have that. Let the government show its strength by acting in the way a strong government can act. Let it either accept the amendment and ask its supporters to accept the amendment and then in the committee obtain the kind of measure that is consistent with their own assurances. Alternatively we could wait until next year when all can devote their thoughts to this subject. That, Mr. Speaker, would in itself be an expression by the government of its own respect for the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law upon which our civilization is founded.
(Translation) :


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in rising to take part in this debate-


Pierre Gauthier: It shows.


Léon Balcer: -even if it has been going on for some time, and even if it is due to go on for a few days or weeks-


Pierre Gauthier: It looks like it.


Léon Balcer: -for I consider it my duty to support the leader of my party in this fight he is leading for the defence of our parliamentary system of government in Canada.


Jean Lesage: You don't look any too happy about it.


Léon Balcer: In my opinion, the leader of our party, together with other Progressive Conservative members who have spoken up to now, have genuinely discharged the duty which is theirs as an opposition in our parliamentary system. We, the members of the opposition, are here to criticize any and every exaggeration on the part of the government in power and I believe that the bill, in its present form, is a striking example of abuse of power and exaggeration, within our parliamentary system.
To my mind, the criticism offered by the Conservative opposition in this debate has been constructive criticism. As a clear example of this, we have the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). A detailed study of this amendment cannot fail to reveal to anyone here how perfectly logical it is, since, by justifying the existence of the Department of Defence Production, it enables the latter to serve the country. Adoption of the amendment would allow the department to procure all those things necessary to our armed forces, while enabling it, moreover, to ensure that our defence effort does not interfere unduly with the general economy of this country, while curbing abuses on the part of industry, labour, or private individuals.


And yet, in spite of all the logic of this amendment, the government obstinately refuses to agree to a time limit on certain powers which the house is being asked to grant to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). Such stubbornness, Mr. Speaker, is really unaccountable. What has happened, so far, in this debate? We have seen one or two ministers speak in favour of this legislation but, as regards the rank and file of the Liberals, barring a few exceptions who were content to sit there and interject silly remarks, not a single one has had the courage to rise in defence of the Minister of Defence Production, and to show that this bill was absolutely necessary at this time.


Jean Lesage: That is not so.


Léon Balcer: Can the hon. Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) point to a single member from Quebec who, with the exception of the Prime Minister, has taken part in this debate, which has been going on now for the past few days?


Pierre Gauthier: I dare say there has been one.


Léon Balcer: There is no doubt about that. However, it is at least strange to note that, among those who, for the past ten days, have been listening to the opposition and to a few ministers discussing a bill of great significance for the country, not a single one has mustered enough courage to rise in defence of the Minister of Defence Production. Yet, there has been ample opportunity. The only excuse that has been found up till now to justify the excessive powers requested in this bill was that those powers will never be used.
Well, if these powers are so unpopular that the government would not use them even during the Korean war, I wonder why today it goes to the trouble of asking us to make them permanent and of insisting that they be retained permanently in our statutes.
Mr. Speaker, some of the powers we are asked to grant the minister are quite justified, but there are others which are really too sweeping, undemocratic and unparliamentary. Such powers should be used only in an emergency, and the experience of the past shows that the loyal opposition, always conscious of its obligations, would be the first, in the event of an emergency, to grant the Minister of Defence Production all the powers he would need to provide our armed forces with all required weapons and equipment. But the only excuse given today when demanding that such drastic powers be permanently included in our statutes is that the minister never used those powers and never will use

them. It has been said that there is no reason for the opposition to worry about them, for they will never be applied.
Well, as I say, if those powers are so unpopular that it was not considered advisable to use them during the Korean crisis, and even when the situation was deteriorating in southern Asia, for fear of arousing public opinion, why not let them go when the opposition objects to them? All they had to do was to leave the act in its present form. There was no reason whatsoever to introduce this bill. But no, tremendous powers are being asked for this year, though they have been granted to the minister until 1956.
I was just saying that these powers were unparliamentary and undemocratic. At such statements, my friends opposite chuckle, and jest about the matter. It should, however, be borne in mind that according to history, the same proceedings and the same march of events have prevailed under every dictatorship that appeared in the twentieth century.
At first, the defenders of democracy, the elected representatives of the people, began to lose interest, to surrender this and that principle to allow the government to do this and that; and the words democracy, or parliamentary system, were more often than not laughed at. Soon public opinion requested a strong man to take over the situation and administer industry with an iron hand, so much so that, at the end of a few months, people awakened and found that their strong man had become a dictator and that to get rid of him world wars or revolutions were necessary.
I do not say that such a thing could happen in Canada next year, if the present bill were carried. Surely not. Yet I believe that the Conservative opposition which is staging the fight in this debate is playing the part of an active and determined opposition party, which understands fully the great principles of Canadian democracy and the value of our parliamentary system.
We must not forget that the powers which we are asked to incorporate permanently in the statutes of Canada are not just ordinary powers. The hon. Leader of the Opposition and several other speakers have explained to what extent those powers disregard the rights of parliament. But what worries me still more, as a member from the province of Quebec, is to find that those powers practically do away with the main safeguards of our constitution. I know that this matter will not cause too much worry to my hon. friends opposite, because they are rather broadminded when it comes to the rights of the provinces and the prerogatives of provin-
Defence Production Act cial governments. My hon. friends opposite are quite happy to sit there and watch the government whittle away, little by little, the rights of the provinces and attempt to scuttle the constitution. Surely it is not among the people opposite that we will hear strong protests in that connection. It is true that, in the last few months, we have not heard speeches similar to those that have been made on the Saxonia or at the Reform Club. I do not know what brought our friends opposite to take steps to improve the situation, but at least we no longer hear them indulge in such talk. However, as a member from the province of Quebec, elected by voters of Quebec, where provincial autonomy is taken to heart and where the very spirit of the Canadian confederation is respected, I insist on protesting against the inclusion in our statutes, on a perpetual basis, of a section such as section 28 of the Defence Production Act.
One must not be unmindful that this section 28 provides for such sweeping powers that I do not believe that the government would dare challenge public opinion by exercising them, at least in the course of this year. However, I think that, by incorporating such a section into the statutes of this country, we would defeat the purpose of the constitution and sabotage the British North America Act, for one has but to take a few instances of the powers provided by section 28 to grasp their import.
That section enables the governor in council to take control over any natural resource in any province, if the Minister of Defence Production decides that it is in the interest of his department.
One can see to what abuses such extraordinary powers could lead. Let us take for instance the paper industry, and let us suppose for a moment that the Minister of Defence Production decides that the government requires part of the paper production for the use of the armed forces. Well, section 28 enables him to issue an order in council which would give him control over the entire pulp and paper industry in Canada, and even exempt certain lumber companies from the payment of stumpage to the provincial governments. Nowhere is it said in section 28 that the Minister of Defence Production has to ask permission to do anything of the kind.
Let us imagine, for instance, that the Minister of Defence Production requires large scale transport to be undertaken. Well, he can take over all the trucking system of a province, our whole bus transport system, under the authority granted to him by a government order issued at his suggestion. Even then, he would not need the permission of the provincial governments.
5782	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
He could even decree that all those who have contracts with the Department of Defence Production are under no obligation to pay provincial taxes. In this case, also, he would not even need to ask the provincial government for their permission.
One could say no doubt that I exaggerate and that I go too far, but after all, the powers are there, in black and white. And the only excuse that can be offered is that they have never been put in force and probably never will be.
Well, if they have never been used or if the government does not intend to use them, let them be removed, without parliament being asked not only to extend them until 1956 but to add them forever to the statutes of the Canadian parliament.
I said a moment ago that it might not be necessary to ask any permission from the provincial governments. This government has shown that it did not scruple too much about trying to get as many concessions as possible from the provincial governments. During the last war, when the government saw fit to take over some provincial fields of taxation, well, it had at least the decency to ask permission, but now, with section 28, it does not even take the trouble of paying this small act of courtesy.
During this debate, the government's spokesmen and their allies on the left have always endeavoured to explain that the minister needed these tremendous powers to cope with the state of emergency existing at the present time, or which might occur.
Well, let us have a look at the international situation. Without doubt, Russia is still waging her cold war. Since the war of 1939-45 ended, we have never enjoyed a full peace; the world has been disillusioned by the kind of peace which followed this dreadful conflict.
Russia has continued her campaign against the western nations; she never relented in her vicious aggression which might be called a cold war.
Nevertheless, at the present time, we are far removed from the emergency of the Korean war, when our soldiers were fighting on the Korean battlefields, when our young men were being killed and when we had to provide our troops with the equipment necessary to enable them successfully to defend democracy which was then threatened by North Korea, communist China and Russia.
The situation is now much less serious than it was when the sad events with which we are all familiar took place in southeast Asia. At that time, the French army had to retreat. France has removed all her troops from Indo-China, thus forcing western nations


to make concessions to the leaders of North Indo-China.
Since then, the situation has improved. Russia, at least in words, seems to be offering her hand in a gesture of peace. Austria has been freed. Western Germany is discussing with Russia the ways of bringing about an agreement on the unification of Germany, guaranteed by the western nations. Finally, the great powers will meet later this month at Geneva. All that tends to create some sort of hope for peace.
However, we must not close our eyes and allow ourselves to be lulled into complacency. We must be realists. We must remember that we waged war to save democracy. We must not resort to bogeys like the imminent danger of a world crisis or the possibility of a world war to compel the Canadian parliament to grant extraordinary powers like these contained in the present bill, which we are asked to incorporate permanently in the statutes of Canada.
This morning, the right hon. Prime Minister was loudly cheered when he stated that he did not believe, nor did the government expect, that there would be a world war this year. All hon. members opposite and even members of the opposition cheered him. Since I have been sitting in this house, I often noted the optimism of the right hon. Prime Minister, who never misses an occasion of stating that he is confident that there will not be another world war in the near future.
Well, if the situation has improved to that extent, if there is not at this time any urgency or threat of a crisis, the arguments put forth by our hon. friends opposite are groundless. They do not stand up and they are in fact surprising. I am astonished to hear such arguments in the Canadian parliament.
We are truly wondering why the government could not accept the amendment moved by the Conservative opposition. After all, by this amendment we agree that the Department of Defence Production should carry on its work; we are prepared to give it all powers that it may need to carry through all its undertakings but we are requesting that the duration of such powers, which even our friends opposite find exceptional, which they themselves agree should not be made permanent and which they would never dare apply knowing them to be so unpopular, be limited. Why then refuse to accept this amendment? Is it because the minister, when retiring at night, finds it comforting to say to himself that he is the most powerful man in Canada? Very well! We consent to his being the most powerful man in this country, but we cannot admit that the powers contained in this bill

should be incorporated forever into the statutes of Canada. Does the minister want to be able to say, when he goes to bed at night: I can control the whole Canadian industry by a simple telephone call. Is that what he wishes? Does he feel some satisfaction in forcing parliament to sit during the summer months, in this sultry heat? Is that the reason why-


Jean Lesage: Whose fault is it?


Léon Balcer: The government, with its stubbornness, is responsible.


Jean Lesage: The fault is yours; you yourselves are responsible.


Léon Balcer: Why does not the government accept the logical amendment proposed by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks)? Our friends opposite are obviously used to a certain dictature. It is a performance which we have had constantly before our eyes. For all practical purposes, when a minister introduces a bill, the hon. members opposite, from first to last, always accept it without any criticism, whether they have seen the bill or not. It is true that once, twice, or perhaps five times, some of them have criticized legislation, but they have always voted in favour of any proposal introduced by the government. There is nothing surprising in the fact that these people accept the element of dictatorship contained in the bill and in the Defence Production Act. I am not surprised that they have remained quite silent during this debate. They do seem tired by the weather, though, and anxious to return home. There is no doubt, in any event, that if it were left to government members, wider powers would have been handed to any minister, as long as they were allowed to go home.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government will be able to realize that this roadblock thrown in its path by the Conservative opposition is a concrete sign that we will not budge until the government has proposed an amendment of its own or accepted ours, which is directed to limiting these dictatorial powers so as to safeguard our parliamentary system.
One thing has struck me in the course of this debate and it is the speeches of those Liberals in a hurry, your friends, the friends of the government, those gentlemen who sit to my left and who have attempted to show that the reason why our party was carrying on such a stubborn fight was that we wanted to protect big interests.
Well, I don't believe there is a political party that gets along better with the big financial interests than the Liberal party. Besides, I am going to point out as a small
Defence Production Act example something that will enable all our friends opposite to get a lot of information on the matter. One has only to open the Parliamentary Guide to find the list of the Liberal senators. In the short biography which thej have written themselves,-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Léon Balcer: -we note that a majority of them are directors of several of the biggest concerns in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Gauthier: A flood of words in a desert of ideas.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to ask the hon. member not to refer in such terms to our colleagues of the other house, but rather to remain within the purview of the present debate.


Léon Balcer: I accept your suggestion, Your Honour. However, I am very glad to say that the Conservative opposition did not undertake this fight against the passage of this bill simply to protect big business-


Jean Lesage: Simply to-


Léon Balcer: -as our friends opposite have been doing for years. Our party fights this bill in order to protect the whole Canadian industry, big and small, and even Canadian labour.


Pierre Gauthier: You should revise your text.


Léon Balcer: This may cause our friends opposite to chuckle, but, as stated the other day by one of the members of the opposition, this bill confers upon the Minister of Defence Production the power to deprive labour of its right to strike.


Mr. Habel:: It is not Mr. Duplessis.


Léon Balcer: That is exactly what-


J. G. Léopold Langlois: He is referring to the Louiseville strike.


Léon Balcer: -is written in section 31, subsection 2, paragraph (d), that is: the minister may require any person who supplies any essential service to do it on such conditions as the minister may prescribe.


An hon. Member:: That is in Bill 19.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quiet.


Léon Balcer: In Bill 19, there is no mention-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Will the hon. member permit me to ask a question?


Léon Balcer: Certainly, with pleasure.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Could he give us one instance where the Minister of Defence Production has used the powers under that section as was done by the premier of Quebec to disfranchise certain labour unions?

Defence Production Act


Léon Balcer: These words of the hon. member make me really happy, as they support the arguments put forward in this debate by government members. The only argument that was made to prove that workers would never be deprived of their right to strike- which can be done by a single order of the Minister of Defence Production-was that the minister has never used that power so far.
Well, we have been asked to include for all time in our statutes a clause which would enable the Minister of Defence Production to issue an order, for instance, that the workers of any industry, of any manufacture, of any public services or of any group of workers who perform certain services-


Jean Lesage: Essential.


Léon Balcer: -that are essential will not have the right to strike if the services they perform are essential. I am sincerely wondering whether this can in any way contribute to the advancement of happiness and welfare among our workers? I am putting the same question to the hon. members opposite who were chosen during the last election by proclaiming themselves the friends of labour throughout Canada. I heard them in my own county, coming one after another to tell us that the Liberal party offered the best protection to the Canadian workers. Well, today those same representatives are ready to support such a bill, which is going to be incorporated once and for all in the statute books of our Canadian parliament. The only excuse they can find for including such a drastic measure is that the government never resorted to it. But what if the minister did decide to use it? Nothing can prevent him, not even the absence of a state of emergency.
Therefore, I said at the outset of my speech that the battle now being fought by the leader of this party and my colleagues is for the preservation of our democratic freedoms, to make sure that there will be nothing in the statutes of this country which could allow any sabotage, now or later, of the Canadian constitution in the first place, and of the rights of the workers and of all other individuals. In my opinion, we would be really remiss in our duty if we allowed such a piece of legislation to be included forever in the statutes of this country.
The bill in its present form is rather shy of explanations. There is hardly more than a paragraph repealing the part which has to do with the time limit. I submit the government should be satisfied that the Conservative opposition will never allow such a bill to pass in its present form.
The government should meet without delay to consider the situation and find a way to break the deadlock. We certainly do not wish to let them take hold of what we
[Mr. Habel.l
believe to be essential to the survival of our parliamentary system. We did our share, we proposed an amendment which treated the minister very generously. We want Canada to have a Department of Defence Production, and the minister to hold all the powers which he needs to administer the department on a truly democratic basis.
I challenge anybody to show me in the amendment put forward by the member for Royal the slightest justification for any reflection upon the intentions of our party in that respect. I urge the government members who have listened for many days to the speeches made by the opposition-


Mr. Maltais:: Who are listening out of sheer courtesy.


Léon Balcer: -to approach their ministers urging them to call a caucus of the Liberal party, during which g suggestion acceptable to this house might be worked out, particularly in view of the speech in which the Leader of the Opposition so clearly and distinctly stated-


Jean Lesage: So lengthily and obscurely.


Léon Balcer: -the policy of our party in this matter, which is all to his credit as a democratic parliamentarian-and this applies also to all hon. members of the Conservative opposition. I trust the government, even abetted by the silence of its backbenchers, will not succeed in convincing the opposition to incorporate such anti-democratic legislation-not for a single year, but forever- in the statutes of our Canadian parliament.
(Text):


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, having a feeling of solicitude for those not quite so fortunate as we are, having heard the hon. member for Digby-An-napolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) intimate the other day that this debate would carry on until the snow flew in the fall, and having noticed that some hon. members opposite are considerably irked by the heat, I thought I might refer to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of July 5 entitled "Advice from MOH". It goes on to say:
Here is what to do when mercury high.
There are quite a number of suggestions in this article, and if hon. members do not wish to hear them probably I might call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Three minutes to go.


William Marvin Howe: The article
goes on:
In an effort to cut down those effects after the current heat wave, Dr. Pequegnat approved these beat-the-heat hints:
Wear light, loose clothes.

I do not know whether that would refer to the men or ladies in the house, but that is the advice of this medical officer of health.
Increase consumption of basic fluids-beverages normally indulged in.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I continue:
Eat well-balanced but moderate meals concentrating on cool-looking foods such as cereals, fruits, vegetables and salads.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it was with great anticipation that I entered this house for the first time back in November of 1953, because here was a place where the destiny of our country was being shaped by men whose names were conjured with by people throughout the country. I might mention the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the Leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) and many of the ministers. But particularly I was interested in seeing in action the man who bears the same name I bear, the man whose bill we are debating today.
There were those throughout the country who said that he was a dictator. There were those who said that this Liberal government should be called the Howe government. I have yet to find that out, Mr. Speaker. After all, the Howe name is quite illustrious down through history. There are many people who have carried that name with great distinction. To mention a few of them, there was the man who invented that homely piece of household equipment, the sewing machine; his name was Elias Howe. Then we have that great Canadian statesman from Nova Scotia, Joseph Howe, who fought so hard and with such great distinction for the common people; to such an extent was he successful that he was able to bring constitutional government to his province. He fought for the rights of the press and many other things that we hold supreme in this country of ours. Then among those who carried the name of Howe we have a great many men who were generals, who won distinction on the field of battle. We have the lady, Julia Ward Howe, who wrote "The Battle Hymn of the Republic".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must have lost track of things here. Are we now on the address 50433-366
Defence Production Act in reply to the speech from the throne for next session or to what is the hon. member speaking?


Howard Charles Green: Oh, sit down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am speaking of the people of distinction, as 1 say, who have carried the name that I so proudly carry. Now we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). As I have indicated, he also bears this illustrious name. After all the wealth of praise and the plaudits that have been heaped on his shoulders during this debate by members of his own party and others, in the phrase we have heard used in this house before, he would appear to be as a knight in shining armour. However, I sometimes wonder whether the knights in shining armour, when they took their oath to protect the weak and the rights of the people, would uphold the principle that is brought out in this bill, namely the principle that we give to this government and the minister such great powers for an unlimited length of time.
Perhaps it may be that that armour is getting a little tarnished and that there are a few chinks in the armour. Probably the Minister of Trade and Commerce finds that he has a little too much to do. I have been amazed at all the things he has to do and all the departments he has to look after. I sometimes wonder whether part of the reason for this bill is not that he hopes to delegate to someone else this portfolio of defence production.
As the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) interjected yesterday, we do not know what is in the minister's mind. He may have in his mind some other member of the government. He may have in mind someone he can bring in from outside to be Minister of Defence Production. Who knows? Here in this house we have had an illustration of what might happen, in connection with the new C.N.R. hotel in Montreal, where they had to import somebody to operate it. So, Mr. Speaker, this great desire for power, this great desire to overthrow some of the things for which our ancestors of whom I spoke fought so hard, probably indicates that some of the brightness is wearing off. After all, is not that the real reason for this debate? Has not this debate been brought on because of the provision in this bill that would continue the act for an indefinite length of time?
This is a debate which has been carried on for many days. It is a debate in which many intelligent and capable people have taken part. It is a debate which has aroused the interest of the people of this country as no other debate has done for many years. Last

Defence Production Act week end when I was home for probably the first time since this parliament opened I heard more comments about our debate and about the things we were fighting for than I have ever head in my short time in this house. It is a debate as to which many favourable comments have been made in the press.
I should like to quote just a few words from a couple of these press reports. The first is from the London Free Press of June 30. It is entitled "Principle Bad in Defence Production Bill". I shall not read all of this article. I shall read just this part:
No one objects to wide powers for the Minister of Defence Production, or even to their extension over a considerable period.
The objection is to an indefinite delegation of the power of parliament.
Then here is another news report, one which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, June 16. It is entitled "The Men of Parliament must speak for Parliament". I shall quote just one or two portions of this editorial:
They fight the permanent right being given a minister, among other things, to requisition defence supplies, and appoint controllers to operate businesses.
They fight everlasting authority to the governor in council to designate essential services of any kind and make them subject to the minister. . . . The issue is the power of parliament. ... If the bill is passed parliament is deprived of powers that should belong to it unless emergency exists, and the government has not proved there is an emergency.
Sometimes I wonder what manner of minister this is who can listen to all these outstanding and intelligent speeches, all this argument requesting a simple little thing like putting a time limit in the bill, and who can say as found at page 5377 of Hansard:
We have seen any legitimate objections to the bill drowned in a torrent of exaggeration, and the corpses of the arguments are now floating around in a vast ocean of words.
I sometimes wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this is not history repeating itself. We heard the minister intimate the other day that ever since this debate began he has felt that he is living in another world. Could it be a world of ghosts and mystics? Is it a supernatural world to which he refers? Probably that is where he goes during his sleepless nights, a world in which he depends upon the ghosts of the past to lead him through this vale of tears.
He also made another statement which he corrected, and as corrected it is to the effect that he has not seen any legitimate objections to the bill. Does he mean to say that after -many days and innumerable speeches of exhortation, pleading and coaxing by people who are his equals in the house inasmuch as they have been elected to parliament by the wish of the people of their constituencies, the
[Mr. Howe (WelUngton-Huron.1
people for whom they are speaking, he has not heard any legitimate objections? I am sure that is not the way the people in our constituencies will feel about the matter.
I sometimes think if the minister is going into that supernatural world he had better be careful, because he will find there many men who have fought for the things that might be destroyed by this bill. He may find there some of the fathers of confederation, who fought so hard to prepare our constitution and bring this country into confederation. In that supernatural world they will probably fight just as hard as they did when they were here on earth.
This debate could have been finished yesterday, but instead the Prime Minister made one of his platitudinous speeches about always doing something for the people of Canada and giving them what they want. He also intimated that the government intended to be back. What a wonderful weapon a bill like this could be in returning the government to office. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister could have ended the debate by indicating that the government was not an immovable body, that it was willing to listen to reason, that it was willing to listen to all the pleading and exhortation of members on this side of the house and agree to place a time limit in the bill. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this could have been done in just a few minutes.
The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) spoke on June 20, and as found at page 5005 of Hansard he said:
Whether we can afford to drop our guard, whether we can afford to relax, is a serious decision to make.
No one on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, has intimated that we should relax or that the period of tension is over. We sincerely hope and pray that the time will come when we can relax, but none of us has intimated that the powers and the work of the defence production organization should be lessened or that there is not still reason for us to keep up our defences and carry them forward in just as capable and efficient a way as possible. No, Mr. Speaker, no one on this side of the house has intimated anything of the kind.
Later in his speech the hon. member for Spadina went on to say:
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 do not quarrel with the powers that have been given. All we quarrel with is the lack of a time limit. All we quarrel with is that these powers are going to be carried on

almost forever under the bill now before us. We have not intimated that these powers should be relaxed, but we do say that to carry on the powers contained in the legislation for an indefinite period of time is against the principles, rights and other things for which we have fought so dearly, and for which our forefathers worked so hard.
With reference to our constitution and government, the things that we on this side of the house have been talking about, the things that are important, I have in my hand a book entitled "Canada 1954". It is supposed to be the official handbook of present conditions and recent progress, and is published by the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). These are some of the things it has to say about our constitution and government:
The Canadian constitution and its present day practice in the arts of democratic government are the product of complex and diverse forces and events^ that have shaped the evolutionary growth of political institutions in British North America during the past 190 years and witnessed its development from colony to nation.
In his speech this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition indicated how these conflicts and diverse forces have played their part in bringing about our constitution. I continue:
Despite the manifold complex problems inherent in the cultural and local loyalties of the populace, in the diverse regional structure of the economy, and in the application of British political inheritance to the new world environment, there has been a marked continuity in institutional democratic development from the several colonial legislatures of the latter part of the eighteenth century to the national parliament of the present day.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been a great evolution. Are we going back? Are we going to follow the terms of this bill or are we, as this book would intimate, going to carry on our constitutional government as it has been evolved down through the ages?
A few days ago when the minister was speaking he intimated-and I shall not repeat too much of what has been said-that he had heard no word of dissent from any of the people who were working on defence contracts. How about the farmers of this country? What are they going to say about this bill? Think of those who sweated and worked during the war years under controls of all kinds. Their prices were frozen, and then when supply had caught up with demand and there was a surplus of farm products, the controls were removed. Other people made a lot of money out of that, but not the farmers. However, in regard to this dissension that has not been heard, would you expect people who are being fed by defence contracts to bite the hand that feeds them?
50433-366i
Defence Production Act
What has been the experience of the Department of Defence Production when they call for tenders for contracts? Do they not find a great many manufacturers and distributors in this country lobbying in parliament to get those defence contracts, in an effort to keep factories busy that would otherwise be idle, to keep workers happy and to promote the economy of this country? No, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that this bill, which will continue these powers for an indefinite time, should go through.
In so far as the minister and his attitude toward this debate are concerned, I might mention a little story I heard the other day about a man who was down in that southern district where they have great floods. In the evening when he went to bed everything was calm and serene. During the night there was a terrific rainstorm and a flash flood came up. In the morning when he looked out the window the whole country was covered with water. But there was one phenomenon he could not understand. There was a straw hat moving up and down across the face of this great ocean of water. He went to the people of the house and said, "There is something I cannot understand. You had a terrific flood last night, but what is that straw hat going up and down?" They said, "That is just grandpappy. Before he went to bed last night he said, 'tomorrow morning, come hell or high water, I am going to cut the lawn'. "
I sometimes feel that is the attitude displayed here by the minister. He feels, and he has intimated to this house, that if we have to sit all summer the bill has to pass. That is the attitude; come hell or high water, he is going to have his way.


George Stanley White: rise to take part in this debate to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), which is found at page 5376 of Hansard. This afternoon when my leader was speaking I could not help but think of the plea he made to the Minister of Defence Production to accept this amendment and thus end this debate. The amendment is so reasonable in every way. As has been stated time and time again from this side of the house, the opposition does not object to this department being made permanent, nor does it object to certain powers being made permanent. But it does object io certain of the powers set out in the Defence Production Act being made permanent.
This amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal sets out a simple procedure whereby the bill could be referred to the banking and commerce committee, where there would be ample time and opportunity for the minister and his advisers to appear.

Defence Production Act Then, away from the stress and strain of the house, the committee could decide what powers in the act would be made permanent and what powers would be granted for a certain length of time, subject to renewal by parliament. Naturally such a committee would have on it members from all parties in the house, but there would be a majority of government members.
Apparently the minister has no intention of accepting the amendment. Is it because the minister may feel that he and his departmental officials would not be able to convince the members of that committee that it is necessary to have these sweeping and drastic powers for an indefinite period?
As has been pointed out, it is likely there will be another session of parliament before this act expires on July 31, 1956. As yet I have not heard the minister or any member on the opposite side of the house give any reasonable explanation why the bill could not be referred to the banking and commerce committee or why the whole matter could not stand until next session.
As was so well pointed out this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition, great results may flow from the meeting to be held at Geneva in the near future. At the next session of parliament the picture may be entirely different from what it is today. In fact, only this morning the Prime Minister indicated, quite frankly and in a forceful manner, that he could foresee no major conflict during the next twelve months. All hon. members in this house know that during the first world war, the second world war and the Korean conflict, parliament did not hesitate to delegate to the minister and the government whatever extra powers they needed to deal with the emergency. But as yet neither the minister nor the Prime Minister has advanced any reason or shown the house that there is an emergency at the present time which would require the granting of these extraordinary powers.
All hon. members will agree that in both world wars Canadian labour and industry co-operated in every way and did a splendid job. There is no reason to doubt that if the occasion should arise again, Canadian labour and industry would do another fine job. Canadians are a type of people who do not like threats, restrictions or clubs held over their heads. For that reason I wish the minister, before the debate ends, would give the house in plain and simple language the reasons why he feels his department needs these most sweeping and drastic powers for an indefinite period of time.


The only reason I can find in the minister's speech is that found at page 5382 of Hansard, where he says:
The situation has reached the point where the government must insist that this legislation be passed.
Does that mean the minister has made that decision, that the Prime Minister has made the decision, that it has been made by the government, or that the whole Liberal caucus has decided that this legislation must be passed? It has been said during the course of this debate that parliament can trust the minister. Why then cannot the minister, members of the cabinet and all other Liberal members trust parliament?
As I said before, the record shows that in the past, in times of emergency, parliament has never hesitated to grant whatever powers were needed. Yet the minister and the Prime Minister have not yet explained the type of emergency that exists today that would warrant the granting of these powers to one minister. Surely the Minister of Defence Production or the Prime Minister will not suggest for one moment that the parliament of Canada is not still supreme and that the rule of law must not govern. On the other hand one wonders why the Minister of Defence Production does not want parliament at any future date to review the activities carried on under the powers of this act.
I believe it would be most beneficial to all members if the Minister of Justice would either give his opinion or have a legal opinion prepared as to the supremacy of parliament, and also a legal opinion on the words of the minister at page 5378, where he said:
Other provisions of the act affect property, but there is no provision in the Defence Production Act that affects the freedom of any person. It gives the government the right, if required for the defence of Canada, to take over the production facilities of certain defence manufacturers. That is the sole effect of the balance of the act. When people rant about the freedom of the individual, I defy anyone to show me one section in the act which affects the freedom of the individual.
It would be interesting if the Minister of Justice were to give a legal opinion on that statement, read in conjunction with certain provisions set out in section 32 of the act, of which subsection 3 states:
Every person guilty of an offence under this act, other than an offence mentioned in subsection (2), is liable upon summary conviction or conviction upon indictment to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or to both fine and imprisonment.
Subsection 2 also makes provision for a fine, upon summary conviction, not to exceed $500. Perhaps the Minister of Justice could

tell us whether in his opinion that is something affecting the freedom of the individual. If the Minister of Justice were good enough to give the house the benefit of his legal opinion on the sections I have mentioned, it would be interesting and enlightening to members if he would also give a legal opinion on section 29 of the act, which states:
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.
Then subsection 2 says that such person would have the powers conferred under the Inquiries Act. Subsection 3 goes on to say:
An investigator may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this act, and shall allow any person against whom a charge is made in the course of such inquiry, to be represented by counsel.
I would like to know when it became the law in Canada that an individual appointed by the minister under this act would have the right to say whether or not an individual who is being investigated would have the right to be represented by counsel. We note that the subsection contains the words-
-and shall allow any person against whom a charge is made in the course of such inquiry to be represented by counsel.
It has always been my understanding that that was a right enjoyed by every British subject. Why in the world should it be necessary in this year of 1955 to place in the Defence Production Act a provision stating that an investigator may allow a person to be represented by counsel, or that he shall allow representation if a charge is laid?
After all, the house is entitled to some opinion from the Minister of Justice as to the very drastic provisions of the act. In Ontario, and I presume in other provinces, we have a system today whereby an individual, no matter how poor he may be, through an arrangement with the law society is entitled to free advice from qualified solicitors, whether he be involved in a civil or criminal matter. Yet in this act, in respect of a person being investigated and who may be subject to a fine of $5,000 or imprisonment up to two years, it is stated that an investigator may permit such person to be represented by counsel.
Surely the time has not come in Canada when we are going to revert to barbarian practices, and when we are not going to uphold the fundamental principles of British justice that were referred to by the Leader of the Opposition when he read Magna Carta.
Defence Production Act If you are going to throw Magna Carta and habeas corpus into the wastepaper basket and have sections such as that, how can you expect the Canadian people to have proper respect for law and order?
The Prime Minister in his day was one of the most distinguished counsel at the Canadian bar, a member of the bar who has taken a most active part and interest in the workings of the Canadian Bar Association. I wonder what the Prime Minister thinks of section 29 of the Defence Production Act? During the last two or three years, as we all know, the Minister of Justice has been amending the Criminal Code, and parts of it are still under consideration. Quite properly, it has taken a long time. I notice that time and again before the committee the minister has been so careful in every way to preserve all the rights to which an accused is entitled. It has always been one of our recognized principles that the individual is innocent until he is proved guilty, but not so under this act. Subsection 5 of section 32, which deals with offences and penalties, reads as follows:
Where a corporation is guilty of an offence under this act, any officer or director of the corporation is a party to and guilty of the offence if it was committed with his knowledge unless he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence:	and in any proceeding against a
person who was a director or officer of a corporation when the corporation committed an offence under this act for being a party to and guilty of such an offence, the burden of proving his absence of such knowledge or the exercise of such due diligence by him is upon the accused.
The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon read various articles from well-known and well-recognized journals which dealt with the burden of proof and the right of every citizen to be adjudged innocent until proved guilty. It seems to me that there are many things in this act which are contrary to what we lawyers regard as the usual procedure and the usual rights to which every British citizen is entitled.
Perhaps I might recall that with regard to these people who may be appointed under this act, there is nothing in the act to say what their qualifications shall be. There is nothing to guarantee that any investigator or controller appointed under this act will have a knowledge of the law or anything of that nature. Yet he will have the right to investigate individuals and the right to crossexamine. That investigator would have the right to say whether or not an individual would be represented by counsel. Not only that, but under section 29-whenever the hon. member finishes it will be quite all right.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.

Defence Production Act


An hon. Member:: Any interruption kills time, you know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Time is not of the essence.


George Stanley White: An investigator may, in writing, with the approval of a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada or of the supreme or superior court or a county court of any province, obtain an order whereby he may enter and search, if necessary by force, any building, receptacle or place for books, records, documents or things that may contain or give information required for the purposes of an inquiry under this section and seize any books, records, documents or things and carry them before the investigator or such other person as the investigator may direct, to be held at the discretion of the investigator for the purposes of the inquiry.
That is just another very extreme procedure. We found in this country during the war, under the regulations and rules of the wartime prices and trade board, that department employed a whole army of investigators who invaded every corner and country store. People who were charged with a little authority became autocratic and petty tyrants, something that always follows when authority is delegated to some people. An examination of this act, which grants powers so broad that it is perhaps impossible to define them, indicates that the minister has almost unlimited powers in many things. For instance, the interpretation section under paragraph (i) defines essential service as meaning the carrying on of any commercial activity. Surely that is very broad. It states:
Any commercial activity including the generation or distribution of electrical energy, designated by the governor in council under section 30 as an essential service.
Under section 5 of the act-


An hon. Member:: Four.


George Stanley White: I do not
know if the hon. member who says "four" has ever read the act, but I suggest he do so. I do not know who made the comment. I would suggest he read the act, and then have the guts to get up in the house and say whether or not he approves of that act and whether he is willing to go back to his constituents and tell them exactly the terms of that act. If he wants to do that, let him go ahead.


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: He was paging the Leader of the Opposition.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Keep your blood pressure down.


George Stanley White: Under section 5 the minister may authorize any person
(Mr. White (Hastings-Frontenac).]
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. There is no safeguard as to whom the minister may appoint. He may appoint any person, whether or not he is qualified and whether or not he is capable of carrying on the business or whatever it may be. This is just another example of the very wide powers given to the minister under this act.
Under section 19 the minister has still wider powers. He can cancel any contract. Apparently contracts mean very little, because section 19 provides:
No person is entitled to damages, compensation or other allowance for loss of profit, direct or indirect, arising out of the rescission or termination of a defence contract at any time before it is fully performed if it is rescinded or terminated pursuant to a power contained in the contract or pursuant to a power conferred by or under an act of the parliament of Canada.
Under section 27 which gives the minister the power to appoint controllers, subsection 2 contains this rather peculiar provision:
Where a controller has been appointed to carry on a business or a part thereof, he shall be deemed to be the agent of the owner thereof for the purpose of carrying on the business or that part thereof, except that the owner shall not have any right to control the business or that part thereof-
And so on. It would seem to me that here the controller is being made the legal agent of the owner, and there might be a question as to whether the controller could not make the owner liable in a civil action for the acts of the controller. Section 28, which is very broad, reads:
The governor in council may. by order, direct that a person shall not be bound by any obligation, restriction or limitation imposed on that person by or under any statute, order, rule, regulation, by-law, or contract with respect to such matters as may be specified in the order affecting the entry into or performance of a defence contract by that person or the carrying out of an order made by the minister under this act.
It could easily happen that this could interfere with certain municipal and provincial rights, but again under the very broad powers given to the governor in council and the minister under the present act they would be relieved of any liability. As I said at the beginning, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal-


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


George Stanley White: Don't
worry; he will be here when the vote is taken.


An hon. Member:: When will that be?


George Stanley White: Don't be alarmed about that.


Frank Exton Lennard: Two or three weeks from now.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the amendment.


George Stanley White: The hon. member will have plenty of time to speak. I have not heard him speak for a long time, and we will all be waiting with interest to hear what he has to say. I was saying that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal is so reasonable that it is hard to understand why the minister or the government will not accept it. The position we take on this side of the house is simply that we have no objection to the department being made permanent, but we do feel there should be in the act a time limit over those powers.
It seems rather absurd to say, as suggested by the Prime Minister that a private member could introduce a bill to review this act and the government would facilitate the discussion of that bill. Surely parliament should have the right at a future date to examine this bill, to -debate it, to criticize it and to decide what powers are necessary to be extended for a further period. Let the government proceed in a really democratic way and give the elected representatives a proper opportunity in the future to fulfil the duties which they were elected to fulfil and which they were sent here to fulfil. That procedure has been followed in the past, so why should it not be followed at the present time?
If it should turn out that this bill is forced through by the government, it would then be placed on the statute books of Canada and there would be no limit to these drastic and sweeping powers. I wonder if this is the type of democracy or the parliamentary procedure for which many thousands of young Canadians gave their lives in two world wars. Is this the type of freedom that young Canadians want, or will they have to accept a parliamentary procedure that would by-pass parliament? If there is to be no opportunity to review this bill in the future, then I say the supremacy of parliament is being delegated to the Minister of Defence Production.
Hon. members have referred to different editorials and press comments across the country, and it has been pointed out that many Canadian people are becoming rather uneasy and somewhat worried over taking away the right of parliament to have a periodic review and renewal of these powers. It appears that it is rather pleasant for some hon. members who sit opposite to ridicule the argument of the members of the opposition when they refer to and speak in support of the supremacy of parliament, the rights of parliament and the rule of law.
Defence Production Act
I say that when parliament is asked to grant powers as sweeping as these, and for an indefinite period, the minister and all hon. members of the house should scrupulously abide by the rules of parliament. It is my intention to vote for the amendment.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have taken part in this debate, and I do so tonight not with the idea of participating in a filibuster but as an elected representative who desires to give voice to his opinion and conviction regarding this legislation. I am surprised at the small number of government members who have participated in this debate. As I was not actively engaged in the debate and was more or less sitting on the sidelines, I was able to pass an opinion on the legislation and on the actions of hon. members on both sides of the house.
I was rather glad yesterday when two of the youngest members of this house rose to take part in the debate, and I wondered why they did so. I felt that they wanted to justify their position supporting the government, and I wondered also if there were not some twitterings of conscience in the speeches they made. But it became quite clear that either some pressure had been placed on them in their ridings or that they had been influenced by the press when they made their speeches in justification of the position they were taking. It brought to my mind a story of a woman charged with smoking in bed and starting a fire in a hotel room. When she was brought up before the magistrate she complained that the bed was on fire before she got into it.
I recall quite well the speech made by the hon. member for Spadina. I do not always agree with the speeches of the hon. member for Spadina, but I always felt that when he spoke he stated his position clearly and concisely. But there was one thing in his speech to which I should like to refer. I looked it up because I felt it would be interesting. It will be found on page 5005 of Hansard of June 20. He made this statement:
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.
I want to point out to the hon. member for Spadina that he is badly mistaken. I was in touch with my constituents over the last two Saturdays, and one of the last of the people with whom I talked on Monday morning said to me as I left, "This is a bad act; try to influence the government so it will not pass". I have met with that sentiment several times during the last few Saturdays in my own riding and I might say it comes from all parties and all political complexions.

' Defence Production Act
Not only are the people concerned about this matter; the press have also taken it up. I am not going to quote at length, because statements have been quoted from many papers across Canada; but I draw to your attention two editorials appearing in the Ottawa papers, one last week in the Ottawa Citizen and one last night in the Ottawa Journal. These two papers are in close touch with things on parliament hill. They are two papers of very high standing and their editorial writers have been rather fearless and consistent in their criticisms.
I was much concerned about the editorial in the Journal last night. I am not quoting this editorial but I shall paraphrase it. The thing that struck me in the very first line was the fact that the opposition are not fighting an emergency act, that the Defence Production Act is not an emergency act. They pointed out that nobody pretends-not even the minister or the Prime Minister-* that this is an emergency act. But they point out that this act is being passed in peacetime when there is not a shot being fired around the world, and when statesmen are gathering together to try to work out peace throughout the world and prospects are looking fairly bright at the present time.
They point out that on the eve of this meeting, the eve of a conference which we have high hopes will bring world settlement, the demand is being made that parliament should surrender to the government powers that are extraordinary, that are undefined and indefinite. This act, they point out, is in peacetime, non-emergency legislation, asking for cabinet powers which traditionally and historically belong to parliament alone.
Then comes the remainder of the sentence which actually caused me grave concern, coming as it does from a reputable paper and a high-class editorial writer. Speaking about those powers he states:
. . . powers . . . which should be yielded by parliament only under state of mortal peril.
Could anything in the nature of an editorial be stronger than that, coming from those very close to the scene of government? I repeat that phrase, "only under state of mortal peril".
I have given you the idea of the people with whom I have come in contact and the position of the press. But in the speeches I have heard here praising this bill or supporting the bill there is a term that has been consistently used; I refer to "trust parliament". I find that very difficult to accept. As I have said, I have sat on the sidelines listening to this debate, and the way that this has been twisted around has to me been rather amazing, or at least it seems amazing.


This thought comes to me. Can parliament not be trusted if the act is again brought before parliament with a time limit? You say now, "trust parliament". That is part of the argument. But if a year or two years from now this act were brought before parliament, we could trust parliament adequately to deal with it. I have therefore been rather amazed that this expression should be used so frequently in this debate.
So far as parliament is concerned, and the retention of power by parliament, this afternoon when I was trying to get some notes ready for the purpose of speaking tonight, there came to me something that was said to me by an old clergyman with regard to an argument, or a matter we were discussing. The question came up about cutting corners. I have never forgotten what that old gentleman said to me. He said, "You can never accomplish good by first doing wrong".
That seems to be the argument here. By those who have intervened in this debate we are told how necessary it is to have an act of this type. But we are doing wrong in the way the act is introduced, in the clauses in the act and in the fact that the matter is being taken out of the hands of parliament. You cannot accomplish good by first doing wrong. This thing has a wrong beginning. Parliament should be recognized in the beginning. As long as parliament is not recognized you are making a wrong start. Therefore, with a start like that, certainly no good could be accomplished.
I remember very well,-as will many of the older members of the house, the late T. L. Church, the former member for Broadview. He was a beloved character in this house. As a younger member I used to listen to his speeches. In dealing with a subject like this he had one quotation he often used, and you will recognize it, Mr. Speaker. He used to say, "Woe to the lawyers". I never was too sure where the quotation came from. It may have been biblical, but I am not just too sure of its source. If T. L. Church were present in this house today certainly we would hear that quotation, "Woe to the lawyers".
Why do I say that? The other day somebody said we had some 70 lawyers in the house. A large proportion of those lawyers are on the government side. I cannot picture lawyers ever agreeing to this type of legislation. I cannot understand the Prime Minister, one of the most distinguished jurists in this country and a former president of the Canadian Bar Association, doing so. I cannot understand his position because of what he had consistently said previously. As a lawyer in the high office that he holds, he should recognize that this is not a good bill. As Prime

Minister he should be the custodian of the rights of parliament. Yet the bill is introduced in his name.
Unfortunately he was not present when the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) spoke. I jotted down something he said about one of the sections in this act. It was on section 29, subsection 3. It is something I consider to be most dangerous. I read only the first part of it, "may allow counsel". I agree with the argument he has made when we reach a state in this country where counsel is not permitted. Even on a preliminary investigation, and a preliminary investigation of this type does seem in the nature of an examination for discovery-I think that is the legal term-they should have the benefit of counsel. Later, when the case goes to court, there is some reference to their being allowed counsel.
I congratulate the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac on bringing before the house the fact that such a thing is in the act. I did not know it was there until he brought out in his speech that counsel may be allowed. We did not like the act, and after having heard what was said by the hon. member I like the act less than ever before. But my point is that if you prate about trusting parliament, why not trust parliament with a time limit? This is the same parliament and always will be the parliament of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope not.


William Gourlay Blair: Somebody said last night that this was a suspension of the constitution. I have come to believe it is. The minister mentioned guided missiles and supersonic planes. I could not believe he was trying to frighten us. In reading about advances in science we have become accustomed in some degree to discussions about these things; nevertheless we should be prepared for an emergency. I wonder why the government has not taken action. I would not be concerned about the amount of money voted to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) for his civil defence program, or money spent to help the municipalities carry out such a program.
I maintain that if we are facing an emergency the real emergency lies in the terms of the act. This is an act that is entirely foreign to our way of thinking. May I say to those on the other side that this is not Liberalism. This is not the policy of freedom as I have always understood it. Neither is it democracy. Again I wonder why the Prime Minister has not spoken in this debate and given us the real reason why he supports legislation of this type. As far as the act is concerned parliament, if I may say so, is
Defence Production Act threatened by a large majority; and if the opposition should give in on this measure parliament will thereby be weakened. I am concerned about the position of parliament.
As far as members on the other side of the house are concerned, I would diagnose their position in this way. They have placed their trust in the minister, but the minister will not always be in office. It is all right for the rooting section to say, "Good old C. D.; he will never get us into any trouble." What I am concerned about is that the minister should agree to recognize the supremacy of parliament and come back and consult parliament about the legislation. Then everything would be well.
That brings up the question why this measure is being brought forward now. The act does not expire for another year, and if necessary it can be renewed by succeeding parliaments. Certainly you can trust parliament to renew the legislation whenever it is necessary. But what I fear is that the government is trying to pass the bill without a time limit so it will be the law in perpetuity. I was not at all impressed by the offer made by the Prime Minister when he stated that any private member could bring in a bill the discussion of which would be facilitated by the government. He said he would see that a private bill having to do with this matter would get a real chance for discussion.
This matter must be settled now. The supremacy of parliament and the right of parliament to deal with this question must be established. We have heard quotations from Shakespeare and quotations from history all proving our point. I am not going to give any quotations of that type, but I do ask hon, members to recall a poem we all studied in high school. It is by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, entitled, "You ask me Why", the title being the first line of the poem. He is setting forth why he lives in England, his native land, and in giving reasons why he loves his native land and approves of the government of that country he says:
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown.
Where Freedom slowly broadens down From precedent to precedent.
I am concerned about the question of precedents, because a precedent is one of the most dangerous things that can be enacted by any parliament. Those learned in the legal profession know that a precedent set forth in a judgment becomes law. If you attend sessions of the supreme court you will notice that a lawyer will sometimes refer to the case of so and so. The learned judge will ask for the reference and will look up the precedent. It is a dangerous precedent

Defence Production Act we are creating in parliament at the present time. 1 have told you that I have tried to adopt a non-committal attitude. I have found it interesting to watch my own party and the government on this question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You must have been horrified.


William Gourlay Blair: It was not horrible, it was interesting. It was horrifying to see some of the actions and hear some of the speeches in justification of the measure. If the minister wants any horrid examples I can give them to him. As I say, it was interesting to listen to the debate. I have been out of the house. I lost contact with the affairs of the house. Certainly I would normally support my own party. I fancy I can hear somebody say that I would vote Conservative anyway. Let us acknowledge that; but in my position one has to be fair and I have tried to adopt that attitude in order to get an explanation. I wondered what was behind this measure. Surely it is not a question of not trusting parliament with a time limit in the act.
I ask the minister whether there is anything else. I would hate to say that I suspect ulterior motives, but I feel there is something more behind this measure that has not been brought out in the house, as to why the minister not only wants these powers but wants them for an unspecified time. No time limit has been set. I am afraid of precedents of that kind in the House of Commons. That is what is bothering me. There is a dangerous precedent involved, one that has been pointed out to me not only by people across Canada but by the press of Canada. We must recognize that the press fulfil a duty in moulding public opinion and are very often conscious of public opinion before we are.
Therefore I shall support the amendment. I support it for the reason that I am very much afraid something dangerous is happening to parliament, and again I say I cannot understand why. I come back to this point. If you can trust parliament-and we have heard that so much from the other side of the house-why not trust parliament with regard to a time limit in this act? Bad and all as some of the features of the act may be, if you prate about trusting parliament then there should be a time limit in the bill.
Mr. H. W. Mitchell (London!: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a speech delivered to the house with such conviction that it could only have been born of a sincere and earnest belief in the cause which we espouse. Earlier in the debate I attempted in my imperfect and perhaps inadequate way to suggest that the government and the minister in particular had missed the point of the argument we have
TMr. Blair.]
been presenting. Others on this side of the house have presented the same point of view and the same argument in a much clearer way than I can.
This same difference in point of view, the same argument, in the interim has been presented to the Canadian people from coast to coast. While I do not propose to quote from any of the press of Canada, I can only say that a summary of the press reports in most particulars would be a fairly accurate summary Of the arguments we have been presenting. The minister and the government, I submit, have refused to see the point. I can only say that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
What is that point? It has been expressed by myself and by others from this side of the house. As I indicated before, it has been presented in many different ways, but it is all the one point. Though it goes farther than I would be prepared to go, I submit that this is a fair summary of those arguments. No one objects to wide powers for the Minister of Defence Production, or even to an extension for a considerable period. The objection is to an indefinite delegation of the power of parliament.
As I previously indicated, that goes further than I am prepared to go. I would submit that the word "considerable" should be changed to the word "definite". What I have said before would then read; no one objects to wide powers for the Minister of Defence Production or even to their extension for a definite period. The objection is to an indefinite delegation of the power of parliament.
Since the last time I took part in the debate on this bill I have listened with complete attention and have carefully read the two speeches and the hundreds of interjections made by the minister. I have seen nothing and I have heard nothing which has caused me to change the conviction which I expressed some two weeks ago. If we accept a free press as being qualified to express public opinion and act as a mirror, then I suggest to the government it is time they looked over their shoulder. They have taken a peek, and it was a pretty small and ineffective peek that went over the left shoulder. I suggest to the minister it is high time they looked around. I suggest it is high time they realized what is going on, and what the reaction is to this bill.
As evidence of that I should like to refer to Dawson's book, "The Government of Canada", and quote a short paragraph.
The initiation of cabinet policies is undoubtedly related in a democracy to trends in public opinion.

but the connection is never constant and cannot be readily defined by any clear principles. Certainly the cabinet does not produce a succession of new ideas which it then tries to persuade the nation to accept; nor. on the other hand, does the cabinet wait until popular clamour is unmistakable before advocating a particular measure. The process tends to be something between the two, an interplay of forces among many pressure groups and interests throughout the country with political parties and their leaders and the representatives in parliament playing the most important parts.
Then there is this significant statement:
"A government," says Professor Jennings, "must perpetually look over its shoulder to see whether it is being followed. If it is not, it may alter direction." ... A cabinet will inevitably be forced to compromise on many issues; but its position is usually so strong and dominant in both party and parliament that it will be able to secure the adoption of the measures on which it has finally secured agreement.
There have been many suggestions advanced from this side of the house which, if adopted by the government, would be acceptable to the official opposition. That is not a new thing, Mr. Speaker. It has happened before, and Professor Dawson refers to two or three occasions:
But occasions will arise when the cabinet may outstrip public opinion to its own grave danger, and it may be compelled to make substantial concessions or even withdraw proposals entirely in order to save its face. Thus in 1945, the King government dropped certain projected changes in the tariff because they had been proved to be exceptionally unpopular. A most unusual case occurred in 1906 when the pressure of public opinion induced the Laurier government to introduce a bill to repeal an act which granted pensions to cabinet ministers, . . .
I cannot help but look once again to the cabinet ranks. I referred to some speeches the Prime Minister had made previously in his capacity as president of the Canadian Bar Association. I could not have agreed more wholeheartedly with the contents of those speeches. They expressed, much more adequately than I could, my feeling about the rule of law and the supremacy of parliament. I have heard speeches by other distinguished lawyers in the cabinet ranks. I look at the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who is a distinguished lawyer and an outstanding student of international law. Yet I have not heard one word from this student of the law and of the supremacy of parliament in defence of this indefensible act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is waiting to make a speech on health insurance.


Mr. Mitchell (London):: I wish he would get up and make a speech on this bill. I would be delighted to hear him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear. hear.
Defence Production Act


Robert Weld Mitchell: Perhaps he is played out. I can see other distinguished members of the learned profession sitting opposite, among whom is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). Yet not one word comes from these men, who on public platforms on other occasions have extolled the supremacy of the law and the supremacy of this house. I come with some regret to the feeling that there must be a number of Doctor Jekylls and Mr. Hydes on the government benches.
I have no intention of imputing any false motives, Mr. Speaker, nor shall I; but I cannot help feeling that some of the speeches which have been delivered in various forums by distinguished members of the legal profession who sit opposite have been delivered with their tongues in their cheeks, and suited only to the particular occasion on which they spoke. They are now completely silent.
I turn now to a problem which has crept into this debate, and which has beclouded the issue. I refer to statements we have heard that this is or is not emergency legislation. Let us forget the word "emergency". This is not and cannot be emergency legislation. There is no preamble to this act reciting any state of emergency; and I know that members of the government opposite will agree with me that in most cases-not in every case, but in most cases-where emergency legislation is brought before the house there is a preamble reciting the fact of such emergency. But there is no preamble here. Let us then wipe that clear of our minds and accept the fact that this is not emergency legislation. This is permanent, ordinary, everyday legislation which the government desires to place on the statute books for all time to come.
I would ask who is next? Where do we go from the Department of Defence Production? What about the Minister of Finance? Does he want additional and extraordinary powers? Perhaps he has enough now. But what about the other members of the government? What about the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters)? I cannot think of any department that might be able to use more effectively such powers as are now being given to the Minister of Defence Production.
I referred previously to the unemployment and farm relief act of 1931, and at that time the minister interjected in his usual fashion, with perhaps one of his brighter statements, at page 5028:
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?

Defence Production Act
Then the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), in one of his pithy statements, is recorded as having said, "Yes".


Clarence Decatur Howe: You said "Yes" as well, I think.


Robert Weld Mitchell: I shall go on. I said further:
The Minister of Defence Production can refer to it in any way he prefers. I have heard that same language used before.
Referring to blank cheques, what could be more of a blank cheque than this present legislation? And so far as I can see it is not even dated. What could be more of a blank cheque than what we are now asked to present to the minister.
I have not been sitting on any bench communing with nature, but I have thought during the last two or three days that perhaps it would have been helpful if some of the ministers had been communing with somebody on a bench at Kingsmere. I am sure such communion would have been not only interesting but profitable. We are told that the late owner of that estate was the founder of modern Liberalism. I think he would resent that, because while in many ways he was a Liberal, sometimes I find that the similarity between so-called traditional Liberalism and that which is being practised by hon. gentlemen opposite is not very marked.
What about the so-called blank cheque to which the minister refers? Let me remind him that it was a blank cheque with a time limit, a blank cheque which would expire in less than a year, a blank cheque to the governor in council-not to a minister-and a blank cheque which authorized expenditures of money for a definite purpose recited in the preamble and to meet a national emergency.
What would the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King have thought of a blank cheque giving unabridged powers to one man over every business enterprise and natural resource in Canada? Bearing these points in mind, bearing in mind the time limit, bearing in mind the fact that there was a national emergency, bearing in mind that the governor in council was the body which was to act, not the Minister of Defence Production, I would ask hon. members to go back with me to the session of 1931. There we shall do a little communing on our own. I find at page 4282, volume IV of Hansard for that session, the

Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, speaking at the resolution stage on July 29, 1931, said:
My right hon. friend-
He was referring to Mr. Bennett.
-has spoken of the cabinet as a board of directors and he says that in this resolution he is asking the house to give to that board of directors absolute powers in dealing with the problem of unemployment relief. May I say to him that it is not the cabinet, of which he is Prime Minister, that is the board of directors of the nation; it is this House of Commons. Hon. members sitting on both sides of the house are the board of directors who have been sent from the different constituencies in Canada to represent the people of the country, to discuss questions of importance with respect to the economic and other affairs of Canada, and to make laws to aid in the solution of those problems. The cabinet is a committee of the House of Commons; any power it has is derived from the members who sit in this house. It is an executive committee. But the committee of the nation constituting the board of directors is, I submit, this House of Commons. That leads me to direct again a very strong criticism against my right hon. friend. The criticism is this: that with regard to this all-important question he has ignored altogether the board of directors of the nation and has taken it into the hands of a small committee, which derives its authority from this board of directors, to deal with the question in an absolute way.
I cannot help thinking what Mr. King would have said of legislation in this form which delegates powers, not to the governor in council but to one minister. Again in Hansard for July 29, 1931, I find this, at page 4285, where Mr. Mackenzie King said:
We are not going to object to the moneys that may be needed for unemployment and farm relief so long as parliament, the board of directors representing the people of this country, has its control and its say with respect to the expenditure. But we will object as strongly as we possibly can to increasing the powers of the governor in council in the matter of giving them unlimited authority with respect to public funds.
There again, Mr. Speaker, is a condemnation of the delegation of powers to the governor in council. But how much further would Mr. King have gone if he had been asked to delegate powers to the Minister of Defence Production? Once again, on the same date, at page 4287 of Hansard-and here we get back to the blank cheque to which the Minister of Defence Production has been pleased to refer-I find this:
My right hon. friend has predicted a criticism, which he must know is inevitable, when he asks for powers such as those sought in this resolution. He himself has said that they may be described, euphoniously, I think, as giving a blank cheque to the administration.


Mr. Bennett:: I said that they "had been"
described.


Mr. Mackenzie King:: Yes, that they had been described. Let us drop the word "euphoniously" altogether and view in a clear and direct manner the simple fact that the government is asking this parliament to give it a blank cheque to deal with unemployment relief in such a manner as it may think wise.

And again at page 4288 Mr. Mackenzie King said:
Now, may I say this to him? So far as the opposition is concerned, we will be prepared to allow him to make any estimate he likes, so long as it is an estimate based on good judgment, and we will not question that estimate, we will allow him to have the amount he asks for. But we do assert, if it is only for the sake of maintaining what is the most fundamental of all obligations of the commons, namely, its control over expenditure, that he should not ask us to give him a blank cheque to borrow as much as he pleases to deal with this particular matter.
I can almost hear Mr. King speaking in a debate such as this where the powers granted are in no way limited as to time. How much more smartly would he have dealt with this particular bill than the bill which was then being debated by the House of Commons? The closing remarks by Mr. King at the resolution stage are found at page 4290 of Hansard:
But we cannot completely surrender the rights of this House of Commons and of parliament with respect to its control over expenditures for any purpose that may be named, and we cannot accord him our approval of the resolution in the form in which it has been brought down.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring ourselves forward to the debate on second reading of that act, which commenced on July 31, 1931. Mr. King's remarks are found at page 4413 of Hansard:
It seems to me this bill disregards parliament altogether; it is a complete usurpation of the rights of parliament.
And further down the page:
I do not think it is possible to emphasize too strongly how serious is the departure which the government is making in asking this house, no matter what the reason may be, to give it unlimited powers of the kind.
This is exactly the same type of legislation which Mr. King condemned so strongly in 1931. Again, at page 4415 of Hansard, we find Mr. King saying:
If this measure were dealt with as it deserves to be, it would be the duty of this House of Commons to remain in session until the measure was withdrawn. That is the only way in which I believe a free parliament could in the circumstances be expected to maintain the rights of a free people.
I heartily endorse those words referring to the duty of this house to remain in session until either the measure is withdrawn or some more suitable measure is presented to us in line with the arguments we have presented.
Hon. Ernest Lapointe also entered that debate on second reading on July 31, 1931, and some of his remarks are most enlightening. I quote from page 4419 of Hansard:
I say that even then there were abuses, but in this measure there is no limitation as far as amounts of money are concerned-
Defence Production Act
Here I interject that in this case there is no limitation as far as time is concerned.
-there is no limitation as to the destination of those moneys or the use to which they may be put. I have been reading a book which my right hon. friend quoted many times when sitting on this side of the house but which he seems to have forgotten since he has been on the other side; I refer to that famous book written by Lord Hewart, chief justice of England, entitled The New Despotism. In that book Lord Hewart relates the story of an Anglo-Indian civil servant who returned to England on leave after an absence of many years. On arriving in London and while travelling between Victoria and Charing Cross stations he asked the man with him, "What are those buildings?" The man said, "Well, those are the parliament buildings; that is Westminster". The Anglo-Indian said, "What, does that rubbish still go on?" That was the attitude of mind of that gentleman, and if we agree to this bill in its present form I really believe we will be entering on a path fraught with grave danger. Surely someone will say, sometime, "Does this rubbish still go on at Ottawa, the parliament of Canada?"
Now I should like to refer to the speech made by the Minister of Defence Production on June 28, 1955, and in particular to one or two remarks he made. The first is at page 5376 of Hansard: "I feel that I am living in another world." When I read that remark I had visions of Alice in Wonderland, I had visions of Charlemagne, and I had visions of many other characters in ancient history. I could just imagine the right hon. minister charging into battle with his pike held high and saying, "What I want I will have." At page 5377 of Hansard the minister had this to say:
The departmental act, and the act of any department, sets out the duties and obligations of the department and the authority under which the department carries out those duties and obligations. To say that the Department of Defence Production can be made permanent without a permanent Defence Production Act is to say that the Department of Public Works can be a permanent department even though the Public Works Act is temporary in nature, or that the Department of National Revenue can be a permanent department if the Department of National Revenue Act is a temporary act, or that the post office can be a permanent department if the Post Office Act is a temporary act.
There is the typical case of a blind and wilful refusal to see the argument or to try to understand the argument which has been presented from this side of the house. The argument is simply this. The argument is that we want the Defence Production Act. Let us not hear any more of these foolish remarks coming from the other side of the house. We want this act, but we want this act either in a reduced form as to the scope of its powers or with a limitation placed on the life of those exceptional powers.
5798	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
Third, I should like to quote the minister's words from page 5377 of Hansard, and this touches one:
Industry is familiar with these controls. It has been working under them for 16 years, and as far as I know it is quite happy to work under them indefinitely. Of all the complaints that have been heard since this debate started I have not heard one single complaint from the people affected, namely, the people who are actually doing the defence production work in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you; would anybody in his right senses who is under the thumb of the minister and who is producing for the minister for one minute dare to complain to the all-powerful Minister of Defence Production? That is the kind of argument that has been advanced in these speeches which have been delivered from the government side of the house. In the following paragraph the minister is shown as saying:
We have seen many legitimate objections-
The minister later said that what he had said was:
We have seen any legitimate objections to the bill drowned in a torrent of exaggeration.
The subtraction of the letter "m" did not help the minister a bit because, by inference at least, he admits that there are some objections. At page 5379 and again at page 5380 of Hansard we hear this from the minister:
After we had got Involved for $30 or $40 million it was quite obvious that the management of that day was not likely to produce what we required. The top management of A.V. Roe was resident in England. The men on the job just did not have the experience necessary to carry out the work, and that became obvious to all concerned.
The minister said he shuddered to think of the problems of development. As a taxpayer of this country I shudder to think that the Minister of Defence Production can spend $30 or $40 million on one project before he finds out that the management of that project is inefficient. I shudder.
One of the most masterful exhibitions of smug, self-satisfied complacency that I have ever heard in any form is that beautiful phrase at the end of the minister's speech:
I am working on the side of the angels.
I wonder if the minister has forgotten the full text from which he clipped that little gem. I wonder if he has forgotten that it came from a speech delivered at the Oxford diocesan conference in 1864. Just to remind the minister I propose to place the full quotation on the record in order to complete his own quotation. It is:
What is the question now placed before society with the glib assurance which to me is most astonishing? That question Is this:	Is man an


ape or an angel? I, my lord, I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and ahborrence these new-fangled theories.
If there ever was a new-fangled theory introduced into this house, the one which is sponsored by the Prime Minister in the interests of the Minister of Defence Production is it. We can come to only one conclusion, that the Minister of Defence Production is not the angel he claims to be. Speaking of angels-and they are interesting people to talk about-I wonder also if the Minister of Defence Production in his inquiry into the attributes and uses to which angels may be put has ever run across this quotation which I am sure he will recognize:
But man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep.
We make the angels weep. I quote once again from page 5379 of Hansard:
I may say that industry co-operated to the full, and, as I said before, I have never known Canadian industry to see the Department of Defence Production in a jam without being willing to do whatever was needed to make their contribution to solving the dilemma.
And from page 5378:
An hon. member asks why it is necessary to have these powers, since we have a good munitions industry in this country. I say "Amen" to that. No country in the world has a stronger and more devoted munitions industry than Canada.
Yet in almost the same breath, shortly after these two statements in which he gives the munitions industry credit for a job well done, the minister comes out and says that without the Defence Production Act behind him he certainly would not have been able to deal with a situation of that kind.
We have heard many illustrations of the blowing of hot and cold air by the same person at the same time in this house, but that is the pay-off. Here we have the minister praising industry in one breath and then saying that he just cannot get along without full powers, without this thumb right on top of industry, defence or otherwise.
Once again, ape or angel, I do not know which is which on which side of the house, but if one is an angel the other is an ape. I can only say that it is not we who are producing the new-fangled theories referred to in the quotation from the Oxford diocesan conference. In conclusion I repeat that we on this side weep lest we lose democracy.


Mr. Speaker:: In his introductory remarks the hon. member for London (Mr. Mitchell) referred to Liberal lawyers who had taken part in debate as speaking with their tongues in their cheeks. I did not want to intervene

immediately after I heard the expression, but I asked that a transcript of his remarks be delivered to me in order that I might be sure I was not quoting the hon. member incorrectly. This expression was used at about twenty-five minutes to ten, and unfortunately the transcript is not available at this moment. I think this expression might be regarded as charging insincerity; and since the reference was to members of the legal profession who sit to my right they could easily be identified. If my remarks do not meet with serious objection, I do not suppose the hon. member would object to saying that that sentence should not be repeated.


Robert Weld Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I shall co-operate in anything that you say, but I also did say that I was not imputing any false motives, and my reference to their talking with their tongues in their cheeks was not in connection with speeches that were
Defence Production Act made in this house but which were made elsewhere.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not suppose we ought to carry on a discussion on the point, but I do have a recollection that a similar expression has been asked to be withdrawn and I want to make sure that this sentence is considered one which will not be used in future. See Debates, January 28, 1954.
On motion of Mr. Stanton the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue this debate tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us the
business for Friday?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


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