1955-07-05

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement concerning the inauguration of the ferry service between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and Bar Harbor, Maine, by the vessel Bluenose.
It had been expected that this vessel would be delivered on July 17 and the service would begin at the end of July. Unfortunately, after the trial runs last week it was found that some of the bearings of the gears had overheated and that four of them will have to be renewed. Though the shipyard is working overtime on the job, it is expected that renewal of these bearings will delay the delivery of the vessel by about 14 days and make it necessary to postpone for a corresponding time the inauguration of the proposed service.
[Later:!


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the statement he made earlier this morning? Do I understand that the breakdown occurred on the first day of the trial run of the Bluenose? Second, when the engines have been repaired how long does the minister expect trial runs will continue thereafter before the boat is put into service?


George Carlyle Marler: I am unable to say whether it occurred on the first day or on some subsequent day. With regard to the second question, I am afraid I shall have to have notice and endeavour to make inquiries.



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES


Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Harris be substituted for that of Mr. Lapointe; and
That the name of Mr. Thatcher be substituted for that of Mr. Byrne; and
That the name of Mr. Gauthier (Nickel Belt) be substituted for that of Mr. Garland; and
That the name of Mr. McWilliam be substituted for that of Mr. Robichaud; and
That the name of Mr. Pommer be substituted for that of Mr. Weselak; and
That the name of Mr. Macdonnell be substituted for that of Mr. Blair; and
That the name of Mr. Monteith be substituted for that of Mr. MacLean; and
That the name of Mr. Nesbitt be substituted for that of Mr. Brooks; and
That the name of Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North) be substituted for that of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo); and
That the name of Mr. Regier be substituted for that of Mr. Bryce; and
That the name of Mr. Hahn be substituted for that of Mr. McLeod; and
That the name of Mr. Lusby be substituted for that of Mr. MacEachen on the special committee on estimates.


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


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could rise to move an amendment but I wonder whether I might have the consent of the mover to make one change of which I was not able to get notice to him. Where the name of Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North) appears will he change it to that of Mr. Argue?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the mover agreeable?


William Gilbert Weir: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: With this modification shall the motion carry?


Mr. Fulton:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion as amended agreed to on division.



REPORTED SALE OF 10 MILLION BUSHELS TO POLAND    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave,
seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the negotiations now taking place for the sale of ten million bushels of wheat to the government of Poland at a reported price of $19 million, $16 million of which is to be guaranteed by the Canadian government in respect of bank loans to be made for payment of the wheat-a matter of immediate and urgent public concern at this
5582	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wheat-Negotiations with Poland
time because the negotiations are not yet com- my having an opportunity to put the observa-pleted and also because a previous guarantee tion before you? I submit that is the very given by the government of Canada in respect reason that this properly comes within the of the purchase of Ming Sung ships under scope of the rule with regard to a debate somewhat similar circumstances has resulted of this kind. The negotiations have not been in an apparent loss to the Canadian taxpayers completed and therefore a discussion could of approximately $13 million-a matter also take place now with regard to something of concern at this time because of the desira- which the house has been informed is taking bility that, if gifts or quasi gifts are to be place and the result of a debate would there-made to foreign countries, they should be fore produce the practical result of prevent-made to friendly powers as part of the general ing something that we think should not take strengthening of democracy.	place.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Drew asks leave, seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the negotiations now taking place for the sale of ten million bushels of wheat to the government of Poland at a reported price of $19 million, $16 million of which is to be guaranteed by the Canadian government in respect of bank loans to be made for payment of the wheat. Then the motion goes on to explain why it is a matter of immediate and urgent public concern at this time.
Standing order 31, when it speaks of urgency, means urgency of debate. It seems to me that this matter is one that should be dealt with in supply while the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are being dealt with. Furthermore it refers to negotiations now taking place and it speaks about a reported price of $19 million, $16 million of which is to be guaranteed by the Canadian government in respect of bank loans to be made for payment of the wheat. 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. 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.
Apparently that is the situation with respect to this transaction as of last Friday.


Mr, Drew:: May I make an observation, without in any way debating the matter, so that your ruling will not be made without


Mr. Speaker:: The debate would simply produce the result of adjourning the house at ten o'clock tonight. That is the motion. The motion is one for the adjournment of the house, and it provides for a debate which would perhaps last all day.


George Alexander Drew: Unless the government agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If they agreed to the motion then the house would be adjourned. There are two points involved in the motion. In the first place, one must consider the urgency of debase, and it so happens that by virtue of standing order 31, the responsibility is left to me to decide whether the matter urgently requires to be debated. Hon. members know that whenever an opportunity may be afforded rather soon in supply these motions have never been allowed to displace the business which has been appointed for the day.
What is the business that has been appointed for the day? It concerns a very serious discussion that has been going on, one which I understand involves the overthrow of our constitution. It is a very serious matter.


George Alexander Drew: May I say, Your Honour, how happy I am to know that you have accepted our interpretation and not the interpretation of the Minister of Defence Production.


Mr. Speaker:: 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? 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.


George Alexander Drew: Since you invited me to agree with you, Mr. Speaker, may I give my answer? The point that I was seeking to make was that this could prevent-


Mr. Winch:: You do not want to sell wheat.


George Alexander Drew: The socialists on both sides applaud. We want to sell wheat to friendly countries because if we are going to give money away, we should give it to our friends.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you asked me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is impossible for me to hear what is said. I want to listen to the Leader of the Opposition, so I would ask hon. members not to interrupt and create a disturbance.


George Alexander Drew: You asked me if I would agree, but I would point out that if the negotiations are complete then, whether it be with a communist government or a friendly government, I would trust that the honourable obligations of this government would be fulfilled. The purpose of this discussion would be to bring before the house the reasons why these negotiations should not be proceeded to a conclusion which would really mean the probable handing over to the government of Poland of $16 million, if the same course is followed as in the case of the Ming Sung ships.


Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: 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.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances, I would ask the house to proceed to the orders of the day.


George Alexander Drew: Then, with deference, I must appeal your ruling. In that respect, then, I appeal your refusal to accept the appeal. I would give as a reference page 747 of Beauchesne's third edition. It is laid down that where the right of appeal is refused then, in order to test the attitude of the house towards it, there is an appeal from the refusal to grant a direct appeal.
At page 747 of Beauchesne's third edition we find that on February 19, 1932, at a time when the Hon. George Black was Speaker, this is the notation:
The Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision that it is not urgent to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter of public importance being appealed from was confirmed by the house.
Mr. Ralston, from his place in the house, asked leave under Standing Order 31, to move the
Wheat-Negotiations with Poland adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and stated the subject to be:
"The recent dismissal of between 200 and 300 officers and men of the Royal Canadian Air Force without regard to their families, their overseas service or their period of enlistment or service, and the embarrassing situation which may arise if they were forced by the necessity for employment to accept service with another nation."
Mr. Speaker ruled that the statement was not in order and that the matter was not one of urgent public importance and moreover that there was no appeal from his decision.
Mr. Ralston appealed from the Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision.
And the question being put by Mr. Speaker: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained; it was decided in the affirmative.
On the basis of that ruling, Mr. Speaker, I ask that there be an appeal from your first decision that there is no right of appeal in this connection.


Mr. Speaker:: I probably should have asked the Leader of the Opposition when he heard me say that I refused an appeal. He assumed that I was refusing the appeal. However, I welcome the recitation of the ruling which is found at page 747 of Beauchesne's third edition. I will merely point out to the Leader of the Opposition, just so we do not detract from the practice which has been established, that the rules as we have them today under standing order 31 which gives responsibility to the Speaker for deciding whether a question is of urgent public importance were included in our rules by the revision committee of 1927. I would ask him to reconsider his stand at this moment in view of the fact that the first time there was an appeal from the Speaker's ruling was during Mr. Speaker Black's speakership. Mr. Ralston wanted to appeal. Mr. Bennett shared the view of the Speaker that when he decides a point of practice there is no appeal. That is standing order 12. If he decides a point of order, there is an appeal; but if it is his responsibility to use his own judgment, as it is his duty under standing order 31, with respect to a matter which is a matter of opinion, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Speaker Black were of opinion that there was no appeal. Mr. Ralston appealed from the decision of the Speaker that there was no appeal.
Now, there were several occasions when standing order 31 was moved. And the Leader of the Opposition will find that only on one other occasion, when Mr. Speaker Fauteux was Speaker, an appeal in similar circumstances to a decision of the Speaker that there was no appeal was granted. On all other occasions the house has always accepted the decision made by the Speaker, and also has always accepted the view that in those circumstances there was no appeal from the Speaker's ruling.
5684	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Negotiations with Poland
Now, at this moment, what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is asking is that we revert back to 1946, once, and then to 1932-that is, of having a third appeal of the decision of the Speaker that there should be no appeal. It seems to me that our practice has been so firmly established that the Leader of the Opposition should not pursue, I think, the point of appealing the Speaker's ruling that there should be no appeal, because that point has been so firmly established.
I would like to make this appeal to the Leader of the Opposition: The rules do not belong to the Speaker; they belong to the whole house. When a practice has been established, I think that members, especially those who have responsibility for giving tone to the whole debate, should help to maintain this practice-unless on this bright day of the 5th of July, 1955, it is felt that what has been done in the last 15 or 20 years has been a very wrong practice, and that it needs to be righted.
Now, in the circumstances, if that is the position of the Leader of the Opposition, I will certainly be pleased to give him the right to appeal because, although, mind you, I will say I could tell the Leader of the Opposition he has no right to appeal in the circumstances,
I am not going to take that view. I am simply going to appeal to him again to consider what has been the practice back throughout ' these years-if only on two occasions, and I shall give the references to the Leader of the Opposition after I have seen my notes later this day-so in the circumstances I would simply ask him to reconsider the decision that he has proposed.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since you have invited me to reconsider I would point out that you have said, yourself, that on other occasions the house has accepted the decision.
I had indicated that, with respect, I do not feel the reasons for refusing the debate are consistent with our practice. Therefore when Your Honour speaks about giving tone to the debate I have no intention of taking up what that might be regarded as implying. But I do say this, very emphatically, that I believe the tone of the debate will be well maintained if the opportunity is offered to members to express their opinions. And my opinion has already been indicated very firmly, that the way to avoid commitments that, in honour, we would be called upon to carry out, is to debate this now, let the house have the facts and let members express their opinions, so that the government may have the advantage of the opinions of the members in regard to something that many of us think should not go forward.


Having regard to that statement-that it is consistent with proper tone in debate-I think that members should have an opportunity to express themselves on this. Therefore I do ask for the opportunity to have members of the house express their opinions in a definite way.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition misunderstood me. When I used the word "tone" I did not intend to refer to the debate. I was referring to the maintaining of a practice with respect to the rules. The Leader of the Opposition is under a misapprehension. The decision as to whether the motion should be debated is one thing; and once the decision has been made, he is not appealing from that decision, because I take the view, as my predecessors have, that once I have made that decision there is no appeal under standing order 31. He appeals my ruling; that is, my expression of the practice that there is no appeal. Now, having done all I can in order to persuade the Leader of the Opposition that an appeal in this case should not be made, if he feels there should be, I shall put the question to the house.
Those who are in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the matter of an appeal from the Speaker's ruling that there was no appeal on his decision to refuse to accept a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 31 when pursuant to paragraph 3 of standing order 31 he thinks it is not in order and of urgent public importance. I based my ruling on the practice which has obtained in respect to these matters over the years, and I wish to refer hon. members to a ruling by Mr. Speaker Casgrain on March 10, 1939, in which the Speaker indicated that there was no appeal. He said:
This is not a question of order which has been raised, and there is no appeal from the decision of the Speaker. Under standing order 31, Mr. Speaker is simply asked to state whether he thinks the matter should be submitted to the house. There is no appeal. There is no point of order there.
Discussion followed, but the Speaker then called the orders of the day and the incident was closed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the Speaker's decision sustained. So that there be no recurrence of this situation, may I refer the house to what was the situation prior to 1927. I hold in my hands now a ruling of Mr. Speaker Rhodes which appears in Beauchesne and which is of April 2, 1919, in which he defined urgency of debate:


Mr. Speaker:: There is one point mentioned by the hon. member to which I would reply, and more especially for the benefit of proper decorum in the house on the matter of urgency. Urgency, within the meaning of the rule, is not a question whether the matter proposed to be discussed is of urgent importance-it may be of infinitely urgent importance to those affected-the question is whether it is urgent within the meaning of rule 39; in other words, whether it is a matter of that urgency which would cause harm to the public interest if the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house were not able to permit the subject to be brought on early enough. I submit upon that point that the mere circumstance that yesterday afternoon the hon. member had an opportunity and that he will have an opportunity again the first time on going into supply is a sufficient answer.
In 1927 they amended the rule. Rule 39, section 4, at the time was amended and the paragraph which was amended reads as follows:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house-
And so on. In the explanation provided when this amendment was proposed the committee did say this:
This section provides that the mover of an adjournment motion for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance hands a written statement to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, reads it out and asks whether leave of the house is granted. There is doubt as to whether the Speaker must only decide as to the form of the motion. The rule as amended will be clear.
In other words, from that moment on the Speaker does not decide only as to form but decides also whether he thinks that it is in order and of urgent public importance, and urgency is urgency of debate. It would seem rather unsound that there should be an appeal



S686 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
*Inquiries of the Ministry from the decision of the Speaker within the meaning of that rule when he reads the motion to himself. I did not even read all of the motion that was made by the Leader of the Opposition because I did not want to accept it. Therefore normally that motion should not have been put in our Votes and Proceedings. It has been put there only because I complied with the wish of the Leader of the Opposition that an appeal be allowed from my ruling when there was no appeal. Otherwise it would not have been included in the Votes and Proceedings. I had no notice of this motion and notice is not required. Therefore I had to read it to myself in order to find out what was in it and to make my judgment. I read only a portion of it and made my decision within the meaning of standing order 31 and the practice. The point that I want to make is this. In the future, whenever I make a ruling to the effect that the motion should not be accepted because it is not in order or is not of urgent public importance,-that is that there is no urgency of debate-I will not grant an appeal from my decision that there is no appeal.
[Later:!

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister assure the wheat producers of the nation that his department and the Canadian wheat board will continue to promote the sale of Canadian wheat and coarse grains to any or all countries of the world?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I require notice of this question. I will have to check the situation in all the countries of the world.


Mr. Fleming:: When the minister brings back his answer to the first question, will he also indicate the terms upon which that policy, if any, proceeds and whether it will be the policy of the government to give guarantees or other forms of assistance in sales to certain countries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Parliament in its wisdom has entrusted the sale of wheat to the Canadian wheat board. I assure my hon. friend that we will work with the wheat board to see that the business of the board is conducted in a businesslike way.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
"maclean's" magazine
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he had a chance to read the article in a current issue of Maclean's magazine "Have we gone too far with the Atom Tests?" Would he care to comment on the statement that test bomb explosions are inexcusable and should cease?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I do not propose to make any comment on the last part of my hon. friend's question. I would direct him to what I said earlier in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
With regard to whether or not I have read the article, may I say that I have not done so; but once we have prorogation about the middle of August I shall look forward to doing that very thing.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he care to comment upon the accuracy of press reports that he has been invited by Mr. Molotov to visit Russia, and to tell the house what decision he has reached and on what grounds?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a matter of urgent public importance, but when we were in San Francisco together I was invited by Mr. Molotov to pay an official visit to the Soviet union. I told him I appreciated the invitation very much and that I hoped to be able to visit his country one day and see how the people there lived and worked, but that my engagements would prevent me from going this summer. I am now looking into the possibility of making a visit at a later date.
[Later:!


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he comment on a press report appearing in today's press to the effect that the big four, the United States,

the United Kingdom, France and West Germany, have agreed on. a plan for the reunification of Germany? Has the government been made aware of that plan, and can the minister indicate the nature of it to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am aware of the fact that the big four, as they were called by my hon. friend, have been discussing this matter in view of the forthcoming conference at Geneva. I am not aware that they have come to any agreement on it yet. We have been kept informed as these discussions have taken place, but they are still in the preliminary stage and I understand no final agreement has yet been reached.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: In the
presence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Finance, may I ask if arrangements have been made for the next meeting with their opposite numbers in the United States administration and, if so, when the meeting is to be held?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There have been discussions between the two governments concerning the next meeting of the committee to which my hon. friend has referred. Though no date has yet been fixed, it is hoped that the meeting will take place in the late summer or early autumn.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to give the facts with regard to a transaction that was discussed earlier, namely the sale of butter to Czechoslovakia? Can he tell us the price at which it is being sold and the amount that the Canadian taxpayers will pay for giving butter to the people of Czechoslovakia cheaper than it is available to the Canadian people?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The Prime Minister cannot say how much the taxpayers of Canada will pay to give butter cheaper to the taxpayers of Czechoslovakia, but he will get as detailed information as possible about the real facts and will put it before the house.
5687
*Inquiries of the Ministry


George Alexander Drew: Will the Prime Minister comment on a report appearing in yesterday's Montreal Star to the effect that, in addition to the sale of wheat, transactions on a similar basis are under discussion with respect to the sale of cellulose and raw hides to Poland?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have not seen the
report in the Montreal Star. If there are surpluses of products in Canada that other nations wish to acquire, I hope it will be possible to make businesslike arrangements to increase and stimulate our foreign trade.


George Alexander Drew: Will the Prime Minister take this as notice and ascertain whether the government is arranging a similar type of guarantee of payment in these cases as in the case of wheat which has already been discussed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know that up to the present time there has been no application by a private enterprise concerned with cellulose or the other commodity mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition for any insurance of credit. If there is an application made, the application will be considered on its merits, and a decision will be made that we will hope to be in the best interests of the Canadian public. If it so happens to turn out unfortunately we will have to take the consequences, which will not fall at the present time upon the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I want you to be able to hear the question. I would point out to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -that it will be the Canadian taxpayer who will lose and not the government.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman will have, within the next couple of years, occasion to point out many things to the Canadian taxpayer.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, that is silly.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the headline which appeared in last night's Citizen reading "Sinclair Will be Revenue Minister in Cabinet Shift", would the Prime Minister keep in mind the urgent
5688	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry need of the great industrial area of southern Ontario, including Toronto, for cabinet representation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister has in mind the interests of Toronto and the province of Ontario. He also has in mind that he has made no confidential communication to the Citizen and that he sees nothing in the article in the Citizen that would warrant any concern by anyone as to what is going to happen in the future.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the answer he gave me a week ago when I raised the question of the Port aux Basques fiasco and his statement that he thought the report had no relation to the fact, or words to that effect, may I ask him if he has been in communication with his deputy minister who is reported in the Montreal Star of June 28 as having said:
We didn't realize what was going to happen until the work was completed.
May 1 point out that Mr. Baldwin's further statement indicates that by "we" he was referring to the Department of Transport because he went on to say:
We had our engineers on the project, the C.N.R. had its experts on the docking and loading facilities, and the public works department had its technicians.
In spite of all that he says:
We didn't realize what was going to happen until the work was completed.


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I do not understand what the question is, Mr. Speaker.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will try to explain it further. The minister gave me what may be colloquially called the brush-off last week when I drew to his attention a report indicating there was something wrong. I ask him if he will comment on the statement of his deputy that "we didn't realize what was going to happen until the work was completed".


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think any comment is necessary. I think that the statement made by my deputy minister sets forth the facts pretty accurately, and I cannot see that I can add anything to it.
[Mr. Hees.l



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. H. Small (Danforth):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister inform the house how far negotiations between the municipality of the city of Toronto and the government have progressed with regard to the Malton airport and the Toronto island airport?


George Carlyle Marler: All I can say is that proposals have been made to the city of Toronto, and I believe they are now under consideration by the city administration.



INQUIRY AS TO SALE PRICE TO INSTITUTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: The other day I asked a question concerning the sale of butter to institutions. At that time the Prime Minister could not answer my question, and I wonder if he can now give me the price that will be charged the institutions for the butter they receive under their applications?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will make inquiry from the officers who are handling that part of the transaction and get as accurate and detailed information as possible.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Palleit (Peel):: Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I do not believe he gave a complete answer. Would he care to enlarge upon that answer today?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to take notice of my hon. friend's question to see what he asked me yesterday and what I said.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, July 4, 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.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Last night in the course of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I had asked the government and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) to consider further our suggestion that instead of proceeding with this bill as it is now drawn they should withdraw it and bring forward a bill which would have the effect of dividing the Defence Production Act into two parts, one part being established on a permanent basis and the other part containing those powers which it has previously been agreed by the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should not be made permanent and which would be continued then on the basis that they would expire unless renewed from time to time by parliament. I pointed out that that proposal is contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and was repeated by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I hope the government will see fit to accept our suggestion. I imagine that if they want to do it on their own initiative instead of referring it to the banking and commerce committee to have that committee do it, there would be no reason why that should not be done. What we are concerned with is having the suggestion we put forward adopted in principle; the method might be left to be worked out as seems best under the circumstances.
I then went on to discuss what had been done in the United Kingdom and the United States under two comparable acts. I showed that the extraordinary powers given in those acts-to the appropriate minister in the United Kingdom and the president in the United States-are not permanent but require to be renewed from time to time by their legislatures; otherwise they expire. I discussed the United Kingdom act in some detail, to show that there they preserve the supremacy of parliament in the manner indicated without any damaging effect on their defence effort or their defence production. I suggest that if that can be done in the United Kingdom, there is no reason whatever why the same thing cannot be done here, which is what we are asking.
I do not believe I have, in the time at my disposal, any opportunity to refer in detail to the United States act. I am quite sure I shall have an opportunity to discuss that in detail on another occasion in the course of this debate. I might say that it is quite obvious that unless the government does accept the very sensible compromise we have suggested-


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are not impressed by threats, I will tell you that. We are not a bit impressed.
Defence Production Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: Neither are we.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then, why not sit down and leave the threat unsaid.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know the minister would rather that everybody on this side leave things unsaid, but hope springs eternal. We know that the minister likes to go away fishing, and we hope-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can do that and also carry on this debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, exactly, Mr. Speaker; the minister does not mind interrupting this debate and leaving parliament dangling while he goes away fishing. So the debate goes on for a couple of days here and a couple of days there without any decision. The minister told us this is a most important matter; that there is a serious situation confronting us which makes it essential that he have these permanent powers. But now he tells us he would just as soon go off fishing, and parliament can await his convenience. I do not want to become overly heated about this, but we understand the minister has another fishing date this week-end so the debate will have to be adjourned again.
I hope he will accept the compromise suggestion. I am quite sure that if he does not, there will be another-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Your hopes and fears are your own.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -occasion when I can refer in detail to the principle of the United States legislation.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I have followed the course of this rather long debate with a great deal of interest, Mr. Speaker. I can say for myself and I think for most of the members in this group that they have made their contribution to it in a sense of sincerity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But no sense
of humour, though.


John Angus MacLean: Well, perhaps-


George Alexander Drew: Oh, going fishing?


John Angus MacLean: The one thing that has
struck me-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have driven the minister out of the house.


John Angus MacLean: -in this debate has been
the rather unusual strategy used by the government in carrying on the debate, or perhaps one should more properly say the lack of strategy. If any strategy on their part is involved, it would seem to me that it is a sort of scorched earth tactic in the
5690	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act hope that after weeks of pursuit the opposition will become exhausted as a result of the rigours of this climate and for other reasons, and give up and go home.
But I feel sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very important topic and that we should not be turned aside from our prime objective of safeguarding the rights of parliament. It is true that on a few occasions, if one were to carry on the simile, a lone horseman has appeared in view. As soon as he has been seen, he has immediately galloped off in all directions. Some of these horsemen have never been seen again, and we are not quite sure whether they have been rewarded with special leave for bravery or whether they have been banished to the Liberal equivalent of Siberia, whatever that may be, for allowing themselves to be seen. From time to time, too, one of their field marshals, decorated with his well earned honours in previous campaigns, has appeared on one flank and then on the other in the hope we will be distracted to one side or the other and go off in pursuit of him on the assumption, I presume, that it would be reasonable to suppose that where there is a field marshal there is an army. So far as we can determine, there is no army, and we are not going to be turned aside from our objectives in that way.
One hon. member who took part in this debate briefly, from the government side of the house, was the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). He took very strong objection to a statement I had made in the course of the debate on a previous occasion. I am sorry that other commitments prevented my being in the house when the hon. member spoke, because had I been here I could have put him straight. I believe it was not his intention to misinterpret what I said. Referring to a speech I had made earlier the hon. member said on that occasion:
The results speak for themselves. When an hon. member gets up in this house and likens the request of the Minister of Defence Production, for legislation to enable him to carry on his job, to the request of Adolf Hitler for the concession of complete totalitarian powers in Germany, that, stated in the mildest and most parliamentary terms, is hitting so far below the belt that it should not be condoned by any hon. member in this house.
I could have told the hon. member then that it was not my intention on any occasion to make any odious or other comparison between the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) or any other member in the house and Adolf Hitler or any other well known totalitarian. My sole purpose was to show that in the beginning our parliamentary systems are whittled away, by degrees, in what appear first to be harmless
[Mr. MacLean.l

ways. That was the point I was trying to make on that occasion. And I suggest if hon. members would care to read what I did say they will be forced to arrive at the same conclusion.
I was trying to point out that it is when we first change from the course he have been following for centuries, that of parliamentary supremacy, to some other course, that we may unwittingly very shortly run into danger. Innocent procedures, or procedures that are made to look innocent, are the thin edge of the wedge, and can well lead to danger, and even to complete loss of our parliamentary rights.
If I could use another simile, when one is a navigator-and this simile is often used- it is when he changes his course that he makes a mistake. He may be in perfectly safe waters, but if he changes his direction he may soon find himself on the shoals or, even worse, may wind up in a sort of stagnant Sargasso sea of bureaucracy.
I would point out again that it is vitally important that we safeguard most jealously the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of this House of Commons. Had it been my intention to make a comparison between an hon. member and Adolf Hitler-and that was not my intention-the comparison would have been between the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and Adolf Hitler, because this is the Prime Minister's bill. He introduced it to the house. It is his responsibility and rightly so, because he is the Prime Minister and it is his duty to accept responsibility for decisions made by his cabinet.
If he were to seek the advice of members of his cabinet

and I think he should-then I say, with all due respect, that perhaps the minister directly concerned should be the one who should have the least to say in the matter. Because, after all, it affects him more than it does any other member of the cabinet. The administration of his department is, of course, his responsibility. Whether it is administered properly or efficiently is something for which he should answer when his estimates are before the house.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of personalities. By its very nature it would be impossible for it to be a matter of personalities. It is a matter of principle for this simple reason, if for no other: All of us are mortal. Our days are numbered. But if this bill were approved in its present form, the powers would go on forever. It is not a case of deciding whether or not the present minister is a suitable person to have these extraordinary powers. Rather, it is a case of

deciding whether all ministers of defence production in Canada, from now on, should have these extraordinary powers. When one is considering that, he must also realize that ministers of defence production of the future may not even be members of the house at the present time, or may not even be born yet.
In a recent speech the Minister of Defence Production assured us that he was on the side of the angels. All of us would like to feel that we were on the side of the angels; but I think we would be the least capable of judging whether we are or not. It has been said that proud man, clothed in a little brief authority, plays such tricks before high heaven as make the angels weep. So we should, I think, be humble; we should be very careful before making the assertion that we are on the side of the angels-unless we mean by that that our intentions are good.
I cast no aspersions whatever on the minister's good intentions; I know they are of the best. I just doubt whether he is the best judge of whether or not he is on the side of the angels.
If we can look at this matter in an impersonal way, or remove it from the personality of the present Minister of Defence Production, we might visualize some future ministers in that department having these extraordinary powers for an indefinite length of time. While I do not know, I would hazard the guess that if the Minister of Defence Production were called upon to make from the membership of the House of Commons a list of those who could be trusted with these powers indefinitely, I believe the list would be a short one. I doubt for instance if it would include the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), or the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) or, for that matter, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott), the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) or even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris).
I would be happier with the situation if the Prime Minister had taken a more active part in this debate. I was pleased to see him rise in his place yesterday and make a brief speech. After all, it is his responsibility to see whether there will be a Department of Defence Production or not, and under what powers it will operate, if it does exist. It is his responsibility to appeal to this house, or, to use a slang expression, to sell to this house the necessity for such a department with such powers. After all, the Minister of Defence Production, in his capacity of Minister of Defence Production, is a creature of this
Defence Production Act house, and when that is being discussed it would be only reasonable to expect the attitude of the creature to its creator to be courteous when the matter of his continued existence is under discussion.
I was pleased to see the minister rise in his place yesterday and consider the possibility of ways of reaching common ground. It is true to say that all members of this house have good intentions and are determined that Canada shall have the best possible defence. In addition to that, we in this part of the house feel we should safeguard at all costs our hard-won parliamentary institution. Many suggestions have been made as to a possible compromise. It has already been suggested that there is no necessity to pass this bill during this session. After all, the present act does not expire until a year from now, and surely, if this debate has served no other useful purpose, it has convinced the employees of the Department of Defence Production that this house feels the department should continue on a permanent basis. Practically everyone is agreed on that point.
No real explanation has been given as to why the suggestion to drop this bill at the present time is not acceptable. Another suggestion that has been made is to put a time limit on the bill itself, or to separate it into two parts, and put a time limit on the section which deals with these objectionable powers, powers which would be objectionable at least on a permanent basis.
I myself have already suggested that this act might be repealed completely. That would have the effect of ending the suspension of the Defence Supplies Act, and an act which would not include powers of a special nature could be introduced to set up the Department of Defence Production on the same basis as any other department of government. The present Defence Production Act suspends the Defence Supplies Act, and it will remain suspended indefinitely if this bill passes in its present form.
The leader of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), suggested a compromise yesterday which I think merits serious consideration. Although I give the Prime Minister credit for seeming to want to seek common ground yesterday, I will be bold enough to say that the compromise he suggested is not an acceptable one. If I can illustrate it in simple terms, he said this: If I were to lend some money that I had in trust to a borrower, that borrower would give me the right in three years to ask him for it, but he would retain the right to say whether he would pay it back or not. That is not good enough. What we in this group demand, as it were, is to have a promissory
5692	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act note incorporated in this bill saying that the powers we are turning over to the minister will be returned to us at some early date in the future, and that then parliament can again decide whether it wants to extend the loan or not. We do not want to lose custody of our possession. I am therefore forced to say, Mr. Speaker, that if one were to lend money on the basis that he can ask the borrower at some future date if he wants to pay it back or not, an agreement of that sort, in the minds of the people, would not be worth a tinker's dam.
When speaking recently, the Minister of Defence Production told us of the possible horrors of atomic warfare. I for one sympathize with the minister in regard to the great load of responsibility he carries in providing suitable material for the defence of this country. These are rapidly changing times, and we must face them with faith, strength and confidence. Although I sympathize with the minister in his apparent shuddering at the possibilities of the future, I must nevertheless admit that it might be an indication he is no longer flexible enough to adjust himself to these rapidly changing times. We are in a position now where we must face the future with imagination, with faith in ourselves and in our institutions and, perhaps most important of all, in the belief that in right there is some might. I think that ideas and ideals are perhaps worth more in the armoury of democracy than bombs, even atomic bombs.
Of course, this idea of dreading the future and the extraordinary scientific advances that have come about in recent times is understandable. It is not a new thing. After all, human beings tend to be afraid of something that is new, unknown and strange. In that regard I should like to make one very brief quotation from a man called Robert Barrett, written in 1598, with regard to some terrible new invention of that date. He had this to say:
Well wishing in my hart (had its bene Gods will) that this infernall fierie engine had never bin found out.
He was speaking then, of course, of the cannon. The situation today is just a projection of that same state of affairs, that progress, greatly accelerated, of course, so that we must adjust to changing conditions so much more rapidly. The minister made reference in his speech to the munitions and supply act and said that there was nothing new in this act that was not in the munitions and supply act. Originally that act had a time limit, but it was amended to cut out the time limit. That is true; but the situation has changed. It was perfectly well understood 

that, if the munitions and supply act was enacted to take care of a temporary situation, a situation that was not going to last indefinitely, namely world war II, it could be only of short duration; but now we find ourselves in an entirely different position. We find ourselves in circumstances which may last as long as we live, as far into the future as we can see and further, and we must be prepared to frame legislation that will be permanently accepted.
The fact that the munitions and supply act was considered by all to be temporary should go unquestioned. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind, I should like to quote from a speech by the Right Hon. William L. Mackenzie King in moving second reading of the bill to establish a department of reconstruction on June 20, 1944. He said:
For example, the Department of Munitions and Supply was set up to carry on an important phase of war work. When the war ends that department will fade out; but, with the preparation for peace and for developing the national economy to further the pursuits of peace, it will be necessary to have some one department that will be specially charged with that all-important work. The Department of Reconstruction will have that particular duty.
It is quite obvious from the statement of the then prime minister that the munitions and supply act was only temporary. It has been said that power tends to corrupt and that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. I am not sure that that is the case; it probably is. But I am not going to suggest that power has worked this corruption on the present Minister of Defence Production. However, I say that on some occasions when he takes a very truculent attitude towards what we try to put forward in the most reasonable terms possible, as was so ably done by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), with regard to the corresponding legislation in the United States and Great Britain, one wonders if he is not trying to prove the thesis that power corrupts.
In any case, if we as a parliament were to turn over to any minister of the crown, for all time, the responsibility which has been delegated to us on a temporary basis by the people who have elected us, we would be betraying our trust. I think it is unfair to expect our parliamentary institution to commit constitutional hari-kari of that nature, even if the weather is hot. It has also been said that power is a desolating pestilence that pollutes whatever it touches. In the case of the Minister of Defence Production, I think that five years of power has not polluted him. It would be unkind to say that. But we are just trying to make sure that he or any of

his successors will not be exposed to such polluting power for an unnecessary length of time.
It is hard to believe on some occasions in this debate that this is a question of what is the best method to carry on our defence production. Sometimes I cannot help feeling that it is a question of pride, that someone has made a mistake he does not wish to admit. That is not the characteristic of a great man. Of course, it is one of the human frailties, I suppose, to follow the characteristics of animals that have the herd instinct, which was so ably illustrated by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) yesterday when he said that there grows up naturally a herd leader or a king stallion or a bull of the woods, or whatever you want to call him, and that sooner or later there comes a time when he must be deposed and he will be deposed by some younger and abler herd leader. The old herd leader, of course, stands on his pride. He has shown time and time again that he has guts and intestinal fortitude; but he tries to prove the point once too often, and there comes a day when the leader-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are bedtime stories in order in this debate?


Mr. Green:: For you.


John Angus MacLean: The would-be permanent leader of the herd merely proves that he has lots of guts by his entrails being strewn over the area. The herd goes on because it knows change is inevitable. The Minister of Defence Production has directed attention to the necessity for development in many fields of defence: supersonic aircraft, guns, guided missiles and many other things. I agree with him that these things are essential, but I think it also must be admitted that the greatest progress, even in the field of science and development, is made when there is free opportunity for competition and free interchange of ideas. If that requires proof, one could turn to the excellent effort which has been made by the British people as far as defence is concerned, not only since world war II, but prior to world war II. There was no munitions and supply act with great far-reaching powers in existence in the United Kingdom during the early thirties. Yet it was at that time that development contracts were let for the Spitfire, the Lancaster, the Halifax and the Manchester. These were the aircraft which saved Britain in world war II. These developments were made by private enterprise, private companies, working to specifications which had been made by the British government. Of course,
Defence Production Act not all of them were successful. They did not have 100 per cent success. But out of the competition of private firms to meet most nearly the requirements specified, excellent aircraft were developed. The Spitfire and the Hurricane-and chiefly the Hurricane- were responsible for winning for us the battle of Britain; and it was the Lancaster and the Halifax which made possible the night bombing of Germany during world war II. Yet the development contracts for these aircraft were let in the early thirties before there was any immediate sign of world war II.
All that indicates that what is most valuable in the development of new weapons is plenty of lead time; that is, the objectives which one must seek must be set early. In addition to that one must not neglect the affiliated basic resources which make great development possible. Pure research is one of those things. We should remember that in the long run we might defeat our own purpose if we concentrate all our efforts on applied science rather that on pure science. After all, for almost 15 years now, as far as applied science with respect to defence is concerned, we have been relying on discoveries which were made in the field of pure science prior to world war II. It was scientific research done many years ago that made the atom bomb possible, for instance, in world war II. The same is true with regard to guided missiles.
The thing we must be most careful of, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not attempt to set up some all-wise bureaucracy to say what is best and what is the course of endeavour which is likely to prove most rewarding, because there is no possible way of knowing beforehand what that is. One of the classic examples of bureaucrats that were wrong when individuals were right was in the development of the Salk vaccine. The methods pursued in the development of that vaccine were not those which were regarded as being the most likely to succeed by a bureaucratic set-up which was directing research along another line. The same is true with regard to jet aircraft. During the war Frank Whittle persisted in doing research when he was being laughed to scorn by many and when it was said that this research would never reach any useful application. However, it resulted in the jet engine as we know it. Even before world war II was over it provided in the Meteor, the first service jet plane of the R.A.F., a defence against the V-2.
There are other principles too, Mr. Speaker, that we should not lose sight of. I see that my time is almost up and I shall conclude

Defence Production Act quickly. I should like to refer all hon. members to a useful article that has recently been written and published in the Queen's Quarterly by George F. G. Stanley who is, 1 believe, the professor of history at the Royal Military College. This article is entitled "New Ways of War". He reviews carefully the problems which now face the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) and he ends up by concluding that it is most important that we should not lose sight of the principles for which we stand because if we do that we shall defeat our own purpose in the end.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am going to do my level best to emulate the well-modulated tones of the hon. gentleman who has just finished speaking. I have two speeches here. I have one very good speech on which I spent a great deal of time; it deals with constitutional aspects. The other speech is on chaos in Canada if the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production becomes Minister of Defence Production under this act. I would prefer to use the first one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Give us the last one. It would be more entertaining.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are you quitting?


Mr. Dickey:: There would be less repetition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There he goes again. You cannot stop him.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, in considering this amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal, two thoughts come to my mind. The first one is this. Yesterday, when the leader of the Social Credit party made his offer to this house, I was reminded that this offer is substantially the proposal made in our amendment and in the proposals that have been made in every speech that we in this party have made so far in this debate. If nothing else is clear, Mr. Speaker,-if we are in doubt about some of the details of this matter-let us have the record clear in that respect, at least. The debate goes away back to March 10, when it first began.
In the second place,-and this perhaps is a personal reflection and it is the only one of this nature that I intend to make in my remarks today-when the hon. member for Royal was moving his amendment and making his speech, in seeing him across the floor from the Minister of Defence Production I was reminded of the fact that they came here 20 years ago, and my thoughts went back to 1935. They both appeared at Ottawa as a result of the election in 1935 when great


changes took place in Canada. Through the political fortunes of war they sat on opposite sides of the house. It was the fortune of the Minister of Defence Production to be called to the cabinet and to have what we know is a prominent part in government. The hon. member for Royal was destined to become one of the loyal few who have been sitting in opposition for an unheralded and unprecedented 20 years.
I throw out this thought, Mr. Speaker, and I do not mean it in any personal way. When the minister to whom I have referred was sitting in his large office as a cabinet minister directing the affairs of this country during the war, since the war and at other times, the hon. member for Royal was picking up his books in his office and going down the corridors to go into committee meetings and to do his duty in the opposition. I throw out this one thought, Mr. Speaker: Who are we to judge the contributions of these two respective men, or in fact those of any men, as far as war effort is concerned or anything else? I say, Mr. Speaker, that we who are here within the confines of parliament-I am not speaking about the remote comers of Canada-and who know what things are going on do not go back to past achievements. We are judging things today. After all, today is the day we live and tomorrow never comes except when you are taking part in a filibuster.
Having said that, I should like to dwell on the constitutional aspect, if I may use that lordly phrase, and refer to 30 years ago when changes in the functions of our modern government began to become clear. They have been developing since that time, and I suggest that perhaps 30 years ago we saw the first evidence of the change that is so pronounced today. I say that these matters are of concern not only to the lawyers of the country but to every private citizen who can grasp the meaning of our constitution, be it written or unwritten.
Three thoughts come to my mind as to the causes that have changed the function of government. These three thoughts are not necessarily original, but I have tried to connect them with present-day examples that come to mind. First of all, there is the industrialization and urbanization of western society. We have largely become city dwellers necessitating the building up of more and more controls over our conditions of life. There comes to my mind immediately the need for traffic control in our large cities. I think of confusion square outside the parliament buildings and the control that is necessary simply to enable traffic to move around the square. I also have in mind the various

town planning systems that it has been found so necessary to implement in our world today.
Second, there is what might be termed the evolution of a social philosophy. I do not mean for one minute socialism as such. I think it is generally agreed that all parties, the Social Credit party, the C.C.F. party, the Liberal party and the Conservative party, accept in varying degrees the need for some sort of social legislation in the world of today. There is the growth of public utilities so evident in the United States and increasingly so in Canada. It has been necessary to build up various utilities such as telephone systems and other utilities that play a part in our daily lives. This is what I mean by the evolution of a social philosophy. I think of the nationalization that took place in England after the war. All parties agreed that nationalization of the coal industry was necessary. That to my mind is another example of the social change which I am trying to separate from actual socialism.
The third point, one which is of more direct concern and upon which I wish to dwell for some time in relation to the Defence Production Act, is the transformation of our society into a condition where we are almost in a state of emergency-I use that word quali-fledly and will refer to it later-a state of semi-mobilization in which some wartime controls and other compulsory conditions are necessary in this post-war world. The other day there was discussion in the house of the danger of a military junta. To some this seemed absurd and perhaps the occasion was exaggerated, but, after all, according to the words of former prime minister King in 1944, there was a danger, or it seemed so to him at that time, of some sort of military coup d'etat.
I say that this complete change and transformation in our society is going to have a dangerous effect on all our legal concepts. This is a time when it is necessary for the government to make public contracts and to impose health and other legislation on our citizens which formerly was not considered necessary. That is admitted in this debate. It is a day when conservation boards are necessary. We have to be very careful of our national resources. Conventions are necessary to protect our fisheries. Then there are considerations affecting our oil and gas pipe lines and the other necessary requirements for life.
May I close the first part of my introduction by saying that I do not think we are in a state of regimentation as exemplified by
Defence Production Act George Orwell in "1984", but I do admit we are in a very different world from that of 30 to 35 years ago.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Thomas Miller Bell: I had been saying, Mr. Speaker, that there were three causes for changes in the functions of government in the last 35 years. First, I suggested that the industrialization and urbanization of the west was one cause. Secondly, I mentioned that there had been an evolution in social philosophy. Thirdly, and I was in the midst of dealing with it, there was the transformation of our society itself, and the fact that today there is a definite need for some control. I was stating that while there was regimentation and mobilization necessary in connection with our resources and industry, I felt that it had not reached a critical stage but at least there was no doubt a need for a reconsideration of a lot of rules as a result of this new change.
We have so many of the old cliches used that we wonder if many of them have an application to Canada. There have been the terms, "the new despotism"; "the passing of parliament"; "bureaucracy triumphant"; "the road to serfdom". I ask, Mr. Speaker, do these apply here or are we all right in Canada? Have we nothing to fear from these suggested maladies? The legislature that governs us today perhaps is not susceptible to some of these evils that are inherent in other governments, but I wish to take the time to deal with them. I want to refer to the governments of other countries and the problems they have had with these suggested evils. For the purposes of my remarks here three headings quickly come to mind, and I do not suggest them in any dogmatic way. They will simply help, I believe, with an orderly consideration of the fears I am trying to connect up with this legislation that has been proposed.
First, there is the war power, and where this authority comes from in Canada and in the other countries. Is the constitution written or unwritten? We all agree that the war power of a particular country should be elastic and in these days when we have a post-war period of fears, cold wars and police action, then we want to know where the responsibility and authority of parliament ends and begins. Secondly, I suggest there ought to be a consideration of the executive power. It is the executive power which has increased in practically all the great countries of the world, and this has caused some worry.

Defence Production Act There has been a delegation of power by parliament to the executive in many cases, and in Canada and other countries there has also been the emergence to some extent of the one-party system. This again only increases the executive power.
Thirdly, I refer to the fundamental rights that are involved in any serious consideration of this legislation. I have one definition that I would like to place on the record which will explain in a much clearer fashion the worry that may result from a loss of our fundamental rights. It is Mr. Dicey's definition and is well known to all followers of constitutional law:
First, it means the absolute supremacy of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government. It means, second, equality before the law or "the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary law courts". Thirdly, it means that our constitutional law Is not the source but the consequence of "the rights of the individual as defined and enforced by the courts".
Now, having said that there are three divisions of this consideration, I should like to say that the proposed legislation, and particularly the Defence Production Act, which is chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, contains many pertinent sections which could be used as examples of these dangers and fears. I will not refer to them directly, but I think I should mention that section 38 would be an example of a section that I feel contains dangerous powers; section 5 would be an example of a section which contains powers that would create a worry about the fundamental rights to which I have referred.
In dealing with the countries and trying to consider these various matters in each case, I think first of all of Canada. I feel, very respectfully, that there is a consideration necessary by private citizens and there is also consideration necessary by lawyers who should be, perhaps, a little better informed on these constitutional matters. The British North America Act does mention various authorities and powers with respect to defence. It is reasonable to suppose that if defence had not been mentioned in any way in the British North America Act there would have been an implied power under the residual clause of section 91 of that act.
Defence is mentioned in one or two instances in the British North America Act. First of all, there is a reference in section 91 to the fact that it shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada. This is the catch-all residual phrase, and I would ask that particular

note be taken of this. Then, subsection 7 of section 91 contains a reference to the militia, military and naval service, and defence. This, also, will come into my argument. The other reference, which is not of particular note here, is to section 15 of the British North America Act which reads:
The commander-in-chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
So far as I know, those are the only defence references in the British North America Act.
The two controversial sections that created division are, of course, the residual clauses and subsection 7. It has always been understood that at times when Canada has faced various emergencies, particularly in a time of war, the residual clauses in the British North America Act, those dealing with peace, order and good government, gave the federal government authority to make laws and other legislation for the necessary implementation of procedure for war, or to meet the other dangers that might arise. We have an example of the residual clause being invoked when Canada was not at war when, during the late nineteenth century, there was considerable worry about the drinking of alcoholic beverages in Canada. There was the famous case of Russell v. The Queen which gave the federal government authority to pass the temperance act, which dealt with this serious problem of that time. The federal government was enabled to pass the legislation because it was felt-and this was upheld by the courts-that Canada was in a state of emergency. This decision was upheld, and many other decisions of the privy council, although on one or two occasions Viscount Haldane did limit the use of the word "emergency".
The worry in those countries which have a federal constitution-and I am thinking particularly of the United States and Australia-is not great in this respect, because in. those countries the various powers of the parent governing body are specifically defined in their written constitution. But I do suggest that these two types of worrisome legislation have to be considered again in view of the fact that legislation of this kind is before us today, in which it is asked that continuing or permanent authority be given.
Section 91 (7) of the British North America Act gives specific authority to the federal government to deal with the armed forces, military and naval service and defence, as; well as related subjects. But the general provisions of section 91 do not give authority, except in periods of rare emergency. The use-

of the emergency clause in the British North America Act has to be considered seriously.
We are now in a transitional period. As I have suggested, it is a period of control. I am wondering now whether this piece of legislation should be considered, whether it should be passed under the authority of section 91 (7), or should it come under the residual portion of section 91.
That, Mr. Speaker, creates a very serious problem that could be challenged in the courts at any time. However, we have two examples of emergency legislation being used at times other than times of war. There was the Japanese deportation act, which was upheld by the privy council, and also the leasehold regulations which were invoked where necessary after the war to deal with the housing situation. Both of these were emergency situations. They were not considered actually during wartime but were post-war conditions that no doubt could be connected with the serious prosecution of an all-out defence effort.
Those are the two worries, and I intend to relate them directly with the legislation before us, and to compare them with the situation in other countries. It has been said that, speaking broadly, this legislation could take money out of our pockets, clothes off our backs and our homes from under our feet. I do suggest however that in looking at this matter from the strictly constitutional aspect no very serious consideration has been given to the fact that under this act it is conceivably possible that the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) could take away our language rights in Canada.
May I offer the thought that if we were in a serious state of emergency, and there developed a shortage of newsprint or printing material which would have to be diverted to the armed forces, the Minister of Defence Production could declare that the duplicate printing of various forms of newspapers or other valuable material would have to be curtailed, and that only a single copy of such printing could be made.
Hon. members may not consider this serious. Nevertheless I do say there is that danger. In leaving that subject, particularly the reference to the Canadian constitution, I would say briefly that this emergency doctrine being applied in the present instance so as to give an excuse for the implementation of this measure, is a matter of more than academic interest for all Canadians, because it is under this particular piece of legislation that all our constitutional safeguards, so necessary in wartime, are included. We have admitted that the provisions are elastic, because the various changes and sudden
Defence Production Act decisions that have to be made are all necessary. I do leave the thought-and I may come back to it again-that under section 91 (7) of the British North America Act there is provision for ordinary and necessary defence legislation, but that when we consider the broad implications of the emergency powers that may be given under the residual part of section 91 there is need for all Canadians to give very serious thought to the matter. I add the further thought that it could definitely be challenged at some later time from a constitutional standpoint.
I have referred to the United States because I believe they have been subjected to this grave worry, and have been in the position of dealing with it-perhaps not too effectively. They dealt with it first of all in the thirties, at the time of the new deal legislation of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We know that much of that legislation was held ultra vires of the powers of the federal government in the United States. I would refer more particularly however to the steel seizure case, that involving the Youngstown steel company, in which President Truman was involved, at the beginning of the Korean war.
It will be recalled at that time the steel industry was on strike, or about to go on strike, with the result that the supply of steel so necessary to the defence effort was seriously endangered. President Truman stepped in, seized the industry and said that he had inherent powers under the constitution to take that action, because it was necessary for the war effort and the general defence of the United States. There was a good deal of discussion as to his authority and rights in the matter. It will be remembered that a little-known justice by the name of Pine, I believe it was, in one of the minor courts in the land, came out with a remarkable decision which shook the very roots of all belief across the United States, but nevertheless firmly entrenched the justice that does exist in the courts, when he said that there is not a residuum of power in the hands of the president at such times.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that same thing could very easily happen in Canada. It has not happened only because we have not had legislation such as this to worry about in the past, that is legislation on a permanent continuing basis. The commander-in-chief of the army, navy and air force in the United States is of course the president; but remember, Mr. Speaker, he does not have authority over the people and industries of that country. His power is definitely limited in that respect. To close the discussion on this legislative problem and the position with
5698	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act respect to acts similar to this, I should like to quote about four lines from a decision of Mr. Justice Murphy, which referred to the steel case. Mr. Justice Murphy said:
From time immemorial despots have used real or imaginary threats to the public welfare as an excuse for needlessly abrogating human rights. That excuse is no less unworthy of our traditions when used in this day of atomic warfare or at a future time when some other type of warfare may be devised.
I now leave the United States and go to Australia where, as hon. members know, they have a constitution similar to that of the United States. The Australian problem has been dealt with very effectively. They ran into the difficulties which we seem not to have been bothered with, in both the war and peace-war periods. There is a unified government and a definite stand has been taken on these matters, and they have an implied authority in their constitution to deal with all these matters on a residuary basis. The third section of their constitution and the third section of the United States constitution invest a definite judicial power in the federal authority in both cases. There the worry about any further difficulty with legislation such as this and injustices therefrom is definitely considered by their judicial courts, and the great danger of the loss of their fundamental rights of course is not a worry.
There were two cases which I should like to refer to, which definitely bring out certain points and show that Australia has dealt effectively with this problem, which may become a worry to us in Canada. There was the Rola case, which had to do with employment during the war. This case took away judicial powers from the committees. The administrative tribunals and committees felt that they had judicial powers to decide on the basis of the few broad terms that are in these acts, such as matters affecting the rights of employees in government departments. This decision gave back to the courts the right to hear that, and of course took away the authority that the tribunals and committees felt they had. This was not in a time of emergency, and even then the courts upheld the idea that judicial authority and review are paramount.
Then there is the Jehovah's witnesses case, which 1 will not go into. It dealt with the fundamental rights I have mentioned and judicial review of a matter affecting the rights of this religious sect. Their rights were upheld. Therefore, Australia has shown a definite reluctance to give those ministerial tribunals power, as I have indicated.
In France it is a little different. Of course, it is not too serious there because they went through this in 1789. This matter has been


considered in other countries, and was decided in France on a blood basis years ago. Over there the power that is given to their executive is not necessarily constitutional. It is different from the Anglo-American attitude in that respect. The heads of the various executive committees to ensure enactment of laws are given general direction, and they deal with the matter on that basis.
It was interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, to learn that in Germany just the other day when Konrad Adenauer was in the process of getting authority with respect to a volunteers bill in the hope that future plans for West Germany could be effectively formulated, unlimited powers were asked for until March 31, 1956. It caused quite a furore in Germany, and the act that was passed bore little resemblance to the government's own draft. Deputies representing all parties with one exception made it quite clear that they had no intention to write a blank cheque for Chancellor Adenauer or anyone else, so far as Western German rearmament was concerned. In other words, the demand for unlimited powers until March 31, 1956, was completely turned down by the other parties in Western Germany just the other day.
I have dealt with those other countries. Then of course we come to the country which gives us most of our laws anyway, namely, England. They went through this a long while ago. In 1929 Lord Hewart started the ball rolling when he referred to the dangers that were in existence owing to the increase in these various boards and tribunals that were being set up. In that year they formed the now famous committee on ministers' powers. I will not go into that, but there was a thorough investigation of the rights of those tribunals and the powers of the civil servants, and of course the minister's power itself. The reference to the committee was as follows:
To consider the powers exercised by or under the direction of ministers of the crown.
This was in 1929, Mr. Speaker. These people have all been through what we are going through today. The decision was made and the report was published in 1932. An interesting thing comes to mind with respect to that. The committee was set up in England; it was a typical English committee; it was set up in the proper way to do the good work of parliament. It was a bipartisan committee. A Labour government was in power at that time. There were three Conservatives and three Labour members on that committee. How different that is from our own parliament! However, Mr. Speaker, the committee made its report. I must admit that the findings were not startling. They did

say that there was a worry and a danger for the future and unless all the people in England-this may be a little different from here-maintained their sense of social justice, then fears would be well-founded for the future. They also made mention of the fact that the tribunals themselves are legislators, prosecutors and judges of their own acts which they are considering. They also mentioned the fact that the House of Commons was no longer in a position of authority. The scene had changed from the floor of the house to the great departments of state.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate that and I shall just close my remarks by saying-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, your time has expired.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have tried-


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


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: No, Mr. Speaker. This is too important a matter, Mr. Speaker, for us to treat it in any hurried fashion. I thought it would be wise if I participated again in this debate. I propose to deal with the subject matter after the fashion of Mr. King, who in 1938, when he was discussing a subject of importance in this house, said, "I shall endeavour in what I say to be as concise and at the same time as comprehensive as possible".
We have had a very interesting debate. Yesterday, I thought, was quite helpful. Quite a number of conciliatory speeches were made. I would commend the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and the hon. member for Sim-coe North (Mr. Ferguson) for the efforts they made to speak with the tongue of reasonableness, but I doubt that there was any effect. Of course, later on in the afternoon the Prime Minister entered the chamber, and we welcomed him back. We have missed him in the course of this debate. He gave the stamp of his approval to the debate. We were told that he did not normally participate in discussion unless it were of importance; but apparently this is of importance, as the Prime Minister returned and favoured us with his presence. He did not make a long speech. He did not cover some of the points I had hoped he would cover. He made no explanation of some earlier remarks of his.
Defence Production Act Nevertheless he appeared here and held out to us what was intended to be an olive branch. Others have dealt with this proposal and have shown that the olive branch was not very strong. It was not free from blemish and the fruit on it was very poor and withered.
As I pointed out before, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production have considerable difficulty in getting together on this subject, and perhaps on other subjects. But the Prime Minister made a proposal to us yesterday about this matter being reviewed at the instance of a private member and at some time in the distant future. The Prime Minister assured us in his remarks, of course, that he was going to be here in the future. This was to allay fear on the part of those who thought he was contemplating moving his residence from the riverside further inland. He was anxious to suggest that the Liberal party was still united and active in the conduct of the business of the country. He and the Minister of Defence Production have difficulty in determining how to deal with matters in the House of Commons. Although the Prime Minister suggests now that reviews should be at the instance of a private member by way of a motion introduced during the course of the next parliament, the Minister of Defence Production told us on June 7, which seems rather a long time ago, and I quote his words from page 4511 of Hansard:
Traditionally this is the way in which legislation can be examined critically, the way in which it can be determined whether or not it meets the needs and conditions of the times.
Just before that he was telling us:
Under our present parliamentary procedures the house has an opportunity to review the responsibilities and functions of each department at least once a year, when the estimates are being considered.
So you see that the Minister of Defence Production says, "Review this when the estimates are up; that is the traditional course of procedure". The Prime Minister says, "No, that is not quite sufficient. A private member may raise the matter on a motion three years hence."
Yesterday the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) made an able and conciliatory speech and put forward a proposal. It struck some people within this chamber and outside as being new and different. There have been, I hear, a number of talks on very low summits with regard to his proposal. But may I point out that on June 13, when I had the pleasure and privilege of speaking to the house, having had my speech interrupted on June 9 owing to the lateness of the hour, I summarized what had happened prior to that

Defence Production Act date. On page 4687 of Hansard I find the following words, and this is the first time I have ever quoted myself in the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Repetition, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I followed the Minister of Defence Production with the greatest of pleasure, because he has repeated himself several times as I pointed out on June 13. He repeated himself on June 8 when he introduced second reading of this bill. So he will not object if I read a few of my own words.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This will be the silliest quotation of the debate, I am sure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, the silliest quotation
is the one to which I am going to draw the minister's attention later. I have it here, and it is a surprise package. On June 13 I said:
Why could there not be a separate act setting up the Department of Defence Production, making it permanent and giving the minister the opportunity of retaining experienced employees, and then a second act outlining the methods of defence procurement and all the other things that are contained in the present act? Alternatively, if that is not accepted,-
Of course, I knew it would not be accepted.
-the present act could be divided into distinct parts. The part dealing with the organization of the department could be made permanent and such other parts as seem fit-
That is a Mackenzie King phrase, "as seem fit", because you can interpret it any way you like.

could be made of short duration.
I was simply summarizing what had been said before. As shown on page 4550 of Hansard, on June 8, 1955, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) said this:
Divide the Defence Production Act into say two parts, one part setting up the department and the other part giving them powers. Why not make the first part permanent and provide that the second part shall continue in existence for a period of two years?
I hope those who are engaged in the summit discussions will pay attention to this suggestion. When I spoke on June 13 I was followed by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). Apparently we distinguish him by calling him "senior".


Clarence Decatur Howe: We were listening to all this. You do not need to tell us again.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But this is important, and I am happy to have the close attention of the Minister of Defence Production. He may even burst into applause, and I would quote Dr. Johnson's statement that the applause of a single human being is a matter of great consequence. After I discussed this

matter on June 13, the hon. senior member for Halifax rose and said that I had expressed the greatest confidence in the Minister of Defence Production. For greater certainty, I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Halifax that, because I said that the minister was able, decisive and experienced, it does not follow that I was expressing great confidence in him. Those are all good qualities, but they are not necessarily ones which warrant the placing of great confidence, unless those qualities are used in a satisfactory manner. The minister boasts of his experience. He is a great proponent of experience. Later on-perhaps not this month, but next-I shall examine the experience of which he boasts and show just how much it amounts to. He has been decisive on many occasions. He has made many quick decisions. Some of them have been wrong. He has ability. He has directed that ability sometimes into the wrong channels. I have suggested-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who is this man Churchill that you speak of? Tell me about him. Then you can tell about his views of me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are you trying to change the subject?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that relevant?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister tries to confuse the issue here. He came into the house the other day and immersed himself in a pool of irrelevance, and apparently he has not extricated himself from that situation. I suggested that we had respect for the minister and I suggested that he should have some respect for our opinions, something which he has not shown.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And which he does not have.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Outside of the House of Commons the minister may be a delightful character but here on the parliamentary scene I am not sure that I can express the greatest of confidence in him. He gave us two examples of his methods during the course of this debate. Back in March, when we were considering the resolution stage, right after the dinner recess the minister marched into the house and upset the course of proceedings. We were sitting here in our usual diligent fashion waiting to discuss a resolution concerning the Department of National Defence, followed by a resolution concerning fisheries, being the course of business that had been announced the previous evening. We were following the custom of the house as it has usually been followed. When business is announced like that, we know what is ahead. Members were waiting

to take part in that discussion when in walked the minister and said that he wished to go ahead with the resolution on the defence production bill which was third on the list. The hon. member for Vancouver very properly objected. What did the minister say? As reported at page 1962 of Hansard, these are his words, "We are changing the order, that is all".


An hon. Member:: He is the boss.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That type of dictatorial action inspires neither confidence nor respect. Then, for a second example, consider the minister's statement on Thursday, June 28. I promised that I would recite some of his words here just for greater emphasis. As reported at page 5382 of Hansard he said this:
If it had been suggested earlier that it would relieve people's minds ... to put a time limit of five years on the legislation, that might have been considered.
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) dealt with this matter in part yesterday but I should like to elaborate a bit on that statement. What is the record? Right from the very beginning the question of a time limit was raised. On the very first day that the resolution was considered, namely on March 10, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) raised the question of a time limit and mentioned that the one effective limitation had been removed. On the very next day, namely on March 11, two members on this side of the house mentioned a time limit, namely the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), and they considered a time limit to be of vital importance. On Monday, March 14, three members mentioned the time limit again, namely the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). All told, the suggestions ranged from one to four years.
Now the minister says that if someone in March had suggested five years instead of one, two, three or four, that time limit might have been considered. This is a specious argument indeed that inspires neither confidence nor respect. Actually what was going on in March at the resolution stage was a guessing game, and we did not realize it. It was that guessing game-you know it- that children play with their hands behind their back, and with marbles or something like that. They hold them in their hand and you guess how many are in it, and you say three when it should be five. We got caught by that game. My fair-minded friend the hon. member for Greenwood, in his moderate
Defence Production Act and cautious way, suggested one year. My friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is normally quite an astute parliamentarian, did not even play the game right. He did not mention numbers. He mentioned dates, so he was ruled right out, of course. He did not know what was going on. He spoke of July 1958 or July 1959. The hon. member for Peace River seemed to have a little greater sense of what was going on. He hedged a bit and said one year, two years, three or four; but the proper answer was five. None of us realized that fact in March. I thought that the magic numbers were seven and nine, but apparently there is some magic property with regard to five and, as the minister said, if it had been suggested earlier to put a time limit of five years on the legislation, that might have been considered.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday somebody said that this was parliament at its worst. I think it is the Minister of Defence Production at his worst in advancing arguments of that nature.
We are engaged here in a great historic struggle.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Make no mistake about it, this contest over the Defence Production Act is going to rank as one of the great historic events in the life of the parliament of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Was that the hon. member for Halifax?


An hon. Member:: Number ten.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Number 18. He has been eating spinach again. There have been other great contests in this house. This one is unique. It represents a trial of strength not just between government and opposition but between parliament and one man. It is obvious now to all who are here-


An hon. Member:: That is absolutely out of order.


Howard Charles Green: What is the matter with you?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is obvious to all of us who are here and to the press of the country that the Minister of Defence Production is pitting his strength against not only the opposition but the cabinet and the entire Liberal party. The members of the other house are viewing the scene with interest. Their turn will come next and in their hands will lie a momentous decision. They have it in their power to limit the dictatorial influence of the minister and to reassert the authority of parliament. Nothing like this has happened before in the political history of Canada.

Defence Production Act There have been other strong men but their ways have been different. Macdonald manipulated his fellow men by good cheer and good fellowship, Laurier by sunny ways, Borden by considerate sincerity, Bennett and Meighen by the force of their intellect and logic, and King by devious subterranean methods known only to his biographers; but subtlety is not a characteristic of the Minister of Defence Production. He is as subtle as a dinosaur. What is in his path is brushed aside or trodden underfoot. This experience through which he is passing is unique for him just as it is for parliament. I think it is the first time in his life that he has not been given his own way. For the first time in the 16 years that he has been running the country-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Twenty years.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -he has been vigorously opposed. He does not like it and he seems determined to reassert his authority. The minister may win. Of course it will be a Pyrrhic victory. From his knowledge of history I presume that he understands what that means. Our opposition here, protracted and valuable as it is, will eventually be borne down because the rules of the house can be invoked against us with respect to the previous question and closure. Then will follow the vote and we are, of course, outnumbered. All that is required on voting day is a sufficient number of government supporters to stand up and be counted. I can picture voting day, and if I had the skill of an artist I would certainly see it in this way. An Egyptian taskmaster cracking his whip over long lines of slaves, being the Liberal backbenchers, pulling forward a great stone, the Defence Production Act, to be placed on a pyramid which will stand for a thousand years as a monument to Canada's great dictator. I would see the cabinet in serried ranks bending in shameful humility before that taskmaster, and beside the causeway would be strewn the corpses of company managers who had been destroyed. Of course the rollers on which the stone was being dragged forward would be the bruised and mutilated bodies of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. In the background would be a gutted and partially destroyed House of Commons and overhead supersonic planes, guided missiles and the bursting of shells from naval anti-aircraft guns.
This has been an interesting campaign, Mr. Speaker. This is the eleventh day on which the house has given its attention to the Defence Production Act, if you count the resolution stage. In March it was just a skirmish of the forces. We were outwitted,

shall I say. At that time we could have made a long drawn out engagement of the encounter but we were too trusting and we permitted the resolution to pass rather easily. We cannot be sure whether or not we were tricked until the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who was a party to the arrangement on that occasion, makes an explanation to us. It would be interesting to know his interpretation of the arrangement of March 14.
In June we reached the second reading stage, and then we had a battle on our hands. A surprise attack was launched on us on June 9 when the attention of the house was directed to the Ontario election. We survived that, and between that date and June 28 there were rumours of a compromise, a truce and a peace settlement. But on the 28th of June the minister delivered his ultimatum, and these are his words: "The government must insist that this legislation be passed". There were to be no more games, no more overtures, no more conciliatory speeches, but virtually a declaration that from the opposition side of the house would be required unconditional surrender.
The minister, having come back refreshed from his vacation and having read up on Davy Crockett, is prepared to meet all comers. In the parliamentary struggle he knows he can win eventually by the use of closure. He can control the guerrilla warfare in his rear by counter-measures. The Prime Minister appears to be a captive. I do not know whether he is resting and reading Prescott's "Conquest of Mexico and Peru" and wondering about the troubles of Montezuma. The only remaining obstacles are the upper house and the pressure of public opinion.
The minister knows that the Conservative party, faithful to its belief in the principle of the rule of law, will not resort to violence, and in any case he has supersonic planes and guided missiles. It is important, Mr. Speaker, to know the power of your enemy. Never underestimate your enemy. The minister has said he is working with the angels and he may be right. If I had any means of communicating with the angels I would tell them they would very soon be working for him.


An hon. Member:: And "Howe".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Where is he, anyway?


George Alexander Drew: He is not in the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is he out communicating with them now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The reason I say he may be right when he says he is working with the angels is that I have an outside point of view here, and this is my only quotation from

sources outside the house. I will not burden the house with anything other than these four lines, but this is an outside point of view which I thought might be of interest. There is reference to the minister's exploits during the course of the war, and this is what was written:
Howe was expected to build in a few months what, under the best of conditions, should take years. By his own miracle, Howe, who thought nothing of such things, made himself one of the nation's immortals.
The quotation is taken from Bruce Hutchison's book, "The Incredible Canadian". I am sorry he used the adjective "incredible" because he could have made use of it if he had wished to write a biography of this great man. At the time I read it two years ago I was touched with nausea. I feel a little faint right now and I would not mind having a glass of water. Bruce Hutchison, with his great power of description, has given in that sentence a picture of the Minister of Defence Production as he is seen by some people who do not know him as intimately as we do. I note from the dictionary that a miracle is a marvellous event due to some supernatural agency. Here we are worrying about the temporal powers that the minister wants us to give him when he has supernatural powers and is immortal. That means he is going to live forever. Warwick, the king maker, is going to be around for a long long time, and this is bad news for the aspirants to the Liberal throne.
He knows he is going to be here for a long long time. Here are his words as found at page 5382 of Hansard of June 28, and he is speaking, as he likes to do, of his experience and what he has done in the past:
It has been my job for 16 years-
That is the past tense.
-and it is still my job-
That is the present tense.
*-and will be my job

That is the future tense. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that he broods over this house sometimes silent and inscrutable like the sphinx of Egypt; no wonder that that elusive Mona Lisa smile sometimes flickers across his countenance. When you are immortal you can bide your time and be as patient and imperturbable as Buddha. The minister has told us that he is a collector of exaggerations, and he gave us a few examples. I am also a collector but my collection is composed of the minister's bombastic statements. As collectors I think we should compare notes and perhaps exchange a few. Here are samples
Defence Production Act I have noted from the minister's remarks. Example No. 1, Hansard of the 14th of March, page 1994:
I doubt if there is anyone in the world at present in charge of defence production who has had more experience than I have had-


An hon. Member:: Bravo!


Gordon Minto Churchill: Example No. 2, Hansard of the 7th of June, page 4512:
In conclusion I may say that I think I can claim to have more experience in defence purchasing than any other man now living.
Example No. 3, Hansard of the 28th of June, page 5378:
Standing here today I am very proud of the fact that in those 16 years I have never undertaken to produce any munitions of war which I have not been able to produce and produce within a reasonable period of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not think MacNamara's band could do any better.
I have wondered about this debate, Mr. Speaker, and I have wondered about the Minister of Defence Production. He has drawn our attention to one of the causes of insomnia which will be helpful to the medical profession. You get insomnia if you are worrying about $30 million. I would love to get that kind of insomnia. The cure for it is to get another $60 million. It is like taking the hair of the dog that bit you. The minister is causing me insomnia because I have been trying to understand his position.
I realize we have reached the stage here now where there is no sense in trying to appeal to him. What is the sense of trying to make conciliatory speeches at this stage? We did that in March and we did it all through June. Yesterday people coming fresh to the fray tried it again, and where are we? He has taken a position where he declares that the government is determined to push this bill through. He asks us to surrender unconditionally. When you are placed in that position what can you do except resist?
I would prefer, being a man of peace, to discuss these things quietly and reasonably, to debate and argue back and forth, to compromise and reach a conclusion. But we have tried that repeatedly. Everyone on this side who has spoken has tried that without result. Obviously you have to negotiate with the minister from strength, and we know enough about international affairs to realize what that means. We are prepared, I think it is evident, to negotiate from strength. Up to date we have shown that a united force is opposed to the Minister of Defence Production. We are prepared to endure all the agony of an Ottawa summer if need be. I think the minister, in his appreciation of

Defence Production Act the situation, failed to take account of that fact, and failed to take account of the real issue behind this.
Anyone who is viewing this scene might very well ask himself, what is it that has animated the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition? People who have paid close attention to this debate from March to the present date will see that it is not factious opposition. They know we are just human beings like everyone else. We like relaxation and holidays. We do not like to endure the pressure of this debate and to work through the heat of an Ottawa summer. Surely they see that this is not just a political dodge or a political gamble. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you could not get as many people to participate in a debate as have participated in this debate up to the present, under conditions like these and after a lengthy session, and to put up as spirited an opposition as this, unless there was something behind it.


Mr. Bourque:: Whom do you think you are kidding? You don't like publicity?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the hon. member wants publicity I suggest he rise and participate in this debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If he has anything worth saying, let him say it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was not aware of the reason so many of the members on the opposite side are unable to rise and participate in this debate until I read an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press not long ago which suggested that they were invertebrates.
What is the issue that divides us? The only thing I may remember in the course of this debate is the minister's statement on June 7, 1955, as recorded at page 4510 of Hansard. He said:
At the resolution stage the Leader of the Opposition implied that in asking for the continuation of the Defence Production Act the government is getting away from traditional methods of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary responsibility, and that there is a denial of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. I must admit that I am only a layman in this field-
That is the statement that is going to remain with me when all the rest of this may be forgotten. Yesterday the Prime Minister came into this house and to my shocked surprise he said this, as recorded at pages 5642 and 5643 of Hansard for July 4, 1955. It is unfortunate that Hansard cannot record the emphasis and expression. The words read coldly cannot convey the meaning that was conveyed to this house yesterday. These are the words the Prime Minister used:
On the amendment that was made after quite a large number of speeches had been heard on the terms of this bill and the threat it made to


democracy in this country, there really was nothing that I could add that would have been a contribution to that kind of a debate.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, I could reproduce the impression the Prime Minister conveyed to us when he spoke those words; when he mentioned the threat it made to democracy in this country and "that kind of debate", as if there were something ridiculous and silly about people speaking about a threat to democracy or something ridiculous and silly about our being engaged in a debate of this nature. If the expression and emphasis of the Prime Minister could have been recorded on Hansard it would never be forgotten.
I couple those two things together. The Minister of Defence Production, that great proponent of experience, is a layman with regard to parliamentary procedure and practice after 20 years in this house, and the Prime Minister thinks we have talked enough about the threat to democracy. That is the situation. There has been a gap in the experience of the minister. He does not realize, and I shall point it out to him now because I think I have two or three minutes in which to do it, that in his action in this house he is striking at our heritage and our birthright. He fails to realize that the threat that runs through this measure is a threat to the supremacy of parliament. He has not studied, as we have, the history of parliament.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: The voice of experience.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I can demonstrate it, and I shall when I return to this debate. He has not studied the history of parliament. We know the long struggle from the days of Simon de Montfort until now. We have never severed that connection, our roots have never been cut from that tradition. That is not so with regard to the minister, despite the benefit of the education he may have received. He could not possibly have studied and become conscious of the importance of the long history of parliament as we are conscious of it.
And that is the fundamental issue that confronts us. Until we can impress upon the Minister of Defence Production that he is striking at one of the things we hold dearer than anything else, he will not see the light of reason. We are doing everything in our power to convince him that our cause is the just cause in this instance, and that there can be no doubt about it. That is the proper function of those who are here in parliament. We believe that the basis of our parliamentary system is being affected by

the type of legislation which the Minister of Defence Production is trying to foist upon the House of Commons.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to say a few words in this debate, although perhaps there is very little that individual members of parliament can add at this time, since nearly all the arguments both pro and con have been trotted out already. Nevertheless it seems to me that a word or two from some private members of parliament on this side of the house might not be amiss. To many members, particularly in the official opposition, who have spoken twice in . the debate, it must be clear that a few of us would like to say just a few words. Accordingly I trust that hon. members will bear with me for a few moments while I make a few brief submissions on the issues, and add one or two personal observations.
I believe most of us are reasonably well informed as to the provisions of the Defence Production Act and all that is involved in being asked to support this bill. It seems quite clear that the official opposition are not really taking issue with the Defence Production Act as such. It has been in force now for a number of years, and we have all had ample opportunity to see how it has worked during those years. I believe I am being fair when I say that the chief issue before the house now is not the provisions of the Defence Production Act, but the extension of those provisions for an indefinite period of time.
Most members of the opposition have gone so far as to compliment-indeed they have not hesitated to compliment-the Minister of Defence Production upon the way he has administered his department over the years. Long ago in the debate the minister must have become tired of the repetition of compliments. I need hardly add that we on this side of the house are proud of him and the wonderful contribution he has made over the years to the public life of Canada. Without a doubt he is acknowledged on all sides of the house as one of the greatest ministers of the crown who has ever served the people of Canada.
May I address my remarks to the chief issue involved, that of the extension of the term of operation of the Defence Production Act. Many hon. members feel that international tension across the world has relaxed, and I would not take issue with that. As a result they feel that the Defence Production Act should not be extended at this time. I believe most of us will agree that the international tension has relaxed; but does this prove that we are not living in
Defence Production Act the most dangerous of times? It is a temporary easing of tension; and does that temporary easing of tension prove that we are not living in a time of emergency?
I believe we are living in very critical times, and I believe most hon. members would agree with that statement. I would say we are living in the face of a world emergency, and that our dear land of Canada is right in the middle of it. Who can tell how long the emergency will last? Who will dare say at this juncture that we should relax, so far as defence production activities are concerned? Will these conditions exist for two more years? Will they exist for three more years, or five? I am sure none of us knows. In the meantime we cannot afford to let the Defence Production Act lapse. No one is asking that; but we cannot afford to let defence production itself lapse, nor to allow the act to come within a year of lapsing. For that reason alone I support the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What has that to do with the principle?


James Elisha Brown: It has a lot to do
with it. I am giving my speech. You have had plenty of opportunities to give yours. Is the Soviet union cutting its defence production? I just wish to say this; that in a world half in chains and half free we cannot in this part of the world-and a dangerous part of it, at that-afford to relax nor to adopt those idealistic Liberal principles we would like to see exist in this country, in dealing with the present situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Fair-weather principles.


Mr. Brown (Braniford):: With East Germany behind the iron curtain, with all of eastern Europe under the heel of communism, with Poland broken and its cardinal under arrest without trial, and with Soviet Russia bordering us on the north, is there anyone in the house who will say that the powers contained in the Defence Production Act should be allowed to lapse at this time? In the face of the emergency that faces the free peoples of the world, an emergency that may continue for a number of years-we do not know how long-if for no other reason, I propose that I shall support the bill and vote against the amendment.
There is the further reason that if the Minister of Defence Production is to continue to bear the heavy responsibilities he has borne for many years, if he is to continue to have those responsibilities on his shoulders, he ought to have the power accompanying such responsibilities-power that, so far as I know, he has never abused. This will give
5706	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act him the tools with which to do his work. I think we are all agreed as to the necessity for the continuance of the Department of Defence Production, and we are all agreed that there should be some security of tenure for the senior officials in that department. That is what is behind this bill.
We have heard a good deal during the debate about the loss of sovereignty by parliament. However, that argument is not really germane to the issue at all because, as I have said, the official opposition appears to be willing to vote for the bill if a definite date of expiry is inserted. Pictures have been painted during this debate, mostly by members of the official opposition, that would lead persons outside Canada, behind the iron curtain, to believe that in this country we have no liberties at all, that parliament is only a cipher, and that the government in its search for more and more power resembles more the administrations that existed at the time of King Henry VIII or Queen Mary. In my view, Mr. Speaker, these arguments are fantastic, and the people of Canada know they are fantastic. Parliament was never more supreme than it is now, never more sovereign than it is at the present time. The government of this land is still responsible to parliament, and parliament is still responsible to the people whom each of us here represents.
A good deal has also been said during the debate about the rule of law; that this government is overriding the general rule of law. Of course nothing could be further from the truth or from the facts. This great land of ours is still under the rule of law.
I sometimes wonder whether the official opposition is so keen about the rule of law because even the Leader of the Opposition in his speech quoted a judgment of the privy council which upheld an act of this parliament. He seemed to feel that this decision of the privy council would indicate that if we in this house passed this bill the courts would probably uphold it as valid; but is that not the rule of law? That is what courts are for. There is my point, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately we still live under the rule of law. If this bill is invalid-and I do not think it is- our courts are here to declare it invalid.
Canada is a land with a constitution set up under the British North America Act, a country whose constitution is still the fundamental law of the land. Parliament is still supreme and the rule of law still exists, and every last person in this country knows it.
The Defence Production Act, as I see it-
I stand to be corrected-is to protect the public generally in a moment of crisis and at a time of emergency. The Canadian people want it and we on this side of the house want 

it, and we are going to vote for it and against the Conservative amendment.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened for a considerable length of time now to the debate on this bill. First of all I wish to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) at least on the style and spirit of his speech, but at the same time I submit that a great deal of what has been said in this debate- without in any way being critical of those who exercised their right as opposition members, since I am one of those who like to exercise that right-has been quite beside the point; because the real issue, as I see it, is not whether the government is taking away the rights of parliament.
So long as the house is called into session every year, so long as all the departments have to submit their estimates to hon. members, and so long as hon. members have the right to pass upon those estimates, there is no question about the supremacy of parliament. No department, this or any other, can function unless this house passes the appropriations necessary.
Therefore it seems to me the real question as to the need for a defence production department lies not in that department but in the Department of National Defence. So long as this house is of the opinion that we should be spending in the neighbourhood of $2 billion a year for national defence there will be no question about the necessity for a department operating under an act passed by this parliament, which should be responsible for providing the goods and services required by the Department of National Defence.
Hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party to my right have had quite a field day, and I have enjoyed listening to the speakers. Many of them have risen to great heights of oratory, and I compliment them on it, but sometimes in their eloquence they have run away with themselves. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre did that to a very marked degree this afternoon. At the beginning of my remarks I complimented him on his style of eloquence. I still do, but a careful reading of the content of what he said will give one more amusement than enlightenment, because he made a great deal of the fact that it was his party, the Progressive Conservative party, that was out to defend the rights, privileges and freedoms of this country, and it was the Liberal party that was out to destroy those freedoms and take away the rights of parliament, and so on.

I wish it were as clear-cut, as black and white as that. Then of course it would be a simple matter for the people of Canada to decide. If they wanted to preserve their freedoms, then of course they would have to favour the Progressive Conservative party. But as a former school teacher, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-and, incidentally, all the other historians in that party-should have taken the trouble to go back a little in Hansard and read some of the speeches made in this very chamber in 1935, and I have no doubt for many years before that. In that session of 1935 particularly one would have wondered, if one could hear those speeches made again without mentioning the names of those who made them, which side of the house they were coming from.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre went back a great many years in discussing the fight for freedom. I will say this, that if the late Lord Bennett were able to hear that speech this afternoon he would be surprised and astonished at the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I say that because those were the exact words he used in this house in replying to exactly the same type of criticism which came from the same side of the house, because at that time of course Mr. Bennett was prime minister and was sitting on the other side.
I shall place on the record the exact reference. On January 21, 1935, as reported at page 32 of Hansard, Mr. King, then leader of the opposition, was criticizing some of the powers that had been granted to the government of the day, and made reference to government by order in council and various other phrases very reminiscent of what we have been hearing from our colleagues to the right in the last couple of weeks. This is the particular passage I should like to place on the record. If it were not the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King speaking one could easily attribute it to the present Leader of the Opposition. These are the words:
On occasions in the past the Prime Minister has criticized me and hon. gentlemen on this side for having taken up a considerable amount of time In the house in discussing constitutional questions. May I say that we have done so because we have looked upon the constitution of our country as the safeguard of its liberties and as the home of its freedom. When I have seen steps dismantling the constitution, gradually destroying the home of the freedom and liberties of the people, I have opposed them just as strongly as I possibly could, and I shall continue to do so no matter by what name measures of the kind may be designated.
These are words that are easy to agree with if the circumstances were being correctly described at the time; but is that not exactly what the present Leader of the Opposition
Defence Production Act and his supporters have been saying to the present government? Here is the reply of the then prime minister, the late Lord Bennett. The very next day he replied by saying, as reported at page 79 of Hansard:
When I hear the right hon. gentleman talk of the derogation of the rights of parliament I am surprised. I do not know that I am so much surprised as astonished, for it seems impossible that anyone who has been in this house as long as my right hon. friend has been, who has seen bills introduced and given first, second and third readings and passed through both houses of parliament, that conferred upon given individuals the authority and power to exercise certain functions, if the occasion should demand, should know better than to say that this is a usurpation of the powers of parliament.
I should like to draw particular attention to one phrase in that reply, where Lord Bennett stated "the power to exercise certain functions" and powers "if the occasion should demand". Is that not exactly what is being criticized today? The Bennett administration had received certain powers from parliament which they stated were not required at that time but which might have to be used under certain circumstances. It was the then leader of the opposition, the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King, who was describing that type of legislation as the dismantling of the constitution and the destroying of the liberty and freedom of the Canadian people. With that quotation on the record, and many more such quotations on the record, it is quite easy to conclude that a great deal of this battle of words has been carried on in a sort of vacuum.
The people of Canada should realize that when the Conservative administration was in power in this country and took certain powers they felt were required to meet the emergency at that time-and it was not a war emergency, incidentally, but an economic one -the Liberals then in opposition said the liberty of the Canadian people was going down the drain, the constitution was being dismantled and this was the very end.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. With the Liberals in power, the Conservatives in opposition are saying the same thing. That kind of thing is very confusing to the Canadian public and may cause new alarm and anxiety. People may actually believe that something is being done here which is an attempt to set up a dictatorship or bring about a condition where parliament will no longer have any control over the actions of the government. That simply is not the case.
The case is simply this. If the official opposition does not believe it is necessary to have a Department of Defence Production, then of course they have every right and duty to continue to oppose this bill so long as it is possible for them to do so.

Defence Production Act


Mr. Rowe:: We never said that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Apparently the members deny that.


William Earl Rowe: That is just a straw man.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I did not say the members said that; I am making that a supposition. The members are now assuring me that is not the ground on which they are opposing the bill. That disposes of one uncertainty at least. Now we come to the next one. The members of the official opposition have expressed fear or anxiety that the powers contained in this bill may be abused in such a way as to take away the liberty and freedom of certain industries or individuals in this country. But is it not strange that after having debated this bill for so many days- I do not know how many speeches have been made, but it is 50 or 60 at least-not one instance has yet been given, to my knowledge, and if there has been one I should like to be reminded of it, to show us where the powers in this bill have been abused to the extent of taking away the individual freedom of anyone in this country.
It is quite possible to argue at any time that this parliament may pass legislation which may result in the abuse of power. That is something which can happen under any circumstances, but in a democratic country we proceed on faith. We proceed on the assumption first of all that the members of this house are going to be reasonable individuals and not pass legislation which is undesirable.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Let me finish this sentence. Regardless of what party may be in power, the government will be made up of reasonable Canadian citizens who will not abuse the powers given them by this parliament but will use them for the public welfare. Now I shall answer the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the hon. member shaped his political thought on the principle that one should trust the government?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said at all. I should be glad to repeat what I did say.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Don't you believe in preventive medicine? Or would you wait until the disease breaks out?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Let me answer one question at a time. The hon. member for Eglinton asks whether what I am propounding now is based on the theory that we should trust the government. It is not a question of trusting the


government at all. It is a question of having faith in this parliament. The people of this country elect members to this house. I say they proceed on faith. They believe that we do the best we can for the country as a whole. The party with the majority forms the government. As long as they are the government and in charge of the administration, whether we trust them or not and whether we like them or not they are still the government. If the administration uses its position at any time, not necessarily under a bill of this kind but under any authority given to it to abuse that power or to seek any special advantage for any group or individual, or does anything which in the opinion of the members of this house is not correct, then it is the duty of the members of this house, whether they sit in opposition or on the other side of the house, to protest.
That is exactly why I said a while ago that I was amazed that if the official opposition really felt that these powers contained in this bill-and I am admitting that they are very considerable powers-are as dangerous as they claim, they should have been unable to provide us with a few specific examples of where those powers have been misused or abused to the extent of causing harm to any individual or industry in this country.
On the other hand, even the members of the official opposition should be quite ready to admit that the people most closely concerned with this bill other than the government itself, that is those who take defence contracts under this act, are the ones who have not-and I emphasize this-have not raised any complaint. Nor have they expressed any fear; or if they have, it has certainly not been quoted in this house.
Under those circumstances it is stretching the situation considerably to try to frighten the Canadian public into thinking that here is something aimed at taking away the freedom of the Canadian people, because it provides the machinery or tools which will supply the Department of Defence Production with the things required for the national defence of Canada.
While we have a duty as members of the opposition to criticize-I certainly have not been backward at any time I found it necessary to criticize, and I shall not be in the future-it seems to me we have a responsibility as well. We have a responsibility not to use that position to provide purely political opposition to something because we happen to be in the opposition. We have to realize that we are going to have a defence production department, and if that department is going to do the job it is set up to do then we will have to let the administration proceed with

this bill. Then the first time we can get hold of an instance where they have abused that power or used it against the public interest, that is the time for the members of the opposition to get on their feet and raise a protest. I shall be one of those, if I am still here, to join with them. But it seems to me that a great deal of what has been said has been based purely on the idea of opposing this measure for the sake of opposing it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Locking the stable after the horse is stolen.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not 100 per cent satisfied with what the government has done with this legislation up until now. I have no doubt things are going to be done in the future with which I shall be dissatisfied. I have made my complaints in the past, and I suppose I will do so in the future. I am concerned about some of the expenditures which have been made wherein public moneys have been used to build up industries for the purpose of national defence production, and then those industries have been turned over to private hands. When public moneys are invested in the production of things that are required for national defence I feel that the public interest should be safeguarded and that our investment should be safeguarded.
On the question of whether the powers are too great or too little, speaking for myself I think the intervention of the Prime Minister yesterday was quite reasonable, when he stated that any member of this house could at any time move an amendment to the act and the government would provide facilities for reviewing the entire act at any time in the future. I think that is a safeguard that should have been accepted. Surely if the members of the opposition found, let us say a year from now or two years from now, under the measure that is now before us or under the powers that are being granted to the government under this act, something which should be criticized or which should be protested, that would be the proper time and the proper opportunity to do it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Locking the stable after the horse is stolen.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Those are my views on the bill itself. While I am on my feet I also want to refer to something else, namely why I said a while ago that the opposition to this bill by the official opposition has been at times based on a narrow political viewpoint. I said that for this reason. Instead of addressing themselves to the bill itself and to the provisions in that bill, they have spent a considerable amount of time in attempting to create the impression that this was a sort of conspiracy between the government and 50433-360
Defence Production Act the C.C.F. and that this was, to use their own words, a form of socialism.
The hon. member for Eglinton and others here to my right have repeatedly stated that the socialists are supporting this measure because it would provide the machinery by which they could take over all the industries in Canada and even-and this is the word they used-confiscate those industries. To my mind that is not only unfair, Mr. Speaker, but it is rather unworthy of hon. members who attempt to create the impression that there is a great principle involved in which the freedom of the people of Canada is at stake, and here is this great principle they want to advocate. Instead of doing that, they attack the C.C.F. and attack the government by saying that this is a form of socialism and that this legislation is going to be used for the confiscation of industry.
Let me state quite clearly that the confiscation of industry was never at any time advocated by the C.C.F., to begin with; and as to this kind of bill being socialism, of course that claim is nonsense. If there is elected to this parliament a majority of members who have received from the people of Canada a mandate to implement the principles and policies which the C.C.F. advocate, then that parliament will have a perfect right to proceed in a democratic, orderly fashion to carry out those principles and those policies. It is complete nonsense to say that a C.C.F. government in the future would rely upon a bill passed by a Liberal administration or a Liberal majority or, for that matter a Conservative majority of this house, to bring about those policies and principles. That kind of argument is not only fallacious but it is-


An hon. Member:: Pure rot.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is worse than that. It is also a cheap argument, because it takes away from the real argument that the official opposition were making; and they had some argument there. But when they began to try to frighten people by saying, "Here is a conspiracy; by passing this bill which has to do with defence production what you are really doing is providing a method for some other party to come in and do things which this parliament does not approve of", that is complete nonsense. Every parliament is in complete charge of all the legislation that is passed. If at any time the people of Canada elected a C.C.F. government or a majority of members of this house for the purpose of implementing the principles and the policies advocated by the C.C.F., it would not be necessary nor would it be desirable to rely upon legislation passed by other

Defence Production Act parties to bring about something which was not intended. I think that kind of argument was used to great excess.
I was rather amazed that even the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) succumbed to the temptation to take a swipe at the C.C.F. party. I say that advisedly, because I have a little bit to quote from him in another connection. It has to do with this particular argument. We have been told in recent days by the Leader of the Opposition and several of his supporters that the world situation or the international situation has now eased to the extent that they are doubtful whether such legislation as that which is before us is any further required.


An hon. Member:: We never said that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Again they deny they said that. But they did say that the international situation was such that they did not consider we were at this time in an emergency. I think they will accept that as being a correct interpretation of what they did say.


An hon. Member:: Not even that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is a little surprising to hear that type of argument coming from our Progressive Conservative friends, because when they, for the purpose of opposing this particular legislation, try to argue that the international situation has eased-and the only implication you can take from that is that the danger of war has lessened-at the same time we find that the leader of the official opposition thinks the international situation is still so bad that we should not even sell wheat or butter to countries beyond the iron curtain. We just cannot have it both ways. Either the situation has eased or it has not.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the stream of inaccuracies from the hon. member who is speaking, I would point out that what I have made very clear was that we were objecting to the arrangements under which it was contemplated that wheat would be sent to Poland at the probable expense to the Canadian taxpayers to the tune of $16 million-that was what was before the house -just as the problem in connection with butter being sent to Czechoslovakia was that we are providing them with butter at our expense. That was the point, not the matter of dealing behind the iron curtain.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And for less than Canadian taxpayers can get it.


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition explain what he meant.
fMr. Zaplitny.]


Donald Methuen Fleming: He was not explaining what he meant. That is what he said.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I think he will accept this statement. If the same kind of deal had been proposed with any country not behind the iron curtain, he would not have raised the objection. I think that is fair.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then we would have had a chance to collect on it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As I say, it is based on the assumption that the cold war still exists. If that is the case, then certainly it weakens the argument that the international situation is such that we can ease up on our national defence to some extent.
Along the same line, while members of the official opposition have been having considerable fun at our expense and have been taking swipes and sneering at the C.C.F., certainly we have not gone so far at any time as to show a preference for a communist member in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris happens, I believe, to be the only member of the house who has done so. When making a speech in a by-election campaign last November he stated he would rather see a communist sent to the house than another Liberal. If we had wanted to make something of that, if we had wanted to use the same approach that there is a conspiracy going on somewhere, we could have proceeded to argue that there is a conspiracy between the Progressive Conservative party and the communists in this country, but we did not do any such thing. We will have to assume that in the heat of the election campaign the hon. member's eloquence exceeded his good judgment and he said something that he has probably regretted ever since.
That is the reason I say that if the Conservative members want to oppose the bill they would do well to do so on its merits or otherwise, rather than drag in a red herring by trying to leave the impression there is some sort of conspiracy between the members of this party and the Liberal party to put something over on the Canadian people. That is simply not the case, and an argument of that kind simply weakens whatever little arguments they may have in their favour.
I believe the people of Canada are interested in proper provision for national defence. If they were not they would not be willing to be taxed to the extent of $2 billion a year in order that Canada may be prepared for any eventuality. I also think the people of Canada are anxious to see that the $2 billion or whatever the amount may be in the future -it may be more or less-is spent as efficiently and as much in the public interest as

possible. Apparently no one in the house denies that the establishment of a defence production department is a good method by which these defence contracts and orders can be placed to provide the things the Department of National Defence requires. That is a broad field of agreement so far as all the people of Canada are concerned.
As to the question whether the powers provided under the bill are excessive, that is a matter which can be reviewed not once in three years or five years but every year when the estimates of the department are before the house. In addition, we have the assurance from the Prime Minister that on the motion of any member of the house the whole act can be examined. With all these things before us I believe the people of Canada would feel that more was being accomplished if the house would come to a decision on this question.
If members of the opposition find a year from now, after a year's experience, or in following years, that any of their claims as to dangers about which they have been talking have been realized, they will then be in a much stronger position to get up in the house and criticize the legislation on the specific points with respect to which it has fallen down. As they are not willing to do so now, I am afraid their whole filibuster has been based on purely narrow, partisan considerations, and will have to be so regarded by the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Loud applause from the Liberal benches for a socialist speech.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke on this bill I hoped that I would not have to do so again.


An hon. Member:: So did we.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I think that applies to several others as well. I have listened to many of the speakers in this debate, and in my opinion on the whole it has been maintained on a pretty high level. Our pleas to the government with respect to the measure now before the house are reasonable and fair, but because they are having no effect we must all get into the debate again.
That is just about the way a person feels about this type of debate. When the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), who has just taken his seat, seeks to imply that we are carrying on this debate for the sake of debate or for the sake of a narrow political idea, he is drawing a red herring across the track and no one else is doing it.
50433-360i
Defence Production Act
I had thought that at least by this time our remarks would have had some effect on the government and they would have seen fit to moderate the bill and not try to push it through by the weight of numbers. 1 am sure that if hon. members on the other side of the house would give the matter fair consideration, many of them would not consider that the principle of law here is good. I have looked over the minister's speech of last Tuesday, thinking I might find the reason for pushing through the bill. That is what I have been asking myself. Why is it being pushed through?
I wish to refer to a statement the minister made, and whether he made it consciously or unconsciously I do not know. I am not going to impute bad motives to him, but 1 am going to try to put the matter in its proper perspective. At the beginning of his speech last Tuesday the minister said, as found at page 5376 of Hansard:
-I feel that I am living in another world, or at least that the opposition in this house Is debating in another world.
That indicates a state of mind. What is the state of mind? Analyse it. It seems to me and to others that it reveals a state of mind which is thinking about power, especially when the matter is considered in relation to this legislation. It is a state of mind where prestige dominates, where orders are not questioned, where arguments are not tolerated, where no one can reason why. You do as you are told or you get out. That is not unnatural if it is one of the reasons. There have been other human beings who have got into the same state of mind. I say that behind the drafting of the act, the refusal to accept our suggestions and the refusal to listen to our pleas there is a state of mind. If the government feel they cannot get on without this legislation, I say it is because of the state of mind into which the government has got.
If the minister wishes to call it another world he may do so, because it seems to me it is a different world from that in which the ordinary workingman lives. Most of us have to keep our feet on the earth. I am sure that the conception that is held by the minister, the Prime Minister and the government is far different from the conception the opposition has of this legislation.
When the minister introduced this legislation some four years ago-I am not going to quote his exact words, but I would refer him to page 836 of Hansard for March 2, 1951- he said that some of these powers should not be continued. There are some other things he said at page 839 of Hansard of the same
5712	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act date to which I should like to refer, because I think it is important to get them into proper perspective. In introducing this bill at that time the minister said:
In introducing this bill at this time, the government is carrying out plans for war mobilization that it has been developing over the past few years. The experience in the last war showed the wisdom of building a separate department for defence production.
I am not going to quote further because there is no argument about that. If the hon. member for Dauphin, who spent several minutes trying to say he could not see why we objected to this department, has so misunderstood our arguments that we are not getting our idea over, I shall have to repeat them. There has been no objection to the setting up of the department with such powers as are necessary to enable its personnel to carry on the same as any other department. There is no necessity, and I think it is proven by these words uttered by the minister, for this bill to enable the department to be set up. Farther down on the same page the minister said:
This need for speed dictates the need for special powers-
It was not the necessity for establishing a defence production department that called for these special powers. The necessity is explained in the minister's own words. He said:
. . . the need for special powers both to requisition supplies and to direct production, as well as special authority to renegotiate contracts. The government makes no apology for asking for these extensive powers at this time,-
That was in March of 1951, when there was a war and we had forces in the front lines. We have had no such reasons given at this time. This country is not in such a state of emergency. The powers that were in the act at that time were emergency powers, and I claim that in peacetime-I impress that point upon the house, this is peacetime-such powers are not needed permanently.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), who spoke a few moments ago, mentioned that in this country we were living by the rule of law. I agree with him that that is what we hope to do. I should like to give a short quotation to prove that we should protect the rule of law. It is found in the report of a special committee of the Senate which sat in 1950 and heard a lot of evidence and submissions on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Here is one paragraph from that report, which is signed by Senator A. W. Roebuck:
Canadians have individually decided that Canada shall be a land of the free. That here men shall live in the rule of law, in security of person, and that none shall oppress. Equality of right is basic


in Canadian thought and must be assured in Canadian law, so that men may live confidently in selfrespect associating freely and expressing their thoughts without fear.
That gives an idea of what parliament stands for; the rule of law does enter into it. Powers such as are contained in the Defence Production Act, if they are put on the statute books in perpetuity, do interfere with the rule of law. I have just as much right to my opinion as anyone, and I am satisfied that no court would decide otherwise. No government or department of government should have the perpetual right to the use of these powers, and that is the crux of our argument. We are not saying you should not have a department or you should not have these powers for three or four years. What we are arguing for, and we cannot seem to get it across to the government, is to have the people of this country treated the same as the British government treats the people in England.
That means that when circumstances do arise such as those which arose in this country in 1951 and the country needs special powers for the maintenance of order and the protection of its territory, those powers are given temporarily. We have no objection to a government having them, but there should be conditions attached. Parliament always has, Mr. Speaker-and I have not heard a case to the contrary-given these powers to the executive subject to certain conditions that necessitate the government making a declaration of emergency when the country is in imminent danger.
I think that is very necessary. When a declaration of emergency is made it sets before the people the facts of the situation. It alerts the people to the necessity for assisting the government to meet whatever emergency we are facing. I think that is a good thing, because it has been the history of this country that our people respond to the call of the government if there is an emergency which has been properly proclaimed.
I do not think there is any question but that industry, too, has responded. I believe the minister has stated-he will correct me if I am wrong-that he has never had to use these powers to get the work done. I am sure it would be more democratic, and a more effective way of getting co-operation from people, if a declaration were to be made if such powers were required. Three times within the memory of those of us in the House of Commons this has happened. An emergency was declared at the time of the first great war. It was also declared at the time of the second war, and also at the time of the Korean campaign.

It seems to me that to pass this measure in peacetime would be like placing a shotgun in the hands of the executive. Under this measure the minister, or anyone he wishes to delegate, can go to an industry and, with this power behind him, can compel that industry to do anything he wishes, on the threat of being closed up. I say that is interfering with a fundamental liberty. It is interfering with our right to hold and use property. Surely that is not a good principle in any measure.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "I have a right to nothing which anyone else has the right to take away from me." If this measure passes it places in the hands of the government the right to take away liberties and rights from industry. As has been pointed out, a man may be put in jail if he does not comply. Surely if this provision were to be placed permanently on the statute books it would have a discouraging effect. Keeping in mind what Thomas Jefferson said, it is clear that in this instance the government has the right to take action as set out in the act either in time of peace or in time of war.
Our liberties should be guarded jealously by parliament. We believe it is the duty of parliament to protect the great ideals of liberty and equality, and to see that at a time like this they are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments and the scorn of those who have no patience with general principles for the protection of our fundamental freedoms and liberties.
It seems to me that our amendment asks for something that is fair and reasonable. If this were sent to a committee I should think some compromise could be worked out. If that cannot be done then the measure should be withdrawn. No one would be hurt or injured if this bill were presented early in the next session of parliament and a committee set up to define these extraordinary powers. I believe we are all agreed that the powers are extraordinary. The Prime Minister has said so; the minister has said so; members of all parties have said so. The difference of opinion seems to be that the government has dug in its heels and said, "We want it all."
We in the official opposition are considered to be the watchdogs of legislation. I can assure hon. members it is not fun to be here, but the fact remains that we have been elected to parliament to do what we believe in our opinion should be done. I would ask hon. members supporting the government this question. What would you do if you
Defence Production Act were in opposition? How would you look at the question if you viewed it from this side of the house? I am sure I can see many members in the house who would view the question from a different standpoint. One's point of view seems to be influenced by which looking-glass he looks in. I have never had the opportunity, and perhaps never will, of sitting behind a government. But it seems to me that surely there must be times when things can be viewed in two different lights.
Some of the reasons we should be protecting these fundamental rights were stated by Mr. Himel before the Senate committee which sat in 1950. Speaking about powers delegated to the executive he said:
We have all witnessed in this modern world that governments cannot always be relied upon to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the person. Our history books are replete with examples which point to the moral that it is not prudent to give government almost absolute legal power over our rights and freedoms.
Along that same line I would direct the attention of hon. members to a short passage in the judgment of Mr. Justice Angers of the exchequer court where he said, in connection with the case of Bellevue v. Minister of National Revenue as reported in Exchequer Court Reports, 1948, at page 320:
There are in my judgment too many encroachments by ministers, deputy ministers and functionaries in the judicial as well as the legislative field. And if they are not curtailed the country may, in the not too remote future, be ruled by a dictatorial government.
That does not refer necessarily to the present minister or government though it may refer to them. One's conscience should be his guide. The point is that we are talking of history, the rule of law, and the right of parliament to maintain control over the executive. I was surprised to see the hon. member for Dauphin so easily taken in. I think he must know that a debate can take place on the estimates but that you cannot change the law in that way. The law will remain there, because it is written in the statute books. One may find fault with it, one may criticize it, but that does not change it. That is the point.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is it not a fact that an hon. member can move the repeal of the bill which is now before us?


Gage Workman Montgomery: Not on the estimates.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I did not say on the estimates. I said during a session of parliament.


Gage Workman Montgomery: If I understood the hon. member correctly he said we had the right to review this legislation every year when

Defence Production Act we reviewed the estimates. The Prime Minister came in yesterday and held out to us the promise that in three years' time, I think it was, if a private member wanted to introduce a bill the government would facilitate its debate in the house, but there was no assurance that it would be withdrawn. On whom would the burden be? In that case, Mr. Speaker, the burden would be on the private member. Is any private member of the opposition in a position to point out that a law has been abused, unless it has been openly abused?
I do not think I need hesitate to say that. One need not be a very smart lawyer to say that this law is very devious. It can be used in a hundred different ways, and it can be used to abuse. I am not saying that it will ever be or that it has been used to abuse; but I am saying, Mr. Speaker, it would be a very difficult job for anybody in the opposition to prove it unless he could get industry to come and give evidence, and who is going to come and give evidence when he is getting business from the government?
To my mind that really clinches the argument that we do not need this act. The minister is having no trouble in getting contracts; he is having no trouble in getting the materials he wants to carry on the defence program. We have not been told that he needs this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? To get it clear in my mind, is the hon. member opposed to this act being continued without a time limit, or is he opposed to the act itself?


Gage Workman Montgomery: No, I am not opposed to the act itself. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I will buy it on a short-term basis because then it has to come before parliament to be renewed; but I want that written into the act. I want an act like the English act that was referred to last night by the hon. member for Kamloops. Make it for two years or three years, and then it has to come before us and if the minister can justify renewing it. that is satisfactory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask another question? Do I understand the hon. member's attitude is that provided a time limit were put in the act he has no objection to parliament giving these powers to the minister?


Gage Workman Montgomery: I will stop my argument at once. Does that make it clear?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what some of your colleagues are saying.


John Horace Dickey: That is not what he has been saying up to now.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I understand that I can back up that statement. No government, no minister by himself, and no person appointed by the minister should have the backing of a law that can force people or industry to meet their peacetime demands regardless of what those demands are. In other words, we as members of parliament should have the privilege at the end of two years, three years, or whatever the period may be, of reviewing this act. The minister should have to say to us, "Here is an industry, here is an industry and here is an industry that are holding up my defence program. I find I cannot get the co-operation of industry. I must have these powers renewed because our defence program is not proceeding as it should." I do not think this parliament has ever refused that type of power for a limited time to any government that has ever asked for it. All the arguments are against granting these powers permanently. The perpetuity argument is against it.
The minister has pointed out that we are living in very dangerous times. We have deadly weapons, and we all realize the destructive power of those weapons. Knowing all that, and having to face all that, I still say these things do not create an emergency. They may be full of violent power, but as long as that power remains dormant there is no emergency.
I should like to bring this to the attention of hon. members so we might try to analyse the situation and decide whether we are in an emergency or in a different state of affairs which we have to get used to. It is my contention that we are not in a state of emergency. With all this knowledge of the new weapons and their power of destruction, I still say it simply means that we are living in a world which has a new status. It is not an emergency; it is a new status that is going to be with us for the next 25 or maybe 50 years; we do not know. The world is changing. I doubt whether we shall ever get back to the old status.
It is not an emergency, Mr. Speaker; it is a state of affairs in which we must live. It is going to continue to exist, and we are going to continue to live in it. In my opinion our opportunities for peace are just as good as our opportunities for hostilities. I am not one who believes that the possibilities of hostilities are greater than the possibilities of peace. However long this status stays with us, it is only a status; it is not an emergency.
Mr. Speaker, is this private members' hour?


Mr. Speaker:: Since it is five o'clock, does the hon. member wish to continue his speech?


Gage Workman Montgomery: Yes, I would like to.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead; it is very interesting.


Some hon. Members:: It is five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand some hon. members wish me to call it five o'clock. Unless there is unanimous consent the hon. member cannot continue at this time. The house will now deal with public and private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (for Mr. Hunter) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 480, for the relief of Claude Ferron.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some comments on this bill. When we had this bill before us in committee I drew the attention of hon. members to the fact that it was a rather unusual case. The petitioner introduced evidence to the effect that his wife had been suffering from drug addiction. Though the respondent indicated that she was cured, Their Honours the senators apparently were not specially interested in these details in connection with the case. Consequently it was not established whether or not the respondent had been completely cured.
In view of the fact that there are some distinguished medical practitioners in the Senate chamber, I am sorry that some of them did not sit on this case. I have a great deal of confidence in the judgment of Senators Roebuck, Barbour and Golding, who heard the case, but none of them approached the evidence from the point of view of a medical doctor. Whilst Their Honours the senators recommended that the divorce be granted on the grounds of the evidence submitted before the committee, hon. members of this chamber are under no obligation to recommend that the divorce be granted on the grounds of the evidence submitted in the other chamber.
The petitioner, very early in his evidence, gave some evidence that certainly was contradictory. I submit that hon. members should read his evidence carefully. He was questioned as follows:
Is it correct that when . . . your wife's father actually arrived at your domicile, you were at that very time injecting your wife?
The answer was:
I was not.
In the previous paragraph he was being questioned and said:
I gave her somnifeni, which was injected intravenously; that is like phenobarbital. I gave her an injection, and when her father came to my room I was giving it intravenously. As I say, that is not a narcotic; that is a drug people can have without a prescription.
Private Bills-Divorce So I submit that the evidence given by the petitioner, who is a medical doctor, should be examined with a good deal of care, and we should note the fact that this medical doctor contradicted his own evidence on the same page, namely on page 17 of the evidence.
The second point I wish to develop is that the divorce was granted on the evidence given by two young girls who apparently lived in the Ferron home some four years ago. The elder of the girls was 21 when she appeared before the other place, which would make her 17 at the time this incident is alleged to have occurred. The other girl was even younger. Eileen was only 18 when she appeared in the other place, which would make her 14 when this alleged incident occurred. May I ask hon. members to listen to the evidence given by these two girls. The first one was asked:
What time did your brother arrive at the Ferron home?
The answer was:
He arrived early Saturday morning.
The other girl was asked:
Q. Do you recall or remember at what time he arrived at the Ferron's home that particular date? A. No, I didn't. It was in the afternoon.
Q. He arrived in the afternoon?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember in what state he was?
This is a second series of questions which I should like to draw to the attention of the chamber. One of the young girls swore that this young man arrived in the morning; the other said it was in the afternoon. The young man's sister was asked:
Is it not true that he was intoxicated when he came there?
The answer was:
No, he was not.
The other girl, who would be 14 at the time, was asked:
Do you remember in what state he was?
The answer was:
Yes, he was intoxicated.
Then she was asked later on:
Q. He was drunk?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he drunk enough to prevent him from walking steadily?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he drunk enough to have difficulty to master his language?
A. Well, yes.
Q. Do you remember at what time he left the house that day?
A. No, I don't.
I submit that hon. members should pay attention to the fact that these young girls gave conflicting evidence as to the time the brother of one was alleged to have reached the home some four years ago. In the second

Private Bills-Divorce place, one gave evidence that her brother was sober and the other gave evidence that he was drunk. I submit that with this conflicting evidence we should not pay a good deal of attention to what the girls have been saying.
Then there was some further questioning in connection with the first witness. She was asked if she had been treated by the doctor, and she replied that she had been. Their Honours the senators were a little impatient with this type of questioning, and they did not seem to know the reason for all the questioning as to whether the girl had been a patient of the doctor. Counsel for the respondent said:
Well, I will have to give testimony myself, I will have to say what I know, right away. She had a child.
The girl was asked if she had a child, and she replied very definitely. Here is the question:
Q. Would you mind saying what kind of treatment you were given by Dr. Ferron?
A. I am still being treated for my nerves.
Q. You had a child, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you not testify in court that you had a child?
A. I never said any such thing.
Then her own lawyer said a little later:
Before the witness leaves the stand, I should like to make a statement. The doctor is here. It is possible the question asked . . . took her by surprise, and she is bashful about it. But the doctor treated her for a child that she had, so I think there must be some misunderstanding.


William Alfred Robinson: Go ahead and clear it up.
The lawyer then said:
I understand that she denied about the child. I put my question to her, and she has not answered it.


William Alfred Robinson: She did not answer it because I stopped her. Go ahead and clear the matter up.
Q. You have to state the truth even if it affects your own feelings.
A. All right, yes, I had a child, but it had nothing to do with Dr. Ferron, if that is what they are getting at.
Q. How long since did that happen?
A. Three years last January.
Q. Was that prior to your going to the Ferrons?
A. That I had the child?
Q. Yes.
A. I had the child after I left the Ferrons.
Q. That is shortly after you left?
A. Yes; I left in December and I had the child in January.
Then on the final page of the evidence the petitioner was asked:
Q. Never mind your discussion with your lawyer. Why did you tell your lawyer that these girls might be of some interest?
A. I brought those girls to testify that my wife was always drunk, and they were always seeing her drunk; it was a charge of drunkenness.
fMr. Nicholson.]
He was asked:
Q. You mean that you gave your lawyer the names of these two witnesses to subpoena and they told your lawyer more than you knew, is that it?
A. Yes, I did not know then. I knew there was something and I asked if my lawyer could make them talk; if they had to appear in court, they would say what they had to say.
In summarizing, this, I submit, in view of the fact that the petitioner and the respondent are members of the Roman Catholic church and on religious grounds are opposed to the granting of divorce, and in view of the fact that the respondent has petitioned to protect her good name, the members of this chamber should have a second look at this.
In the second place this woman was, and might still be, a drug addict. As I said, this was not cleared up to the satisfaction of everyone at the hearing. If the husband was asking for a divorce on the ground that his wife was a drug addict, then he might have had a case which the hon. senators would have accepted on those grounds.
As to these young girls, who at the time would be 14 and 17 respectively, both living in the home, one admitted having received money from time to time from the doctor. I think it was unfortunate that their evidence was injected. These young girls were not very mature to be giving evidence in a case like this.
In the fifth place there appears to be conflicting evidence at several places during the hearing. I think the case should be reviewed carefully. The payment of money by the doctor to one of the witnesses I think is a factor that should be considered.
A year ago, when a similar case was before us, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), moved that the bill be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee on miscellaneous private bills. I want to express my appreciation of the fact that in this chamber there are so many members who are reasonable and honourable. I should like to thank particularly hon. members opposite who voted with us on that particular occasion. I should like to thank the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Kirk), the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Lafontaine), the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiskaming (Mr. Proud-foot) and all the members of the opposition who voted with us in asking that the bill be not now read the third time but be referred back to the committee.
Then when that particular bill was heard by the committee hon. members like the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) and

the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Houck), after hearing the evidence, did not feel obliged to vote as the majority of their party were voting. So at this stage, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by my roommate the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson):
That Bill No. 480 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this motion is in exactly the same words as the motion which was accepted by Your Honour a year ago and which is to be found at page 5347 of Hansard of last year.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I think this motion points up once again the serious responsibility placed upon us here in connection with the numerous bills of this nature which come before us. As a member of the legal profession I find it rather upsetting to have piles of these papers arrive on my desk almost daily and, having regard to the manifold duties confronting a member of the house, to find it almost impossible to give them the attention they should be afforded in order that a reasoned opinion may be given on the efficacy of the work that is being done. I do not think that anyone would want to detract in any way from the work of the Senate committee. It is a big job as well as one that is probably considered in the category of the thankless jobs of work which must be done here.
I have listened to the observations of the hon. member who just spoke, and it appears to me that there is considerable substance in what he said in connection with the evidence adduced in this case. I find it most difficult to reconcile the usual type of evidence that is adduced in a court of law in a proceeding of this type with the evidence which has been accepted here and which forms the basis of the bill now before us. I would think that great reluctance might have been displayed in accepting the evidence of the two young ladies referred to by the hon. member, if for no other reason than that they were at the time, I would think, in the age classification of from 13 to 15 or 16 years. That is an age when I would think in our courts considerable stress is laid on questioning to find out whether the people who have observed what has taken place actually appreciate the total circumstances surrounding the matter at issue.
In addition, here as well-as the hon. member has mentioned-there is a very unsavoury or unhappy situation having to do with narcotics and alcohol. I have noted the remarks he has made in connection with the injections 50433-361
Private Bills-Divorce which are indicated in the evidence as having been necessary to quiet the nerves of the defendant. Whether in fact there was anything behind the necessity-that is, anything that might have been contributed to by the complainant or the aggrieved party-is something which it is difficult for us in this house, looking at the evidence, to determine.
Under the circumstances I therefore think the motion of the hon. member is reasonable. It does not necessarily mean, 1 would assume, that this particular action is disposed of unfavourably for all time, but it does mean that a closer scrutiny will be given to this evidence so that all of us might be more satisfied that justice was being done in this particular instance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Hahn:: I was paired with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.



PRIVILEGE


William Gilbert Weir: the third reading of Bill No. 492, for the relief of Georges-Etienne Cartier.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: think, Mr. Speaker, that today will go down as a red letter day for the women of the province of Quebec. I believe that after today they will have a little more confidence in the humanity of the members of the House of Commons. I wish to assure the house that the case which has just been concluded is not very much different from this case, in that neither Mrs. Ferron nor Mrs. Cartier



MR. DREW    STATEMENT OF MINISTER ON SALE OF WHEAT TO POLAND

George Alexander Drew: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This morning before the orders of the day, at a time when a motion was before the house to discuss a certain matter, the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave as the reason for not proceeding at that time with the debate on the sale of wheat to Poland that negotiations would not be completed before his estimates came up for consideration. A dispatch has just come over the Canadian Press wires, the first paragraph of which is as follows:
Completion of negotiations for the sale of 9 million bushels of wheat to communist Poland was announced today by Charles Swartz, president, Northern Sales Limited, Winnipeg grain dealers.
appealed to the miscellaneous private bills committee of this house. I do not know why Mrs. Cartier did not appeal to the private bills committee. One reason may well have been that Mrs. Cartier did not even know of the existence of this committee, and did not even know that this bill had to be considered by and passed by that committee.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it may also be that Mrs. Cartier, like some other women, had already gone to some finance company in order to obtain funds with which to defend herself before the other house, and even though she knew she had the right to appear before our committee she was in no financial position so to do. I mentioned that the other day, and I think the very least that should be done is to make a new arrangement to enable those people who feel
It then goes on to explain the details of the transaction. I believe that members who
an injury may be done to them to present their case.
were called upon to rely upon the statement given this morning are entitled to an explanation of what has happened.
However, my main reason for rising on the third reading of this Cartier divorce bill is to move an amendment similar to the one we


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the only comment that was made this morning was that the situation would be unchanged when the estimates were up for consideration. 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.
have just adopted. I hope that in this case a standing vote will not be necessary. I hope there will not be any nays. I have that feeling because in this case the investigators were in the employ of the Reliable Detective Agency, and after having sat through the miscellaneous private bills committee and listened to two of these investigators, I believe it is time this house took this case


Donald Methuen Fleming: This house was misled this morning.


William Earl Rowe: It is a good job we have a press to tell parliament what goes on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I submit to hon. members that this hour has been reserved for private bills, and that is the order of business which is under consideration at the moment.

under advisement and called before us and subjected to very severe questioning these detectives who have been found guilty of fabricating evidence.
I realize that there are several other divorce bills before us, and I do not wish to unnecessarily delay the proceedings of this house. I am going to say no more at this particular time on this particular bill.

I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson): That Bill No. 492 be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Amendment agreed to on division.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 500, for the relief of James Mc-Martin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 501, for the relief of Charles John Urban.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 502, for the relief of Joseph Adalbert Beaudoin, otherwise known as Georges Beaudoin.-Mr. Hunter.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 503, for the relief of Donald John McGillivray-Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Chairman, last Friday I attended my first meeting of the house committee on divorce. I should like to take a few moments to place before hon. members my impressions of the work done by that committee on that occasion in connection with the bill now before us.
It was quite a revelation to me to find that we have going on in this building a real sideshow. I can assure every hon. member that it left me absolutely cold. I am of the opinion that most of the evidence we heard in connection with this particular case was a complete fabrication, especially that given by the two investigators who had been hired by the petitioner.
So I am rising this afternoon not so much in defence of the two parties most concerned in the case as to bring to the attention of the House of Commons and the people of Canada the fact that we, their elected representatives, are spending our time and the taxpayers' money in trying to reach fair decisions by listening to long processions of sordid, detailed evidence, decisions which I do not believe we, as the elected representatives of the people, have any moral right to make.
I think it is a disgrace to have a situation where we have a committee of 50 members, elected by the people of this country and paid $10,000 a year each, and to find on one occasion more members in attendance in that 50433-36H
Private Bills-Divorce
divorce committee than there were in the House of Commons attending to the business of the country. I think that is a disgraceful situation.
They have to listen to the evidence. I am sure all of us who listened to that evidence were just as confused after we had heard it in its entirety as before we heard any of it.
I am not going to dwell upon the evidence because it was not taken down. I would not do so, anyway, because I am not prepared, as I said at the outset, to speak in defence of the two parties concerned.
However, I do wish to say that on that occasion we had two investigators on whose evidence by and large rested the outcome of the case-two investigators who could not agree under oath as between themselves whether it was eight o'clock or eleven o'clock in the evening when they walked up to the front door of the lady's house and asked her where a certain individual lived on that street. After they had broken down the door at 2.30 in the morning by the use of a log, the three of them getting hold of it and "one, two, three", breaking down the door-in spite of all this, and in spite of the fact that the whole house was in absolute darkness, one investigator was able to tell how the woman was dressed, the colour of everything she had on, and what she did not have on. Then one of these paid investigators said, "The woman walked out of the bedroom alone", while the other said she walked out of a different bedroom, pushing another man.
So here we had the evidence of the two key witnesses in the case. And who are these key witnesses? Who are these two supersnoops? They are the very same gentlemen to whom reference was made this afternoon in a case we have just disposed of. They are the very same gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, we heard about in this chamber last Friday. They are the same pair of peeping Toms whom we have heard about as being connected with an organization known as Reliable Detective Agency, the same gentlemen who have had unprecedented success in the 90 cases they have investigated over the last year. They are the same pair who last year in a court of justice were convicted of fabricating evidence with intent to mislead a court of justice in this country.
These were the two men, these were the two key witnesses, in a case heard before a select committee of this House of Commons. I was amazed. What amazed me most of all was the insulting and insolent manner displayed by one investigator, Pichette, who apparently, in view of his successes in this field, might very well use the slogan that

Private Bills-Divorce
he always gets his woman. This man, in a most insolent manner, stood up in the committee and challenged the attorney for the respondent, marvelling at the audacity of anyone who would question his credibility as a witness just because he had been convicted of fabricating evidence to mislead a court of justice.
These are the kind of people we are dealing with. Could not all of us in that committee hear the expression of hurt in his voice when he said that he had won his appeal? But, Mr. Chairman, he had won that appeal on the flimsy, legal technicality that a committee of the other place or a committee of the House of Commons is not a court of justice.
I say this is a ridiculous situation, and I am glad we are going to face up to it in the House of Commons. How can we deal with evidence submitted by people of this kind, people who have no sense of responsibility for what they say before a committee? I am not advocating divorce reform or anything of the kind, but I am advocating that these cases should be heard before a proper court, where investigators of the kind about which I have spoken will be made to accept some responsibility for what they say when they give evidence.
It is not my intention to say anything further at this time. I wish only to draw the attention of the committee to the absolutely ridiculous situation in which we as members of the House of Commons are placed every time we have to act on that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Apple whaite):: When shall Bill 503 be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.



JOSEPH DELPHIS GUILLAUME DELORME

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fairey (for Mr. Hunter) for the second reading of Bill No. 427, for the relief of Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme.
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, last week when this case was before the house I had given a little of its background and had indicated the rather peculiar circumstances under which the petitioner is seeking divorce. Although he alleges that his wife was guilty of adultery for several years after marriage, it took a great many years before he finally decided to sue for divorce. At the

time he gave evidence to the effect that his friends had begun to say something to him, that he had begun to get a little touchy about the point. Well, it seems rather strange when a man waits so many years before he begins to take any offence at remarks which he knew to be true, apparently, from his own evidence.
There is one aspect of this case I should like to deal with very briefly. Some mention has been made of the reliability of various witnesses who appeared before the committee of the other place and the miscellaneous private bills committee of this house. In this case we have the most unusual type of evidence, in that one of the investigators, Miss Georgette Dumas, appeared and gave evidence that she had been seated in a car parked in front of this house while she had seen with her own eyes the other investigators take a ladder from a truck and place it against the wall at the back of the house and that she had seen other investigators climb the ladder armed with flashlights. Yet throughout the evidence she stuck to her story that she had been seated in a car parked in front of the house. It is most remarkable that a witness can give evidence that, though seated on the south side of the house, she could see around corners and witness other investigators who were located at the back of the house.
There are many other aspects of this case which are equally absurd. For example, the investigators took photographs of the car of the co-respondent, even though the corespondent was a boarder in that house. Just what they sought to prove by taking a picture of the co-respondent's car parked outside his own boarding house I can never figure out. They were running around with flashlights and cameras. One of the investigators told us that on one occasion he ran out of film. Well, it is mighty poor management to go on a safari of this kind and shortly after beginning the investigation run out of film. They must have retired for additional supplies.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if all the hon. members had read the evidence in this case not one of them could possibly support a bill of this kind.
Tha Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): Is
the house ready for the question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I began to read the evidence in this case something over a year ago. I knew nothing about the details. It appeared to me there was so much conflicting evidence on the part of the witnesses that this chamber should not act on the recommendation that came to us from the other chamber. After reference was made to

some of the evidence that was given in the other place we had a vote in this house similar to the one which carried this afternoon.
Again I want to express appreciation to my colleagues on the other side of the house who have an open mind. I do not ask them to believe that all the people on one side are saints and the others are anything but saints. We are rather troubled over a measure such as this to relieve a husband of paying $20 a week to support his wife, when she denies these charges brought against her and produces some very excellent witnesses who indicate that the honest citizens are on her side, and that this group of investigators who gave evidence for her husband have an imagination, to say the least.
I have a good deal more to say, so I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Nicholson the debate was adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: At
eight o'clock the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, when I left off at five o'clock I was discussing why it seemed to me these extraordinary powers included in the bill should not be made part of the permanent law of the land. I have only a few minutes left, and I shall try to summarize the facts in a few words, if I may.
When the act was first passed in 1951, we were at war. We had troops in combat service. The government was faced with a situation where it had to get supplies and, as I said this afternoon, speed was of prime importance. The government had to meet their obligations abroad, and they had to meet them at home. At that time they needed extraordinary powers. Nevertheless,
Defence Production Act I should like to draw this one point to the attention of hon. members of this house to show that at that time the government and the Prime Minister must have recognized how carefully parliament regards legislation which hands over great powers to the executive, the cabinet.
Because of that realization, I believe, especially on the part of the Prime Minister, he was very careful at that time to have a time limit written into the bill. All the statements made since then, right up to now, giving them the fairest possible construction, I would summarize in this way without giving any quotations from Hansard. The most we can say about the Prime Minister's statement and the statement of the right hon. Minister of Defence Production is that they did not guess quite right about the time. They asked for the powers until 1956, but now they say they made a mistake in the time which they had guessed. In other words, the fairest construction I can put on it is that they have made out a case to ask for an extension, but they have not made out a case for asking that these extraordinary powers be written into the law in perpetuity and become part of the permanent law of this land.
There is a big difference between the government's conception of this legislation and our conception. That is why we are here. We are fighting for a principle: Will parliament become the servant of the cabinet, the executive, or will parliament remain supreme and retain these controls that history teaches us we should not allow to disappear piecemeal?
I shall just take time for a short quotation from page 317 of the evidence before the special committee of the Senate on human rights and fundamental freedoms in 1950. This was in the brief submitted by Professor Lower of Queen's University. I think it is very apt, and is something I commend to hon. members of this house to think about, because it deals with the principle of the supremacy of parliament. This is one quotation from his brief:
All I could add here would be an exhortation to members of parliament to remember the great traditions that lie behind parliament and to cultivate the independence of character and of decision which their predecessors over the last seven centuries at various critical stages of the history of the English-speaking world have shown.
I close my remarks by again asking in all fairness that further consideration be given to this bill, by adopting our amendment or by withdrawing this bill and presenting either two bills or one bill in two parts that would meet the wishes of all concerned and give the minister all he wants for a limited period. At the end of that period the matter could

Defence Production Act be reviewed, and I am certain if he came back and showed cause, as we say in court, he would have his powers renewed for another limited period.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworth (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, since this debate has commenced we have been almost inundated by a tremendous torrent of ineffectual hogwash from the hon. gentlemen in the Conservative party. To turn a Churchillian phrase, never has so much bilge been spoken for so long by so few.


George Harris Hees: Small laughter.


Allan Henry Hollingworth: They have talked about everything but the merits of the bill. To me at least there seems to have been a rising crescendo of personal abuse and vilification heaped upon the head of the Minister of Defence Production. By such tactics the Conservative party is fast becoming as dead as a dodo. The fact that they have resorted to such a shameful filibuster against this bill is a reflection of their political bankruptcy.
We have heard well reasoned and dispassionate accounts from the Minister of Defence Production and the Prime Minister, explanations which I am sure the Canadian people will find reasonable and which will make good common sense. The reason we have this bill before the house at the present time is because, to use Sir John A. Macdonald's expression, we are passing through troublous times. This should be fundamental to our thinking. We must divest ourselves of every other consideration for the time being. The times are extraordinary; they are dangerous. That is, for example, the reason for NATO. Because of this factor we need such a bill with teeth in it, in the national interest.
The interesting thing which the opposition has not mentioned is that in the United States and United Kingdom there are comparable statutes on the books which give those governments much more sweeping powers. We have been, and still are spending about $2 billion a year on national defence, or about 50 cents out of every dollar of taxes. Our allies, I am informed, are spending about $200 billion per year for similar purposes.
I hope this point will not be lost on hon. members opposite. We have an irrevocable obligation to meet the needs of defence in order to protect our way of life. Even through all this continuing emergency this government has produced a bill which provides adequate safeguards for the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law.
The purpose of the bill is to enable the Minister of Defence Production to make purchases for defence and to be sure that these

goods are produced in a never-ending stream. This is something I believe even hon. gentlemen opposite will concede makes good common sense. It will also give permanency to the department, an idea to which the hon. gentlemen opposite at least give lip service.
What are the safeguards to which I allude? First, the bill sets out specifically how defence production and purchasing are to be carried out. There is nothing hidden here. It is set out very clearly and very carefully in the act, with particular reference to how the freedom of the individual is safeguarded. True, property rights in an emergency can be impinged upon, a situation which is just as it should be. Let us not forget that the public interest is paramount to any-and I repeat "any"-private commercial interest, though of course my Conservative friends might disagree with me here.
As regards private individual interests and the freedom of the individual, adequate safeguards are maintained, as the minister has pointed out. The individual has access to the courts of the land if there is disagreement with regard to the prices of items. For hon. gentlemen opposite to say this is socialism is, I respectfully submit, sheer nonsense. Men who talk like that have a political and social philosophy which belongs to those gentlemen who had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the twentieth century, to use Mr. Adlai Stevenson's phrase.
The second safeguard to which I referred is the fact that this bill can be debated at any time the estimates of this department come up for consideration. I think perhaps my hon. friends have forgotten this extremely important aspect.
As a humble backbencher and supporter of the government, may I say that these safeguards certainly satisfy me. But the government has leaned over backward and has gone much further in order to ensure full debate on this measure. The Minister of Defence Production has painstakingly endeavoured to meet the objections of the opposition. On June 13, as reported at page 4683 of Hansard, on the orders of the day, he promised that orders made under this act, either by the minister or by the governor in council, shall be tabled at the earliest possible moment and that a notice of motion signed by ten members praying for the repeal or amendment of any such order, if brought forward within seven days of the tabling of the order, shall be debated at the first possible opportunity within the next four sitting days.
Then again just yesterday, Monday, July 4, the Prime Minister, as reported at page 5642

of Hansard, stated that at the end of three years any private member could bring in a bill to amend the Defence Production Act, that the government would treat this private bill as government business, and that it would be debatable on second reading as if it were government business. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is going more than half-way.
What was the attitude of the historic Conservative party? This offer was brusquely and callously spurned by the Conservative party. Both the Minister of Defence Production and the Prime Minister have given, in my opinion, cogent reasons why a time limit cannot be put on this bill. The Minister of Defence Production gave us a lucid account of the terrifying responsibilities weighing on his shoulders as a result of the intensified supersonic aircraft and guided missile program.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Earl Rowe: He is not talking to you. Let the hon. member who has the floor say whether he will permit a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member then tell the house why a time limit was inserted in the act when it was first enacted in 1951 and what justification there was for it, in view of what he is now saying?


Allan Henry Hollingworth: Would the hon. member mind repeating the first part of his question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Gladly, now that the hubbub has ebbed a little. Will the hon. member tell the house then why it was thought desirable to have a time limit inserted in the act when it was first enacted in 1951?


Allan Henry Hollingworth: As I understand it, the reason is that the program is much different now from what it was then. As the minister has pointed out, the program is much more complicated and much more difficult now than it was then. At that time the guided missile program had not come into prominence as it has at the present time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We were at war then, too.


George Harris Hees: The difference was that we were at war.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a matter of the length of the missile and not the war, apparently.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Allan Henry Hollingworth: Mr. Speaker, there is not another man in this country-and it is
Defence Production Act likely that there is not another man in the commonwealth-who could have done the job the Minister of Defence Production has done and is doing today. I would think even the opposition would admit this. The Canadian people certainly know it. For one man to have the awful responsibility of having spent $17 to $18 billion on defence since 1939, and to have done so with such remarkable efficiency and with unquestioned honesty and integrity, is something unparalleled in our history.
Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in supporting the minister right down the line, and I shall vote against the Conservative amendment.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, before entering the debate proper I should like to make just one or two remarks about the comments made by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth), who has just spoken. It seems to me that his speech-and actually one should not call it a speech, because it was nothing but political sniping-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: It was a bid for a job, that is all.


John Alpheus Charlton: -or most of it was read from a prepared text.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: What are you reading
from?


John Alpheus Charlton: Do you want to see?


Mr. Croll:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Put it in your desk and see if you can make the same speech.


John Alpheus Charlton: I would not be caught making a speech similar to the one that was just made. When the hon. member assured us that adequate safeguards for the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law were in this bill, may I say that I doubt whether the hon. member has ever read the bill if he can conscientiously and sincerely make that statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Either that or he does not know what the rule of law is, or the supremacy of parliament.


John Alpheus Charlton: Another statement he made was that the bill could be discussed annually when the departmental estimates were before the house. That may be true to some degree, Mr. Speaker; but after the bill is passed in its present form would anyone believe that it could be changed during the course of debate on the estimates? I ask the hon. member that question. As to a debate taking
5724	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
place within seven days after an order in council is tabled; in the last speech I made on this bill I stated that I did not believe you, Mr. Speaker, would allow debate on the entire bill when an order in council was before us; and I do not believe you would do so.
I should now like to say just a word of commendation with respect to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown). He is a close neighbour of mine. He deserves a great deal of credit for standing up in this house and giving us his views, along with so very few members on the government side of the house.


Mr. Harris:: Would you not like us to do so?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: We appreciate at least hearing from him. There are so many members who could be heard from who have not spoken up to now. I was rather surprised and sorry to hear the hon. member make the statement that we on this side had suggested that defence spending should be reduced. I do not think he can show us any place in Hansard where that statement has been made by any member of this party.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just stop the development work.


William Earl Rowe: You reduced it without our telling you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who has the floor?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Alpheus Charlton: I can stand and wait just as long as anyone wants.


George Clyde Nowlan: Teach them courtesy if you can't teach them anything else.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have never interrupted a member making a speech, and I do not intend to. I was glad that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) agreed that the situation is not as tense now as it was when the bill was originally passed. That is one thing we have maintained throughout this debate, and we have done so because we were told that by members of the cabinet. Even the Prime Minister himself has made that statement. That is another reason we suggest that the emergency is not as great today as it was in 1951, when we were engaged in actual war in Korea. I cannot quote the actual words of the hon. member for Brantford because I do not have them before me, but I understood him to say that with the world half in chains and half free the government could not afford to relax idealistic Liberal principles.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could not afford to apply them.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker- could not afford to apply idealistic Liberal principles.


An hon. Member:: Good coaching.


John Alpheus Charlton: That statement implies that they are getting away from such principles. We have been trying to say for several days that in this bill they are getting away from idealistic Liberal principles, but the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) has just maintained that they are not. We have maintained for some time and will continue to maintain that in this bill they are getting far away from idealistic Liberal principles.
I have another note here that the hon. member for Brantford said the loss of sovereignty of parliament was not germane to the debate. I do not say the hon. member for Brantford did not sincerely believe what he was saying when he made that statement, but my sincere hope is that he along with all other members of the government party will take a second look at the bill to see if it does not mean the opposite to what they feel and probably believe, and that it is taking away a great deal of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. As far as the courts upholding the laws of the country are concerned, a court would practically be obliged to uphold a government statute.
This afternoon the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) referred to remarks of the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King and the reply made by the late Right Hon. Mr. Bennett when he was prime minister. As I have the words quoted by the hon. member, Mr. Bennett referred to "powers which the occasion demands". That was his answer to Mr. King. I do not know in what debate that occurred, but as nearly as I can find out it would probably be the debate on the C.B.C. act, the wheat board act or the P.F.R.A. or P.F.A.A. legislation. I ask the hon. member if he believes that the powers contained in those acts do not come within the statement made by Mr. Bennett at that time.
The hon. member stated, and I think very unfairly, that we were debating the bill just for the sake of opposing. I do not think anybody can accuse any member of this party of speaking simply for the sake of opposing.
I have listened to most of the speakers, and I think members of the opposition are sincere in believing the bill is wrong in principle and that they are doing the right thing for their constituents by talking against it on as many occasions as may be required.
It is all right for members of the C.C.F. party to say, "Well, these powers are required; we trust the government and it is all right

to let them pass". It reminds me of a man about to break the law. Knowing very well that there is a law against the thing he is going to do, I do not think he would be quite as prone to do it as he would if he knew there was no law against it. The minister has been acting under this legislation for the last four years and under similar powers for 16 years. But he knew very well that he had to come back to parliament at the end of five years to get the consent of parliament to have the powers renewed if he thought they should be extended.
My colleague the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) quoted that part of the minister's speech this afternoon in which he said he thought he was in a different world. If these powers were to be made permanent I wonder whether the minister might not be in a changed world. Knowing very well that he did not have to come back to parliament, knowing very well that he could hide behind the skirts of secrecy and not answer questions in the house, would he go along in the same way and use as few of the powers as he has used in the past four years?
The hon. member for Dauphin also said we had claimed that the international situation had improved to such an extent that this legislation was not necessary. That statement was never made by this party. When I heard the Prime Minister speak yesterday it took my mind back to 1951, when the Minister of Defence Production had this to say, as found at page 836 of Hansard of March 2:
There is no particular significance to this date, other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature.
That was from the minister's own lips. If I recall correctly, it was on that statement being made and a time limit put in that bill that it was allowed to go through with very little debate, knowing there was a clear case of emergency at the time.
Probably, Mr. Speaker, we should reiterate, because apparently there is a great deal of misunderstanding in this house as to what we are really thinking about this bill. We have not said the minister should not have these powers during a state of emergency. What we have said and continue to say is that these powers should not be of a permanent nature. We did not question giving the minister those powers in 1951, when there was a real emergency and we were actually in a war. As I said before, we have the word of at least three cabinet ministers that the situation now is not as bad as it was in 1951. So far the minister has not given any good reason why
Defence Production Act he needs these powers to be of a permanent nature. Then at the resolution stage-


Mr. Lesage:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a rule in this house that repetition of the same arguments is out of order. I have listened very carefully to the last sentences used by the hon. member who is now speaking, and I feel it is about the twentieth repetition of the same argument.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order, the hon. gentleman has not been here while 20 members were speaking.


Jean Lesage: I certainly was. I am not like the hon. member for Kamloops; I did not go fishing during the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You run your railway car into other people.


Jean Lesage: That was on a Sunday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is even worse.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. As the minister has just pointed out, we have a rule against repetition. I must admit that at this late stage of the debate some of the arguments have a familiar ring. I must also confess, however, that I am not as able as the minister to say that the words uttered by the hon. member who has the floor are directly repetitious. As I recall, I believe it was the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), who pointed out some days ago that it would be impossible ever to have had a debate lasting this long if the rule we have against repetition were capable of being enforced to its strictest limits.
I do agree with what the minister has said that at the present time we have some repetition, but I cannot decide immediately that what the hon. member is saying is directly repetitious of what another hon. member has said. A lengthy examination of Hansard would be required before that statement could be made, but I do ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair and perhaps elect to cover some new ground.


John Alpheus Charlton: I was trying, but it is a little difficult to cover all new ground. I can say this much, Mr. Speaker, that I was not repeating anything I had said. I was simply repeating a quotation that had been used in this house on several occasions, a quotation from the minister's own words. It is rather unfortunate that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) referred to fishing, because just yesterday it was the Minister of Defence Production who was suggesting that he liked fishing a lot better than he did a debate in the house.

Defence Production Act Quoting from page 5624 of Hansard for July 4 we have this remark by the minister:
I am sorry but my time has been fully occupied on a salmon river.
So probably when he made that remark the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources did not know that the Minister of Defence Production had been away fishing.
Continuing from where I left off, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I recall quite well that at the resolution stage the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made the suggestion that a time limit be placed in the bill. We have a statement by the Minister of Defence Production at page 5382 of Hansard for June 28, 1955 and he may have thought he was on a salmon river when he made this statement. He said:
The situation has reached the point where the government must insist that this legislation be passed. If it had been suggested earlier that it would relieve people's minds-and I think it would have relieved the minds of the Social Crediters- to put a time limit of five years on the legislation, that might have been considered. But we would have done it with full knowledge that another extension would be necessary, because the very development work on the supersonic planes I am talking about is a six-year program, and I am satisfied the guided missile program will go far beyond that period.
Then a little further down he said:
Anyway, the time for suggestions of that kind is past, and I think that hon. members can rely on the government with confidence to dispense with the act and dispense with the department as soon as either is not needed. It has been done before, and it will be done again.
In the face of that statement I think the minister's memory must be very short. I shall not take time to repeat the exact words of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, but I am sure all hon. members who are sincere and honest will recall very well that the suggestion of a time limit first came from the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. Then we had another statement by the Minister of Defence Production informing us that he would lay on the table all orders in council. I have mentioned that before, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe you would allow a debate on the complete bill merely because there was an order in council laid on the table.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said in this house, and I quote from page 5643 of Hansard for July 4, 1955:
I want to say something that may make it a little bit more concrete and a little bit more precise-
Very little, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker.
-as was possible in 1950 when we were dealing with the emergency powers act of that time and when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and I put our heads together to draft the things that we would

put into those regulations about which the hon. member for Eglinton said he was perfectly satisfied and after which the bill went through.
And then further on-


Donald Methuen Fleming: A very inaccurate statement.


John Alpheus Charlton: He said:
I am prepared to give the kind of undertaking that was accepted in 1950-
It was not anything of the kind, as was indicated so clearly last night by the hon. member for Kamloops. It is unnecessary for me to repeat that it was an absolutely different kind of deal from that proposed at this time.
Later on he said:
Hon. members may say, "You are talking about three years from now; there will be an election before that time three years from now and you may not be here to carry out your undertaking". In reply to such a suggestion may 1 say that all of us on this side expect to be here three years from now to carry out any undertaking that we give to the house and to the country. If we should be mistaken-of course we do not pretend we never make mistakes-in the expectation that we will all be here three years from now, then somebody else will be here, somebody from the opposition who will do what they like about it at that time.
Certainly the words of the Prime Minister would not be binding upon any succeeding government. They would not be binding upon any other prime minister, whether or not he was of the same party. If our leader, Hon. George Drew, were leader of the government, it would not be necessary because it would be changed; but certainly that statement by the Prime Minister is not binding.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The age of miracles is past.


John Alpheus Charlton: That statement is not binding on any succeeding prime minister or any succeeding government. I have always found that it did not pay to do too much bragging because some time-it might be a long time-one would get caught.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Even if his name is
Pickersgill.


John Alpheus Charlton: Surely we have had enough of that in the last few days from some members on the government side who have spoken in this debate.
Referring to the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday, let me say that we in this party do not intend to hang the future of Canada on a rubber peg. As I said before, the minister has not given us any justifiable reason why these powers should be made permanent. The minister claims that the supersonic jet program will take six years, and that it may take even longer for the guided missile program. I believe it was the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) who

asked the government the other day whether the minister wanted to set himself up as the only person in this country who knows anything about defence production, because that is what his statements would lead us to believe. He would have us believe that he knows more about defence production and has done more about it than anybody else in the world. But surely his sole object cannot be that of setting himself up as the biggest man in the world, so far as defence production is concerned. Surely he does not place himself in the position where he will not accept ideas from other friendly nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Surely it will not take six years to get supersonic jet planes, when at the present time there are hundreds of them flying south of the border.
Do we have to spend all the money that must be spent on the research program? Do we have to spend it all over again? I suggest he has now had four years to operate under the act. In my last speech I asked him what he had accomplished; and when he suggests that it will take him six years to get supersonic jets, I think it is a sad admission on his part.
Let me repeat that all we are asking is that a time limit be placed on the provisions in the bill. If that were done the debate could be over very quickly. But, no, the minister will not do that, and it looks as if he were just about alone in this fight. We do not know whether he has issued an ultimatum to the government, though that has been suggested and it does sound logical.
The minister has also stated that the powers are given to the governor in council rather than the minister. I submit that in many cases they are ministerial powers, not powers of the governor in council at all. If one looks through the act he will find several sections where it is stated definitely that the minister can do just about as he pleases.
Then at page 5378 of Hansard the minister stated, as the closing sentence in one paragraph-and I shall not read more than is absolutely necessary-
As I say, that procedure is one way of handling a well-disciplined munitions industry.
In the following paragraph he said:
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. In that connection I dissociate myself entirely from the criticism of the industry made by members of the C.C.F. party.
I suggest that the minister cannot blow hot and cold. In one statement he says that
Defence Production Act his procedure is one way of handling a well-disciplined munitions industry, and in the next statement he says that the munitions industry is wonderful. He does not imply that they need handling, or that they do not do just what he suggests. The question arises as to who is the friend of whom. Is the munitions industry, or industry across Canada, relying on the minister to help it out of its difficulties, or are the people of this country relying on the minister to help them out of their difficulties? One begins to wonder when he sees these two conflicting statements on the same page and the same column of Hansard.
Then at page 5377 he said:
I have heard not one single complaint from the people affected, namely the people who are actually doing the defence production work in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, would anyone-I say "anyone"-expect to hear complaints from industry when the minister is asking that a bill of this kind be passed? Certainly they would not expect to get many contracts if they wrote in complaining to the minister. By virtue of this bill the minister is in a position to be a good friend of some industries and probably a very bad friend of others. I am not suggesting what he would be; but what he could be.
The minister also said that under this act there were no controls over persons. I am not going to quote the sections of the act; that is not necessary. But I say that under sections 21, 23, 27, 29 and 32 there are definitely restrictions on persons, set out very forcibly in the act. Then again on page 5381 of Hansard there is a rather remarkable statement by the minister which follows along the same line. He said there were no controls over persons, yet the minister said this at page 5381 of Hansard:
It is said that the act is not needed because it has not been used for the last two years. It has been used to a limited extent. I think we have had nine prosecutions under the act and we won them all.
That is understandable, Mr. Speaker. Surely anyone who tries to fight the government is not going to get very far. People know that, and with this club over the head of industry who does he think is going to go very far against his act or his rules? Anyway the minister said:
I think we have had nine prosecutions under the act and we won them all.
Therefore it is obvious what is going to happen if anyone is caught. The minister complimented the industry of the country, and nine prosecutions do not amount to too large a figure after that number of years.
5728	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act Then at page 5382 of Hansard we have the statement by the minister that he is on the side of the angels.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder whether he is a judge?


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you saw the cartoon in this morning's Gazette, but it certainly appears as though somebody had read that statement of the minister yesterday and drawn a cartoon, because he put the minister there in a Howi-copter with the remark: "I will come down to earth when I am good and ready." Opposite the cartoon there is an editorial. I suggest to the senior member for Halifax that it is at least up to date, because it appeared in this morning's paper. The hon. member complained yesterday about an editorial that was not up to date, and suggested that probably they would be a little more complimentary to the government if they were up to date. I suggest to him that he get a copy of this morning's Gazette.


John Horace Dickey: It is a different paper.


John Alpheus Charlton: I suggest he read that editorial. I shall not quote it, Mr. Speaker, because you would rule me out of order if I did. I shall try to put it in my own words. It implies that the minister may be pushing his luck a little too far; that up to now there have been many people in Canada who thought the minister did a good job, and most of us think he did a good job. But certainly when he is asking for this type of power on a permanent basis the editorial suggests that he is going a little too far; he is stepping over the line and he could lose some of those who in the past had been his very good friends. It is the kind of editorial that is not pleasant for the minister to read. However,
I do suggest to the senior member for Halifax that it is at least up to date.
I said before that it would appear as though the minister were almost alone, since there are a certain number of members behind him who are not too keen about this bill. Previous to today I think there were three or four members on the government side of the house who had spoken on this bill. We heard the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), and the curious thing about his remarks is this. At page 5005 of Hansard the hon. member said:
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 suggest to the hon. member that he reflect upon this statement and consider it very carefully. It may well be that the people of Canada do not know what is in this bill. 

I will not argue that; but if they did know, and if many of the hon. members on the opposite side of the house knew, they might change their minds.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member knew he might change his mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He expired some time ago.
(Translation) :


Mr. Robert Perron (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which was introduced-


John Horace Dickey: You are welcome.


Robert Perron: -by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) is to the effect that the bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the committee on banking and commerce for further study. This amendment, I say, is very appropriate, to my mind, and I do not see why it should not be unanimously accepted by this house.
May I be permitted to read the amendment over again, so as to point out to all hon. members of the house its wisdom and relevancy. This is the amendment:
That Bill No. 256, an act to amend the Defence Production Act, be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce with instructions that they have power to examine and report upon the advisability of
(a)	placing the Department of Defence Production on a permanent basis and conferring on the department such powers as ought to be of a continuing nature; and
(b)	conferring for a period of one year, or until extended by parliament, such additional powers as may be strictly necessary in the light of the existing world conditions.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment is a most reasonable one. Anyhow, most important bills discussed in parliament during the various sessions, and particularly when they are of a somewhat contentious nature, are generally referred to some committee of the house for further study.
I think that the bill now before us may, to say the least, well be termed contentious. It may be said, I think, and rightly so, that at this stage of the session, several bills have been referred to the committees of the house. Among others, to mention but a few cases, at the very outset of the session we referred to the committee on external affairs an act respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements (the boundary waters act). It was studied in committee, where we heard most

provincial attorneys general and all those who had representations to make about it, and I must say it came back to the house with several amendments.
Then there was an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act; it was studied in committee and sent back to the house with many amendments. The act to amend the Transport Act and the act to amend the Canadian National Railways Act, which consolidated into one statute the national railways legislation which was considerably amended in committee, were then submitted to the house for adoption. Many other measures were referred to the appropriate committees of the house and, after a more thorough examination, after all the representations made by various provincial governments or public bodies were received, the measures were sent back to the house with amendments which definitely made them better every time.
Here is a measure which we are asked to consider, certainly one of the most important the house has had to study for many years, this being the opinion of the press in general and of everyone interested in Canadian politics. I do not see why such an important measure should not be also referred to the committee as requested by the member for Royal in his amendment.
This bill, designed to amend chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, by dropping section 41, has far-reaching implications since it would put all the other sections on a permanent basis. If one reads these sections, it is very hard to convince oneself that the Minister of Defence Production really needs all those extraordinary powers to ensure the defence of our country in peacetime.


Mr. Lafontaine:: If he does not need them, he will not use them.


Robert Perron: I shall ndt read these sections in detail. I shall only point out that, on the whole, those sections give the Minister of Defence Production the most extraordinary and absolute powers, which amount to full control over the whole nation's economy.
Almost every section of the law begins by one of the following expressions: "the minister may," "the minister shall be able," "if the minister deems it advisable," "if the minister is satisfied," "if the minister deems it necessary." Other sections start with these words: "where the governor in council deems it advisable." All these expressions which we find at the beginning of every section are followed by an enumeration of powers highly complex, the scope of which can hardly be compassed.
Defence Production Act
Undoubtedly, in the light of the new facts and the developments which might have taken place since 1951, when the law was passed, it would be advisable to reclassify these powers, to modify and define them and, in certain cases, to abolish them completely.
It must be remembered that at the time this law was passed in 1951, there was a national emergency, when our troops in Korea seemed to have been defeated. The thought of those battlefields was in the minds of those who drafted this act and, no doubt, the atmosphere prevailing at the time explains the tenor of such drastic measures. Today the Korean war is ended and it has been admitted even by cabinet members that there is a general atmosphere of peace. The right hon. Prime Minister stated some time ago that he did not expect to see another war in his lifetime.
(Text) :


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am very sorry but I have been following what the hon. member has been saying and it is a repetition of what he said on June 28 in this house. It can be found at page 5363 of Hansard.
(Translation):


Robert Perron: The only repetition there has been in my speech is that barely a fortnight ago the Prime Minister stated that there would be no war in his lifetime. That is all I have repeated since I have started these remarks. In any event, that is part of my argument and I shall not labour the point.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret being forced to admit that I cannot follow the hon. member in the French language as well as I would wish but, if he is repeating word for word his previous speech or a portion of his previous speech, as the minister has said, that is, of course, repetition and I must ask him to refrain from doing so.


Robert Perron: Mr. Speaker, I have repeated only three words.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I was only repeating the statement made recently by the Prime Minister and that is part of my argument. I can surely not be accused of having repeated anything else.
Besides, Sir Winston Churchill had expressed similar views in England.
Since that date we have had other signs of peace. For instance we have learned that the government was permitting trade with countries behind the iron curtain, indeed itself trading with them. We learned that

Defence Production Act last week end. If the situation is more tense, if the threat of war is closer, I do not see how the government could consider selling our wheat to Poland and our butter to Czechoslovakia. In my opinion that would be most careless.
On the one hand, the government through its actions and through the statements of its spokesmen leads us to believe that peace is much closer than in the past but, on the other hand, it asks us to grant the Minister of Defence Production powers more absolute than those he enjoyed during the war. The opposition can surely not condone such inconsistency.
Prior to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), we learned during the debate on the main motion that the amendment to chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, aimed at rendering the legislation permanent, was necessary, because Russia now has the secret of the H-bomb.
Following the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal, we learned that, in addition, the minister had to build supersonic planes and guided missiles and, for that reason, those powers should be made permanent. That means that, even though our amendment would not be carried, it would have enabled us to obtain more information, and this could lead the opposition to move further amendments in order to obtain additional information, upon which we could decide whether this legislation was advisable.
Mr. Speaker, all these things I am discussing at this time could be minutely discussed in committee. We could see there exactly what powers are necessary for the minister to construct supersonic aircraft or guided missiles. Should more powers be required to build flying saucers, if need be, for defence, he can be assured that the opposition would be ready to go along with him
The opposition is not opposed to the establishment of the Department of Defence Production. The amendment is quite clear on that point. Here is subsection (a) of the said amendment:
. . . placing the Department of Defence Production on a permanent basis and conferring on the department such powers as ought to be of a continuing nature.
We recognize that at this time, at any rate, the department is necessary. We refuse to establish it on a permanent basis, however, with the powers that exist at present, unless we have been given evidence of their absolute necessity. I must say that the arguments put

forward up till now have not been very convincing, except those dealing with the H-bomb, supersonic aircraft and guided missiles.
The minister told us that the act has been in existence for 16 years, that there was reason to make it permanent and that, at any rate, the government could revoke it one day or another, should the minister feel that it was no longer necessary. In other words, to summarize the minister's opinion, he told us, before proposing the change in the act, that the act was permanently temporary and, after proposing the amending bill, that it would become temporarily permanent.
Mr. Speaker, we are being asked at this time to adopt an amendment of which we can hardly foresee the consequences and we are told: "It is all or nothing; take it or leave it."
It seems to me that this is unfair to parliament. As regards the opposition, whose main duty is to keep watch over the prerogatives of parliament, it cannot support a bill which would deprive it of its justification before parliament. That would be quite illogical on our part and that is why the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal is quite consistent and wise.


Pierre Gauthier: Now is the time to applaud.


Robert Perron: I hope the house will give unanimous support to this amendment. Otherwise, we might believe that the government, which managed to carry on a war successfully, seems unable to achieve lasting peace.
(Text):


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason why this debate should continue. That reason is the insistence of the government on proceeding with an act which is entirely unnecessary, which is contrary to the clear undertaking given to this house in 1951, and which should not, in any event, have been presented to us at this time.
Many hon. members had been waiting to hear the statement of the Prime Minister in regard to this measure. We heard from him yesterday. In that speech he repeated, almost in exact terms, the statement made by the Minister of Defence Production. His words are to be found at page 5643 of Hansard:

we are not prepared to put any definite time limit upon it at this time.
That is the reason we are here. There has been some tendency to call this a filibuster. Any hon. member can call it what he likes.

The fact is that we are exercising our democratic right and our democratic duty to place before this parliament reasons why the government should not go back on its own statement made in 1951. It was this government -this same government that now asks us to remove any time limit-which told us there were in this act powers which should not be continued.
Today we are asked to make them permanent. Do not let any hon. member opposite say that the word "permanent" goes too far. That was the word used by the Minister of Defence Production. He used the word "permanent". The intention of this amending bill of two sections is to make permanent, as part of the law of our land, provisions which by-pass parliament.
I think there must be disappointment in the mind of every hon. member that the Prime Minister, as head of the government, as a lawyer, and as the honorary president of the Canadian Bar Association, did not tell us something of his own concept of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. There were times when he did not shun discussion of this subject. There were times when he did not think this was something to be passed over and ignored. There were times when he thought this was perhaps the most important thing that could engage the temporal discussion of any Canadian citizen. Why have we not heard from him as to what this act does mean? Why have we not heard from him some correction of the misstatements of the Minister of Defence Production with regard to the effect of this act?
The Minister of Defence Production has told us that the powers of this act are narrower than those of the corresponding acts in the United Kingdom and the United States. The Prime Minister knows that is not so. The Prime Minister could well have made a comparison of these acts.
Let us concede that the Minister of Defence Production, who asserts that he was responsible for the draftsmanship of this act, was unaware of its consequences. The Prime Minister is not unaware of them. The Prime Minister is not unaware that there are subjects at issue here that go far beyond the question of confidence in the minister. We were perfectly frank in stating why we were continuing this debate. We are perfectly frank now in saying why we continue this debate.
We know that unless there is a revival of conscience and responsibility on the part of the Liberal members of the house, ultimately the act will pass. We hope, however, that it will not pass, because we still hope that a free press will assert itself and that the
Defence Production Act
members will not be unconscious of the fact that right across Canada today editors of responsible newspapers are expressing opinions which are strongly opposed to the indefinite continuance of these powers without any refinement or redrafting.
The suggestion was made, Mr. Speaker, that we had suddenly, at this stage, started opposing this measure simply for the sake of opposition. For that reason it becomes necessary to remind hon. members opposite of exactly what did take place. This act did not come before us just within the past few weeks. On March 10, almost four months ago, after notice had been on the order paper for some time, a motion was presented to the house by the Prime Minister asking the house to declare that it was expedient that a bill be introduced to amend the Defence Production Act.
At that time there was a discussion of this subject. As has already been pointed out, it was then suggested that appropriate steps be taken to give permanence to the Department of Defence Production and to remove from the act those arbitrary powers which the government itself had said should not be continued.
Since it has been suggested that we have merely been conducting factious opposition at this stage, I wish to quote briefly from what I said at that time, when this motion was under discussion. I quote from page 1985 of Hansard for March 14 of this year:
We all recognize the need for a Department of Defence Production. We all recognize that this department should have the necessary authority to acquire the necessary materials which are essential and to direct the production of those things which can be used in our participation in the joint defence of freedom.
I then went on to point out the position the government had taken when this measure was before us in 1951, and later in the debate I had this to say as recorded at page 1987:
. . . the nature of the threat of any departure from long established practices is not to be measured by what has happened: it should be measured by what could happen at some other time. I am not attributing to any member of the government any motives other than those stated by those who have put forward their support of this measure. In these serious days we are all citizens of Canada deeply concerned about the future of Canadians growing up in this great land of ours and their freedom in the years ahead. I would not seek to draw any distinction between the sentiments of any member in this house in regard to the future of Canada, and of the people who will live in it in the years ahead. The statement has been repeated to us over and over again that this may be a long and tedious struggle for freedom, which we hope will reach a secure peace in the years ahead without the blight of such a terrible war as is now pictured to us as a possibility.
Let us break new ground. Even though four years ago it may have seemed wise in the mind
5732	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act of the government to go farther than some of us thought was desirable at that time, let us accept the proposition which they put forward that we are going to live under conditions of this nature for some time, and, recognizing that, to remove all powers which are not essential. This would restore to this parliament a feeling of its own authority, a feeling that it has that supremacy over the business of the people which is, in fact, the very basis of our free system.
I then continued to examine the measure which would be brought before us, and I concluded with these words:
I do strongly urge once again that between now and the time the bill comes before us the Prime Minister consider the opportunity presented to this government to give leadership in returning in as full a measure as possible to the members of this House of Commons the fundamental principles of our democratic system, the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law.
There, Mr. Speaker, is what I put before the house on March 14. Other members of our party stated in explicit terms that there should be a continuance of the Defence Production Act as a permanent part of our legislation, not simply as some emergency measure but as part of the ordinary machinery for the procurement of defence requirements. We emphasized in the clearest possible terms that the government should simply act upon its own statement that these powers should not be continued after July 31, 1956; we hoped that it would come back to us with an act to carry out its own concept of the kind of provisions that should be made. The Prime Minister indicated that he would give this consideration.
We had every reason to hope such consideration would be given to the act. Instead of that we were presented with this legislation which, in the first section, merely carries out an arithmetical adjustment so that the minister, if he were to receive any salary- which would only apply, of course, in the case of another minister-would receive the same salary as other ministers at that time.
It is the second section that is important, and that is the only section of importance. It is in the second section that the whole principle at issue is before us. Shall the government abandon its clear undertaking? Shall the government abandon the proposition upon which members of the house were called upon to support it in 1951? Shall we remove any time limit and continue permanently, to use the words of the Minister of Defence Production, powers which the government has said should not continue?
That is the simple issue. What is the answer? The answer clearly is, "You can trust the minister". Well, I hope some members of the house have been a little shaken by some things that have occurred even


within the last few hours. I hope some hon. members will carefully read their Hansard tomorrow and see just exactly what did take place in the house today. I hope some hon. members will examine some of the other statements that have been made, and decide whether it is in keeping with our parliamentary practices to pass legislation on the assumption that no matter how bad the law may be, it is all right if you have somebody you can rely upon.
That is not our parliamentary system. We do not believe in the fuehrer precept. We believe in parliament, not in the supremacy of any individual. We believe in the responsibility of the government to parliament, not in the omniscience of any great man who says "I have more experience than anyone else in the world". We believe that laws are made or should be made in a form that can be properly examined without regard to who the individual may be. We believe that laws should in themselves be the test of their own correctness or otherwise. There is some suggestion-oh, more than a suggestion, there is the very loose statement-about those who rant about liberty; that was what the Minister of Defence Production called it in describing our efforts to point out what this act could do.
I said on March 14, and not just in the past few days, that under our parliamentary system the test is not what has been done. The test of any law is what could be done. In some substantial measure we find ourselves much like an accused in the prisoner's box. We are told, "Don't worry. It is true that the penalty may be execution, but we never really carry out the law. We are softhearted. It will not make any difference if you are found guilty, we will make sure everything will be quite all right. You can trust us". What a comfortable position that would be. Well, that is precisely the proposition put before us.
I ask anyone who says we are exaggerating to tell us at what point we have exaggerated the possibilities under these powers. Neither I nor any member of this party has said that these powers would necessarily be used. Neither I nor any member of this party has said that these powers have been used to their full extent.
In fact when we have the long tale of the dramatic things that have been done, and the need for this act, the question arises as to whether this act applied in any of those cases. We were told by the Minister of Defence Production of the harrowing experience of producing aircraft. We were asked to think of the sleepless nights that would be the lot of anyone who was called upon

to assume responsibilities for the expenditure of $30 million that might not produce results. Is this minister the first minister who has ever been committed to the extent of $30 million? Has the minister of defence in Britain never been committed to an expenditure of $30 million?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He has an act.


George Alexander Drew: He has an act, but he has not an act of this kind. It was drafted by somebody with some sense of responsibility. Nor has the minister of defence production, in a country where they are spending more than any other free country, any such loose and undefined powers as those conferred upon the minister by this act. The minister has told us that under the act in the United States and under the act in the United Kingdom they have greater powers. That is nonsense; pure, unadulterated nonsense.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are talking nonsense.


George Alexander Drew: If the minister is able to interpret this act in that way he is misleading the house. If the minister does not know that, then he should consult with legal advisers and get a better interpretation of the act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I advise you to do the same.


George Alexander Drew: An understanding of this act on the part of the minister is long overdue. One of the reasons many of us wanted to hear the Prime Minister was that the Prime Minister is a lawyer and knows quite well that the statement given to this house in regard to the comparative position of these acts is not correct. We wanted to hear from the Prime Minister why the house is to be left in ignorance, so far as the government is concerned, of what is the real effect of this act. No, Mr. Speaker; before any hon. member charges that there has been exaggeration let him show that we have exaggerated in any way what could be done under this act.
Do not think it is only members of this party who are talking about the issues that are involved. I see, for instance, a heading, "Supremacy of parliament at stake''; that is from the Sydney Post-Record. Then I see a statement such as this heading of an editorial, "Principle bad in defence production bill"; that is from the London Free Press. You can go right across the country and see responsible newspapers expressing their opinion in regard to the application of this act.
Why try to have this dealt with upon any basis other than the merits of the legislation
Defence Production Act itself? Of course we do have different ideas expressed. You know, there has been a wonderful change come over the socialists since this matter first came before the house. When the resolution first came before the house they also questioned this measure, but now they embrace it with wide open arms. There is not one of the members opposite who shouts, "Good old C.D." louder than the socialists do at this stage. Why has the change occurred? Today we heard from the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), who indulged in self-righteous indignation and criticism of the members of this party who were not prepared to entrust the whole future of the country to the Minister of Defence Production.
Oh, how times have changed. Just let me read what the hon. member for Dauphin said on March 11. This really takes the cake. I quote from page 1973 of Hansard, and it is the hon. member for Dauphin speaking, the member who chastised us this afternoon for not having unbounded faith in the omniscience of the Minister of Defence Production. This, of course, was at the resolution stage of the bill, when we had been suggesting that these powers be reviewed. This is what the member for Dauphin said then:
May I say that I am always Interested in hearing the hon. member for Greenwood. I admire his style greatly, and I believe he speaks with more humility than is necessary with respect to his ability. I sometimes wonder whether he does not give too much credit for omnipotence to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was so interested in what he had to say tonight that I looked up some Shakespeare and found it very apt in connection with his words. For example, there is the place where Cassius said:
"Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed,
That he is grown so great?"
Oh, how they have changed. Then he went on:
Perhaps even more apt is the beginning of the passage where he said:
"Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves."
Oh, how they have changed. And going on with the hon. member for Dauphin:
I am sure that while the minister was speaking there was another thought running through his mind, probably expressed in these words which Caesar said:
"Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o'nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous."


William Earl Rowe: He must have got frightened.


George Alexander Drew: What has happened to the hon. member for Dauphin?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He got lean and hungry, I
guess.

Defence Production Act


George Alexander Drew: What has happened to the hon. member? Has he been thinking too much in the meantime? Why, as a matter of fact the hon. member for Dauphin could have gone further and given the minister words that I am sure he repeats over and over again, even if he does not know they come from Shakespeare. I am certain the hon. member repeats these words of Shakespeare: "How long must I endure all this?"
Yes, Mr. Speaker, a strange change has come over the socialists at this stage; but my hope would be that even they might return to an inquiring mood, and that even they might recall that they did question the omniscience of the Minister of Defence Production, and that even they compared him to a Colossus bestride the world. Of course that would fit in with his own description. Nevertheless I would hope they would resume their inquiry, because there are powers in this act which, quite apart from the opportunity of establishing a set plan for our economy, would also make it possible to go very far in dealing with the freedom of the individual. 1 know the minister has said that this does not affect the individual, but that is merely one of the careless statements made by the minister throughout the various remarks that he has placed before us.
Now, it does obviously appear to be necessary to recall what is before this house for consideration. I think it was very simply stated in words that are succinct and appropriate. I quote:
The argument is simply whether he-
That is, the minister.
-should be required to take the trouble normally expected of a minister in a free country and have these powers reasonably defined by parliament. What Mr. Howe's bill gives are not the powers that might be needed to produce new aircraft or do any other specific, foreseeable job; they are powers so sweeping as to be almost undefined, and they are asked for indefinitely.
Mr. Speaker, is that quotation an exaggeration? If it is not, then it contains the very nub of our argument. It is from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 30. The quotation states exactly the proposition we put forward in March. It states the proposition we have put forward in our amendment. And since so much time has elapsed since that amendment was moved, I should think it appropriate that I read what it says. This is the resolution we are now debating by way of amendment:
That Bill No. 256, an act to amend the Defence Production Act, be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce with instructions that they have power to examine and report upon the advisability of

(a)	placing the Department of Defence Production on a permanent basis and conferring on the department such powers as ought to be of a continuing nature; and
(b)	conferring for a period of one year, or until extended by parliament, such additional powers as may be strictly necessary in the light of the existing world conditions.
There, Mr. Speaker, is our resolution; that is the resolution we are now debating. Let nobody make a statement outside this house that any new proposal is being made, when there is a suggestion before us that the act be continued as part of our legislation and that the powers, appropriately redefined and circumscribed in accordance with the assurance of the government, also be continued subject to review.
That is our proposition. If that proposition is acceptable, then let the government say so, in this House of Commons and not behind closed doors. If there is anything in these rumours going around the corridors about negotiations leading to a termination of this debate, based upon these proposals, then let them be stated here. After all, this is parliament. This is the place where the people's representatives have the right to know what is being considered. If the government is in fact following the course it should follow in wisdom, then let us know it and this debate will end.
Do not let it be suggested by the government that this amendment cannot be supported because it constitutes a want of confidence motion. That statement is so silly that I hope it will not be repeated. Over and over again this and other governments have stated that they would accept a motion by the opposition. The very acceptance of the motion ends the possibility of a want of confidence motion. The moment the Prime Minister rose in his seat and said "After due consideration we believe it advisable that we do exactly what we said we would do in 1951, set up a Department of Defence Production but limit the powers within proper confines"-the moment he said that, and indicated the willingness of the government to support a motion which sets out that very proposition, then obviously members of his party would be voting confidence in the government and not a lack of confidence, if they supported the motion.
So I hope there will be no suggestion that there is any artificial barrier in the way of the government doing the very thing that rumour tells us has been under discussion, though in no way put before me as Leader of the Opposition.
There is another thing to which I would like to refer. In the long-awaited speech of

the Prime Minister last night he had this to say, as reported at page 5643 of Hansard:
I want to say something that may make it a little hit more concrete and a little bit more precise, as was possible in 1950 when we were dealing with the emergency powers act of that time and when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and I put our heads together to draft the things that we would put into those regulations about which the hon. member for Eglinton said he was perfectly satisfied and after which the bill went through.
Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the Prime Minister last night were very misleading. In the first place, the occasion to which he refers was not 1950; it was March 1, 1951. The question did not concern the duration of the bill; the emergency powers bill when introduced already contained, in section 4, a limit of one year, to May 31, 1952. That limit was imposed upon the powers then conferred upon the governor in council. The incident to which the Prime Minister referred last night did not occur on second reading, but during the discussion in committee of the whole, after the bill had been given second reading without division. The circumstances are in no way parallel.
The hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Eglinton had been attacking the powers conferred by the bill with respect to arrest, as well as other provisions of the bill. In committee the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice accepted the amendment to clause 2 of the bill to eliminate any question of the power of arrest. The full report of that will be found at page 820 of Hansard for March 1, 1951.
There were objections on our side to other sections of the bill, and several amendments put forward at that time from this side were voted down in committee, as will be found at pages 821 and 828 of Hansard for March 1, 1951. The discussion to which the Prime Minister referred was confined strictly to subsection 4 of section 2 of the bill. As originally framed, this clause provided for the tabling in the house of any orders in council passed under the provisions of the act. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Eglinton that it was insufficient only to have the orders in council tabled, and that everything in the nature of a regulation as broadly defined by the Regulations Act should be required to be tabled in the house. The government acceded to this proposal and the clause was amended to this effect.
The discussion then continued as to the provisions of clause 2 in regard to the tabling in the house and the discussion of the measures that were tabled. The Prime Minister's proposal, which was accepted by our party
Defence Production Act at that time, was confined to one clause of the bill and one only. It would be completely misleading to leave any impression that the understanding at that time went to the root of the bill or had any relation to the principle thereof.
On that occasion the hon. member for Eglinton had already expressed himself very firmly in relation to clause 1 of the bill when it was in committee. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because the Prime Minister gave the impression last night that he was making some concession. He made no concession whatever, none whatever.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? What I had in mind, and what was agreed, was that we would give an undertaking that when a challenge to an order was made an opportunity would be promptly provided to get a decision of the house upon that challenge; and I was giving an undertaking that if a bill were introduced to amend the Defence Production Act, there would be opportunity provided without delay for a decision by the house on that bill, though it might otherwise, because of the rules, be delayed in its progress.


George Alexander Drew: No matter what the good intentions of the Prime Minister may be, this assurance is absolutely meaningless.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It was accepted at that time.


George Alexander Drew: No, it has no relationship to the proposal, to what was discussed at that other time. If the Prime Minister wants to put forward any proposal, let him state that he proposes in committee to move an amendment, and let us know what the amendment is. This assurance means literally nothing. All it means is that at some time in the future, if the Prime Minister still has responsibility for proceedings, he will be willing to let some measure come forward for discussion. Well, Mr. Speaker, that means nothing. The Prime Minister knows better than anyone here, in fact he has been the first to assert it, with all the political overtones, that he will assert his authority in this house on any occasion while he is Prime Minister. No; it means nothing whatever.
If the Prime Minister and the government did come to the conclusion three years from now or two years from now that there are changes they are prepared to accept, then presumably they will introduce the amendment. It is perfectly certain that if they are not prepared to introduce it, no bill put forward by the opposition would have any opportunity of success whatever. All it means is that the Prime Minister, to such
5736	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act extent as might be possible, otters us the opportunity to express our complaint.
We do not need that. We have that right under the supply motions, and we have not yet been deprived of it. That still continues within this house. This proposal is utterly meaningless. It is an example of the way in which the government is refusing to live up to its clear undertaking-and it was nothing less-that these powers would not be continuing powers, and is refusing to incorporate in the legislation the appropriate amendment which would reduce the powers which the government itself described as excessive.
In the time that remains to me before I adjourn this debate until tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to one other thing that constantly comes up. Over and over again we are told about the emergency. There is no need to debate whether or not there is an emergency. This is not an emergency act. That is the very danger of this act. If this were in fact an emergency act which recited the emergency, then possibly the courts might declare at some time that no emergency did exist to justify the continuance of the act.
This act is straight, permanent legislation, referring at no point to a real or implied emergency; consequently it goes on the statute books as legislation under the broad provision of defence under the British North America Act. For that reason this law would stand as the law of the land and could be enforced to override provincial jurisdiction. In fact it could be used to do exactly as we said before, to suspend the constitution, if at any time it were the whim of the minister charged with the responsibility of administering this act.
It is nothing less than that. This should properly be described as an act to suspend the constitution. Never mind whether that is the intention of the government. We are not asked to try to look into the brains of the government. They have enough trouble finding out what is in their brains themselves, and enough difficulty in expressing it; otherwise we would not have had some of the confusion that has been incorporated in this act. No, it is not our task to look into the brains of the members of the government and find out what is their intention and their thinking. Our task is-


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is something to be said for having brains to look into.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, oh. I wonder whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would like to have all these powers. He did not need them to deal with Mr. Pitt. He is one minister I would not want to see entrusted with these powers. I mention that because his interjection indicated exactly why hon. members should look at the legislation. They should not be inquiring what this minister or that minister thinks, but rather what could be done by any government under this act.


William Earl Rowe: Any minister.


George Alexander Drew: That is the proper question before this house, and only the answer to that question will properly place before hon. members their own responsibility to the fundamental principles of democracy, of parliament and the rule of law.
May I move the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Drew the debate was adjourned.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. During the latter part of the afternoon I was absent from the house recording a radio speech. I am informed that during my absence the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) made reference to some remarks I was supposed to have made in Arborg, Manitoba, during a by-election last fall.
Fortunately I saw the Canadian Press release to which he referred. It appeared in the newspapers on Saturday, November 6.
I immediately saw the implication of the remarks and that it would be possible to misunderstand what I had said on that occasion. I believe the gist of it was that it would be better to send a communist than another Liberal to the dominion house here in Ottawa. Realizing the possibilities of misunderstanding, I sat down immediately and wrote to the editors of each of the Manitoba dailies, the Brandon Sun, the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Tribune, and I should like with your permission to put the contents of that letter on the record. The date is November 8.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might take the opportunity of checking exactly what the hon. member for Dauphin said and the part he wants to refute. Is the letter he has written to these various newspapers in reply to what the hon. member for Dauphin has said?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No, Mr. Speaker. I sat down immediately on seeing the Canadian Press release last November 6 and tried to put the record straight. I think the hon. member for Dauphin must have seen my letter to the editors, because it was published in each of the newspapers. He made the same charge this afternoon, notwithstanding my letter of explanation which appeared in each of the newspapers concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member be good enough to tell the house what is the charge to which he is referring, and then give us a statement to the effect that the charge is not correct and leave it at that?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member quoted a Canadian Press release dealing with the speech in which I was supposed to have said that I would rather see a communist sent to Ottawa than another Liberal. That is the statement I wish to deny emphatically. I did deny it at the
Privilege-Mr. Dinsdale time in the only way possible, by immediately writing letters to the editors concerned. With your permission I should like to put that letter on the record, if you think it is necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member that I do not think it is necessary for him to read the letter as further evidence of his denial of the statement which was attributed to him so many days ago, and which was repeated in this house today. The hon. member is now making a statement denying what was charged by the hon. member for Dauphin, and that statement must be accepted by the house, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member has written a letter. Even if he had not written a letter to the newspapers his statement must be accepted by the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Minister of Finance the business for tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: I understood we were going on with this debate, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 6, 1955