1955-06-28

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 28, 1955
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as administrator of the government of Canada, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 28th June, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative).



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of National Health and Welfare comment on the possibility of the transfer of civil defence material from Montreal to other parts of the country due to the apparent lack of interest in civil defence on the part of the Montreal authorities?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am not sure if I understood the hon. member's question correctly, but I thought he asked if I was going to comment on the report in question. In any event I may say that consideration is being given to that matter. The officials in Montreal have been notified of it. I am very hopeful that the situation there is going to be as we would all want it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister received protests from some of his employees at Renous, New Brunswick, 50433-338J
concerning a change in working hours of prevailing rates employees? Will he look into this matter, along with the question of wage rates which I drew to his attention on June 17.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, I have received representations and they are being looked into.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Ralph Osborne Campney: the third reading of Bill No. 507, to amend the Income Tax Act, the Railway Act and the Tariff Board Act in respect of salaries of certain public officials.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 20, 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.
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker, this bill, introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), to set up permanently the Department of Defence Production, and to establish permanently in the minister the powers presently contained in the act, and which is being introduced under the guise of a continuing emergency, underrates the intelligence, the integrity and the insight of the Canadian people. It does appear in some aspects, in view of the stubbornness which has been evidenced by the minister in the matter, that this measure is not a wolf in sheep's clothing, but rather the wolf itself. Having shed the sheep's clothing put around it in 1951 it now stands, with fangs bared, a serious threat to the basic and fundamental elements of democracy as we, and I think most Canadians, understand it.
[Stage Direction]
Defence Production Act
What manner of bill is this that is espoused by the government of this country, which for the time being is Liberal, and which Liberal creed is espoused from time to time as being a proponent of the principles of free enterprise? I have with me a copy of the mid-June edition of The Rural Scene, in which are some interesting definitions. Democracy, socialism, freedom, Liberal and Conservative have been defined as follows:
Democracy: Government of all the people within a jurisdiction, by all the people, and for all the people, all the time. A political means of safeguarding the inalienable, natural, rights of each person or minority. A legal system for the establishment and enforcement of law designed to create equality of opportunity, to impose equality of responsibility and to maintain democratic freedom.
Socialism: The political and economic expression of the fear of freedom. Compulsion is the socialistic means, usually sanctified by majorities, of vesting in the state the natural rights of all persons and minorities.
Freedom:	The exercise of inalienable,
natural, rights within a democracy.
Liberal: One who favors democratic reform and the abolition of privilege.
Conservative: One who seeks to enlarge [DOT]democratic good by the extension of tried institutions.
Can this bill be introduced by a Liberal :government? Continuity of thought and action, continuity of promise and production have never been outstanding elements in the liberal creed. However, the cardinal principle of free enterprise has rarely been subjugated to such violation by vacillation even by these masters of the art. One must conclude, therefore, one of two things: Either that under the pretence of continuing an integral element of democracy is concealed an effort to appease two parties in the country or that under such a pretence one party is attempting to assume permanent powers never before given by people, but rather forced or subverted from a people by similar devious measures.
Canada and Canadians, this is a crossroads! 1 would that we could hear Sir John A. and Sir Wilfrid at this moment.
Is it not fantastic that a nation which not only embraces but survives through a complete belief, understanding and practice of the principle of free enterprise should be thought so puerile that such an act of compulsion would be necessary? Our people are not only a nation adult in a physical and mechanical understanding of free enterprise, but also in its more far-reaching, tenacious, demanding, spiritual claims on our social conscience and collective soul. This government
[Stage Direction]

can hardly regulate the heartbeats of the soul of a nation. What contempt this government must have for the people of Canada. Have not the people risen to the hour of need at all times? Has not the Prime Minister within the last few days in an interview with the press said he hopes it will never be necessary to have national service? National service affects a small portion of the population. This bill affects every portion of the working population. It is a complete reversal of his ideas with respect to conscription. Even in times of greatest emergency while there has been conscription for the armed services, there has never been conscription of farm, factory workers and stenographers.
By introducing this bill and in reading the words of the bill, this government says that it places more reliance on one minister than it does in the ability of the whole Canadian people to respond to a situation which would endanger the safety of the nation.
An hon. Member:: Who wrote the speech?


Mr. Fleming:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to make a speech, let him get up and make it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are acting like children.


Mr. Pallett:: Someone said: "Whose opinion is this?" I at least am expressing my opinion, which is more than the great majority of the members of the government have done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Including the Prime Minister.


John Cameron Pallett: Whom has the government in mind as Minister of Defence Production? Who will carry out this act?


Mr. Rowe:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order-


John Cameron Pallett: Whom does it have in mind?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe is rising on a point of order.


William Earl Rowe: Yes. Can we have some order in this house? Is this a design to stop the hon. member from talking?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is overlooking the fact that the disorder is being created because hon. members think that the hon. member who now has the floor is reading his speech. There certainly is cause for thinking along that line. I have been watching the hon. member myself, and although I am quite prepared to give as much latitude as possible I understand, on the one hand, the feelings of those who think the hon. member is reading his speech, and on the other, the feelings of those who think they should not

intervene by interruptions of any kind. The hon. member is the master of the situation, and I will ask him to continue but not to provoke any interruptions by the very fact that perhaps he might be guilty of reading his speech.


William Earl Rowe: In that respect, I might observe that just a moment ago the hon. member did emphasize that he was expressing his own opinions.


An hon. Member:: Reading his own
opinions.


William Earl Rowe: No more than is read on the other side of the house, even by cabinet ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: The fact the hon. member said, as I heard him say, that he was expressing his own opinions does not detract from the suggestion that perhaps he might be reading his own opinions.
Mr. Pallet!: I am certainly pleased to hear that some of the members on the government side think I am reading this speech. I would certainly like to hear what they think of this Defence Production Act.
Is this government, or the members of it, prepared to come before this house and say who is the man who will administer this act? Will they say this is the man of the hour in whom we put out great trust? This is a man of infallible decisions. This man is wiser, more able, more far-seeing, more trustworthy, more conscientious than Canadians as a whole. Where is the man, if they say they have one? He is certainly not sitting on the present government benches, and I do not think anyone on this side of the house would have the temerity to suggest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Mr. Pallet!: -that he is sitting here. If there is no such man or men, then why ask us to place powers on a permanent basis in the hands of an unknown quantity? There is a saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What manner of man wants such powers? What type of man wants such powers?
During the discussion at the resolution stage of this bill, at page 2003 of Hansard, all members of the house understood that an understanding had been reached that consideration would be given to reviewing the permanent powers aspects of this bill. It was understood that consideration would result in the setting up of a permanent Department of Defence Production, but that the powers of the department would be subject to review within a reasonable period.
Defence Production Act I should point out at this time that the present powers under the act, passed in 1951, extend until 1956. In view of the general understanding that the bill, when finally introduced, would contain some definite dates for an opportunity to review the powers and would not ask for powers of a permanent nature, the resolution was supported, read the second time and concurred in.
I suppose the changes were considered, but I wonder what considerations were applied? From the type of defence of the bill offered by supporters of the government so far, and from the lack of explanation offered by the majority of the members on the government side, it would appear that the bill as presented does not have the support of the members on the government side that a measure of this kind ought to have. When it comes to the time of the vote, will government members put their party responsibilities before their responsibilities to Canada? I wonder if the Prime Minister would be prepared to say to government members that this is a free vote, or will they be asked to place in the hands of one man the power to walk into any plant, factory or farm in their riding and take it over?
It has been my experience when matters are coming up in the house which affect any part or any section of Canada to receive letters, briefs and submissions supporting the legislation as it is introduced or advocating that the legislation be opposed. These briefs come from associations of the better type, usually non-political. These briefs are valuable because no individual member of the house can formulate without some assistance an intelligent opinion on much of the legislation put through the house.
Someone with the support of this house has dared to so artificially and yet effectively subdue this magnificent manifestation of the feelings of our country that not just one but all of our nation's most influential, necessary organizations have not presented briefs on this debate. The presentation of briefs not only is customary but is of the greatest value in aiding the assessments made by this house of legislation. Assuredly the lack of briefs could hardly be accounted for by the indifference of these organizations. On the contrary, this debate is obviously of the utmost significance to them. But they are controlled by a reign of fear, a fear that is analogous to the fear inspired in an honest shopkeeper by the upper-echelon protection racketeer. Has the bludgeon, clothed scantily in an excessive majority, been at work?
Who is not producing at the present time in accordance with the contracts which have

Defence Production Act been made? No one has been named. If you read the white paper tabled by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) under the heading "equipment", you will find the following in paragraph 151:
During the first nine months of the fiscal year 1954-55,	101,900 contracts were placed by the
Department of Defence Production for defence equipment and stores, amounting to $747,967,000 in value.
Have the powers contained in this act aided in the production of all those contracts or in the placing of those contracts? Then with respect to naval equipment we find the following in paragraph 152:
No additional contracts have beeen placed for new naval vessels during the fiscal year 1954-55.
And in the same paragraph:
The destroyer escort program is unquestionably the most challenging of its kind ever carried out in this country. The over-all time of production compares favourably with that for similar projects in the United Kingdom and the United States.
And then paragraph 158 dealing with army equipment:
New equipment for the Canadian army was purchased to a total value of $95,270,000 during the past year. Most of this equipment was produced in Canada, but some was obtained from the United Kingdom or the United States.
Most of this equipment was produced in Canada. With respect to air force equipment, we find this at paragraph 163:
Production and delivery of the CF-100 Mk 4 is now well under way at Avro Aircraft Limited.
In paragraph 164:
Sabre production at Canadair Limited, Cartier, Quebec, is on schedule.
Nowhere in the white paper does the Minister of National Defence indicate that there have been any delays in production, but rather the tone of the white paper is to the contrary, and this bears out the original premise that Canadians as a whole are faithful and do not have to be bullied into doing that which they think is in the best interest of the country. People have only to read the white paper to see how well that premise is carried out according to the Minister of National Defence.
I well recall during the last war incidents when enemy ammunition was defective and we were told that the reason for this was that it was made by slave labour and that because we are a free people our production is better and more conscientious. This Defence Production Act was originally passed in 1951 when we were on a fringe of the new look in warfare and when the members of this house had not yet grasped the fact that, no matter what mechanical, chemical or biological advances are made, these are only elements to be used by us and form a small part of our general philosophy. In 1951, because there was a sudden expansion of [Mr. Pallett.l
things new, human minds at that time had grasped them as being part of something that was surmounting even our old principles and passed what they believed to be necessary legislation at that time. They forsook basic principles.
But everything must eventually come to its proper place, and these new developments have been put in their proper places. We have come to accept them as merely a part of our life and a part to be implemented for us. We are not to be subjugated to them. The fear of fantasy has passed and we now have a cold, stark realization that the fear of autocracy is here. How can there be autocracy in a democratic world? Read this act; see the unmitigated powers given to one minister. There can be no compromise on this bill as it presently stands.
(Translation):


Mr. Robert Perron (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, when, in 1951, the Defence Production Act was written into our statutes, it was understood that, by its very nature, it was to be of a temporary character and designed to meet a situation which was then considered to be critical. The Korean war was on and the armies of countries allied with South Korea were most apprehensive about the ultimate outcome of this venture.
That situation could well have become critical and might even have touched off a third world war. It was with this in mind that the government had this act written into our statutes. At least that is what was said at the time.
The whole house, at that time, was not unwilling to trust the government and did place in the hands of the Minister of Defence Production and of the cabinet powers which were generally recognized to be extraordinary and more in keeping with a dictatorship than with a democratic form of government. In fact, I do not believe that there is any country ruled by a dictator which places into the hands of one man powers more widespread than those which are to be found in chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.


Mr. Dufresne:: Hear, hear.


Robert Perron: Still, in 1951, this house did vote powers as extraordinary as those, to cope with a near desperate situation. Reading over the discussion which took place at that time, I think it may be said, to the credit of my party, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) did point out the dangers which such legislation entailed from the point of view of our democratic freedoms and of the supremacy of parliament, and that it could only be justified by the existence of a national emergency. In that same debate, the

member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), one of the most competent Conservative members of this house, had also accepted that legislation with some misgivings and had requested that, instead of establishing a Department of Defence Production, a special branch be established under the Department of Trade and Commerce, for as he pointed out, once a new department was set up, it was very hard to do away with it later on. Here are the very words spoken by the member for Vancouver-Quadra, as reported on page 614 of Hansard for 1951:
From what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said, I take it that there is no doubt this department will be under the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and judging from press reports, and also in the light of what has happened in years gone by, that he will continue to be the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Such being the case, one might perhaps question whether this defence production could not have been carried on as a branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce rather than setting up a new department-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He is a Pooh-Bah.


Robert Perron: -because we all know that, once a department has been set up, it is very difficult to do away with it, no matter how little it may be needed. As a general rule, I think it is unwise to set up more departments of government.
Such were the views expressed by members of the Conservative party, including the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), who had also represented to the house the dangers involved in that bill.
Be that as it may, in spite of such misgivings, the bill was adopted unanimously, but on the essential condition that it be temporary. Besides, section 41 of chapter 62 clearly sets out the principle which I have just stated. It reads thus:
This act, except subsection (6) of section 4, shall expire on the 31st day of July, 1956.
Subsection 6 of section 4 deals with the retirement of the employees of the department.
The consensus of opinion was that this limitation was a sine qua non for the granting of such absolute and unlimited powers.
Today, after four years, while the act may stay in force until July 31, 1956, the house is being asked, though given no real and reasonable motives, to establish this act on a permanent basis. It is quite obvious that world tension resulting from the threat of war existing in 1951, when there was fighting in Korea, is now considerably less. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the leaders of other countries have told us repeatedly that there was good basis for optimism and that the pros-
Defence Production Act pects of peace, at this time, were quite reasonable. Last Tuesday, Sir Winston Churchill, while cautioning us against overoptimism, stated that the world situation was improving.
I think the former prime minister of the United Kingdom can be considered as an authority in this matter, and as one of those who are best able to feel the pulse of the world as to the prospects of war or peace. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said himself last week that he did not expect any war in his remaining years.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Hear, hear.


Robert Perron: And we all know that the Prime Minister is still in the best of health. That means, Mr. Speaker, that the eventuality of war is far remote.
And at a time when the general atmosphere points to peace, the government asks us to pass an act giving it unlimited powers, even more unrestricted than those it enjoyed during the last war. It is unthinkable.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Dictatorial.


Robert Perron: They say, or rather the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) says, that in 1951 Russia did not have the H-bomb. Could we infer, Mr. Speaker, that because Russia knows the secret of the hydrogen bomb, it might mean the end of freedom and democracy in the world? That would be an easy victory, one which had not been envisioned by the Kremlin.
Yet, that is the conclusion to which we are led by the arguments of our friends opposite. As a matter of fact, everybody recognizes that the powers granted under that act are unusual and override ordinary public law, and that such a statute is possible in a democratic country only in a national emergency, when citizens are threatened in their possessions, their persons and their freedom. That is exactly what is being said on the government side, and none of our opponents, I think, will dare contradict that statement.
On the other hand, the only explanation coming from the Minister of Defence Production and those who sit on the government benches is that liberty, individuals and property are endangered, that Russia has the hydrogen bomb.
Therefore, if one admits that this act, in its implications, overrides ordinary law, that it is dictatorial, and if it is moreover admitted that the only reason for perpetuating the legislation is the hydrogen bomb in the hands of Russia, it could be inferred that the H-bomb ends all democratic freedom. And if the argument is carried to its logical conclusion,
5364	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act since the United States were the first to produce the H-bomb, they have also found the principle of death for democracy and freedom. If any Liberal or socialist members care to answer this argument, I would like to hear them do so.
The minister and government members who have dealt with this subject, told us-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Few of them did.


Robert Perron: -that we are in a period of national emergency, because of the H-bomb. They added that as the Russians were not inclined to bury this new hatchet, Canada, in the centuries to come, should live in the shadow of that dictatorial system. This would be our sole safeguard against this murderous weapon. With such a legislation in our statute books, we would have complete security, and Canadian citizens could henceforth sleep in peace, sheltered from all possible and impossible bombs, for we would be protected by statute. It is my conviction that Russia was not expecting such a powerful retort from a democracy, and that it will now think twice before dropping bombs over Canada, a democratic country which has a permanent Minister of Defence Production with authority to control everything and everyone without any regard for parliament and the people.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Strange democracy!


Robert Perron: The Minister of Defence Production wants to protect the freedom of the citizens of Canada against the boldness of a potential enemy and, to attain this end, the first thing he does is to abolish forever whatever freedom there is in this country.
The best reasons justifying our passing of the bill have so far been given to us by the socialist party, which has set itself up as the champion of a planned economy fully controlled by a man or an executive power, and this brought forth the plaudits of the government members who thereby showed that they had lost their faith in private enterprise.
It is not the first time that this government has acted this way, making some situations permanent which were supposed to be only temporary. It was by this same process that it achieved centralization, in general, with complete disregard for the constitution. The best example of this is that of the taxation fields which the provinces were asked to surrender temporarily at the beginning of the war and which were never returned to them.
This way of doing things is even worse in the case we are dealing with at this time, because we are asked to make permanent


powers which, as stated by the Prime Minister himself, are essentially provisional.
The government cannot blame the opposition for criticizing this act because we oppose it for the very reasons which the government gave in 1951, that is, that they cannot be permanent powers. We have been accused of filibustering. However, I must say that it was the rise of the great viziers which in turn gave birth to the filibusterers. The term has not made much headway in public opinion. The press generally, even that slightly inclined towards the government, is unanimous in stating that, at the present time, the opposition is doing its duty, that the act goes too far, and that the bill now before the house is certainly one of the most far-reaching measures that the house has had to study for a long time.
We may need a defence production department. The opposition is ready to facilitate the setting up of such a department, provided the minister in charge is given no more power than other cabinet ministers.
It is even possible that the minister really needs at present the extraordinary powers granted by the act, but since it remains in force until July 31, 1956, and since in the meantime another session will be convened, it will then be possible if necessary to extend those powers. If, at that time, the minister is able to establish in a more precise manner than he did this year the existence of a state of national emergency, the opposition will be pleased to extend those powers for a further period.
I urge the government members to forget for a moment the heat which oppresses us on these late June days and to read at leisure, without preconceived political ideas, chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes of Canada in order to establish if it really makes sense and if it is appropriate to write permanently into our legislation a measure which is the very negation of democracy.
(Text):


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I have no particular axe to grind in this debate, Mr. Speaker. I think the government is quite justified in asking for the powers which it is demanding. At the same time I feel that the Conservative party is also justified in asking that some time limit should be put upon such powers.
It seems to me that today one stubborn force is meeting another stubborn force, and the rest of us are going to be sitting here

all summer if they cannot get together. I appeal to the minister to give some consideration to a compromise. Surely, if a three-year limit or a five-year limit were put in the bill, as requested by the Conservative party, the powers of the minister would not be endangered in any serious way. I feel that everyone would benefit if some such compromise were reached. We could then get on with the other important business of the house which we still have left to do.


Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds):: In taking part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I am fully conscious of the fact that we on this side of the house have been accused by many of the government members of staging a filibuster and thereby delaying the passage of this bill. I am not one to be continually on my feet, but 1 have no apology to make for voicing my strong opposition to the suggestion that we should delete section 41 of the Defence Production Act.
We of the official opposition are pleased to do our best-


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member from what he is quoting?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope not the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Hayden Stanton: I will gladly answer the minister. I am quoting from my own thoughts. We of the official opposition are pleased to do our best-call it a filibuster if you like-to bring before the people of the Dominion of Canada the unsavoury contents of this bill. When I say "dominion" it recalls to my mind how the thin edge of the wedge can and does eradicate the work, genuine thoughts and endeavours of those talented fathers of confederation, whose only hope was that through their efforts democracy would be sustained.
Canadians are beginning to feel a good deal of sympathy for the Conservative members of parliament in their untiring efforts to prevent an indefinite extension of the government's special defence production powers. At any rate, it strikes me the minister is guilty of employing a dubious tactic when he asserts that the current international situation is worse than it was in 1951 because the Russians did not possess the H-bomb in 1951. No doubt war, if it came now, would be worse than it would have been in 1951; but whether Russia's possession of the H-bomb automatically makes the danger of war greater now is a matter of opinion.
I see no reason why the government should not be required to come to parliament a year hence, give an accounting as to the exercise 50433-339
Defence Production Act of its special authority, and then ask for a further limited extension if it thinks that is necessary. If parliament grants the indefinite extension now being sought, it may find it extremely difficult to re-establish its own theoretically overriding authority in this field.
The press across Canada, with few exceptions, views with disfavour the elimination of an expiry date from the Defence Production Act. They see that it would be treading on the very roots of our independent way of living. Perhaps it is necessary during wartime to free parliament from the need for passing upon such emergency measures as they come up. But to make it possible for the government or any department of government, through its minister, to have such powers indefinitely, as is suggested now, is very dangerous.
I am sure we all agree that the present minister is responsible, able, and quite unlikely to take advantage of these powers in peacetime. But this is beside the fact. There is no justification for the extension of the Defence Production Act indefinitely, and it is a dangerous step for any parliament to take. Parliament should be jealous of its powers as the supreme law-making body in Canada.
My deskmate, the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Small), drew the attention of the house to many words and acts that have been discarded from our constitution in the last few years. These facts recall to our minds how easily our democratic way of life can slip away. Many clauses of the act have been recited by hon. members, but I should like to direct the attention of the house to section 5:
The minister may authorize any person, on his behalf or under his control and direction, to do any act or thing or to exercise any powers that the minister may do or exercise under this act.
Under section 5 the minister may employ many persons as directors or superintendents to be travelling up and down this country, spending more time on trains and in cars than they would at any given point. If the minister or his successor is so inclined, what political plums could be made out of this act.
Then, I refer to section 6 which reads:
The governor in council may appoint advisers and establish advisory and other boards, composed of such members as he may appoint, to advise or aid the minister, to perform such duties and exercise such powers as he may designate, and may fix the remuneration and expenses to be paid to persons appointed under this section.
I say in all seriousness that now would be a wonderful time for the governor in council to appoint an adviser to advise the minister and the government of the utter folly of this bill at this time.
5368	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
Lastly, I refer to section 41 which reads:
This act, except subsection (6) of section 4, shall expire on the 31st day of July, 1956.
We on this side of the house fight the permanent right being given a minister to requisition supplies, and, worst of all, to appoint controllers to operate businesses. In fact, he has the control of nearly all of our economy if he so desires under this Defence Production Act.
I cannot see why the minister is so anxious that this bill be passed now, when it does not expire until July 31, 1956. There will be another full session of parliament before that time. When we renew our driver's licence, or our fire insurance, we do not do it until near the expiry date. So why the hurry now? Is the minister afraid there may be a change of mind among his party supporters in the house before that time?
I am not sure that all the members on the government side of the house are so anxious that this bill be passed now. In fact, from comments we see in the press we are led to believe that many of the hon. members of the other place are preparing to launch a determined attack on this mischievous bill, and it is quite apparent from the everlasting silence among government supporters that they are lukewarm, and I have no doubt that by now they wish that they had never heard of section 41 of the Defence Production Act, after reading all the editorials and comments of the press, regardless of political affiliations.
The content of this act is to give the minister absolute power in time of emergency, when the nation is fighting with its back to the wall, when the total mobilization of all our economic resources, and everything contained within our boundaries, is absolutely necessary to carry on a total war. But we are not at war now. Indeed, the government has all the powers at its disposal under other emergency acts to prepare in a sizeable way for any threat of an emergency. In fact, I have all kinds of confidence in our industrialists, industrial workers, and the people of this dominion, to take care of the needs of our defence production now or at any other time, except perhaps in an allout total war effort.
This bill is striking at the very foundation of our democracy which we, as a democratic people, have enjoyed since the day of Magna Carta. We, the people of Canada, like to be free to do and act as our own dictates direct us, and I believe if we are left alone we will not do too badly.
What I am afraid of is that, if too much power is given to any one department or


combination of departments, it may intimidate the industrialists and even the industrial workers, perhaps politically. And, heaven knows, we do not want that to happen.
I notice that the hon. members to my left are wholly in support of this bill-naturally, as it is right down their alley, giving the government in power sole control. I suppose they think that if they ever get in control of the reins of government this is one act that will be there waiting for them. But I use the word "if"; for if their gains are one in each four years, as it was in a recent election, they will be over four hundred years attaining that goal.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: About the same time as the Tories.


Hayden Stanton: I hope there are enough sane, deep thinking, democratic members in this house to keep this bill from passing.
But if, on the contrary, they are determined to delete the expiry date from the Defence Production Act, the government may as well take also that unscrupulous part from the Income Tax Act that empowers its taxation officers to chase the humble people of Canada back years and years for a few paltry dollars, add it to this bill, and choke both down the throats of the citizens of Canada who love freedom, and a free and democratic way of life.


Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I do so somewhat with hesitation. During the days of this debate on Bill No. 256, which is an act to amend the Defence Production Act, I have listened with interest to the reasons as to why this act should not be amended at this particular time. We should all be familiar with the fact that this act does not expire until July 31, 1956. We, as elected representatives, are the spokesmen for the constituencies we represent. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere and firm conviction that the people I represent do not want these overwhelming powers, powers which, if this bill is passed, will be vested in one man, and that man is the Minister of Defence Production. Now, it may not be the present minister for very long, but it will be some minister of defence production.
It has been stated, and I am sure repeated many times in this house, that the emergency powers in this bill were given when the Korean war was in progress. The Korean war is now over, and has been for some time, and we have been told in this very house that the danger of war now is much less imminent than it was six months or even a year ago.

Last week when the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) was speaking he used the expression "why" quite frequently during his remarks in the debate. This little question "why" is one we all like to use, especially for information purposes. I am sure we all used this word many, many times when we were children. For as long as I live I know I shall ask questions to seek to know what I do not know. How well I remember how inquisitive I was as a child. If a stranger came to our home I would soon be at his side asking questions. As I think of it now, I am sure it was a good sign, although undoubtedly it made me a nuisance many a time.
I do not know how any of us can expect to gain any knowledge without asking questions and delving into all sorts of books for new information. I am interested in outdoor life and I keep reading books on birds, animals, flowers, trees, countries and people. With a world of interest all about us, it is quite possible that we learn something new and something interesting every day of our lives.
It was the quality of curiosity which obsessed the mind of the late Thomas A. Edison and made him the great inventor he was. He wanted to find out; and it often took him thousands of tries before he arrived at the final solution. We have all noted the building of great structures, with modern means of lifting steel high into the air. Always there is a crowd on the street watching every move, wanting to know the why of it. We like to know how and why all important things are done. People who are curious are alive. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I might say that we are more than curious on this side of the house. We are desirous of knowing why the Minister of Defence Production wants these overwhelming powers, not for one year, not for three years, but forever.
The lust for power is insatiable. Give a man authority over his neighbours and at the first opportunity he will be back for more power to make effective the power he already has. Many members on the government side of the house seem to be bothered by the repetitive nature of the speeches and arguments advanced in support of freedom. I can just imagine them saying when we get up to speak "Is this another speech, or the same old arguments where the same ideas will be hashed over again"?
Life is to a large extent a repetitive process. We all derive enjoyment and stimulation from hearing old songs, attending familiar operas, rereading favourite books and looking at well beloved pictures. The virtue and the need of repetition and reiteration in stating the case 50433-3391
Defence Production Act for liberty is that liberty is not something that we can win once and for all time and, having won it, sit back to rest and enjoy it. It is like a vineyard that needs to be cultivated and constantly attended. If neglected it can become overrun by obnoxious weeds, and there is always danger from the little foxes who can spoil the vines, the vines that have tender grapes.
In reviewing the editorial comments in the daily press in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and in summing up these editorials, it seems to be the general opinion that Canadians are slipping a little bit at a time into a state-controlled economy. It is time we as Canadians woke up and gave serious thought to these overwhelming powers to be given, not to cabinet to be passed by order in council, but to one man, the Minister of Defence Production. I believe that most of us in this house are in agreement that the Minister of Defence Production has had these controls for five years, and I am sure we all agree that he has not overexercised his authority under this act, but I am sure we are all also aware of the fact that the present minister will not be here forever and the man who succeeds him in office may be more desirous of putting into effect these powers if they are granted, which would have an effect on the life of every Canadian.
I recall during the years of the war when prices on all commodities were frozen at a level and farmers in general were asked to produce more than they had ever produced before. They went out and did this. They increased production with less help than they had been accustomed to having. Canada has gone through two world wars, in both of which the government took control of prices in order to keep them down. Scarcities were created in both wars and the government, in order to encourage increased production, had to raise the prices allowed to the farmers, but it never raised them as high as they would have gone if there had been no controls. If anyone doubts this, let him compare the price in the United States where no controls were in effect. The highest price Canadians received during that war was $2.21 per bushel and the price they received in the United States was considerably over $3.00 per bushel. Some farmers believe they are the victims of wicked men who manipulate the markets to their own advantage but to the farmers' disadvantage. Others believe they suffer more from the leadership of vain and foolish men who fancy themselves capable of running the farmers' affairs and bossing them right into paradise if given authority to do so.



S3S8 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Defence Production Act
It is a compliment to the integrity of any man who says he pays his debts and this can well be said of our farm population.
Mr. Richardson:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Alexander McBain: Ask questions later.
During the last ten years the government report discloses that Canadian farmers borrowed more than $500 million to improve their farms under government guaranteed bank loans. In this period the loan loss amounted to slightly under $150,000, a very small fraction of 1 per cent. Such a record speaks well for rural people, both for their honesty, the way they conduct their business and for agriculture as an industry. The record of farm people is commendable in view of the fact that most borrowings were made when farm income and commodities were at a low level. There appears to be a tremendous volume of agricultural borrowing at local banks and this has been the case for many years. This record of good repayment of loans apparently applies to farmers in the tobacco areas as well. As long as such a good credit rating is maintained, there should never be any difficulty in financing proper farm improvements, good production planning and management.
I just wish to use that illustration to point out what would be the feeling of farm people across Canada if they realized what powers would be over their heads if the Minister of Defence Production is given these overwhelming powers.
In case of an emergency arising, I am sure the agricultural people and those engaged in agriculture would rally for freedom, and once again produce the same as was done during the war years of the 1940's.
Under this legislation the minister has the power to seize any business, large or small, to cancel contracts, take over any material that the minister thinks necessary for the production of defence requirements, and these powers can be put into effect without even consulting other members of the cabinet, let alone parliament. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to oppose the passage of this bill.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Lennard:: Not necessarily.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Did he read his speech?


Mr. Macdonnell:: Since when has it become a crime to read a speech in this house?


James Alexander McBain: The hon. member can read a speech any time he wishes.
[Mr. McBain.1


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


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, it seems-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Miss Bennett:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Halton was on her feet.


Sybil Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the minister will have to wait a few minutes yet. I have listened to this debate. I know a great deal has been said. A great deal has been said in reiteration, but, Mr. Speaker, the reason I want to join in this debate is that the issue before us, the very principle of this bill, goes to the very heart, to the very root, to the very being of our constitution and of our free parliamentary system. I want to say this to you, Mr. Speaker: Every man and woman elected to this house under our free parliamentary system should be speaking, should be raising their voices and should have something to say in the defence of our constitution and of our parliamentary system which we have had for long years, in fact for centuries. It was only about 300 or 400 years ago, which is a very short time actually in our history, that our forefathers stood in the mother of parliaments and fought this particular issue, the very principles that we are considering in this bill today. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that every hon. member elected by the free will and the free vote of the people of this nation should be speaking to uphold and to extend the bulwarks of the free and magnificent institutions that we have enjoyed for centuries.
It is not a matter of the minister, nor is it a matter so much of this bill and other bills. This bill is similar to other bills. Every bill that comes before this house does to a certain extent give wide powers. This particular bill however gives the minister in charge the widest powers possible, the widest powers to go into every phase and every department of the economic and social life of this country.
In addition to giving these very wide powers, Mr. Speaker, there is no limitation upon the time during which the minister has these powers. It has been said by the minister and by other hon. members that it is very necessary to protect the country, it is very necessary to protect this nation because we live in a state of emergency, we live in a state of upheaval, we live in a state of uncertainty, and naturally we must be able to move quickly and with dexterity. Naturally, we must be able to pass laws to

manage the country, to bring forth its greatest manpower and obtain their great services.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, we are not in an emergency. Any suggestion that we are in an emergency today is foolish and ludicrous. We know we are living in serious times, and we shall continue in that way, but actually serious times have almost become normal. Furthermore, we have passed through two great wars, the first world war, the second world war and the Korean war. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the house that at that time we were able to rally together, we were able to bring all our forces together, and we fought those wars to a proper, a complete and a victorious conclusion. We are not in a different situation today. I will go farther than that and say that I am not so sure emergency powers of this kind should be granted even for a limited time, because we live in a day and age when transportation is speedy. Parliament can be called together quickly. We can come here from every part of this nation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in the last three days I have covered 3,800 miles in this country.
Considering that, it is abundantly evident that in a very short time, if an emergency arose, we could be brought together, we could consider these matters. Never once in our history, not during the first war, the second war or the Korean war did this parliament, the representatives of the people, refuse to vote anything that was required for defence or the necessities or emergency of this nation. Therefore I am not so sure that these emergency rights should be given under our constitution, under our freedom, under our rights, under the very reasons why we are sent down here. And why do the people of the country send us here? They send us down here and they pay us a salary to be here, to consider these things, to go into these matters and, if it is necessary, to give these very wide powers where they are required and where they can be properly handled and properly contained.
I want to tell you that the very great danger in this thing is that there is a new philosophy abroad in this country. As a matter of fact, there is a philosophy abroad in the world to which many countries have fallen prey. It has come about in a very subtle way and in a way that one hardly thinks about. If you look at the totalitarian states under dictatorships, how did the powers first come to those dictators? How did they come in Italy? How did they come in Germany? How did they come in Russia? How did they come in other parts of the world? They came about by the slow means of giving powers, by slowly giving extraordinary powers to
Defence Production Act one man, to a group of men or to a coterie of men. We are living in a day and age where one man or a group of men or a coterie of men want power. They want it so that they may be able to handle things, as someone said to me, in a much more streamlined and speedier way. I want to tell you that that is the very beginning, that is the very basis, that is the very essence, that is the very start of this taking over of power. It may be very subtle, it may be very hidden, but actually it is laying the foundation and preparing the way to much greater and broader powers to be given to one man or to a group and it finally ends in a dictatorship.
It is not a case of the minister in question. It is not a case so much of this bill but of the-principle of this bill. It is not only just this bill; we know that there will be something else. Larger and broader and wider powers will be asked for. As I say, it is a very dangerous philosophy that is growing in the world and is taking root subtly but surely and gradually, and very definitely it is taking root in this country and in this parliament of Canada.
I remember a very prominent person in this country, a man of ability, a man of good quality thinking, once saying to me that the day and age of parliamentary debate and parliamentary argument had come to an end, that we could not have it because we have not the time. It was argued that we have too much work to do in this country, that we have too much business to do in this country, that we must streamline our business and give it over to a few experts. It is argued that there is no need for this discussion and this debate on this bill.
I want to say to you and to all members of this house that after all this is not what we have lived and fought for, this is not what our ancestors fought for for hundreds of years.. We are advocating the retaining of those very principles. Call it a filibuster if you like;: I am glad to be in a filibuster if its purpose-is to guard those principles of democracy and! our democratic institutions. Those are what we want to uphold in the years to come.
When I look across at the minister I cannot help remembering that on a great many occasions he has been more than good to me. I regard him most highly; I have the highest respect for him. But my sense of constitutional right, my sense of parliamentary right, my sense of parliamentary freedom must always override any personal feelings that I may have.
I think the minister himself, and surely hon. members sitting opposite when looking: over this bill, must realize that in giving themselves these very wide powers they are-
5370	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act taking on a tremendous responsibility, so great that I would hardly think any one minister or any one group would want to take it on. These powers are very wide. As a matter of fact, if this bill passes and these powers are granted for an indefinite period certain phases of our parliamentary government will have passed away, will be gone entirely.
The minister could go out and take over any business in this country that he wished to take over. He could take over the railroads, he could take over the hydroelectric power facilities, he could take over any private industry. He could take over the press, and I should think they would be greatly alarmed about that because after all they have been the great proponents of freedom in this nation. We welcome that, and that is what it should always be. But these things can be done. In addition to that he can order any person that he should choose, not he himself with his particular and peculiar ability but anyone he chooses to go into any industry to manage that industry. But the dreadful part of it all is that that person will not be responsible to the former owner and would not be responsible actually to anyone. Certainly he would not be responsible to the people or to their elected representatives.
To my mind that sets a very bad example. It sets a very bad example to Canadian business and to Canadian institutions in the method of carrying on our institutions. I suppose it will be said that recourse could be taken to the courts in an action against the crown, but every hon. member here, particularly those who adhere to the law profession, know how foolish and how impossible it is to take action against the crown. You do not get very far in any action against the crown.
Then I say with the greatest deference that the minister and the whole government would be laid open to pressure from different groups. After all we are only human beings and this pressure possibility is one of the dangerous aspects of this bill. Somebody might want more steel or something else and he would come to the controller or the person in control to get his steel. Then of course he would feel that he must make a large return at certain times. Human nature being what it is, that is the sort of thing which makes our parliamentary practices corrupt and improper. We are here in this democratic country today with our democratic institutions and we should be able to show the world that we are able to .carry on, that we are able to move through


free enterprise, through the freedom of man, to think and to do and to give of our very best.
I want to take issue at this moment with those to the left of me. It is improper and unfair to make any suggestions that in the Korean war or in the first and second great wars any part of this country was sabotaged by any groups or persons. That is not true. We know that leaders of industry and men working in industry, from the very top to the very bottom, gave the very best of everything they had to the winning of this war and supported the men and women who went out and fought on the fronts for us, who fought for that particular freedom for which I am speaking in this house today.
I should like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every hon. member of this house, and to the people of Canada, that I do not intend to go home to my constituency and tell the people, some 55,000 people, that I for one moment allowed myself to give in in any way, to procrastinate, or to have any doubts as to where I stand, because I stand for the free parliamentary institutions of this nation. They have been with us for hundreds of years and it is my pride that I can play some part in maintaining them. I intend to vote for them to be with us for many more sessions. For that reason I cannot and will not be found supporting a bill of this kind.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't spoil the smile on the minister's face.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I enjoy his smile as much as anyone. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Ilalton (Miss Bennett) on her most eloquent and effective speech. I am sure she touched on many matters pertinent to this subject in a very able manner.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this has been a long debate; we all agree on that; but I think it has been a very necessary one. The circumstances under which this bill was brought before this house and the ideas behind it certainly are entitled to very grave consideration by the members of this parliament and by the country in general. I remember when the defence production bill was before the house in 1951 and I also remember that our party voted for it and I personally voted for it. I did so for two reasons. The first was that I felt that such an act was necessary under conditions such as were prevailing at that time. But I had another reason as well, and that reason was mentioned at the time. That was that I had hoped, along with many other members

from my part of the country, that under the vast powers which were then given to the Minister of Defence Production there would be some decentralization of industry across this country.
We felt that it would be a good thing for Canada, and we also felt that the production could have been just as effectively carried out if all parts of Canada were given the chance to contribute. I have read the reports of the department carefully for the last five or six years, and I must say I am disappointed that there has not been more decentralization of industry. I am greatly disappointed that my section of the country in particular has not been able to make the contribution it could make and would like to make to this department. It has been the same old story. Every two weeks we get a report from the Department of Defence Production that millions of dollars are spent for products of defence in and around Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton and other great centres in the two large provinces. A few hundred dollars goes to other parts of Canada. I do not think it is good for Canada, and I do not think that is the way to build up a great country. As I said before, in view of the unlimited powers which were given to the minister at that time, we had every reason to hope that a different situation would have arisen.
The other day I was quite pleased, though not surprised, to see the remarks of the premier of Newfoundland in connection with this situation. I might say that the premier of Newfoundland has been in Canadian politics long enough now to have his eyes opened. He realizes that the four Atlantic provinces have a strong case for more assistance than they are getting. I think he realizes also, as I am sure the people of his province are realizing, that there is something more to this confederation, which they came into a few years ago, than the receiving of children's allowances and old age pensions. I am glad that Premier Smallwood is now championing the cause which has been so well championed by opposition members of this house over quite a period of years.
It was not my intention to discuss this matter particularly this morning. I wish to discuss the more intimate terms of this bill which is before us. I was quite surprised, as have been many members on this side of the house-as they have all expressed in their speeches-that this bill was brought up this year. This is now the month of June. The Defence Production Act runs until the 31st of July, 1956, which is over 13 months from now. Why it was necessary at this session
Defence Production Act to push through an act of this kind is beyond the comprehension of a good many members in this house.
I was also quite surprised, after it was brought before this house and after it was seen that there was very strong sentiment from one end of this country to the other against this bill, that it has not been withdrawn either by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Defence Production. I join with others in expressing my surprise that the Prime Minister of this country, who was responsible for introducing this bill in the house, has not as yet seen fit to rise in the house and give us some of his ideas upon a bill of this kind, which is his own bill. As the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) mentioned a few days ago, the Prime Minister of this country is one of the leading jurists of Canada and has been for a great many years a man whose ideas are highly respected, and a great constitutional lawyer. I am sure that in his heart of hearts he realizes, as many others do across Canada, that this bill does or will affect the freedoms of a great many people.
As was indicated this morning when one of our members rose to speak, the government members are a little annoyed by the continuing of this debate. I wish to say that the fault is theirs. The fault is not of the opposition members. This debate could have ended long ago. All they needed to do was to get up and say that they agreed that the setting up of this defence production department is necessary but these unheard of powers, except in wartime, for which the minister is asking, should not be continued permanently in Canada. If that had been done this debate would have ended many days ago. The people are not quiet despite the fact that government members may think so. It takes a long time in this country for the people to realize what is happening. As a matter of fact, I think there are a great many members of the house, especially on the government side, who do not realize the significance of the bill, and it is hard to expect men working on the farms, in the mines and all over the country, who have not seen the bill, to realize just what it means.
But the newspapers across the country realize. The newspapers are aware that the bill attacks the freedom of our people. Our leading newspapers right from one end of Canada to the other have written editorials commenting on the bill. Many of our weekly newspapers have done the same thing. One can say that in general our newspapers are opposed to the bill being passed. As the Winnipeg Free Press said in an editorial on Saturday, I believe, "drop the bill"-
5372	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why do you not
do that?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why do you not do it?


William Earl Rowe: That is the easiest way to cure the situation. You have the powers for a year anyway.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The Winnipeg Free Press usually expresses Liberal opinion in the great western part of our country.


William Earl Rowe: Maybe he is going to drop it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to read a list of the newspapers so that people who read Hansard may know what newspapers of the country are opposed to the continuance permanently of the powers in the bill before us. It contains such newspapers as the Kingston Whig-Standard, the Toronto Telegram, the Calgary Herald, the Edmonton Journal, the Windsor Star, the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, the Ottawa Journal, the Letter-Review, the Ottawa Citizen, Le Devoir, the Winnipeg Tribune, the Winnipeg Free Press and the Financial Times. There are many others I do not have in my list, but these are outstanding newspapers from one end of Canada to the other.


William Earl Rowe: The Toronto Star.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The Toronto Star.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Fredericton Gleaner.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have not seen the editorial in the Fredericton Gleaner.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nor in the Toronto Star.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But the Montreal Gazette depicted the minister yesterday with his big baseball bat, and has also indicated strongly that the bill should be dropped. There is one thing common to the views of all these newspapers, namely, that there is no need to extend these powers and there is no great emergency in the country as the minister and some speakers on the government side have tried to make us believe. There is no emergency such as there was in 1951 when the Korean war was under way. They all deplore the fact that the Liberal backbenchers have not stood up and opposed the bill. As a matter of fact, the place where the Liberal backbenchers could and should have opposed the bill was in their caucus. If they did not wish to get up and oppose it in the House of Commons they should have fought against it in their own caucus.


Frank Exton Lennard: They do not have one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do you have one?


Frank Exton Lennard: They do not have a caucus.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If they had done so the bill probably would not be before us. All these newspapers warn that Canadians should be assured that they are not going to be subjected to a state controlled economy. There are many other statements. The Vancouver Sun considers the situation rather frightening but the people will wake up. It considers that we are using totalitarian methods to fight totalitarianism, as was mentioned by one speaker a moment ago. The Financial Times has a strong editorial against the powers contained in the legislation being made permanent. In spite of all this reaction from one end of Canada to the other, what does the minister tell us? We heard him the other day. His excuse for asking for these powers is that the Russians have the hydrogen bomb. Certainly they have the hydrogen bomb. We have the hydrogen bomb.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am speaking now of the nations allied with us, the NATO nations. The United States and Great Britain have the hydrogen bomb.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Keep to the United States.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not have to keep to the United States. We are all one. I am speaking of the free peoples of the world. We, the free people, have the hydrogen bomb, and surely we would act together in case of war. In fact, Canada probably could have had the hydrogen bomb but it was too expensive and we knew we could get hydrogen bombs from the United States if we needed them for defence. My understanding is that Great Britain has the hydrogen bomb. The minister shakes his head. I will take his word for it, but in any event there is no doubt in my mind, nor do I think there is any doubt in the minds of the people of this country or of the free world that we, the free people of the world, have more hydrogen bombs than the Russians. As one speaker said, if it ever comes to the stage that hydrogen bombs are dropped on Canada or some place else then it will not make any difference whether or not we have these emergency powers. I should like to read a short article from Time magazine of June 27 setting forth what Mr. Dulles says.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Order.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You had better wait until you hear what is in it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You had better not read it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It does not have to do with the defence production bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the rule has been enforced many times that opinions of people outside this house bearing on the business of the house are out of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what it is.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister does not know any more about what I am going to read than he does about some other matters. As a matter of fact it has no bearing on the house debates. It is what Mr. Dulles said a few days ago. The article reads:
Russia, Dulles said, was faced with bankruptcy of its old policy. Cold war and hot threats had failed to cow western Europe or to halt the rebirth of a rearmed, democratic Germany. The Soviets were over-committed . . .
The article goes on to point out that Russia has less than a third of United States industrial capacity. It is for that reason I say there is no doubt in my mind that the United States has far more hydrogen bombs than Russia. There are just two things the Russians understand and only one for which they have any great respect. There is no question that they have respect for strength. We all know that the attitude of the Russian people today seems to be changing. The opinion is that the reason it is changing is that they realize the western world is becoming stronger day by day.
We believe in the Defence Production Act so far as the setting up of a department is concerned. That has been said in the house a good many times. There is no objection to that. We certainly believe the situation is serious enough for such an act.
Now, I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that never before in any act of this nature has there not been a time limit. In his day the Minister of Defence Production has had more power, I imagine, than any other man who has ever lived in Canada. But in the acts that were placed upon the statute books in 1939, at the beginning of the war, such as the munitions and supply act which gave the minister great powers, and they were needed, we find such sections as section 16 of that act. It reads:
Subject to the following provisions of this section, the foregoing provisions of this act shall continue in force for a period of three years beginning with the date of the passing of this act, and shall then expire:
That is the munitions and supply act in 1939 and 1940, and it was allowed to remain on the statute books for three years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What happened in 1943?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I will tell you what happened.
Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: That clause was taken out.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In 1943, the munitions and supply act contained section 17 which read as follows:
Subject to the following provisions of this section, the foregoing provisions of this act shall continue in force for a period of three years beginning with the date of the passing of this act, and shall then expire;
That was in the munitions and supply act in 1939 and 1940, an act which was passed during a very serious time in this country and when we were in the midst of one of the greatest wars in history.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the house to an act which set up the department of reconstruction. You will all remember that this was in 1944-45 and the act contained practically unlimited powers which were given to the minister at that time. There was a great scarcity of goods in this country and it was necessary for the minister, in dealing with reconstruction, to have these powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my hon. friend was quoting the 1943 amendment. My understanding is the amendment at that time was retroactive to April 9, 1940 and the section relating to expiry was repealed, to be effective as of April 9, 1940.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: For another three years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the expiry date was repealed in 1943.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: At any rate, the act is now off the books.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, and it was
taken off in 1950 by action of the Liberal government, without any suggestion from the Conservative party.


William Earl Rowe: Why don't you do that now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will, when we get through with it.


William Earl Rowe: That is what you want, power to put it in and take it out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Without worrying about parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The trouble is you think you are parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We know you are not; you are anti-parliament, that is the trouble.

Defence Production Act


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In the statutes of 1940, chapter 31, section 10, we find the following in the department of munitions and supply act:
Subsection 1 of section 16 of the said act (renumbered as section 17 by subsection 2 of this section) is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"17. (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the foregoing provisions of this act shall continue in force for a period of three years beginning with the date of the passing of this act, and shall then expire;
It seems to me that is definite enough, Mr. Speaker.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For a lawyer, you have not read that act very thoroughly.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, I have read the section very carefully. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the department of reconstruction act, chapter 18 of the statutes of 1944-45, section 14, says:
This act shall continue in force during the period of reconstruction.
As the minister knows, the date of expiry for reconstruction was 1949. In effect, therefore, that section says this act shall continue until 1949.
The essential materials act, another very important act and one which gave the minister very broad powers, contains section 10, which reads:
This act shall expire on the thirty-first day of July. 1952.
This act was chapter 6 of the statutes of 1950-51. All these acts had a definite expiry date, Mr. Speaker, as I am contending this act should have. The minister has been given tremendous powers. The minister and some of those who are sitting on the other side try to make us believe that the emergency is as great today as it was in 1951. It would take considerable time to go over the situation as it was in 1951 and previous to that time. To understand the situation in 1951, one should review the happenings of the previous years.
We recall that in 1946, for instance, Sir Winston Churchill was very much concerned about the lack of interest of the people throughout the world in the growth of communism. We all remember that he made a speech at Fulton, Missouri, and he alerted the people to what the possibilities were so far as communism in this country was concerned. He told them how Russia had taken over Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Balkan states, East Germany, and how in all these countries large armies were being built up by the Russians. Russia herself maintained a very large army, a navy and an air force. The United States, Great Britain and the other free nations, up until 1951, were more or less indifferent. We all know that at that 

time West Germany, one of the great nations before the great war and which is probably becoming a great nation today, was prostrate. Austria was occupied. Italy and Yugoslavia were unfriendly as a result of the difficulty over Trieste. This was the situation from 1946 to 1951, and it continued after that.
The only salvation we had at that time, as expressed by Sir Winston Churchill, was the atomic bomb; that was the salvation of this world in 1951. Then, there was the Korean war. I do not think there is any member in this house or anyone in Canada who understands a situation who will not say that was an extremely serious time and that there was a great emergency in Canada. The war had been started. At that time Canada, the United States and Great Britain did not know whether or not Russia would go to war over the Korean situation. We had no idea. Indeed, there was a great emergency in 1951, when this act was passed.
What is the situation today, in 1955? The Korean war is ended. The difficulties in Trieste are settled. Italy and Yugoslavia are friendly and, so far as we know, they are friendly towards the great western powers. Austria is a neutral country. The situation in Malaya today is better than it has been for a good many months. The whole picture in the world today is much better than it was in 1951. Besides that, look at the allies that the western nations have today. Western Germany, for instance, which in 1951 was almost prostrate before Russia, is today a great nation and capable of producing large armies, and seems to be willing to do so. There is a better feeling in Turkey, Spain, Pakistan and all these nations. And I want to say to the minister that I do not believe he or any of his supporters can convince anyone in this House of Commons or in the country that there is today the emergency that there was in 1951.
In that connection I should like to quote what Chancellor Adenauer said the other day with respect to the world situation. Speaking of today he said:
The climate is more favourable for the reason that the West, the free peoples, are now stronger than they were previously. They have grown stronger through the unity which has been achieved in Europe by the conclusion of the Western European Union and by the entry of the Federal Republic into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Then the article goes on to say:
He contrasted the growing strength and unity of the free world with the demands posed upon the Soviet Union "by its internal economic tasks". To mend its internal difficulties, he said, the Soviet Union needs "a lengthy pause for relaxation".
Continuing his note of optimism, he spoke of an "unmistakable repudiation of communism by the

greater part of Asia; thus the Soviet Union can no longer reckon that the majority of the peoples of Asia stand behind her".
Does that sound as though there was a greater emergency, or one anywhere near comparable, either in Canada or in the western world, with that of 1951?
Now, attention has been drawn a number of times to those who are defending this bill in the house. The great defence that has come to the minister and the government in defence of this bill has not been from the Liberal party. It has not come from members on the government side of the house; it is from the socialist party in this House of Commons. And that is just as we would expect, because it is right down their alley. This is more or less a socialistic measure in peacetime.
The C.C.F. have always been in favour of controls. That is part of the philosophy of the C.C.F. party-the control of business. They believe in the control of business. As a matter of fact they believe in the extermination of free enterprise in this country. They believe in government taking over control.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You want business to control the country.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No; but so long as business is honest, as I believe it is in Canada, they have a great part to play in the controlling of the country. There is no question about that.


An hon. Member:: What about combines investigations?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As proof of what 1 say, what did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) do? He quoted one instance, the instance of some clothing company at the time of the first war. He said the minister had said that one company had refused to produce clothing, and he proceeded to base his argument upon that one case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely the hon. member
realizes that the quotation I gave from the minister was not with respect to just one company. He said no contracts had been let under the profits limitation clause.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the hon. member will look at it he will find that it was the only definite case the hon. member quoted. He did mention something about fabricated steel. Then he quoted the minister, in a later statement, as saying that the companies controlling the fabricated steel industry in this country could be depended upon.
And the same line was followed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough). His main argument was to
Defence Production Act insult industry in this country and to try to insult the Conservative party. But we are pretty thick-skinned and we did not mind what he said.
Then along came the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). Well, he did not put up any argument in this house which would defend the attitude of the government.
I might add this, that I believe the hon. member for Vancouver South was at one time a socialist; and when he was a socialist he was very strong in the defence of socialist principles. But now he can always find something good in everything this government does. In fact, he is the greatest defender of the Liberal faith in the House of Commons. He can always stand up and find some argument in defence of what the government does. I believe if the minister were to bring in a bill to scuttle the whole House of Commons the hon. member for Vancouver South would stand up and find some good and substantial reason as to why it should be done.
Then the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) is the minister's parliamentary assistant and, of course, he has a duty to perform. His duty, of course, is to try to protect the minister in every way he can. He defended the bill.
Mr. Speaker, the argument as to why this act should be continued has been, mostly, that the Russians have the hydrogen bomb, and that industry in this country is so dishonest that it cannot be trusted. I have been very much surprised, in view of the fact that there are some outstanding businessmen among the members supporting the government-many outstanding Liberal businessmen-that some member of the Liberal party has not seen fit to get up and defend industry in this country.
They call themselves the free enterprise party. Well, if such is the case, why do they not defend free enterprise?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Your leader called them merchants of death.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If this bill passes in its present form it will be the best propaganda that the socialist party has ever had in this Dominion of Canada-and it is being supported by the Liberal party which, as I said a moment ago, calls itself the free enterprise party.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They should repudiate it. I suggest that private members and others in this House of Commons should repudiate it. And, yes, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) agreed with the socialist party in this house -
5376	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act


Mr. Sinclair:: And Senator Arthur Meighen.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He agreed with the socialist members in this house that labour needed to be controlled, and that labour had not acted as it should in the previous war.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


James Sinclair: I never made any such statement about labour. The statement made by the hon. member is untrue.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would like to read what the hon. member did say.


Clarence Decatur Howe: One o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At 2.30.


William Earl Rowe: Do it now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: At page 4705 of Hansard for June 13 the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) was speaking, and he had quoted the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). The statement of the hon. member for Vancouver East was as follows:
At the beginning of the last war it was made clear that private enterprise companies in Canada had no patriotism with regard to Canada, that they had patriotism only with regard to their own dividends. That fact was made clear in a speech made here this afternoon. It was made clear in a speech made by the minister in 1940.
And that is the end of the quotation of what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


James Sinclair: Where is the reference to labour?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I did not mention labour.


James Sinclair: You said I did.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I said "industry".


James Sinclair: You said "labour".


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And the hon. member for Vancouver South proceeded to say:
I am not surprised at these statements emanating from the party immediately to my left, because one recognizes that is merely a stereotyped approach to questions of this nature.
And then the Minister of Fisheries said:
They are true, nevertheless.
And that is found at page 4705 of Hansard.


James Sinclair: There is no reference to labour there at all.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I did not say there was a reference to labour.


James Sinclair: Yes, you did.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a little intoxicated by his own verbosity.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I find I have only a few more minutes left. There are many more things I should like to say. At one o'clock I was speaking about the arguments made by the government about the continuing of these powers. There was one further argument used particularly by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). It had to do with electronics. I have no time to enlarge on their arguments nor to quote what they said, but I should like to refer hon. members to the report of the Department of Defence Production for 1954. On page 21, which deals with the electronics branch, they will find that the report made by the department was to the effect that everything was in excellent shape as far as production and requirements of electronics were concerned. I intended to read this to the house but I have not time this afternoon.
I contend that no concrete case has been made for the continuance of those powers. There is just the bare assertion by the minister that we want them and we are going to have them. I do not think that is good enough for this parliament of Canada, nor do I think it is good enough for the people of Canada. Taking that into consideration, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard):
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.
I contend that the continuance of those powers permanently or for an indefinite period is a positive threat, a threat held over the heads of industry and labour in this country. I also contend, Mr. Speaker, that it is not necessary to threaten the Canadian people. I contend it is not good psychology to do so. The people of Canada have always done things voluntarily and I believe that if this is left on a voluntary basis the people of Canada will again respond as they have done in the past. They can be trusted. There is no great emergency.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate I feel that I am living in another

world, or at least that the opposition in this house is debating in another world. There is nothing very new about the Defence Production Act. It has been in force now for 16 years in this country, with the exception of a little less than a year after the munitions and supply act was repealed by this government, and I may say repealed by this government with no prompting from the Conservative party. It was repealed because it was felt that that particular act was no longer needed.
Hon. members may say that the Defence Production Act is not the munitions and supply act. However, there is nothing in the Defence Production Act that was not in the munitions and supply act, although the powers granted the department in the munitions and supply act were much more extensive than those in the act now under discussion.
This debate arises out of a very simple amendment to the Defence Production Act. The amendment provides that the Department of Defence Production shall be permanent. Everyone seems to agree that the Department of Defence Production should be permanent. While hon. members tell us that the crisis is over, there is no more threat to the security of Canada, nevertheless the business of the Department of Defence Production has shown no falling off whatever.
If the Department of Defence Production is to be made permanent, it seems logical to me that the act upon which the department depends for its authority should also be made permanent.
The departmental act, and the act of any department, sets out the duties and obligations of the department and the authority under which the department carries out those duties and obligations. To say that the Department of Defence Production can be made permanent without a permanent Defence Production Act is to say that the Department of Public Works can be a permanent department even though the Public Works Act is temporary in nature, or that the Department of National Revenue can be a permanent department if the Department of National Revenue Act is a temporary act, or that the post office can be a permanent department if the Post Office Act is a temporary act. That is the simple purpose of the bill. It is following logic. This introduces no to the Defence Production Act introduces no new controls over industry, and incidentally it introduces no controls whatever over persons.
Industry is familiar with these controls. It has been working under them for 16 years,
Defence Production Act
and as far as I know it is quite happy to work under them indefinitely. Of all the complaints that have been heard since this debate started I have heard not one single complaint from the people affected, namely, the people who are actually doing the defence production work in this country.
What has happened? We have seen any legitimate objections to the bill drowned in a torrent of exaggeration, and the corpses of the arguments are now floating around in a vast ocean of words.
If at this stage anyone knows what the argument against the bill is I am sure that I cannot be one of that number.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Nobody knows the arguments for it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Take a look at the Winnipeg Free Press.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am about to come to the arguments. I have culled a few gems from this debate. I spoke about exaggeration. Here are a few examples: "There has not been a greater issue before the House of Commons since this house was set up under the British North America Act in 1867." Then hon. members opposite went back and compared this amendment with the King Henry VIII clause, the clause which gave the king absolute power. "It is a reversion to something that has not happened since the days of the Tudors and the Stuarts." This is another gem: "It will lead our people into slavery." "It has not been necessary once in the last two years, yet hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on defence requirements." That is the nature of the exaggerations.
What is the history of this act? It was first introduced, not by myself or by anyone in the department over which I was then minister, but was brought before parliament by my former colleague, the Hon. J. L. Ralston, who was then minister of finance, and was assented to on September 13, 1939. The act contained an expiry date of three years from date of enactment.
In 1943 an amendment was brought in which cancelled the expiry date, just what we are asking to have done at this time. That amendment passed the house with practically no debate and from that day on the munitions and supply act was a permanent act of the government of Canada. The department of munitions and supply was dismantled in 1947 and 1948 and the act became inoperative. In 1950 the munitions and supply act was repealed and was replaced by the Defence Supplies Act. In 1951 the Defence Supplies Act was suspended and in that year the
5378	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act Defence Production Act was passed with an expiry date of 1956. That is the simple history of this legislation.
What is the purpose of the Defence Production Act? The act does two things. First it gives the government control over critical supplies required for the defence program. It has been said that the supplies and services act of the United Kingdom is less drastic than the act we are now discussing. I think anyone who is familiar with both acts will say that the powers in the supplies and services act are more drastic than anything contained in the act now under discussion. The defence production act of the United States is much more comprehensive and grants powers which we feel are not required in this country.
People say that we do not need the provision giving control over strategic raw materials. I can tell hon. members that nickel, which is vital to defence, is one metal which is in short supply throughout the world. There is no formal control over nickel in this country and in that regard we are unique because every country except Canada has control over the supply of nickel.
The reason we have not applied control to this metal here is that the users are familiar with our power to apply control and therefore have been careful to live up to the international rules for the use of nickel. There is a great temptation to step out of line. Nickel is being sold in this country for 64 cents a pound and the European price is $1.50 per pound. Any quantity of nickel can be contracted for in Europe for that price. It is a great temptation for someone in this country to obtain nickel, not to be used in his own production but to be exported to Europe. Such is the regard for the law among our metals and munitions people that we have had no indication that that has taken place. The consumption of nickel has risen very sharply in this country but we have kept careful check on its use and have found nothing to indicate that the uses of the metal are not entirely legitimate. That is one strategic metal in short supply.
Copper is another metal in short supply and prices of copper in Europe are considerably higher than they are in Canada. Other metals are tottering on the verge of being in short supply. We conceive it to be the duty of the Department of Defence Production to see that there is sufficient for defence requirements and that the balance is allocated fairly among all users of the metal. That is the purpose of that part of the Defence Production Act which gives the right to ration scarce materials.
That right is not being used formally at the moment, but it is being used informally. We
[Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).!

required steel for the mid-Canada line. We said to the steel companies that we must have our steel requirements in the interests of national defence and that they would have to set aside or postpone civilian orders in order to give us this steel when we needed it for this most essential defence project. That has been done and there has been no need for formal government action. As I say, that procedure is one way of handling a well-disciplined munitions industry.
Other provisions of the act affect property, but there is no provision in the Defence Production Act that affects the freedom of any person. It gives the government the right, if required for the defence of Canada, to take over the production facilities of certain defence manufacturers. That is the sole effect of the balance of the act. When people rant about the freedom of the individual, I defy anyone to show me one section in the act which affects the freedom of the individual. It does affect the property of the individual, but under the act no property can be taken without compensation. Everywhere in the act it is made quite clear that if property is taken, it must be taken for the purposes of national defence and for no other purpose. Proper compensation will be allocated, either by the government directly or through the courts of the land.
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.
Canada's defence industry and I have worked together for the 16 years I have been responsible for the procurement of defence supplies. I have been in difficulties during that time but I have never had the slightest trouble in getting industry as a whole to come to my help in a united effort to work out a solution. 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.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister does not agree with the Minister of Fisheries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not interrupt the hon. member very much.


An hon. Member:: You interrupted everybody else.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What are the problems for which this act is required? A great deal has been said about clothing, with particular reference to nylon stockings and underwear. I suppose that those references are the result of the heat, as I cannot think of any other reason why that would be the subject of conversation here. However, they have been referred to several times as important purchasing problems.
Last year the department purchased, either for Canadian defence purposes or for foreign governments, about $1,025 million worth of material. Twenty million dollars of that was spent for the purchase of clothing; about $100 million was for what we call shelf articles, that is, food and supplies which are readily purchasable through ordinary channels. We do not need this act at all for that kind of purchasing. If that were the extent of the duties of the department, we would not need this act. As a matter of fact, when such purchasing was mainly the responsibility of the department in 1947 and 1948 we disbanded the department of munitions and supply.
However, the other $900 million of expenditure last year was for weapons, and largely for weapons that were new and had to be developed by industry. Development work is very difficult work to supervise. The army develops an idea of what it wants and reduces that idea to an outline plan and specification. Then it is given to an industry to develop, and the cost of development is paid for by the government.
Fantastically large sums are sometimes put out for that development work. It has been said here by several opposition members, "Why worry about the money? We give you all the money you ask for". I do not know whether they were thinking about the amounts of money I am talking about, but I can just tell you this. In the case of the Orenda engine and the CF-100 aircraft we had paid A. V. Roe company $122 million before the first finished aircraft was delivered. Perhaps some of you have had the experience of being responsible for $30 or $40 million of other people's money in a development enterprise that is going bad and looks as though it would fail. If that development project fails at that point, the returns to the government are exactly zero. It is a development contract and if the development cannot be carried out, the money is gone.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the expression "All or nothing" is a quotation from the musical comedy "Oklahoma". I did not know that. I will admit he is the expert on musical comedies. That is the situation
Defence Production Act with development work "all or nothing". Either you get a successful development or the money is gone. I can tell you that in carrying out that same A. V. Roe development contract there were anxious moments. After we had got involved for $30 or $40 million it was quite obvious that the management of that day was not likely to produce what we required. The top management of A. V. Roe was resident in England. The men on the job just did not have the experience necessary to carry out the work, and that became obvious to all concerned.
Consequently we took steps to strengthen the management. We called the president and managing director of the company to Canada and said, "Look here, this is not good enough. Your local management must be strengthened". He asked "where can we obtain qualified men?" We started off by suggesting the co-ordinator of defence production from our own department, and he today is president of the company and a very efficient president. We intervened with General Motors and persuaded them to lend us their No. 2 man from the Allison engine works. He came to Canada and worked for two years on the development work. Other qualified men were obtained from industry. I may say that industry co-operated to the full, and, as I said before, I have never known Canadian industry to see the Department of Defence Production in a jam without being willing to do whatever was needed to make their contribution to solving the dilemma.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Page the Minister of
Fisheries.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The present top man of the Orenda engine works is a man we supplied from the Department of Defence Production to take over that work. He was our director of electronics in the department. But the purpose of the act is to make sure that when we find a situation of that kind, where great sums of the taxpayers' money is at stake, we can direct the strength of the Canadian industry into the problem, and save the government's expenditure and produce the munitions which the department of defence is requiring at that time. That is the story of $122 million of public money invested in development work with the Avro company, and the Avro company today is in my opinion the equal in management strength, design strength and production strength of any aircraft facility on this continent.
We had another situation. We had a requirement for perhaps the most complicated gun that has been produced to date in this war. This is a naval anti-aircraft gun. We had a comparatively small requirement and it

Defence Production Act was doubtful whether we could produce it economically in Canada. However, our requirement was added to by the United States government, so that we had a very sizeable order for that type of gun. It seemed to be one that warranted development and production in this country. We undertook that work and we invested about $20 million in that project before the first gun was produced. We had great production difficulties; we were confronted with reject after reject. We asked industry to help. One of the largest firms gave us the time of their president, a man I consider the top production man in this country today. He worked on the job for some time. We borrowed a metallurgist from another company. We borrowed a superintendent of production from a third company. The result was that we prevented cancellation of its order by the United States government, which would have led to a very heavy loss to the Canadian taxpayer. We finished the order, and all the money invested for development by the government of Canada was recovered. Without the Defence Production Act behind me I certainly would not have been able to deal with a situation of that kind.
You may be greatly relieved that those particular situations are behind me. I can say that now we have started on a program of development that gives me the shudders, a supersonic plane and a supersonic engine. I believe those weapons are certainly required as soon as they can be produced, to ward off the threat which hon. members opposite insist does not exist. They say, "Yes, but the atomic bomb threat is not very serious-


Mr. Drew:: Nonsense! Nobody said that in this house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend was absent from the house this morning-[DOT]


George Alexander Drew: Nobody said that in this house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was said this morning in this house.


George Alexander Drew: Give the quotation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall certainly give it if I can get the blue sheets.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No such thing was said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: However, we embarked on that program and already on that program we have invested $30 million. Before we get through, it will be around $100 million. That is a program no other country has carried through successfully as yet. At this time several countries are working at the same problem. As I have said, we have never missed yet. I think we are the
[Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).)

only country that can say that we have developed a fighter aircraft and have developed a powerful jet engine without a miss. I hope we do not miss this time. We will not miss if the strength of our industry, of all Canadian industry, is sufficient to achieve the objective. But I shudder to think of the problems of developments.
Some of you do not know how it feels to be out on a limb for $30 million or more of other people's money and have a serious doubt cast on the ultimate success of the program. I can tell you that you do not sleep very well until you get the situation straightened out.


William Earl Rowe: You have been out on the limb for $5,000 million in the past.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have?


William Earl Rowe: The government has been out on the limb for $5,000 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just elucidate that. That sounds like a very wise remark and the figure sounds pretty big.


William Earl Rowe: With other people's money, the taxpayers' money.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I say, we have these problems facing us. I have mentioned one, the new supersonic plane. We are just moving into the field of guided missiles, a field in which no country has achieved very much at the moment. That program is going to require large sums of taxpayers' money for purposes of development. That has got to be faced. As I say, if we get all Canadian industry behind each project I have confidence we can handle that problem. Certainly if a manufacturer such as Avro could have said to us-and I may say they did say it to us

"Never mind, we are satisfied with our management and if you are not that is just too bad", we could say to them, "Sorry; either you operate the plant in the way we believe will produce results or there are other ways of having it operated, for we have too much at stake here to let you decide that you do not need any help."
As I have said, the act does not affect persons. It only affects property, and only such property as is required for defence purposes. It is a good defence against the provisions of the act to say that the action taken was not necessary in the defence of Canada. As I have said, the act covers defence contracts. Therefore all the agitation we have had here is designed solely for the purpose of protecting defence contractors. They are very fine people. They are very able and co-operative, but I cannot think of any class of manufacturers in this country better able to take care of themselves than

those same defence production manufacturers. They know their production work. They know how to handle their business affairs. It is a pleasure to deal with them because they do not say: "We want you to protect us". They stand up and say: "We are able to look after ourselves".
Why are we meeting with all these efforts to protect defence contractors? It was not always so. It was not long ago that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was writing magazine articles on the subject of defence contractors and those articles were headed, "Merchants of Death". Among the "merchants of death" who were dealt with in great style was the parent company of our own Canadair, which was then known as the Electric Boat Company. Certainly the Leader of the Opposition has suddenly adopted a warm protective attitude towards these same people whom he labelled merchants of death not so many years ago. As I say, the bill now being considered has a real use and is needed.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, at no time in any article that I wrote under the heading "Merchants of Death", which was an article 1 stand by today, was there a single reference to a Canadian company. The minister knows that perfectly well and should not place that impression on the record in the way he has this afternoon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that. I said there was a reference to the parent company of Canadair.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is so inaccurate that I must deal with it. It was not the parent company of Canadair at the time the article was written, and the minister well knows that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The article was written before Canadair was Canadair.


George Alexander Drew: In fact, it had not even been started.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have succeeded in throwing me off the trend of my discourse.


William Earl Rowe: We will give you time to get back as long as you get back straight.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 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. I think other clauses have been invoked once or twice but otherwise we have not found it necessary to invoke the act. Why? Because industry has been
Defence Production Act working under the legislation for 16 years, knows the rules as well as we do and, being law-abiding people, they follow the rules. We have traffic rules in this country. They have never been invoked against me. I have been lucky, but possibly the reason they have not been invoked against me is that I think I know the rules and try to follow them. That is the reason this act has not been invoked against the manufacturers of munitions.
However, I am pointing out that in extending the life of the department it is necessary to extend the life of the rules which govern the operation of the department. That is all we are trying to do in this particular case. We have been told a good deal about the purity of the Conservative party in matters of this kind.


Mr. Hodgson:: You are into politics now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think perhaps it would be worth while to take a moment or two to debunk that theory. Back in
1947	we did away with the department of munitions and supply which made the act non-operative. That act had been used by the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission as protection. At their request we appointed the chairman of the commission as deputy power controller and extended the protection of the act to Ontario hydro. When the department of munitions and supply was dismantled what was done in Ontario? The power act was amended in 1947 to provide that no action could be taken against the Ontario hydro in time of emergency. Another paragraph provided that there was an emergency any time the hydro commission ruled there was an emergency. In other words, the legislation denied suppliers the right to take action in the courts against Ontario hydro in times of emergency and leaves it to hydro to say what are times of emergency. Talk about delegating the powers of government! Here there is first a denial of the courts and then a delegation of the power to declare an emergency.
However, that was not strong enough. In
1948	the matter was straightened out properly. The Leader of the Opposition, who was then premier of Ontario, brought in legislation which for all time denied access to the courts of the land to anyone dealing with Ontario hydro. Today you have a situation on the St. Lawrence river where there are two sets of contractors working. One is working for the St. Lawrence seaway authority. If there is a dispute between the authority and a contractor an appeal can be had to the courts. The courts will decide the equity of the situation and compensation will be paid accordingly. Another

Defence Production Act set of contractors is working for Ontario hydro. If there is a dispute between these contractors and the Ontario hydro they will find they are working by the law of hydro and that the decision of hydro is final and binding.


An hon. Member:: That is the rule of law.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the rule of law as applied by a Conservative government. That is the rule of law introduced by the Leader of the Opposition who sobbed so loudly for three hours and 40 minutes at one session about this amendment.


William Earl Rowe: This will be under the law of Howe.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 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 Credi-ters-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.
In the past we have set a time which we believed was a reasonable time limit within which the program in hand could be completed. I do not know what that time limit would be today. I know it is not five years from now. 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.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in order to keep this clear in our minds, may I ask the minister a question? Will he give us the date of the order in regard to these supersonic craft which will be affected in any way by this act being suspended?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The date of the order?


George Alexander Drew: The minister is explaining he must have this act, perhaps for five years, for this order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The order has been placed. We did not need the act to place the order.


George Alexander Drew: There is no order?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is an order, certainly.


George Alexander Drew: What date was that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, two or three months ago. Nevertheless, that development work is going on for five or six years, and the act may be required to be invoked at any time within that period to carry out that work and similar contracts for guided missiles. I have not mentioned the mid-Canada early warning line. This work is being carried out under most difficult circumstances. If supplies were required there that were not readily available, the act will be in force to obtain those supplies. Not to do so would, of course, be fatal to the completion of this urgently required project on time.
As I say, this debate is being carried on in the house and it is being carried on outside the house. After listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) for three hours and 40 minutes, I went home to have a quiet dinner and I listened to him on the radio.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Congratulations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: His radio speech was a most passionate appeal to the public to come to his support on this bill. It reminded me of Joan of Arc supplicating the peasants of France to come to the support of her banners. I may say the exaggeration we have heard in this house was as nothing compared to the exaggeration further expanded over the radio program. I may say that it did bear fruit, too, because the Globe and Mail quoted a paragraph from it on page 9 of next morning's issue. At least, therefore, the broadcast was not made in vain.
I should like to sum up by saying the only purpose of this act is to protect the taxpayers of Canada. They look to the government to see that the vast sums of money appropriated for the defence of this country are properly spent. It has been my job, for 16 years, and it is still my job and will be my job, to see that my part of that responsibility is carried out properly. The act should be passed for that purpose and for no other purpose. If hon. members think that a greater purpose is served by protecting the defence manufacturers who are not asking for protection, then that is their business. In the meantime, in defending the legislation now before the house, I will do so with the conviction that I am working on the side of the angels.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The
minister who professes to be working on the side of the angels, Mr. Speaker, has just delivered himself of a speech which was, I suppose, the masterpiece of irrelevancy in

the experience of all hon. members sitting in this house today. I should like briefly to run down some of the things the minister has said this afternoon, just to indicate how completely they are amiss of the mark. This is a debate on second reading and we are supposed to be dealing with the principle of the bill we have before us. The amendment proposes that the bill be not now given second reading but that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce with certain directions to that committee.
But, sir, what do we And in the minister's speech this afternoon that was relevant to the principle of the bill, that principle being that the powers conferred upon the minister by this act should be made permanent? Let there be no doubt in the mind of any hon. member in this house, the very principle of this bill is that the powers conferred by the Defence Production Act upon a minister, not merely upon the government, shall be made permanent.
Now, what do we hear the minister saying? We hear the minister saying, first of all, that we have had powers comparable to these for a period of 16 years, less one year. Sir, what were the years and what were the conditions under which powers comparable to these were given? First, they were the war years; the years when the country was faced with the supreme emergency of all its history. Second, the several years immediately following the war, and then a state of emergency resulting from hostilities in Korea five years ago. Now, the minister is seeking to compare the conditions of today with those that obtained during the war and with those that obtained at the time of the emergency with respect to Korea. We will let that one stand on that basis. The minister's comparison is with the days of war, not with the days of peace.
The minister said today that the department cannot be made permanent without the Defence Production Act. Let us be a little more careful than the minister ever is about the subject under discussion. We are talking about this Defence Production Act. The minister knows quite well, and it has been said here time and again, although it does not seem to have seeped into his mind or into the minds of some hon. members opposite, that we have said there should be a permanent Department of Defence Production. Of course, that would require a Defence Production Act, but it would not require this Defence Production Act, loading as it does into the hands of the government and the
Defence Production Act minister powers that parliament has no right to give to a government or a minister in times like these.
Next, the minister said there have been no complaints from the people affected. He was referring, I suppose, to those manufacturers or suppliers or farmers, or anybody else who has any property that could be declared an essential material under the authority of this act. He says that none of these people have made complaints. Complaint has been made in this house, eloquent complaint very often by hon. members who have spoken here on behalf of the farmers and producers and all those Canadians who stand, so long as the powers continue under this act, with a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, over their properties and over their rights. It is the Minister of Defence Production alone who, under this legislation, retains the power to say whether that sword shall or shall not fall. The minister says the people affected have not complained. Would you expect complaint from those who are doing business with the government, from those who are enjoying contracts at the hands of the Minister of Defence Production? Now, that was certainly a little too much to foist upon the credulity of even hon. members sitting opposite.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely the hon. member for Simcoe might have said something about it; he has had experience with the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister for Simcoe?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Chicago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister is lost again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson).


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister is lost again. It is not only his geography that is wrong; it is his whole concept and approach to powers at the expense of parliament.
Now, I pass on to the next bogey that the minister whipped up to frighten the house today. He says we have unprecedented demands for nickel; we have unprecedented demands for copper. It was about time the minister said something about these metals because you will remember, when the resolution preceding this bill was before the house last March, it was the alleged shortage of nickel and the alleged shortage of copper that the minister used as the principal reason why the house should put these powers in his hands permanently. And he did not say a word when he introduced this measure
5384	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act several weeks ago on that subject. His silence on that occasion on this subject I think was more eloquent than anything he could have said on the subject. Sir, if there is this shortage, and if there are these threats of shortages of supplies, do you not think the minister would have had occasion to use this power which he says now is so necessary in his hands? The fact of the matter is, and the minister knows it, that it is not necessary to have power like this. The minister, even in the conditions he placed before the house this afternoon, when he sought to frighten the house, has not found it necessary to use these powers.
And, sir, I think we know very well by now that it was not any lack of love on the part of the minister for those powers that caused him to refrain from using them.
And the minister, who I see is now retiring from the house-


An hon. Member:: Good reason.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He may stay within earshot. I hope he will, because I have some things to say to him. It may be that the minister, like the Prime Minister, does not like debates when there is some criticism against him, and does not like people crossing him. Well, let me tell the minister that if he stays in this . House of Commons we will have something to say to him that will cross him.
And, Mr. Speaker, before we leave this subject of the alleged scarcities of nickel and copper, let me ask the minister-and he owes it to the House of Commons to say definitely -whether if these powers are continued in his hands he intends to make orders with respect to the supply and production and distribution of these metals.
The next bogey, the next irrelevancy, the next red herring dragged across the trail was what the minister said to us about the Orenda engine and the production of CF-lOO's. The minister said, or sought to leave the impression, that the production of Orenda engines and CF-100 aircraft required the powers conferred by this act, that those powers had been used and had been necessary. Sir, that is not a fact. That is not so. The minister cannot point to the use of any powers under this act in connection with the production of Orenda engines or CF-100 aircraft. And when he tries to build up a case this afternoon, talking about using these powers in connection with this program of supersonic aircraft, he is wrong and he knows it. It is not the power under this act that is going to be used in connection with that program; it is going to be the money of the taxpayers of Canada.
[Mr. Fleming.)

Then the next bogey, the next irrelevancy, the next red herring, was what the minister had to say about property and persons. He said this afternoon, "We have not the power under this act to touch persons. We have power only over property." Well, it is a pity the minister would not read his own act, of which he professed to be the draftsman, when it was introduced in 1951. Let him look at section 32 which says that power is given to create all kinds of sweeping orders under the act, and thereby create offences for breaches of the act. And if the minister will look at section 32 he will see that power is given there to impose penalties against persons for breaches of orders passed under the authority of the act. Those penalties are not confined to property. Under that section fines up to $5,000 and imprisonment can both be imposed as a penalty; and imprisonment up to two years. Does the minister now say that there is no power in the act over persons? The fact of the matter is that there are severe penalties for breaches of this act, or orders passed by the minister under the act.
Then, the next irrelevancy, the next red herring was that the minister said the time had now come when he must insist that this legislation be passed. Sir, let all hon. members in this house take due notice that the government is telling them that the time has now come when the government insists that they, the members of this house who are the sovereign representatives of the Canadian people, they the members of a sovereign Canadian parliament, must obey the government when it says that the time has come when they insist that this legislation be passed.
Is there any room left, in the face of a threat like that, for any hon. member who does not bow the knee to this all-powerful government? The government has cracked the whip; the government has given them their orders, and the orders have come from this source of all power, the Minister of Defence Production, who says that the time has now come when the parliament of Canada must pass this legislation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I was not sent here by the people of my riding to bow the knee to any government passing out orders. And if I were an hon. member opposite, even if I had been elected to support this government, out of respect for the people who elected me and because of self-respect I would not yield to orders of that kind. I suggest to hon. members opposite that they should not yield to threats and coercion of that kind, and that they should remain true to the trust they were sent here to uphold, as members of the Canadian parliament, and should not accept orders from the government like that.

Then the minister finished up in a way that was designed to make all members melancholy and sad, and even to weep, by saying that his only purpose is to protect the taxpayer.


An hon. Member:: What is a million?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, that, coming from the Minister of Defence Production, does not mean very much, because if there is a man sitting in the House of Commons today who has shown more indifference in relation to the money of the taxpayer than has the Minister of Defence Production, I would like to know who it is.
But, sir, that is not the principal point I am offering in relation to this bill. This is the minister who said: "What is a million dollars?" -because it was nothing to him. Rather, I would draw the attention of the house to this fact, that the powers with which the minister is seeking to be invested permanently under this act are not required at all to protect the taxpayers of this country. They have not been used for that purpose. They were not sought for that purpose in the first place. They will not be used for that purpose. They are not needed for that purpose, because today we are in a buyers' market. The minister has said-it is on record-that he has no trouble getting businessmen now to agree to take defence contracts.
I am not sure yet whether he has support from the government or not; I would like to hear other members of the government tell us whether they are prepared to go as far as the minister wants us to go today. Let them get up and tell us. I would particularly like to hear the Prime Minister tell us. Let him tell us whether he supports what the Minister of Defence Production said here today.
What does it mean? This is the essence of what the minister says. He says they have a program of orders here, and that we must rely on the government; and therefore those who are summoned to rely upon the government are called upon to abdicate the powers of parliament and invest them in a certain man. That is the type of reliance this power-loving government demands on the part of its supporters, the kind of reliance that bids them yield up in the name of the parliament of Canada absolute power; that is the kind of reliance.
Parliament! What is parliament to the minister? Parliament is not even to be permitted to be a partner with this all-powerful government in working out this program of defence production. Bring these matters to parliament? Why, the idea is unthinkable to
Defence Production Act this government opposite. What is parliament, anyway? Parliament to them is but a nuisance. We have had proof abundant today, sir; all this talk, all this poppycock about parliament is just lip service from this allpowerful government opposite.
Sir, the issue remains precisely where we placed it at the opening of this debate several weeks ago. The time that has been spent will not have been misspent if there is on the part of hon. members or on the part of the people of Canada an understanding of the true issue involved in this debate.
There is abundant evidence that whether or not hon. members opposite have taken the trouble to read this bill, to think independently in relation to the government's demand for permanent power, the people of this country and the press of this country are seeing clearly the issue here involved. And that issue I say, sir, is whether sweeping, untrammelled, absolute powers should be made permanent in this government.
If hon. members regret that this debate is being protracted at this late stage of the session let them place the responsibility for it exactly where it belongs, on the head of the government and particularly on the head of the Prime Minister; for this matter was introduced in this house in the first week of March, three and one-half months ago. Sir, the resolution was dealt with then and it was at that time that the house was given assurance by the Prime Minister that the government would take another look at these powers before the matter was brought up again. They waited three long months until the house thought it was in the late stages of the session before they dared to bring back this measure and tell the house that they would submit to no diminution of those powers. I hope hon. members opposite object; I hope they dislike the way the business of this house is being cast about in order to meet the convenience of the government and to assist in satisfying this government's appetite for power.
Sir, there are some features of this debate that might well be commented upon. Those who have sat in this house with the Minister of Defence Production know that the real man speaks in moments of heat, in interjections, not in those manuscripts that are placed in his hands to read in the house. And that is one thing I would remind the house of when hon. members opposite see any reading done on this side of the house. Yes, it is in his unguarded moments, in moments of very free speaking, when we see the real man; for it will be remembered that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speak-eth", and the mouth spoke at page 4542 of

Defence Production Act Hansard, but not in the way it is recorded in Hansard. If you will look at what the Minister of Defence Production said in an interjection you will see that it is watered down; it is a milk and water version:
When this emergency is through we may wish to liquidate this act. I do not propose to be told now by any hon. member just when X will liquidate it.
These are not the words that were uttered by the minister in this house. I was struck by those words, and I made a note of them at that time. I checked afterwards and found that changes were made before Hansard was printed. What was said then was this:
When-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member to tell him that if he found fault with the correctness of the record it should have been pointed out at that time.


Frank Exton Lennard: We would be doing it every day if we did that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wentworth says we do it every day. Yes; if a mistake was made the preceding day, then an hon. member asks for a correction to be made the next day. The hon. member is now dealing with a remark that appears in Hansard at page 4542. What is the date?


Donald Methuen Fleming: June 8.


Mr. Speaker:: On June 8 he contends that the remarks which appears in the official record of what was said is not accurate. I do not think the hon. member can do that now. If the remark was changed it was up to him to rise on a point of order and quote precisely the remark he heard and complain about it. It is much too late now. Since nobody complained about the remark that appeared in Hansard of that date it must be taken as it appears in Hansard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sir, am I not to be permitted to say what was said, because I recorded the words at the time? May I ask for a correction in Hansard, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
is too late. If the hon. member took down the words he was in a very good position the very next day to say that the words as he heard them were not the words as reported in Hansard. He could have made that submission to the house and it would have been dealt with at that time; but he did not choose to do anything then. Now, some 20 days later, he says the words which appear in Hansard are not the words that were uttered then. Whose word are we to accept in this house, the word of the minister who is supposed to have used the expression as reported in our official record, or the word

of the hon. member who made some notes at the time? I ask him not to consider that any words were uttered other than the words which appear in Hansard of that date.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sir, I shall not discuss the
ruling you have made, but I will say with respect that it is the first time it has been uttered in this house. I remind you, sir, that Hansard was not available to hon. members at the opening of the house the next day, and you happen to know what my circumstances were in the days immediately following. But I will say to you that these words-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the horn member, because he said Hansard was not available the next day?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was not available to hon.
members at the opening of the house, not by eleven o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member surely
had it during that day. It was made available the following day, or two days from then. As to the point, it is a very old principle that has been commented upon in many instances, that no one can complain about a matter pertaining to order unless it is done at the earliest opportunity. I am looking for the citation now. I know there is such a citation. If the hon. member looks at Hansard tomorrow he will see that after my remarks I have put in a note indicating the citation to which I am referring at the moment. See Beauchesne's third edition, citation 112 and ruling by Mr. Speaker March, column 3845, House of Commons debates 1910-11. See also for purposes of analogy citation 261 of Beauchesne's third edition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Very well, sir. I shall make reference to the debate of June 9, where at page 4619, following page 4618, the Minister of Defence Production sought to use the word which appears in Hansard, but which I say was not uttered. It follows the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), when he spoke about the termination some time in the future. He said:
The Minister of Defence Production says that he will not permit any hon. member to suggest-


Clarence Decatur Howe: To tell him now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, no. That "now" crept in afterward.
You will find that, sir, on page 4619. That was the day after. That word "now" did creep in. It was not uttered in the house.


Mr. Huffman:: On a question of privilege,
on the day previous the house met at 2.30 o'clock, not at eleven o'clock, as was said earlier.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member misses the point, sir. The house met on Thursday morning, June 9, the day following, at eleven o'clock in the morning. It was the following day. Hansard for June 8 came out the following day.
Sir, to continue, so far as the C.C.F. position in this debate is concerned, it is evident that the minister is beginning to feel a little bit uncomfortable in the face of the rhapsodies that have been sung about this bill by the C.C.F. We have the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) hailing this bill with open arms. How he welcomed it!
I do not propose to dwell on why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre likes the bill, but it is quite clear that he and other C.C.F. members do like it. Whether or not the minister himself would ever wish personally to use these powers for the purpose of foisting socialism on this country, the fact is that these are just the powers that would be required by a socialist government to impose socialism on the people of this country. The issue is there. If hon. members opposite choose to follow the command given them this afternoon they will do so with the full knowledge that they are conferring upon the government and the minister powers that can be used in order to impose a complete system of socialism on this country.
I wish there were time in which to make some comment on the remarks made by the hon. member who spoke first for the C.C.F. So far as what he had to say about the length of the speech of any hon. member in this house is concerned, I have simply three biblical words to offer him: Physician, heal thyself. If there are any admonitions to be offered by any hon. member of this house as to the length of a speech or the number of participations in a debate, then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the last person in this house who should have the effrontery to make a comment of that kind about any hon. member of this house. His 700 participations during the last session and his 40 participations in one week just prior to the commencement of this debate I think will be sufficient reason for the comment I have just made.
I think we all regretted very much the remarks made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). I regret that he is not here today, and I am sure all hon. members regret the occasion which calls him home and hope that his aged father will recover his health. In the speech he made last week the hon. member completely missed the point. It was a great disappointment to hear that speech coming from the hon. member for Spadina. He said in effect that it was enough
Defence Production Act that the minister had agreed that there would be a further amendment introduced to this bill to provide that when orders were made, not only would they be published in the Canada Gazette but they would be tabled in the house with the provision that if any ten members so requested there would be a debate.
The hon. member for Spadina and other hon. members know perfectly well that the moment that happens it becomes a question of confidence in the government. We have had occasions when Liberal members in the house have taken one stand and then in effect have voted the other way because they said it amounted to a question of confidence in the government. The hon. member is saying that it is a sufficient maintenance of the parliamentary system that wide powers should be given to a minister to legislate, provided that after he has exercised those powers some power is given to the House of Commons to discuss what he has done, after the fact. When did parliament become reduced to that position? When did it become a proper maintenance of parliamentary principles and the parliamentary institutions which we are sworn to uphold here to give power to this minister to legislate, and then after it is all over parliament's contact with the matter will be sufficient if parliament is permitted to discuss it after the legislation is passed? It is not merely that this should be done in connection with what might be called emergency legislation; it is that this should be done in connection with legislation that now becomes a permanent part of the statute law of Canada. If it is considered good enough in connection with the Department of Defence Production, if this act becomes permanent, then it may be considered good enough in relation to the exercise by parliament of any power it possesses in giving or delegating legislation to the minister or the government to be used in that way.
Apparently that is good enough to satisfy the consciences of hon. members opposite. But this is not temporary legislation; this now becomes permanent legislation. The powers are permanent. Let no hon. member approach this as though it were simply upon the basis of an emergency. There are many proofs that there is no emergency.
As my time is passing I should like to deal with one matter which it seems to me is of great importance. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) in the speech he made last week drew attention to the provisions of section 15 of the act, paragraph (f), which reads:
The minister may . . .
(f) make loans or advances to or guarantee repayment of loans or advances made to a person for

Defence Production Act the purpose of providing assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works-
The hon. member for Calgary South asked whether or not any use had been made of that power by the minister to guarantee any loans or to give financial assistance in connection with the construction of a pipe line. The minister brushed that off. He said the mere asking of the question was a slander, a word which I always understood to be unparliamentary.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the
hon. member a question? Is the building of a pipe line a defence project?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This act gives the power to declare it a defence project. The powers under this act are wide enough to permit the minister to declare it to be such a project. There is no question about that at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has not read the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have read the act many times, and I think I understand its provision better than the supposed draftsmen thereof.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will the hon. member-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister can make his speech afterward, because my time is limited. If the minister is so coy about questions put to him about what has been done with the powers up until now, I will quote to him a statement by Mr. Tanner, president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. In a speech to the Calgary chamber of commerce on May 7, as reported in the Calgary Herald of that date, Mr. Tanner is reported as saying:
Hon. C. D. Howe had told him to go ahead as rapidly as possible as the government wanted the line built in 1955. "What help you need will be forthcoming," he quoted Howe as saying.
We now ask if the minister has made a commitment under the powers given to him by section 15(f). If not, is he going to? These are proper questions and they should be answered. It would be well to know if other members of the cabinet were taken into the confidence of the minister in connection with any such exercise of these sweeping and broad powers.
What we have here are all the elements for a dictatorship. Here are also all the elements necessary to foist socialism upon this country. Here are also the elements required to permit the constitution of this country to be trampled upon. How otherwise can you explain powers such as those conferred by section 28, which gives the cabinet 
the power to override by order the application of any statute and any obligation created by statute or contract? These are the powers conferred upon this minister, and constitutionally they could never be supported except on the basis of the existence of an emergency. There is nothing in the statute law of Canada today declaring an emergency. There is nothing in this bill that declares an emergency. There is nothing that can legally support giving these sweeping and untrammelled powers on the basis of the existence of a national emergency. The fact is that last year, when it permitted the Emergency Powers Act to expire, parliament eliminated the last parliamentary declaration of the existence of a national emergency which would have permitted the federal jurisdiction to override provincial jurisdiction under the constitution.
The issue remains. It is the issue of parliamentary control. Shall it be made a part of the permanent statutory law of Canada that the government-and in most cases the minister alone-shall take powers from parliament and shall not come back to parliament? Why all this unwillingness to come to parliament? Why all this unwillingness to have these matters discussed in parliament? Is parliament not responsible? Is parliament not even to enjoy the confidence of the minister? Is parliament not to be told anything? Is parliament simply to be ignored, as though we should not be permitted to discuss matters as important as national defence? If this government had a correct attitude toward parliament it would encourage interest and participation by hon. members of this house in all matters relating to defence production.
This then becomes an issue of the unwillingness of the government to take parliament into its confidence, to permit parliament to have any part in the discussion of matters pertaining to national defence and defence production. In no other way can the attempt, the palpable, open, brazen attempt of the government to by-pass parliament in this matter be explained.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, press reports during the last few days have described what we are trying to do here in the House of Commons as "Her Majesty's loyal opposition conducting a filibuster". This word "filibuster" has been borrowed from the dictionary by our neighbours to the south and given a colloquial meaning. If we have conducted a filibuster we are proud of it, because what we are trying to do, as the minister knows, is fight against the permanent powers in the Defence Production Act.

I believe we have done what we set out to do, which was to awaken the people to what is going on here in parliament, and awaken them to the encroachment on our freedoms and liberties. The press across Canada has commended our stand in editorials, in news columns and cartoons; and the people of Canada-or, to use the minister's words today, the peasants-have understood what we are trying to do, that we are trying to stop this power from being given to one man and being put in our statutes permanently.
As the hon. member for Eglinton said, it was with a great deal of interest and surprise that we listened to the hon. member for Spadina the other day. It was with interest because he is practically the only government member who has spoken on this bill, and it was with surprise because all across Canada he has won a reputation for great liberalism, with a small "1"; and he is a man well known for his championship of the rights of the people. Yet in this battle for the rights of parliament, which is the voice of the people, the hon. member for Spadina said the people of Canada could not care less about this issue because there is no issue. He said that as far as the government is concerned our arguments have fallen on deaf ears but not on closed minds.
I believe the hon. member was wrong in his interpretation. I agree with the Globe and Mail editorial of the other day which said that this debate is one of the most important that has taken place in parliament for a long time. It is very difficult to understand why so many voices are silent on the government side-silent or silenced. The yes men, with their deaf ears and open minds, have been singularly quiet. I believe they may well have some difficulty explaining to the people they represent here in parliament why they were so silent while the rights of parliament were being whittled away.
We on this side are not quite so surprised that the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has been conspicuous by his absence from this debate. He also is recognized as a man of great liberalism. It is with considerable surprise that we find that the hon. member for Durham (Mr. James) should sit silent in this debate, as he comes from a section of Canada that throughout our history has stood for responsible government and for the sovereignty of parliament.
I think a good many of us on this side of the house were surprised when the hon. member for Spadina spoke, because we could not accept his claim to have an open mind. It seemed to us that he was downright obtuse. He said we cannot afford to relax or drop our guard. We say that is true. He said we
Defence Production Act cannot afford to be unprepared. We say that is true. He paid tribute to those on this side of the house who have served their country well and, he said, some gloriously. He said he was sure they would be the first to demand that such services be supported by a department of government with power. We say that is true too, in wartime. We are certainly not suggesting in any way that we relax or drop our guard. We are not suggesting that we allow ourselves to become unprepared.
The minister says these powers are necessary at this time. We say, "All right; take these powers at this time, but not for all time". We do not object to the powers, but we do object to the permanent powers. When the Defence Production Act was brought in, in 1951, a time limit was set. The Prime Minister said at that time that there was no particular significance to the date named, July 31, 1956, as the date the Defence Production Act would expire. On March 2, 1951, the Prime Minister said that there was 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 continuing powers.
We say the Prime Minister spoke truly on that day in 1951. There certainly was no particular significance to the date, as we realize now on June 28, 1955. In fact, that date of July 31, 1956, was so insignificant we are now being asked to brush it aside completely by this clause:
Section 41 of the said act is repealed.
No hon. member in this debate has denied that the Minister of Defence Production likes power. He has not denied it himself. Nor are we of the opposition trying in any way to deny him the power he wants. We have repeated it many times, all of us on this side of the house, though we seem to be making no headway. The fact of the matter is that giving the power to the minister whenever he needs it is quite agreeable to us, but not for all time.
No matter how often we repeat this, the sense of it does not seem to penetrate. It falls on deaf ears and on closed minds. What we object to is the desire for permanent powers. We feel that therein lies a tyranny that must be stopped.
It is true we cannot stop the minister. If he wants to do anything he can get away with it, but certainly not before we have had our say. History, both ancient and modern, has shown that tyranny is not something that just bursts upon civilization suddenly. It is a slow process. It is a whittling away of our

Defence Production Act liberties until there is no liberty left. Once established, that tyranny or power pushes its roots deep until it is wellnigh impossible to uproot it.
I have often noticed in the house that profound truths are voiced in the asides and interruptions that take place. I call attention to one such profound truth found in Hansard of June 8, at page 4557. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) had made some pertinent points about the way dictatorships arise, and the remarks seemed to annoy the minister. The passage reads:


Mr. MacLean:: ... I have not said what X have just said for the pleasure of annoying the minister or any other member of the government. If I happen to be annoying them-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just to kill off another ten minutes.


John Angus MacLean: Not to kill off another ten minutes, either.


George Alexander Drew: Ten minutes is not long when you are trying to kill off a parliament.
It seems to me that interjection is the reason for this so-called filibuster of ours. We are trying to stop the killing off of parliament. The senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) had some comments to make about what he called our inconsistency on this side of the house. He could not understand how the Conservatives could express appreciation of the minister's business ability and yet be so concerned about his greed for power. As found at page 4689 of Hansard of June 13, the senior member for Halifax said:
It is beyond me how he and other members can in one breath express the greatest confidence in the Minister of Defence Production and refer to his tremendous record of achievement in this country-
I think these adjectives are a slight exaggeration.
__then in the very next breath attack the same
minister and express the greatest concern about his powers, saying that he is an autocrat, that he is moved only by a lust and a desire for power.
Our concern, Mr. Speaker, is not so much the minister himself or even the powers. As we have said again and again, it is the permanency of these powers. The Minister of Defence Production is not infallible. We know he is impatient with the slow pace of parliament. We also know he is nearing the end of his political career and will soon take a well earned rest. What will happen then? We are being asked to give these powers for all time to some man now unknown. No matter who he is, no one man should have such permanent powers in a democracy.
In a speech recently my leader listed these powers in a way that brings out most forcefully the dangers in the Prime Minister's
[Miss Aitken.l
bill to make these extraordinary powers permanent. The Leader of the Opposition said: It would give a single minister, without even the formality of an order in council, power to seize any business, large or small; to cancel contracts; to take over any material that the minister thinks could be used in the production of defence requirements; to control professional and other personal services; to manufacture and process any defence supplies; to purchase, sell, rent or otherwise acquire or dispose of any real or personal property which in the opinion of the minister alone is likely to be necessary or desirable for these purposes; and to make loans or advances to any person for the purpose of doing all these things. As if these powers, to be exercised without even consulting the government, let alone parliament, were not enough, the act provides that the minister may "do all such things as appear to the minister to be incidental to or necessary or expedient" to the carrying out of all these extraordinary powers. In addition to these the minister has power to demand information about any detail of the business of any company or individual capable of producing defence supplies.
When the minister spoke he said he had no complaints from the people engaged in defence production. Earlier in this debate mention was made of a fear compulsion. If he has had no complaint I think it is probably because of that fear compulsion. He claims that the freedom of the individual is protected; yet there are these sinister words about controllers and investigators being appointed whenever the minister thinks it necessary.
The Winnipeg Free Press has called the demands of the Minister of Defence Production silly. We call these demands for power downright evil in a democracy. We shall continue to fight them as long as the machinery of parliament allows us to try to save parliament itself. We believe that you cannot defeat any enemy, whether it be communism or any other "ism", by betraying our own liberties and freedoms.
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de
Grace): Mr. Speaker, by the amendment it is proposed to refer the bill to the banking and commerce committee. In the light of the discussion we have heard in the house this afternoon, I think that is a very sound and worth-while suggestion. Such a committee would be in a position to call witnesses before it. For example, we could hear those who are engaged in executive positions in defence industry itself. We could hear what they have to say. There has been some suggestion, and I think it is founded in fact, that the executives of large defence industries throughout the country would otherwise think twice before they would put themselves in the position of criticizing or objecting to government policies when the government is one of their best customers.

We could have representatives of individual labour unions appear before the committee. We could hear what they have to say. But I think perhaps best of all we might have the opportunity to discuss the details of this measure with the Minister of Defence Production. That might give us an opportunity to put various points before him and hear his minute observations. It is difficult for the Minister of Defence Production to deal with these things in a regular debate of this kind where he can speak only once. It would be easy for him to do so in the committee, and perhaps might be helpful to the house as a whole when the report of the committee was made.
I hope the Minister of Defence Production will take note of these remarks. He will have to read them in Hansard, because he is not here, but then neither are 19 of his colleagues. The fort is being held by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham). I do not know what close interest he has in this, but I am certainly glad there is at least one minister who has sufficient interest in this important bill to remain in his seat in the house.
I think perhaps too in that committee we might hear from some of the government supporters who have been so notably quiet in this debate. There may be some of them who feel they have made their remarks for this year. But I do think some of these hon. members who have not spoken for one year, two years, three years, might like to appear before the committee and give us the benefit of their observations. I believe that in the informality of that committee we might bring forth facts which it is difficult to bring forth here in the house.
I feel that referring such an important matter as this to a committee might be a gain for the committee system of this house. In thinking about it, I looked up one of the standard references on the government of Canada by Dawson, which in fact bears that name, and here is what he says at page 412:
While the standing committees are frequently impressive they are. in fact, not a very important part of the legislative machinery. From time to time one or more of the committees may be very busy and perhaps extremely useful, but their activity is sporadic and uncertain.
I suggest that the reference of this measure to such a committee would perhaps, if that is necessary, point up the importance of committees in the work of this house. I do not agree, Mr. Speaker, with the definition of a committee which I saw at one time, and which reads:
A group of the unfit appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary.
50433-340i
Defence Production Act
I would hope that a committee of this house would be very fit. The government may be unwilling, but certainly we are not, to take our part in it. Certainly a review of this measure is vitally necessary. I think the results would be something different from those envisaged by another definition of a committee, which reads:
A group of people who individually can do nothing, but who meet collectively to agree unanimously that nothing can be done.
This is something that can be done about this measure. This is something which is very simple, and which is the exact opposite of the stand taken by the minister this afternoon. It reflects the realization that those who are on this side of the house are quite willing-call it by whatever term you like, filibuster or delaying action-to accept their democratic responsibilities, and will use every means in their power to see that this measure is brought back down to earth and has a time limit put on it. There are those of us here who accept those responsibilities. In that committee we might be able to examine in some detail the actual responsibilities of this Department of Defence Production.
This afternoon the minister, in attempting to inject humour into his speech-he did get a chuckle out of it-mentioned a reference of mine to the Department of Defence Production and nylon stockings and underwear. He said that reference might have been the result of the heat. Well, Mr. Speaker, it was not the result of the heat. I find myself in very good company in that respect because in the annual report of his department for 1954 there is a chart showing some of the things that department must purchase. I mentioned nylon underwear, and someone mentioned nylon stockings. His own report mentioned musical instruments, chapel equipment, packaging and recreational equipment.
As a matter of fact, let us just run very quickly down the list to see the extent of the things which are lumped under this measure as defence supplies. They are hardware, tools, fire fighting and safety equipment, electrical equipment, electrical wire and cable, motors, generators, lighting, heating and cooking equipment-that would be stoves-medical, pharmaceutical, dental, optical, laboratory, hospital, photographic supplies and equipment, scientific instruments, metals, metal fabrication, plumbing, heating, air conditioning equipment, hose and rubber products generally. That is general supplies division No. 1.
Then general supplies division No. 2 is concerned with the following: food and catering services, fuel, petroleum products, chemicals, alcohol, gases, soaps, cleansers, waxes,

Defence Production Act polishes, disinfectants, insecticides, kitchen and messing equipment-the minister has messed around with this enough now that you would not think he had to have a section in his own department to do more messing- cooling and refrigeration equipment, paints, brushes, scales, adhesives, special projects (general); furniture, lumber, wood products, paper and paper products, packaging, recreational equipment, musical instruments, chapel equipment.
Then general supplies division No. 3 is concerned with vehicles, motor transport, spare parts and accessories; tires and tubes, repair and overhaul-all commodities-industrial road building and maintenance equipment, ground handling-that is probably the department that looks after landscaping-garage equipment, batteries.
The last one is the clothing and textiles division, which is concerned with uniforms, fatigue and Arctic clothing, headwear, inner clothing, knit goods, rubber and leather products, textiles, bedding and canvas goods- then this interesting little classification-buttons, badges, buckles, requirements planning of clothing and textiles, cloth warehousing. All these things come under the purview of this department. I retreat not one step from my observation with regard to nylon underwear, which also comes under his department.
Then this afternoon the minister attempted to suggest to the house-I think I have his observation here-that they did not need the act for ordinary supply purchasing, but it was needed for weapons. In his report for 1952 we find this statement:
Recognizing that the sustaining of a sound mobilization base must include support for many segments of the economy which are auxiliary to defence, the department continued to provide priorities assistance on materials and equipment in such important fields as agriculture, power development, communications and transportation, as well as channelling supplies into direct defence activities.
In the face of that statement appearing over the signature of the minister who rose in the house and spoke to us this afternoon, can he attempt to leave the impression with this house that the only reason for this act is for straight defence production and straight defence supplies, and that he does not plan or does not at the present time do, through the aegis of this department, work in fields which are by no means directly connected with defence production?
This committee might well consider the question of the permanency of the department. We on this side of the house are in agreement with the minister that the department should be permanent. The interesting thing is, Mr. Speaker, that even his own

report two years ago was not in agreement with that. In 1952 his report said:
In Canada a special temporary department was formed to supervise major and involved problems of the preparedness program and to handle the procurement of defence supplies.
Here we have the minister himself saying two years ago that this is only a temporary operation. Now he comes to the house and, forsaking all that which he told us in the past, forsaking his word of 1951, and forsaking the observations in his own report, asks that this entire act be made definitely permanent.
Then again, why was this department set up in the first place? For that again I turn to his report of 1952 and I find the minister
saying:
Establishment of the Department of Defence Production on April 1, 1951, was predicated-
Notice that word.
-predicated upon the fact that free nations of the world were living in danger of the international situation exploding into all-out war at any time.
I would ask the minister this. Does he feel that the situation is still exactly the same as it was in 1951? Unless he does feel that international affairs are still in that tremendously uneasy state, then the basis upon which this department was predicated has very largely disappeared at the present time.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the question of the function of the department in relation to the Canadian economy, which would be envisioned as one of the subjects to be discussed by this committee. When the department was set up its first report said:
The Defence Supplies Act provided the minister with basic powers to carry out the procurement functions with which he was charged, but was not considered adequate to meet the situation which resulted from the decision to embark on a substantially expanded defence program. Accordingly the Defence Production Act, which was modelled in large measure on the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, was enacted to provide special powers to the minister to the end that requirements of defence should be met in priority to other demands on available supply.
In other words let me emphasize that the Defence Supplies Act was not considered adequate at that time to meet the situation which resulted from the decision to embark upon a substantially expanded defence program. And that is borne out throughout the minister's report. Later on in the 1951 report he said the government had embarked upon a three-year program designed to increase and strengthen Canada's defence effort, and that this program was going to increase our production potential. Then later in the report he pointed out how the government was faced with the problem of meeting

an expanded defence program with an economy which was already operating at full steam, when there were many shortages of materials, and when the world demand for materials was steadily increasing.
In the light of those facts in 1951 let us see what the minister and his department have seen fit to say subsequently. In 1952 he told us-
-the program now well under way with many production facilities in operation and with a steady delivery of defence orders for practically all phases of the program.
And later in the same report:
Much of the new production is flowing from Canadian facilities which did not exist when the department was established.
And later, under the heading "Material Situation Improves" he said:
An important development during the year was the improving raw material supply. The improvement in the supply situation was particularly true of the basic materials produced in Canada.
That sounds odd to me, in the light of the plea this afternoon about our shortage of nickel and copper and other commodities, when back in 1952 our supplies situation was improving so well. Then in 1953, and again I am quoting the minister's words-
As the supply position of strategic materials continued to improve it was possible to reduce Canadian controls.
Then he deals with certain changes in operations, and certain restrictions. In that year they closed down the small industries division offices outside of Ottawa, and so far as I can see from the present organizational chart the small industries division does not now exist at all. In his 1953 report he gives us a glowing picture of the achievements of the Canadian defence industry. It is obvious that he is very happy about it.
Then in 1954 we come to the point at which the minister demonstrates that the department seems to have achieved the initial objective it set out to reach. He' says:
The initial build-up of the country's defence potential was largely completed during the past year and, in line with the long-term needs of the armed forces, the emphasis was shifted to the scheduling of production to meet a continuing high level of defence procurement.
And later in the same report:
The major facilities required for the production in Canada of larger quantities of a greater variety of defence items had been established by the beginning of 1954. Defence industries had no difficulty during the year in obtaining their necessary requirements of essential materials and skilled manpower and no domestic controls were required.
Yet the same man this afternoon would have left anyone listening to his speech, and not knowing the facts, with the impression that these controls were needed because of the imminent shortages in Canada.
Defence Production Act
Now we have the question of the change in attitude of the minister. And, just as an aside in this connection, in the minister's remarks this afternoon he omitted to point out that the production of nickel and copper is at the highest level this country has ever known. Where, oh where, oh where is the justification for the crocodile tears which were shed in those two particular fields this afternoon by the minister? I do not know what else sheds crocodile tears, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not search for a word.
Then, turning to the change in attitude of the department towards its functions, we find that in the last four years that attitude has changed substantially. When the department was initiated, when the minister was set up in this business, it was a temporary proposition. Above all, the powers were temporary. As late as his own report for 1952 he was talking about a temporary department. Now nothing will do but that every measure, every power and every iota of control which this act vests in the minister must be perpetuated for all time to come. I am no expert on musical comedy, but there are many other fields than musical comedy in which the expression "all or nothing" has been used. I suggest that this is yet another case in which the ultimate desire of the minister is encompassed in those three little words, "all or nothing".
We on our part are prepared to give the minister something. We are not unreasonable; we are not standing here and suggesting that he wants all but we will not give him anything. There is a middle ground; there is a reasonable ground, and it is that ground which we have been trying to reach. It is that ground which we are being deprived of by the strong and unreasonable position the minister is taking.
We find again, Mr. Speaker, that the department's attitude has changed. It is changing from special powers for priority in defence supplies to a permanent organization which does not particularly need those powers, but which wants to hold them in the unlikely event that they will be used for ordinary procurement for the armed forces. And that is the comparison; special powers for priority in 1951; today special powers for ordinary procurement for the armed forces.
In 1951 the government may have needed the Defence Production Act to meet their defence requirements and priorities. They did say at that time that the Defence Supplies Act was not considered adequate to meet the situation which resulted from the decision to

Defence Production Act embark on a substantially expanded defence program. But in 1954 we find the report of the department saying:
The need was not so much one of producing a large volume of weapons and other military equipment in the shortest possible time, but rather one of obtaining immediate requirements and of creating production potential that could be greatly expanded on short notice.
Compare these two phrases which I have drawn to your attention, Mr. Speaker. In 1951 we were asked to support this measure on the grounds that the government was embarking on a substantially expanded defence program. In 1954 the department's report tells us that they are creating production potential that could be greatly expanded on short notice. Actually what they have done is to change the rules completely in the middle of the game just to find some justification for the continuation of these powers. In 1951 they were planning an expansion of the Canadian industrial economy, particularly in the field of defence production. They claimed they needed the powers for that reason. They were given those powers; they operated on those powers, and they achieved that expansion. Now, in 1955, having achieved their ends but being unwilling to relinquish their powers, they try to justify their continuation on a totally new basis and one which is completely foreign to the need for those particular powers.
I turn just for a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, to one or two of the observations of the minister this afternoon. One which particularly disturbed me a great deal was his suggestion that he was bothered by having $30 or $40 million of Canadian money invested in some operation that might go bad. The reason that statement disturbed me is that it seemed to indicate that the minister had progressed from his position of several years ago when he said, "What's a million dollars?" Now, apparently, in order to disturb the minister he must have $30 or $40 million of public money invested in some enterprise or some defence production undertaking. You must have $30 or $40 million involved before you can get the minister to lie awake nights and worry about it.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada might be better served if they had a group of men on the treasury benches who were perturbed and worried not when it came to $30 or $40 million, but when it came to $3,000 or $4,000, and who paid some attention to financial expenditures that were within reason, small expenditures they could control, as well as the big expenditures.
Certainly I am not suggesting for a moment that the minister should not be perturbed

over $30 or $40 million. I think he should; I think we all would; but I do suggest to you that he would be well advised to come down a little and realize that there are many other expenditures in his department which are equally important if not equally large.
When the minister was speaking on the question of individual liability under this act and whether the individual was protected he made the remark-certainly this is the sense of it, if not his exact words-that it was a good defence in law to say that the action was not necessary for the defence of Canada. In some of my earlier remarks I related the operations of this department to such things as belts, buckles, musical instruments, recreational equipment, and many other equally unlikely objects in the field of defence production. This indicates that it would be small defence indeed, if any, to say that the case being complained about was not necessary for the defence of Canada, because the minister himself has shown by his own report that just about everything in this great and growing economy of ours is connected and concerned with the defence of Canada.
And, then, of course-I hardly need emphasize it-there was his sanguine observation that no one to his knowledge among the defence production industries had come to him and complained about the powers contained in this act. When we see the day that a mouse comes along and without any defence whatsoever calls upon the cat and complains about the way in which the cat is exercising its powers, then we may expect the defence industries to protest to the minister. Certainly at the present time I think it would be a cause for tremendous surprise if the minister received complaints from his suppliers. It just does not happen that way.
I do not think there was one word uttered by the minister this afternoon which was truly germane to the issue which has been placed before us so clearly by this bill. Certainly Canadian industry is doing a good job in defence production. Certainly we are proud of Canadian industry. Certainly if you have $30 or $40 million invested in some enterprise which may or may not turn out all right you are going to worry. Certainly there has been some form of control over munitions and supplies for 16 years. Certainly there have been shortages in the past. I could go on, but I shall not.
But equally certainly this is not a question to be decided on the grounds of the minister's observations this afternoon. This is not a question of expediency; this is not a question of administration; this is nothing except the main, basic and fundamental

concept of freedom in a democracy. This is the conflict between genuine freedom in which parliament will decide as against the bogus freedom in which the minister will decide and then parliament be told what he has decided. There can be many more speeches from the government benches, there can be many defences on the same grounds as those advanced by the minister, but they will not be defences having to do with the basic issue as we on this side see it.
I await the day, and it will be a glorious day for freedom, when one person on the government side stands up and says, "I have examined this bill, I have listened to the arguments for and against it, and in the light of those arguments I am going to put aside my party allegiance and vote in the interests of the people of Canada and against this bill. I am going to do what I can to protect and further the cause of freedom". On that day and on that day alone will I know there is some life and some sense of responsibility left in the ranks of those who sit opposite and those who encumber the benches to my right; those who at this moment stand for nothing which is in the cause of freedom but for everything which would destroy freedom and reduce us gradually but surely to a controlled and largely dictatorial state.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that the Campbells are coming, and perhaps today the Hamiltons are coming. Since I spoke last in this debate I have been trying to find some basic point or points on which the minister might have anchored his position, which would make his desire for this legislation more understandable. I listened carefully to what he had to say today, but I was unable to enlighten myself as to the true background for those reasons. In the ordinary course of events I think we can take each reason in turn, as I did once before, and examine it to see if it provides some basis for this legislation. I have been unable to find any reason for this hidebound adherence to the proposed legislation, and have come to the conclusion that the reason for this legislation is tied up inexplicably with the minister's mental outlook.
What we are battling here is not really a sound argument based on facts and logical forecasts, but a psychological block in one man's mind. It is a difficult and illusory type of problem which we must diagnose and then attack. If this were a case before a criminal court I think I would be saying at this juncture that the crown's case was in. If I were acting as adequate defence counsel I would move for dismissal because there was no evidence to support the charge.
Defence Production Act


Mr. Lesage:: If I were on the jury I would be saying you are repeating yourself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If you were on the jury you would be discharged.


John Borden Hamilton: I am sure the minister would never get on the jury because he is prejudiced in this case. For that matter probably none of the hon. members opposite would be selected for the jury. At least none of them has indicated at any time that he has looked at the problem in the unbiased manner which a juryman is expected to have in a court of law.
As I say, at this juncture I would be moving for dismissal. If I were summing up I think I could find sufficient evidence upon which to base an application for dismissal in the case put forward by the minister. The evidence is in; there is no going back at this time. The report of the minister's own department for the year ended December 31, 1954, contains ample evidence upon which a defence counsel could base his case. I should like to refer briefly to points of evidence that might be selected and used at this time. Here are some examples of the wording in the report of the minister, wording which I believe closed the door on any request for extension of powers of this kind.
Point 1, page 9:
The office of the co-ordinator of production, which had been responsible for the over-all direction of the ammunition, electronics, gun, machine tool, mechanical transport and shipbuilding divisions, and Defence Construction (1951) Limited, was abolished during the year. The need for this separate co-ordinating agency became unnecessary as the department had passed through the initial organization phase.
Point 2, page 9:
A secretariat was established in the deputy minister's office to carry on residual operations formerly handled by branches and divisions now disbanded and to assist in co-ordinating the work of the department as a whole.
Point 3, page 9:
The staff of the department, which numbered 1,631 on December 31, 1953, was reduced to 1,509 by December 31, 1954.*
Point 4, page 10:
The number of key personnel on loan from industry was sharply reduced during the year.
Point 5, page 10:
The number of crown companies associated with the department and reporting to parliament through the Minister of Defence Production was reduced from eight to five during the year.
Point 6, page 11:
At the end of 1954 almost four years of procurement and construction for Canada's expanded defence program had been completed. The initial build-up of the country's defence potential was largely completed during the past year and, in line with the long-term needs of the armed forces.

Defence Production Act
the emphasis was shifted to the scheduling of production to meet a continuing high level of defence procurement . . .
The need was not so much one of producing a large volume of weapons and other military equipment in the shortest possible time, hut rather one of obtaining immediate requirements and of creating production potential that could be greatly expanded on short notice.
Point 7, page 12:
Requirements for the simpler types of general purchase items, such as clothing and barracks stores, were pretty well filled, with subsequent orders mainly for replacement and maintenance.
Point 8, page 12:
As the supply of essential materials continued to improve, the need for controls soon disappeared and most of them were removed by the end of that year. A high level of production was continued during 1954, and many projects were reviewed on the basis of the need to maintain essential defence facilities and to establish production levels for somewhat lower but more long-run requirements.
Point 9, page 13:
The most important feature of the electronics program has been the expansion of facilities in Canada for the production of a very large part of the Canadian requirements in the electronics field.
Point 10, page 13:
Few projects requiring capital assistance were initiated during the year.
Point 11, page 14:
In shipbuilding, the last 10 of the original 14 Canadian designed non-magnetic coastal minesweepers (AMc) were completed in 1954 and work continued on the six MCB class minesweepers that were ordered in 1953.
Point 12, page 14:
Deliveries and installations for the first line of the continental northern radar defence system were completed during the year.
Point 13, page 15:
Expenditures on defence construction in 1954 were down from the level of the preceding year.
Point 14, page 18:
Production of the Silver Star jet trainer (T-33A) powered with the Nene engine also continued on schedule throughout the year. The initial requirements of the Royal Canadian Air Force for this aircraft have now been met and production is continuing at a reduced rate.
There is the evidence. Here are the points that can be picked one by one from the reasons the minister has given for a continuation of these powers. There is no necessity in a case of this kind in a court of law for the defence to produce evidence. The crown has failed to make its case. But I would say this, that it would be difficult for us to get the necessary evidence. The minister himself has said he has heard no complaints by those who produce for his department. Perhaps I might be able to repeat one saying, that this is a "don't quote me" department. We would mot expect that those who deal directly with this department would come forward and go into

the witness box. No; there is too much at stake for that. The big stick is still around, and the big stick may still be used.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PRIVATE BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Is
it the understanding of the house that all private bills are to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The business under private and public bills having been disposed of, the house will revert to the consideration of the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[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.
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, that was the shortest dinner hour I have had in a long time. In attempting to understand the almost unprecedented tenacity with which the government is holding on to this legislation, I repeat that I have been unable to find any basic reason given by the minister or by anyone else to support this stand.
Every indication is that industry today seeks contracts from the government. The textile industry was referred to earlier. The electronics industry is looking hopefully to the development of the defence warning lines and the St. Lawrence seaway as sources of business to keep their workmen on the job. We can go right down the list to the aircraft industry, to which the minister referred at great length in his arguments on the amendment. If I understand the situation correctly, the sole customer of the company to which he referred today, the A. V. Roe company, is his own department. Whether or not the production lines of that plant continue to operate rests wholly upon his own decision. Surely then it is not necessary for him to have such all-powerful legislation at his fingertips. These people are entirely dependent upon him now. His every decision, I am sure, is reflected in the program which is being carried out at that plant today.
The amendment proposed does not in fact remove from the minister the powers he now possesses and which were granted to him at a time of real emergency. The act as it stands

continues these powers until next year. The amendment simply provides an opportunity for a complete study of the type of powers which should be made available in a new kind of peacetime. These may be the only ordinary peaceful times in which we will live during our lifetime. Peace as we knew it from 1918 until 1939 may never again come about. We must adapt ourselves to this new type of peace through strength, for it is the only peace we will know.
I suggest that since the programs I have referred to, documented in the minister's own report, indicate that the peak has been reached and that a levelling off is now taking place at figures which will ensure the adequate protection of the country, there is now no need to continue this emergency legislation. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment placed before you by the official opposition does not, today, tomorrow or the next day, remove from the minister the powers he possesses at the present time. He will still be able to carry on until the house convenes again, and I am quite satisfied that in the interim proper wording for legislation of this kind can be produced by the legal officers of the crown to ensure not only that the country will be able to maintain adequate protection but that the freedom of the individual will also be protected.
The minister says that persons are not affected by the act. I do not wish to repeat the argument of the hon. member for Eglin-ton, but I say to the minister that if all properties are controllable by the act then, no matter what else is said, the persons who are involved with those properties are in fact personally controlled. It has often been said that the sole power of the government is based on its power to tax. If that be true, then I say that the power in the minister's hands to control all things connected with the defence effort does in fact mean control of the people themselves.
Therefore I would ask, as did the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, that those who sit opposite think twice about this legislation. There is a course that can be followed which will ensure not only protection for the country but freedom for the individual.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the amendment, with which I find myself in complete accord, I am amazed at the spectacle this debate has created in the house. As I listened this afternoon I must say I was very proud of my colleagues and their contributions to the debate. Amidst the silence of the government, with the exception of gibes and heckling, you have heard from the junior members of our [DOT]50433-341
Defence Production Act party excellent speeches, all sound and logical; so sound, I believe, that the silence of the government would almost indicate that they have no logical answer to these speeches. I say that, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity.
I say this is a spectacle such as I have not witnessed in the house in the last quarter of a century, that a proposal so important as this, and one that has aroused the interest of the press all over this country, that has stirred the imagination of junior members and has agitated senior members-except those who are admirers and trained supporters of the government-should be debated at length in these hot and tedious days of the last part of the session. I have not before witnessed anything quite the same.
This afternoon we heard from the Minister of Defence Production, for whom I have a keen personal regard. He laboured and floundered in his speech in such a way as to almost make one believe that he did not believe himself. It may have been because he had no support around him from the balance of his cabinet. It may have been that he was playing a lone hand, as he is seeking the power to do. I do not know, but I thought that lurking behind his statements was the almost silent conviction through his clear-headed logic that he was like the Irishman who had a wildcat by the tail and dare not let go, yet he was almost afraid to hang on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid that is your own position.


William Earl Rowe: No, it is not. Whether or not it is a wildcat, Mr. Speaker, we feel that we must hang on. I say, with all due respect to the rather humorous interjection by my hon. friend, that we are not continuing in that spirit at all. I say with the utmost sincerity that I have a responsibility as a member of this house. I have a responsibility to parliament, to my riding and to myself. I dare not sit silent in my place on this issue. I have remained silent on many other issues. I have remained as silent as any other hon. member during many years, even when I felt I could add something to the debate. Sometimes when I listened to some of the debates I have felt that enough had been said, and at other times I thought too much had been said. I have never been one who employed the time of the house to lengthen the session of parliament unduly.
There is no one in this house who would rather end this session of parliament, feeling we had done our duty, more than I would. I have other interests and I have other enjoyments. I have other things I would prefer to be doing now than labouring to the empty benches on the government side.

Defence Production Act


Jean Lesage: What about yours?


William Earl Rowe: At one time this afternoon there was only one cabinet minister in his place, and there were only 10 supporters of the government.


An hon. Member:: There are only five on your side.


William Earl Rowe: I know, but that is still a greater percentage of support, comparing the numbers we have, than the government had for two hours this afternoon. That means more than those figures would indicate, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: People who live in glass houses, you know.


William Earl Rowe: It means more than the figures would indicate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. McCann:: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of National
Revenue (Mr. McCann) says, "Yes". But he has not made a speech in support of this measure. Neither has the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Neither have other ministers I could name, but I do not want to embarrass them. There are so few of them here. All they have done is try to heckle us, as they are trying to do now. They have never risen in their place to say they support the Minister of Defence Production 100 per cent, who wants to hold more powers than anybody else has had since confederation.
The most conspicuous absence is that of the first citizen of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent). Is it possible for a government to have so many blind supporters who just rise when they are told to vote, whom you cannot arouse on an issue of this importance? Even the Prime Minister is not here. Is there anyone within the sound of my voice who has ever seen a spectacle like this in parliament, when the Prime Minister who moved this motion three months ago and who said he was going to consider any possible changes in it, has failed to rise in this house during this protracted debate and explain his position?


Jean Lesage: Where is your chief?


William Earl Rowe: My chief was here until a minute ago, and has been here all day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: You asked where my chief is. Different from the chief on the government side, you condemned my chief for speaking for three and a half hours on this measure. You cannot blow hot and cold. These little hecklers in the back, these little gentlemen who never have a word to contribute on an important issue like this except the squeaks,
[Mr. Rowe.l
grumblings and groanings, now ask where my chief is. However, the minister said my chief talked too much. Compare that with the man who fathered this child and then left it on the doorstep to die. Compare that with the man who asks his brother to be a foster father for it because he does not like the look of it any more.
Let them rise and say they support this measure 100 per cent. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare say this is the type of legislation he likes? No, and neither will the Minister of National Revenue. It is no wonder the Minister of Defence Production feels embarrassed today. I would feel embarrassed too, Mr. Speaker. There has not been a spectacle like this in the last 30 years, when a prime minister has moved a motion as important as this and then refused to support it. I cannot imagine a man like the present Prime Minister, with all his learning and experience at the bar, who is now the first citizen of this country and so fond of children, giving birth to a measure like this and then abandoning it within 24 hours after it was born.


Mr. Marlin:: You are confusing the sexes, I think.


William Earl Rowe: It is the most neutralized thing I have ever seen come into parliament, and nobody is going to support it. It is the Prime Minister's bill and it is the Prime Minister's responsibility. Therefore the Prime Minister's silence was never more conspicuous, and his absence is even more conspicuous. It shows how parliament can be ignored.
I sat here this afternoon and listened to the Minister of Defence Production, who was supported by one lone minister. Even that minister was reading a paper and was so discouraged he wondered, "Where do we go from here?" They look over their position and they say, like Job, we may be wrong, hut how long, oh how long is this going to keep up? We do not like keeping it up, but we know it is our duty. We know the Prime Minister is out of the house. We know he observes silence on his own bill. We know it is his responsibility. We ask, why is it that he is not 100 per cent in accord with the measure?
Are the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers indicating that they do not like it? Is the rumour in the corridors and in the press of this country that they are not in full accord with the Minister of Defence Production true? Where is this emergency that has developed and which is so great that powers which were saved for emergencies and were given temporarily now are proposed to be given permanently? Is it a measure

for temporary relief in an emergency, or is it an expedient to gain permanent power? Has anyone known of any emergency that needed more than temporary power? It looks to me more like an expedient. There is no possible justification for making this permanent. Even these little hecklers won't rise and say the minister should have these powers forever. As the hon. member for Halton (Miss Bennett) said today, and said so eloquently, "How freedom falls!"
Mr. Speaker, the power given to this minister will most certainly suit my socialist friends who sit to my left. If the government, now in collusion with socialism, put this into effect, then they can do anything they like with any enterprise in Canada. They can make any agreement they like with any labour union or with any company in this country. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had better talk that over with some of his union friends.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You should read the act.


William Earl Rowe: I have read it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I doubt that very much.


William Earl Rowe: I doubt whether you have read it. But I don't know how long you will be there to read it, because you look pretty tired.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You may not be
there long yourself.


William Earl Rowe: There is a principle involved in this, and the Minister of Defence Production should be the last man in Canada to ignore it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody else is tired, too.


William Earl Rowe: He should be the last man in Canada who should initiate proceedings to make temporary powers permanent. Temporary powers have been sought and they have been granted. But always they have been limited. Now we have this new scarecrow. Is this house to be frightened into granting unlimited powers permanently at a time when no one can say honestly that we are in more difficult times than we were two years ago?
As was so well said today by the hon. member for Royal, and as has been pointed out and accepted by every member who can read the papers, the truth is that the situation throughout the world has improved. We are very glad about that, pray God it may continue. We all know very well that there are grave dangers and that there have been grave dangers. But why does the minister want these powers permanently? Is there any 50433-341i
Defence Production Act member in this House of Commons who would kiss the Bible and take the oath of allegiance to this country, and who at the same time would refuse powers to the Minister of Defence Production if he needed those powers? If the enemy were at our gates tomorrow morning, would those powers be refused? Why, Mr. Speaker, it is utterly nonsensical, it is ridiculous, it is absolutely absurd to suggest any such thing.
For so many years I listened to the former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, talk about the supremacy of parliament. He said, "We Liberals trust the people of Canada; we trust parliament. Parliament should know everything." He would never declare war without parliament, would never even think of helping the mother country until he submitted it to parliament. "I stand by the supremacy of parliament, like my old grandfather", as he said at one time in the House of Commons.
But what a change there has been in a few years. Now parliament is more or less held in contempt. Parliament has been ignored. Who is asking us now to disregard parliament? Who is asking us to give power to make orders in council? It is the government that ruled this country for so many years by orders in council, this government that passed orders in council while parliament was sitting, when the matters could well have been placed before the House of Commons.
And now they go one step further. They ask us to give all this power to one man so he will not even be responsible to cabinet, let alone to parliament. And he says, "Oh, yes, but these powers can be revoked by me. Trust me to revoke them. Trust me not to invoke them." These are powers that can be invoked at any time, in any way, for any purpose, and by any minister who may hold the job at any time he believes there is any kind of a situation that he could call an emergency.
Mr. Speaker, the remaining members might as well go home. Even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who speaks so often in parliament, would be of no avail, though he supports the measure. The rest of parliament may think the minister's actions are for political expediency, or for the expediency of the government, but despite all that the minister can do almost anything he likes. He can go to any private business, so long as he thinks what they are doing has been connected in any way at any time with defence production.
Mr. Speaker, where is the evidence that this power is needed? Where is the evidence that the emergency is worse than it was two

Defence Production Act years ago? Where is the evidence that it is worse than it was when they said it could be revoked in 1956? What power could be needed between now and the middle of next year that they do not have?
Why all this hurry? Why not do what was suggested by the Winnipeg Free Press, whose pronouncements are taken more or less as the watchword of those who sit to your right? Why not drop the bill at this time? Why not drop the bill when it is not needed? Why not return to a position where you trust the people of Canada? Has this party to your left, Mr. Speaker-this party which by its silence the government seems to want to ignore or hold in contempt-at any time, in wartime or at a time of national emergency, refused to play the game loyally in the interests of Canada? If there should be a war emergency again, then I say there is not one member from any district of Canada who would dare to refuse for one moment the granting of powers for which the Minister of Defence Production would ask, and would not grant them just as quickly as they were asked for.
Therefore I say that is not the issue. We do not know who may be in office in future. I do think there could be worse than the present minister. But, Mr. Speaker, why does he, in the twilight of his career, want to fashion something for the future? Why does he want to fashion something for a future minister of the crown, simply because his socialist friends say "Attaboy; we are glad; we are behind you on that", so they could go to an industry, if they were ever in power, and say, "We do not like the way you run it, so we will take this over." Or they could say, "We don't like the colour of your eyes, and we will take this over," or "We don't like the way you voted at the last election."
These are the things that could be done. Even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, when he grows older and more mellow, as he is rapidly becoming-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am certainly growing older while this debate goes on.


William Earl Rowe: I hope you will grow wiser before it is over, too.


An hon. Member:: That goes for you, too.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Defence Production says, "I must be trusted."


Clarence Decatur Howe: When did I say that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This afternoon.


William Earl Rowe: You said you were not listening to me.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not listening to you.


William Earl Rowe: I would have been disappointed if the minister had not heard me, even if he was not listening. In the course of his remarks he said he was not going to be told by me or by anybody else when he was going to revoke this measure. In other words he suggested that we should not oppose it, and that when he wanted to revoke it he would do so whenever he wished, and he was not going to be told by any member of parliament, either.
Some of you hecklers-and the champion heckler is among you-do not know about this. He means you and me, too. He means he is not going to be told by you, either. He is going to revoke it as and when he pleases. Why not revert to those old policies of the great old historic Liberal party, those policies the Liberal party has championed before the public at every election in the last quarter of a century, to trust the people and to trust parliament? Why not make parliament supreme again? Why hold parliament under suspicion?
If the minister and the cabinet believe there is an emergency, why not come before parliament and say, "We have agreed there is an emergency in Canada." If you want to call a private session, as I suggested the other day, then do so. Clear the galleries and have a private session of parliament behind closed doors and tell us about the emergency. We will not get frightened and run home for fear the parliament buildings will be blown up. We shall have to stay here if we are true to our obligations. Trust the house. I would even trust the back-benchers on the other side about whom I know very little except that I see them rise in humble submission and vote for everything that comes up. I expect they will even vote for this, though it will tie their hands in the future. We have not heard much from them in the past, and if this bill passes we will not hear much in the future.
Trust one man to invoke and revoke this measure; trust one man to invoke and revoke the rights of parliament. Is it possible that one man wants to be above parliament? I do not think that is in his mind. The Minister of Defence Production does not seem to like parliament. That is unfair for a man with his name.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I attend more regularly than you do, anyway.


William Earl Rowe: I know. After all, if I had the power you are seeking I would be here all the time, because I would be running the

whole show. I must inform the hon. member who has interrupted me that the power he now seeks might send me back to the farm, because I could explain to my constituents that I would be worth just as much to them on the farm as I would be here.
Here we are giving one man the right to invoke or revoke the act at any time he likes if he thinks there is an emergency. That may sound to my hon. friend as abusing a privilege; it may sound far-fetched. It has been stated here on many occasions that freedom has fallen in other places. It has been nipped a little bit at times to get control of parliament. The methods may be fine, but so far as this country is concerned the methods are not the kind we should follow. They are at least mysterious.
As the minister said to us today, the purpose of the act is only to control materials. He said some companies are all right. He said some companies may say they are satisfied with the progress of our management. Remember, this government are supposed to be great company managers. If there is anything wrong with the textile industry it is not because of goods coming in from the outside. If there is anything wrong with the electrical business, it is not because of goods coming in from outside; it is because the executive does not know how to run it. Those past masters of industry know how to run it. I should like to see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) run General Electric, or some of these other companies. If he did not run them any better than he runs his department they would go broke.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He runs the general elections.


William Earl Rowe: I would not want to embarrass the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Frank Exton Lennard: You could not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You could not.


William Earl Rowe: Maybe not; you have been very successful in embarrassing yourself. But enough of that; it is irrelevant to the issue, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Defence Production said today that the companies that are producing are using the taxpayers' money. It was rather refreshing to learn that the ministers at last are starting to worry about the taxpayers' money. A few years ago the cry was "What's a million?" Today they are beginning to be concerned about the taxpayers' money. It is the taxpayers' money we are spending. What did they think they were spending until now? They have been spending far more on civil administration than they ever spent before
Defence Production Act and far less on defence, even though defence is getting more important. The emergency is increasing and their expenditures are less. Even though the need for keeping down civil expenditures is greater, and inflation is increasing, they are still spending more. It is grand to find that they are now almost weeping crocodile tears about the poor taxpayers' money.
If they do not like the way a company is being run they want the power, as the minister said today, to go in and say, "You have been running your company for 25 years. I do not like the way you run it. I have never run a company like this myself but I think we down here in Ottawa, the cabinet, are able to run it better than you can. We have a lot of money invested here. We think differently from you, so just move over, move out. If you are not saucy about it, we can give you a good pension. We may give you a good pension anyway. Remember, if you are saucy about it we have an act. We do not need to give you anything. Step aside; let us in. We know how to run this." The Minister of National Defence says there is nothing new about this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Defence production.


William Earl Rowe: If he gets this bill through he will be both, anyway. He says there is nothing new in this; we have carried on for 16 years. Why not trust us again? I am glad to see the Minister of Justice come in at last, because he hates big things, too. I notice that he is ready to jump on anything that is big because it might be a combine. I was speaking to an old friend of mine the other day. I was thinking of buying a farm. I have a couple of farms now. I decided that before I did I should see the Minister of Justice for fear he might think it would be a combine if I bought a farm and put some fellow out of business, so he had to stop farming. So I called it off until I had a talk with the minister. Here is another man who seems to dominate the show, but even he will not have that authority if this bill passes, because the Minister of Defence Production will be able to say to his little friend the Minister of Justice, "Step aside, I am running this show."


An hon. Member:: He has already.


William Earl Rowe: I presume he has. I am wondering just how he feels about this. The minister says that this has been going on for 16 years. Yes, Mr. Speaker; and for 16 years no one in the house has restricted the authority so far as its effectiveness is concerned. He knows that; yet at the same time this afternoon he said there was not a company in Canada that had not played the game. Stop and think
5402	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act of it, Mr. Speaker. We need all this power, yet the same minister complimented industry in Canada.
I was glad to hear him say that because I knew that was the way he felt. He has had good co-operation from industry, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of Fisheries notwithstanding. I am not sure where all the socialists are. It is unfair to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and say they are all over here. When some of those silent fellows over there speak you wonder on which side they should be, and that goes for some members of the cabinet, because the Minister of Fisheries said he agreed that industry did not play the game during the war. I was glad the Minister of Defence Production said today that that was all wrong.
Comparisons are often odious. The minister said that this is no invention, that it should be compared with other departments. There should be a fixed policy for the Post Office Department, the Department of Public Works, and all the other departments. Does that mean that all departments are now going to be as permanently dictatorial as the Department of Defence Production, if these powers are made permanent?
The Minister of Defence Production said he could liquidate the act at any time, but would not be told by any member of the House of Commons when to do so. That means, if it means anything, that the minister says, "let us now invoke it; I will revoke it independently of parliament." He is in the twilight of his career, and when he retires we do not know who will take his place. I would not oppose that retirement myself, because I would like to see him remain in good health for the balance of his life.
The next normal step would be to have these powers exercised by some person else, but some other minister may be power-hungry. Such a minister might be ready to liquidate parliament altogether. You might just as well liquidate it as destroy its supremacy. You might just as well liquidate parliament as to refuse to trust parliament. You might just as well liquidate this house if you do not have full trust that the house will give the necessary powers in time of emergency.
In conclusion I say there is no hon. member within sound of my voice who would not give his or her life for this country. Despite our political differences, the cabinet know that at any time they have required power that power has not been refused. It would not be refused in the future in time of emergency. But we are being asked to


surrender the supremacy of parliament and place in the hands of one minister permanent powers of this kind.
I do not distrust the present Minister of Defence Production. I do not distrust him personally, as I have the highest regard for him. But principles are eternal, and we are fighting for principles. We do not propose to leave this house until we have fully expressed our convictions. We do not propose to leave this house even in the heat of this season until we feel we have done our duty. My hon. friends of the cabinet may smile, but I would remind some of the junior members who are here of a former champion of the supremacy of parliament. One of their great leaders told us how we should always trust the people. I can remember the late W. L. Mackenzie King standing out here in front of the mace and championing the supremacy of parliament.
I would refer hon. members to the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But I know all hon. members opposite will again show that blind allegiance which is so conspicuous on their part. I am not surprised that some of them laugh, but I would remind them that he who laughs last laughs best. I would remind some of these great statesmen of what was said by those who were worshipped by their forefathers. I am not disturbed by all this noise, because I have learned long since that there is nothing less contributory to sound reason than empty laughter.
I thank the minister for giving me the attention he has. It is rather noticeable that the right hon. gentleman who moved the motion is not in attendance in the chamber and has not spoken during this debate, but the man who expects to get the power is waiting anxiously for it. I am glad that his socialist friends have stayed in the house with him, because I realize how all this will be written in the C.C.F. campaign books of the future, how the right hon. Minister of Defence Production put this into effect and set things up for the socialist state even though it was not a socialist who put it into effect. There would need to be no change in the legislation; not one "t" would need to be crossed nor an "i" dotted. This legislation is sufficient to permit a new socialist regime to carry on.
In all sincerity I urge the government to stop, look and listen. We have not been told why they need this power. If they do not need it, why do they want it forever? I am sure that upon reflection the majority of the government will get together over in the cabinet meeting room and urge the Minister of Defence Production not to press

this issue. I am satisfied that there is something in the rumours and the rumblings we hear.
I can see the serious looks on the faces of the cabinet ministers. When you have watched these gentlemen as long as I have you can tell when they are pleased. The minister of health laughs, but I do not think he cares. The Minister of National Revenue is worried, but there is no one as worried as the Minister of Defence Production. He has no support on his right; he has not with him the spokesman who moved the bill. I am sure that on reflection he will realize that he has gone too far.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you are satisfied, why not quit?


William Earl Rowe: There is no one who can bring this to a close more quickly than the Minister of Defence Production, and there is no one who has contributed less to this debate than the minister of immigration. I understand we are going to be called to the other place, and in order to fill in a little time I would like to have the minister of national health rise and say that he supports this 100 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Wait until we vote.


William Earl Rowe: I would like to have the Minister of National Revenue rise-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Give us a chance and we will all rise together.


An hon. Member:: Why not let us have a vote?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let us have a vote.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the administrator of the government of Canada desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Franga Beryl Harker Stinson.
An act for the relief of Enid Gertrude Brooks Bray.
An act for the relief of Shirley Pollack Nadler.
An act for the relief of Isidore Hoffman.
An act for the relief of Ethel Dworkin Abrams.
An act for the relief of Michael Moses Scullion.
An act for the relief of Clifford Joseph Linehan.
An act for the relief of Irene Furlong Walters.
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Joyce Davies Javallas.
An act for the relief of Freida Schecter Lupo-vitch.
An act for the relief of Gertie Tryansky Katz.
An act for the relief of Olive Gertrude Meredith Bateman.
An act for the relief of David Sandler.
An act for the relief of Marcel Deslauriers.
An act for the relief of Delmar Ross Andreis.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Blanche Nelson Mallozzi.
An act for the relief of Glennice Maude Hunter Garayt.
An act for the relief of Irene Jessie Hillson Towes.
An act for the relief of Vivian Ruth Law Alarie.
An act for the relief of Joseph Antonio Campeol.
An act for the relief of Mary Matilda Getto Paquin.
An act for the relief of Ruth Nourse Tomlinson Wilson.
An act for the relief of Joseph Henri Marcel Giguere.
An act for the relief of Edith Isabella Bond
Brown.
An act for the relief of Yolande Joos Thompson.
An act for the relief of Norva Florence Lemon Farley.
An act for the relief of Freda Marie Johnston Storey.
An act for the relief of Jack Beattie Thompson.
An act for the relief of Florence Mary Ann Meakin O'Ranski.
An act for the relief of Theophile Kulczycki.
An act for the relief of William Michael Gray-burn.
An act for the relief of Katharine Leitner Bouchard Frankenburg.
An act for the relief of Clara Gaetan Milot Fullerton.
An act for the relief of Lily Shenker Silverton.
An act for the relief of Alsye May Lissemore Masterson.
An act for the relief of Sylvia Knelman Wiseman.
An act for the relief of Sara Beiss Stein.
An act for the relief of Veronica Vera Bordenuik Reidt.
An act for the relief of George Gerald Melville Scally.
An act for the relief of Joseph William James Tanney.
An act for the relief of Aline Mailloux Simoneau.
An act for the relief of Margaret Violet Oswald Nicol Maclver.
An act for the relief of Irving Umansky.
An act for the relief of Veronica Forrester Rose Kennedy.
An act for the relief of Marie Therese Jeannette Mainville Froment.
An act for the relief of Goldie Moscovitch Katz.
An act for the relief of Yvette Cayer Lefebvre.
An act for the relief of Regina Wiener Strelezky Distelman.
An act for the relief of Marie-Louise Ashby Tremblay.
An act for the relief of Lorna Greenberg Buium.
An act for the relief of Myrtle Ada Lewin Derbridge.
An act for the relief of Georges Etienne Barry.
An act for the relief of Eileen Bayliss Roberts.
An act for the relief of Ernest Augustus Lepage.
An act for the relief of Rosaire Jacques Rene Tetrault.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Lucy Stiles Beal.
An act for the relief of Margaret Duming Mullins.
An act for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Lorraine Callard Ramsay.
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Ann Mary Allward Spighi.
An act for the relief of Anne Rynski Vincent.
An act for the relief of Dora Helen Simmons Glancy.
An act for the relief of Joseph Louis Armand Carrier.
An act for the relief of Marie Merilda Longval Hoy.
An act for the relief of Charles Edouard Thibodeau.
An act for the relief of Rose Bowman Fox.
An act for the relief of Marguerite Gladys Letitia Mathers Grimsdale.
An act for the relief of Jennie Switzman Rashcovsky.
An act for the relief of Charles Ryerson Stewart.
An act for the relief of Hilda Emmalin Christensen Taylor.
An act for the relief of Glendon Joseph Lynes.
An act for the relief of Kenneth Rae Story.
An act for the relief of Joseph Marcel Plourde.
An act for the relief of Mayo Arthur Perrin Harrigan.
An act to incorporate Petroleum Transmission Company.
An act respecting the Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada.
An act to incorporate S & M Pipeline Limited.
An act to incorporate Yukon Pipelines Limited.
An act to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act.
An act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
An act respecting the boundary between the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia.
An act to amend the Veterans Benefit Act. 1954.
An act respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners.
An act to amend the Customs Act.
An act to implement a convention on great lakes fisheries between Canada and the United States.
An act to incorporate Stanmount Pipe Line Company.
An act respecting the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company.
An act to incorporate Gillespie Mortgage Corporation.
An act respecting Westcoast Transmission Company Limited.
An act to incorporate Trans-Prairie Pipelines of Canada, Ltd.
An act to incorporate Trans-Border Pipeline Company Ltd.
An act to amend the National Parks Act and to establish a national park in the province of Newfoundland.
An act respecting Equitable Fire Insurance Company of Canada.
An act to incorporate the Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventists.
An act to incorporate Consolidated Pipe Lines Company.
An act to incorporate Baudette and Rainy River Municipal Bridge Company.
An act respecting the inspection of meat and meat products entering into international and interprovincial trade.
An act to establish national standards for agricultural products and to regulate international and interprovincial trade in agricultural products.
An act to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
An act respecting the Canadian forces.
An act to amend the Railway Act.
An act to approve an agreement between the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

An act to amend the Library of Parliament Act.
An act to amend the Blind Persons Act.
An act respecting Canadian National Railways.
An act respecting Canadian National Railways and to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations.
An act to provide for the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1955, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1956.
Mr. Speaker:: It being ten minutes past six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is under a misapprehension. If he wants to speak at eight o'clock he does not need to move the adjournment of the debate. If he does not want the debate to be proceeded with at eight o'clock, then he wants to move the adjournment of the debate.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I will call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have indicated that as it is ten minutes past six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
It being ten minutes past 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.
(Translation):
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, although the government supporters in this house show little interest in the dictatorial bill which the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) is bent on putting through, we of the official opposition find satisfaction in the thought that every sacrifice we make is gladly made for the defence and protection of the Canadian people and the safeguard of our democratic system.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) moved an amendment to this bill this afternoon, less than 30 Liberal members were in their seats in this house.


Mr. Gour (Russell):: How many Conservative members are in the house just now? There are only four.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is about all the hon. member has said during this session, and it is not much of a contribution.
This should show how utterly indifferent they are to democracy or to the feelings of those they govern. Whatever criticism or suggestions we may offer are of no concern to them, nor is the fact that the most powerful of cabinet ministers is setting himself above parliament. They are by no means concerned with the interest of those whom they represent here, or with the constitution or respect for provincial rights. They are likewise completely indifferent to the democratic system under which we live and which allows them to sit in this house. The only thing that counts for our hon. friends, the Liberal members, is the exercise of power, for which they have a great fondness and which they hope to be able to retain for a long time to come. What a strange conception of duty that is, and how they will have to answer to the electorate for it!
At this time when this Canada of ours is more than ever in danger, when the shadows of war extend to our very doorstep, we are faced with the depressing and shameful sight of a government which mocks at the people and its defenders, a government which, armed with arbitrary powers, is rushing headlong into a socialism fraught with danger. This attitude can but lead us to the loss of our dearest freedoms, freedoms which we have, up to this moment, gained through courage, heroism and bloodshed.
History is there and one only has to read it to find out the heavy price that was paid for the freedom we now enjoy and which we want to preserve at any cost.
Let us go back to some ten years ago, and assess the sad cost of the five years of the second world war.
Let us pay a short visit to the various battlefields where those we must call our Canadian heroes fought gloriously. Let us recall for a moment the names of all those we knew and loved and who did not hesitate to answer the call of their country, who generously gave their lives for the preservation, in Canada and throughout the world, of the democratic system which has made our country what it is today.
Defence Production Act
Let us for a moment enter homes saddened by the loss of loved ones, losses caused by totalitarianism which wanted to deprive us of a freedom so dear to our hearts.
Why, Mr. Speaker, during the dark years of 1939-44, were we horrified witnesses of so many massacres, so much destruction and desolation, so many tears and so much bereavement? Why did our fine young men, Canadian youths, give or risk their lives away from their homes and the people they cherished? Why must thousands of them today lead a hapless existence, disabled or handicapped as a consequence of their war experience?
It is because they answered the call of those who were then the leaders of this country, the same who are sitting today at your right, Mr. Speaker, who dramatically and even with sobbing voices, were pressing and urging those young men, the hope and the future of the nation, to don the uniform, to take up arms and go overseas to protect the endangered freedom of this country.


Mr. Lefrangois:: He'll have us in tears
pretty soon.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The call to arms for the protection and defence of our democratic system was heard, and more than a million Canadians did not hesitate to answer the call of duty, trusting that because of their countless sacrifices, even the sacrifice of their lives, those who would come after them might completely enjoy the benefits of true democracy which is synonymous with peace, justice, happiness and prosperity.
Scarcely ten years have passed since thousandfold bereavement darkened our Canadian homes. Hardly a decade after the time when Canadians, all over the country, tightened their belts of their own free will, so that freedom and democracy might prevail, those who demanded the dread ransom are aping the dictators which democracy had overcome.
This bill is an encroachment on individual liberty, on the freedom of private enterprise and on the sacred rights of the provinces. It is one of the worst inroads ever made against the Canadian constitution in our whole history.
While we oppose with our utmost energy these dictatorial powers which would endanger our democratic system for the preservation of which so much blood has been shed, the Minister of Defence Production, showing a shocking contempt for the sacred document which is our constitution, contempt too for individuals and for the provinces and private enterprise generally, seems

Defence Production Act to repeat, looking at the sheepish majority around him, that sentence which should bring sad memories to him: "If we want to do it, who will stop us?"
Mr. Speaker, the minister was unable to convince us and he cannot convince the Canadian people that he needs such unlimited powers. They are unnecessary and he knows it.
Since hundreds of millions in taxpayers' money are spent each year by that department, the Canadian population which, through the high taxes it pays, is footing the bill wants to know and is entitled to know how that money is spent. Is that not the reason why every four or five years the government goes to the people so that 265 representatives are sent here to further and to protect the interests of the nation?
Never, under our parliamentary system has any government, tramping upon our most sacred rights, made such a servile use of the majority given to them to betray the electors, the very people who entrusted them with the management of our nation's business. Mr. Speaker, I state that the greatest part of the population, with the exception of a few communists and socialists, refuses to give the government this blank cheque. If the minister does get this blank cheque through the majority of those who like to show that they have become ambitious socialists, subservient to rigid party discipline, I suggest that such behaviour is a betrayal of the people, and that in due course the people will remember it.
Let us never forget this old saying which applies so well at this time to those who are making themselves the accomplices of the Minister of Defence Production, and are ready to grant him the dictatorial powers he demands: "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time". I shall translate this sentence into English in order to make it clear to my English-speaking colleagues.
(Text):
We can fool some of the people some of the time, but we can't fool all the people all the time.
(Translation):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, a government-Oh! I see a couple of hon. members, the member for Russell (Mr. Gour)-I am not mistaken this time-and the member for Laurier (Mr. Lefrancois) who find it amusing that there should be some people who have the courage to stand up and in this house uphold the real interests of the people and prevent Canada, for which we fought, from falling into the hands of a dictator.
[Mr. Dufresne.l


Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. The hon. member is mistaken, as usual. To refrain from laughing at his nonsense, one would have to be ready for the grave-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have the right to speak and I intend to keep it. I do not wish to be disturbed by the nonsensical utterances of the hon. member for Russell-
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. It is absolutely impossible for anybody to hear two members speaking at once. The hon. member who has risen on a question of privilege should be allowed to state it.
(Translation):


Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member that he would not prevent me from laughing, because one would have to be ready to die if one were to refrain from laughing at his vacuous remarks and, besides, he is telling falsehoods.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: What about the question of privilege?
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Perhaps this is one of the many occasions when hon. members seem to feel that something which is not palatable can be objected to as a question of privilege. As I understand the debate that has taken place, no question of privilege has arisen. The hon. member may proceed.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just interrupted finds it a laughing matter when a member of this house shows some respect for those who have elected him. If I have the pleasure and the honour of sitting in the parliament of my country it is because the electors of Quebec West have asked me to come here to fight for the great democratic principles which have made Canada what she is today, and they want us to pass on that heritage to those who will come after us.
If the present behaviour of the hon. member for Russell is all the heritage he will pass on to his electors and his people, I would say it is a very poor heritage, a very insignificant heritage, a very indifferent, a very -I will not use that other word, because it would be unparliamentary.
Mr. Speaker, a government cannot forever go on laughing at the people and deceiving them with impunity. Once again, the Liberal party, of which the hon. member for Russell

is a distinguished representative, has gone too far, and the next appeal to the people will show them what those who laugh at the people must expect.
In trying to gain by putting parliament to death the minister will only succeed in driving the last nail into the coffin of his political party.
I challenge each and every Liberal member in this house to be here when the question will be put with regard to this bill. I cannot for the life of me believe that without a single dissenting voice they will agree to lament over the loss of our democratic freedom.
People of Canada, your freedom is in jeopardy! People of Canada, the democracy you have so dearly bought in the past is dying, and is to be buried in a Liberal shroud! It is still time, however, to check that shameful dictatorship which is already trying to strangle us. We are too proud of our past and of our history not to ward off this slur.
Like the gallant warriors of old, let us stand together and say to the minister and to the government: "Hold, you shall not pass!"
And as we are heroically fighting for the defence of the democratic rights so dearly paid for, let us unite and preserve at least what freedoms are left to us.
I repeat the plea I made last week to all hon. members from my own province and to all French-speaking members, with the exception of the hon. member for Russell, because he has never known what it is all about and he won't understand any better tonight, and I say to them: We in French Canada have a glorious past, traditions which are dear to us and were preserved through the resistance of our fathers whose memory stirs our hearts. If we survived and grew into a great people which widely contributed to the development and progress of our Canadian country, it was because we had faith in freedom and democracy. Let us never defile a whole past of glory and the memory of those who were responsible for what we are today.
Wave aside partisanship, in this momentous and crucial hour, and rally around those who want to bequeath to future generations a Canada wherein they will still be in a position to breathe the unsullied air of liberty and democracy.
Let us generously join our English-speaking fellow citizens who, on this side of the house, want, as we do, to hand down to their descendants something better than an infamous dictatorship.
Be Liberals if you like, but be Liberals mainly in preserving for Canadians a country
Defence Production Act which will continue to be free and truly democratic!
I do repeat, Mr. Speaker, that more than ever the time has come for our friends opposite to give up party politics and to think at least once in their lifetime of our Canadian fatherland.
(Text):


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforth):: The change the government is making by this bill has turned it into a real issue, Mr. Speaker. It strikes at parliament's very existence and places it in jeopardy. The deletion of the time limit by the government is serious enough. What is more serious is the thinking of the government, or the thinking behind the idea that they could get away with this. By presenting it as merely an innocuous measure to expedite defence production, as it stands now it is bidding for power in perpetuity. What confronts us now is this attempt, whether wittingly or unwittingly, to undermine the very base upon which the principles of our democracy are founded.
Section 5 of the act confirms this, because it says:
The minister may authorize any person, on his behalf or under his control and direction, to do any act or thing or to exercise any power that the minister may do or exercise under this act.
Did Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Peron ask for any greater power? Why, absolute mon-archs never exercised so much, nor tried to exercise it. Then, Mr. Speaker, we would be recreant to our sworn fealty to the crown, to the people of this great dominion, if we did not oppose this bill to the full extent of our ability.
Why, Mr. Speaker, we are performing an outstanding service to the people of Canada by whom we have been encouraged and supported through the press, by organizations and individuals to challenge the government and to continue our opposition to the utmost limit before granting such complete power; and any delay in the adoption of this bill, no matter how brief, gives that much longer to enjoy the freedom that is being filched from us, and drive home with greater impact the government's depredation of their rights.
We have seen these things in the past. History is replete with lessons of how power was innocently given, with no intention of being taken advantage of or being abused, only to see the people and the nation humbled and the initiators, the creators, yes, the perpetrators of the use of the power pursue their course into oblivion by devious means. Does not the government by now realize that the power this bill gives to the minister and his successors, regardless of who they may

Defence Production Act be and irrespective of party affiliation, is dangerous and fraught with far-reaching and undemocratic features never before presented in peacetime?
Why, Mr. Speaker, the power the minister and his successors seek is to compel Canadian industry to accept government contracts or orders at what he considers the right price, under threat of seizure of their plants. This is a power that has no place in our democratic system at any time.
Should anyone harbour in his mind any doubt that this power now being asked for will be used, let me dispel that. The Minister of Defence Production presents his own case, with ample evidence, that he will run things his own way without parliament's help or advice. He emphasized his contempt for parliament when he stated, "If we have overstepped our powers, I make no apology for having done so"; also his cavalier manner when talking of the people's money, "What's a million?"; and again when he handled this house like a martinet and told the members, "Who will stop us?"
Having had such despotic powers over the nation's economy for so long, he now wants to extend them indefinitely; a perfect example of how power feeds upon power and now finds that it cannot survive without it and will not relinquish it. At the present time he wonders who is going to stop him. The battle is joined, and we shall carry on in defence of that principle. He did not use the exact expression of General Grant when he was talking about General Lee and the Battle of the Wilderness, and said he would fight this out if it took all summer. That is the attitude he has taken, and for a man who is generally very reasonable, it is hard to understand his obstinacy in this matter.


Mr. Winch:: That is not in line with your speech.


Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Speaker, let me return to the minister's power to place contracts or orders. With factories having to take orders at the minister's insistence they would soon be dependent for their existence upon such orders or contracts, and it would not be very long before they would lose their regular customers who were the mainstay of the market that consumed their production. Without goods to sell because of the government's absorption of their products, their sales staff would deteriorate if not collapse, and the market they had built up over the years would vanish because of being abandoned. Then when the days of the government's orders were ended-


Harold Edward Winch: Turn the page.
	I


Robert Hardy Small: -they would have to start all over again to recapture their lost markets. When that happens, will the government compensate these firms during the process of rehabilitation? I doubt it very much. This, then, may account for the firms being reluctant to enter into or accept the business the minister was anxious to place with them in the episode he narrated to the house.
However, Mr. Speaker, this is just one phase of the dictatorial powers contained in this bill. There is a broader aspect to it than that, one that will have a more disastrous effect. This bill gives the government the right to supersede or abrogate all agreements or contracts between any entities, individuals, corporations, municipalities and provinces, and can by one sweep of the pen centralize the whole of our economy and administration into the hands and power of the dominion government.
There has been one note injected into the debate that was out of place. That was the broad assertion about private industry and business which was uncalled for. An hon. member stated: that private industry went on strike in 1939; that it was unpatriotic, and that it was prepared to let Canada go down the drain if it could not have the terms it wanted from the government and from the people.


An hon. Member:: That was 1930.


Robert Hardy Small: I accept the correction. While we are aware that both business and labour have their bad actors, whom no one attempts to condone, by and large both industry and labour were patriotic and gave their best. Both did moderately well. In fact labour came at last to the uplands of better times, and they are still advancing. It is amazing to have the government remain silent when they know what contributions industry and business made through their key personnel, at times with crippling effects upon their business. If there were any defects in that business or anyone else did less than extremely well, then the criticism should be levelled at the government.
What with government checks and balances, restraints, verbotens and permits, inspectors' investigations, collectors, controllers, comptrollers, directors and deputies and ministers; with their graded scales and schedules, lists and levies, imposts, taxes and tariffs, how anyone could enter into the Elysian field of large profits without the consent of some of the mentioned individuals is beyond comprehension. The people of Canada are entitled to explanations from the government and especially from the Minister of Defence Production in refutation of this charge.


An hon. Member:: The end of the written speech. What happens now?


Robert Hardy Small: We could not expect anything better from the other side, but we are tolerant and can submit to such things. Down through the history of this country from its very start, not just from confederation; down through British history, we And incidents such as this; of charters of freedom which have taken years to secure being ignored and superseded by just some such insignificant act as this. Step by step, instead of retaining the liberties they had gained in the past they found them gradually withdrawn one after another because like so many countries which have gone by the way and are not now in existence, they ignored, or allowed someone to delude them by granting, some innocuous piece of legislation that was going to do them good. Someone was going to govern better than they could govern themselves. In other words they were too stupid to be governed by themselves and therefore they must be given direction.
They returned to the old oriental philosophy of the Pharaohs, of Genghis Khan and those who wanted absolute power. They were told that no harm would be done; that if they obeyed orders they would be handsomely taken care of. That has been the basis of legislation such as this that we are dealing with today.
You may think we are wasting time here tonight in presenting this opposition. We do not consider we are. Hitler thought he was going on for a thousand years and said so. Other dictators said the millennium had come and would continue. With such a bill as this the people may realize some day that that which they cherished most highly has been taken away from them.
The Minister of Defence Production advanced what he considered were reasons for this bill by stating that certain metals such as nickel were scarce and were needed for defence purposes. What about gold and silver? The government now have the means of controlling those metals any time they desire. There is no necessity for a bill of this kind. The government can put on an embargo or put on controls any time they see fit. That is no excuse for bringing down a bill such as this. The minister has never failed in the past to acquire the powers he wanted when and how he wanted them, if needed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member referred to Genghis Khan. Can he tell us if Genghis Khan predated Cleopatra?


Robert Hardy Small: I can tell you about Mark Antony.
Defence Production Act


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, in the minds of some hon. members this skirmish is assuming the proportions of a major battle. I agree that it is the last engagement in a running encounter which has gone on since 1945 over a principle which is certainly worth fighting for. The principle for which we have been fighting and in which all Conservatives believe, and I think not a few Liberals, may be described as the belief that the discretion allowed to men in power must be reduced to the lowest level consistent with the effective operation of the political machinery. "Men in power", in the context of this debate and in the application of this bill to the situation in Canada, is not limited to the minister or his successor but includes those officials in his department to whom he has the power to delegate authority, and to the agents, investigators, controllers and others outside the public service altogether to whom the minister may redelegate the very broad authorities given to him by this bill.
If the Minister of Defence Production, who appears to have taken the ministerial responsibility for this bill apart from the formal approval given by the Prime Minister, in whose name the bill stands, were somewhat more conciliatory in his make-up the amendment the house now has before it would seem to offer a reasonable compromise between the opposing forces, which at this stage of the discussion appear to be represented by a determination on the part of the minister to write his broad powers into the permanent law of Canada, on the one hand, and the determination of the opposition to resist any such attempt and not to yield until they are overwhelmed by the weight of numbers on the other hand.
The minister reviewed the history of the procurement of defence supplies during the last 16 years, that is since the outbreak of world war II. It might be appropriate to review the counterbalancing powers which were given and which were used during that period in connection with the procurement of those supplies. It began, of course, with the outbreak of world war II. For the next five years, that is until 1945, there was no protest in this house against the delegation of the most extensive powers that any government in this country had ever been given by parliament.
Those powers were broadened and strengthened as the experience of the war dictated, and when hostilities ceased a fairly broad code had been formulated by the minister and the departmental officials which covered almost any conceivable action the government needed to take in the stress of a total war effort.

Defence Production Act
The next stage in this history was after the cessation of hostilities, when battle was joined over the continuation of the war measures powers under the emergency powers act, which granted powers based on the continuation of a state of emergency, as the name implies. That act, which replaced the War Measures Act, continued in effect for several years and was modified from time to time in the course of this engagement which, as I described, is continuing tonight over precisely the same issue.
In the course of those engagements the emergency powers act was modified, and eventually the government appeared to be persuaded that the emergency powers were no longer needed, for they allowed the bill to lapse entirely, I believe three years ago. That pretty well disposed of powers based on the theory that there was an emergency. We have on the statute books only this bill. This bill, whilst it is objectionable, having a very broad delegation of powers for a peacetime government or at least a government which is not engaged in active hostilities, nevertheless is somewhat more restricted than the emergency powers bill. Those somewhat more restricted powers had been enacted by this parliament in 1951 with a definite time limit which is to be reached next year, on the 31st July, 1956.
So when the government appeared to accept the proposition over which this running engagement had taken place-that is the proposition that the powers dependent on the state of emergency were no longer needed- we had nothing left but a bill which was due to expire at a fixed time and which had not yet expired. At least its objectionable features were largely offset by the fact that its expiration was expected.
There was, of course, the other bill to which the minister has referred, the defence supplies act, which is suspended while the Defence Production Act is in force but would come into force again if the Defence Production Act were repealed. At this point in this long controversy we have before us a bill which is not due to expire until another 13 months have elapsed. In other words there will be another session of this parliament before it is necessary finally to deal with the powers aspect of the bill.
I appreciate, and everyone who has spoken from this side appreciates, that it is necessary to make a decision about the Department of Defence Production. It has been generally agreed that the department is necessary and should be continued, and that this can be done without the powers which the minister
[Mr. Michener.l

claims to be necessary. If that course were taken this matter would be resolved very quickly.
The amendment we have before us suggests a very reasonable way of bringing together the forces which appear to be locked in disagreement at the present time, those forces I have already described. This amendment simply would refer the bill and the principle of continuing the department to the standing committee on banking and commerce, a committee on which the government has a very large majority and which is presided over by one of its distinguished supporters. If the bill were sent to that committee it could consider the need for the powers; it could sort out the powers in the bill, consider which are necessary and which are unnecessary, and rewrite the bill or make recommendations which would be acceptable to the committee and presumably to the house, at the same time dealing with the problem of putting the Department of Defence Production on a permanent basis.
To my mind that seems a reasonable proposition which could readily be accepted by this house in view of the time element, in view of the seriousness of the controversy which has existed over this last 10 years on the subject of emergency powers, and in view of the present deadlock on this issue.
It perhaps would be easier to follow the government in its decision not to accept some middle ground if a better case had been made for the powers to which objection has been taken. They surely must be justified on the basis of some serious need. No one on this side, at least, has been persuaded by the attempts which have been made-and I am sure in fairness the government will agree no very serious attempt has been made-to present a case which would justify the full extent of the powers which were written into this bill at a time when Canada was engaged in open warfare in Korea.
I speak with more confidence on this subject because the only attempts which have been made so far have been those of the minister himself and one or two of his colleagues. I recall at least one of the private members on the government side, the hon. member for Spadina. Some of his arguments were based on such erroneous grounds that they rather shattered the whole case he intended to make, a case which has been described today by several members as not in conformity with his usual liberal viewpoint on public affairs. I refer to his argument which appears on page 5006 of Hansard, wherein he suggests why it is necessary for us to continue these powers in force. He is

following the Leader of the Opposition and trying to make a case by example. He says:
Let me give you some examples, as the Leader of the Opposition gave you some examples. Let us take the field of electronics, a very important field. Many important and essential patents are now in use. We need them. If we do not have them, they can well retard our defence effort and in some cases nullify it.
Is there anyone who will say we do not need the power to take and use these patents and to compensate people for them?
That sounds like a reasonable proposition, but when one looks at the powers the government has already under the Patent Act it is quite clear that the government needs nothing further. I refer to the Patent Act in the Revised Statutes of Canada. Section 22 reads as follows:
Any patent application for an invention that, in the opinion of the commissioner, relates to the production, application or use of atomic energy-
And so on. That is not the section I had in mind. It is section 19 of the act, which reads:
The government of Canada may, at any time, use any patented invention, paying to the patentee such sum as the commissioner reports to be a reasonable compensation for the use thereof, and any decision of the commissioner under this section is subject to appeal to the exchequer court.
That is one provision which the hon. member has obviously overlooked, and it lets down a very important part of the case he endeavoured to make in support of these powers. If you look further through what he said there is nothing which indicates a need for the extensive powers which we are asked to approve today.
That is one attempt that was made. The minister himself made quite an extensive argument in favour of the continuation of these powers in the light of his own experience and belief, and we must give him credit for sticking to his guns and insisting that he needs these powers. But what does he say is the reason he needs them? The first point I wish to deal with is that he says this department, like other departments, has to have its powers and this act has to be taken as a unit because in it you have the constitution of the department as well as the powers and authority which the department must exercise. Therefore he says if we reject the powers we reject the department. He refers to other departments of government, public works and finance, in illustration of how a department is established.
I have taken the trouble to look at the statutes establishing these departments. The Public Works Act, which is chapter 228 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, establishes the Department of Public Works. I submit that the minister was probably picking the best examples he could. The Department of
Defence Production Act Public Works is a department which has the power to take from any citizen of Canada any real estate, any real property, which it needs to expropriate for purposes of the government, and to compensate for that expropriation. But when you look at the way the department is established you find that the act says very little about expropriation. The powers of expropriation are contained in quite another act of parliament, in another volume of the Revised Statutes of Canada. They are found in the Expropriation Act.
The department's statute simply establishes the department, names a minister and defines his authority in general terms. "Department" is defined as meaning the department of the government of Canada charged with the construction and maintenance of public works, and a minister is named to take charge of it. Therefore the parallel is clear now that what should be done to establish a new and permanent department of government under the name of defence production is to pass a general bill setting up the department, naming a minister and giving it the basic authority.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely my friend is not overlooking the other sections of the Public Works Act. He mentions that it names a minister. The act was amended in the house not long ago and I read it then. If the hon. member is going to describe the Public Works Act, let him read it.


Daniel Roland Michener: I have the Public Works Act here. It has a good many sections. Perhaps I might occupy the time of the house, although not too acceptably, by reading them.


Mr. Pearson:: It would be as relevant as the other things you are saying.


Mr. Robertson:: It would be more interesting than what you are saying.


Daniel Roland Michener: Apparently it seems to bother the minister to some extent, but in any event-


Lester Bowles Pearson: It does not bother him, it just exhausts him.


Daniel Roland Michener: -I do not expect that those who do not listen will be troubled by it very greatly. We have become accustomed to the rather indifferent acceptance, shall I say, of the lead of the government by those on the other side of the house, and many of their supporters do not seem to feel it necessary to listen to the arguments of the opposition. This debate concerns a serious principle. As I say, it is not the first time this clash has occurred. It has gone on for a considerable number of years and I venture

Defence Production Act to say it will go on until some reason reappears among those who call themselves Liberals.
Let us see what else the minister produced by way of argument in support of the need for these powers. He went on to deal with the question of scarcity and the need for rationing. His first example was nickel. Canada, producing as it does approximately 95 per cent of the world's nickel, is in a pretty good position to have the nickel it needs, and the minister does not complain that we are not getting what nickel is needed for defence purposes. The government, far from undertaking to develop more nickel on its own initiative, has allowed the government of the United States to do that in a rather unusual way, by writing individual contracts with the large nickel producers so there is no uniform price for nickel.
The great producers of nickel, the International Nickel Company Limited and Falcon-bridge Nickel Mines, both have their private engagements with the United States government by which means that government procures a very large percentage of the production of those two major nickel mines. This does not establish a uniform price, and other producers may not find a ready means of obtaining the same advantage. That is not an issue tonight, but that is the situation in the nickel industry. There seems to be no concern on the part of the government about establishing a price, and as the minister himself said the nickel producers were not tempted by the higher price abroad to withhold any part of their production.
The minister mentioned copper. He also mentioned steel for the early warning lines. If the minister had taken steps recently to foster the steel industry in this country and increase our production at least to the point where we were self-sustaining instead of allowing our iron ore to be taken abroad to be smelted, perhaps there would be some point in what he says; but as long as the government is no more concerned about the supply of iron and steel in this country than they are at present it does not seem to me that a very good case has been made for the use of these great powers in order to get what steel is needed for the early warning lines.
The minister said these instances illustrate the possibility of the need for rationing. The minister does not seriously tell the house we are in need of rationing of scarce materials today. On the contrary, the minister and his department voluntarily abandoned all rationing. I stand to be corrected if I am not right, but my impression is there is no rationing of scarce materials in Canada today and no need for any.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has not been for several years.


Daniel Roland Michener: There has not been for a couple of years. Therefore that part of the minister's case does not have much persuasive force. The only serious case he attempted to make was related to some major projects of the defence program. They were the development of supersonic aircraft and engines, which I submit is almost entirely under the control of the government in the ordinary course of events by its contracts and its financial support. These are not the natural industries of this country. We would not have them if the government were not developing these aircraft and engines. Therefore it is a matter of the government being in the business already, and it needs no powers to deal with a business it runs itself. The powers the minister has here would enable him to deal with any kind of industry throughout the whole country, whereas his case is limited to industry which is already within the government's own control.
The same applies to the other major projects he mentioned, the naval gun and the early warning and guided missile projects. They are all armament projects and are in their nature very closely controlled and entirely financed by the government itself. Surely no case is made for a general, broad control of industry by citing such examples as those. After all, the materials which go into these items are not the whole range of industrial supplies; and if the minister rests on that I submit it is a completely inadequate case to persuade any reasonable parliament that these powers, extraordinary as they are, should be continued in a time of peace.
In his justification of this bill today the minister goes on to say that no question of freedom is involved. Let us look at that. It is admitted that the bill does not give the power to suspend habeas corpus, to seize the person of anyone engaged in industry and throw him into jail except after a trial. There is no difference of opinion on that score, therefore. But to say that no question of freedom of the individual is involved to my mind overlooks the whole basis and concept of freedom which depends, in its essence, upon there being people who are not slaves in any economic sense of the word, able to express themselves without fear of retaliation. In that sense there is no question in my mind but that the freedom and liberty of the individual is involved.
The liberty of the individual comprises all his normal rights of property as well as freedom from arrest. Property is an important right of an individual, as any lawyer can

tell you, because two-thirds of the concerns of his clients are in the defence of their property rights. If a man who is running a business is subject to having that business taken over by arbitrary action-because it is within the discretion of the minister that such action can be taken-to me that indicates there is a potential interference with the liberty of the individual which the minister has entirely overlooked or disregarded.
If you look for a minute at the possible effect on a man's business and property of the exercise of the powers which are in existence under this act, I think everyone in this house will agree that the potentiality is there. No one is saying that it has been exercised or that it will necessarily be exercised. But as long as the potentiality is there it is a threat to the liberty and freedom of the subject. As I interpret section 27, and I think this is the right interpretation of it, where the minister is satisfied that a person who has taken a defence contract is likely to fail to perform that contract in a businesslike manner, the minister may authorize a controller to carry on the whole of the business of that person. Is that not a ferocious weapon to put in the hands of anyone for the purpose of getting someone to carry out a defence contract in a businesslike manner?
The minister has very properly given high praise to Canadian industry for carrying out its contracts in a businesslike and efficient manner. The only instance he cited where he felt the need for authority to intervene and appoint a better management was in connection with a project directly under the control of the government. In so far as industry generally is concerned, you will find that the interests of the government and of business coincide. They are both out to do business and have it done in an efficient and businesslike manner. This power the minister has depends on his being satisfied that such and such is not the case. In other words it depends simply on his being dissatisfied with the way a man is running some part of his business. Then he can put in a controller to operate the whole of that man's business. If this would not be an unwarranted interference with a man's liberty I should like to know what this house means by "liberty".
Actually the controller who may be put in under those circumstances is made the agent for the owner. Regardless of that owner's consent he has the power to commit the owner to all kinds of contracts and obligations which may not turn out well. In the end they may very well ruin the business completely. So far as I know-and perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who
Defence Production Act is also a lawyer, might verify this-the only case of compulsory agency in the law is that of one's wife, and that is limited to the purchase of necessities. Here we have a case of compulsory agency where there is no limitation in the act at all. That is the kind of interference with property rights that is written into this bill.
Then the next section deals with relief from obligation. I am not going to take time to go into that, but the amazing thing about it is that the minister alone, if I am not mistaken, has the power to relieve a man from statutory obligation under an act passed by this parliament. That goes about as far as any legislation can go.
These powers are supplemented by the power to investigate. We all know what a weighty power the power to investigate can be. It is a very common practice with governments to give broad powers of investigation, to send investigators in without even a signature to look through a man's affairs and find whatever they can to convict him of whatever they want. This power of investigation, combined with the power of control and the power of relief from other statutory obligations, is in effect the power to ruin a person engaged in business. It is the power to intimidate business. So long as these powers exist the way they are, potentially they are powers of intimidation which form a cloud on the freedom of business and industry generally throughout this country.
Under those circumstances, if the minister comes into this house and says there is no interference with liberty, I suggest he is not looking the facts in the face. He is not giving this house a true impression of what those powers are. It would be more commendable on his part if he were to say yes, we are going to interfere with the liberty of the subject in the exercise of his broad rights with respect to his and other people's property, but it is necessary for these reasons. Then he could give his reasons.
I have gone over all the reasons he gave, except the final one. The final reason is, I believe, insulting to the intelligence of the house. He said there is nothing new in these powers; they have existed for 16 years, and therefore they are all right. You do not have to examine that proposition very far to see what an absurdity it is. It is simply an assertion that conditions have not changed very much. We all know what kind of conditions existed from 1939 to 1945 and the powers which were necessary to carry on a totalitarian conflict which has been renewed sporadically and which still threatens to break out. But at least we can define our present
5414	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act situation as one of uneasy peace. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who just came back from the United Nations' tenth anniversary meeting in San Francisco, if he meant what he said has certainly a hopeful approach toward the future. This statement by the minister that because these powers have been in effect for 16 years without any change and therefore they must be all right, is an insult to the intelligence of the house.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I submit again that this bill has not been supported by any rational arguments. This battle which has been going on will continue in defence of the principle which I first enunciated, until some reasonable willingness to compromise, either by limiting the powers or by limiting their duration, is evidenced on the part of the government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, in commencing my second speech on this important question I find myself in a much happier situation than I was two weeks ago last night. When we began this debate we had a somewhat lonely feeling. We knew what the attitude of the rest of the House of Commons was, and we were assured that this was a trivial matter that no sane man outside the House of Commons would pay any attention to. We had to pull ourselves together and make ourselves believe that, in spite of being a rather small number, we possibly could be right.
Two weeks have elapsed since then, and we do not feel quite so lonely as we did. I must admit that at that time there was some reason for the feeling some people had. I remember that one of our friends who, I think, is a good political forecaster said, when this thing came up, "Don't let us fool ourselves. If we take this thing on, at first there will be no interest in it at all. The press will not be interested. Nobody will be interested. But if we fight it through and make people believe we really do regard it as a matter of principle on which we are prepared to take some trouble, then people will become interested in spite of themselves".
I have some rather interesting proof of that. Two or three weeks ago, after this debate began, one of my journalist friends whom I greatly respect was having a meal with me, and I said, "You don't seem to have any interest in this matter in your newspaper. You have not had an editorial. Your report yesterday did not suggest there was even a glimmering of any principle involved." He said, "Are you people serious about this?" I said, "Yes, we are. You can take it from me that we are."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nobody believes you are.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He said, "If you are serious about it, that makes me feel entirely different. If you are serious about it, and if you can convince the people of Canada you are serious, you will get a good deal of support."
We have gone on. People must either think we are serious or mad, one or the other, because nobody would stay here for fun. So I hope even the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) will believe that we are serious. I hope he has not written us off in the other category as yet.


Jean Lesage: I have said that it was pretty realistic.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are serious; and I think if this has to go on people will realize in a week or two-or more-from now that we are more serious even than they realize at the moment.
I do not wish to say this in any pious way, but I think we have a duty to carry this to the people of Canada, and to public opinion; and we are trying to do it.
It is possible to turn back a government. It does not happen often, but it did happen once in this house since I have been here. It was a rather small matter having to do with tendering for public works, and the amount of a contract in respect of which tenders must be called. But for some reason-perhaps because the opposition were able to express themselves a little more forcibly-whatever the reason was, we got across to the press. We broke through to the press in a rather big way, as a matter of fact. In two weeks' time public opinion had asserted itself and that bill had to be changed.
In the present instance we have not done that, in the two weeks it has taken, and the government has not backed down. As I say, at the moment we have to comfort ourselves with the fact that we have been doing our manifest duty. We take some comfort from the fact that it is getting across in the country, and some of the best newspapers are taking hold of it. While I do not flatter myself that the man in the street has got hold of it yet, I do believe if the newspapers will take hold of it, and keep hold of it, they will be able to make the public take enough time off from less important things to realize just what this means. I was staggered, consternated, to find that my high-class journalist friend had not taken an interest in it. But I will say this, that once he believed we were serious he began to take an interest in it mighty fast, and he has been showing a great deal of interest in it ever since.

And so I say that in two weeks two things have happened. First of all, the press has begun to take hold. Indeed, it has begun in a rather big way. I hope the minister read the editorial the other day in the Winnipeg Free Press entitled "Drop this Bill", because it was a powerful editorial, and I should not think he could read it with comfort. Then one or two other newspapers, notably the Calgary Herald, warmed my heart because they perceived the principle we see, and they spoke about it in words that were encouraging.
I propose to refer to some editorial comments. Before doing that, however, I shall refer not to an editorial but to a cartoon which appeared in the Montreal Gazette yesterday. In this cartoon the minister is depicted as a very effective looking baseball player. I do not know if he did play baseball, but he is depicted here in that way. He has hold of a huge bat, about three times as long as himself, which he is holding lightly in one hand. The bat is labelled "Defence powers with no time limit." Then there is a poor, miserable little character labelled "parliament", who is standing before the minister, looking up at him with a terrified aspect. I think it is the pitcher; he does not wear a mask, although he does wear glasses, and I think that would be the pitcher. The ball is lying beside the plate. It would seem that the minister must have missed the last pitch. The minister is saying to this poor, little, miserable creature, who stands looking at him aghast, "I get all the strikes I want".
That seems to me to put it rather well. That is the way I feel about it. I was going to say that for some reason I cannot understand-and yet I think I do understand-I believe this is a personal matter, one in which the minister's personal feelings have become involved. I can well imagine that an all-powerful minister might feel lonely if he were deprived of these powers when, as he told us today, he has had them for 16 years with only a small break. I have no doubt it is a very upsetting thing to feel that he might not have them any longer.
I have spoken about the press, and I realize the rules do not permit my quoting. However, I am permitted to paraphrase newspaper articles and, with that in mind, I shall bring to the attention of the house the names of these newspapers, and something of what they say, because I think it is important.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were put on Hansard this afternoon.
Defence Production Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They may not have been the same ones. In addition, I wish to comment on them, and I know you would like to hear the comment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Repetition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: So I proceed to go
through them. The first interests me particularly because it is the Whig-Standard from Kingston. As Kingston was my home I have an interest in the Whig-Standard; and of course I have even more interest because of the owner, Senator Davies, who is a good friend of mine and a very strong Liberal. But I must say that not only is he a Liberal with a capital "L", but he is also a liberal with a small "1"; and you need a few of them around.
I am not permitted to read what is in the newspaper, but I can paraphrase it by saying they seem to think there is no justification for the extension of the Defence Production Act, and that it is a dangerous step to take. I shall be glad to show it to the minister after I have finished, so he may be sure that I have interpreted it correctly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have read it very accurately, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then we come to the Hamilton Spectator which, by and large, may be regarded as a supporter of this party. On the other hand it does not hesitate to castigate us; indeed very few people do hesitate. We have had cracks from them; but in this instance they have been good enough to say that we are fulfilling our proper function and that we deserve broad public support. It comforts us to read that, you know. And when we get it from coast to coast, as we are getting it now, it makes us feel that sometimes minorities can be right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read the next Gallup poll.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We shall discuss the
Gallup poll at another time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would not think the one in Ontario gave you much comfort.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have never in all my life met anyone who had been asked a question in a Gallup poll. They are always mysterious things to me. I heard of one of the pollsters who was lecturing once, and was questioned by a lady in the audience. She said she had never heard of anyone who had ever received one of the questions in the poll. He said, "My dear lady, you might as well expect to be struck by lightning as expect to be asked one of the questions in this poll". She said, "I have been struck by lightning."
5416	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
I come to the Toronto Telegram and to our well-known columnist, Judith Robinson.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Whom does she support?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I suppose the minister will not be surprised to learn that she understands the principles that we are fighting tor and supports us. The minister will not be surprised by that. She refers to my leader and says:
George Drew made it clear yesterday that Conservative members, having something worth conserving in the authority of parliament, propose to do their best to that end, if they talk all summer.
That is what we believe, and I am glad to know that we have made her believe that, too. Then we have the Edmonton Journal, which I think is a Southam paper. It is a very moderate paper. It expresses surprise. It does not see how Mr. Howe and the cabinet

that is a rather interesting way to put it

can deny the validity of the charge, which is that they are acting in contempt of parliament. Then they add this note: "This is no new line for Mr. Howe."
The Windsor Star says of the bill, "It has been having a rough time of it in the Commons." I am glad to see they think that. We hope it will go on having a rough time. They say we have been battling it for three successive days. They do not know anything. We are just getting started. At any rate that is their view. The Toronto Telegram says, "It is a question of parliamentary rule versus a one-man dictatorship." There you have it. The Globe and Mail says, "The question may seem academic to some people." That is a very interesting remark, because of course it does. The thing that interests me most is that it seems academic to a lot of people up and down this country who believe they are Liberals. I venture to say that to any real Liberal, regardless of party-and there are some in this house-there can be no question of any kind that this is a matter which cannot be taken lightly and which deserves the treatment we are giving it.
I come now to the Globe and Mail. It says:
It is not relevant that Mr. Howe may be an able and well-disposed person. The point is that no minister, except in an emergency, should have the authority he wants; and there is no emergency today such as there was in 1951.
The Vancouver Sun says, "We hope the government continues to retreat." I do not know whether they have any inside information. It says:
We hope the government continues to retreat in the face of parliamentary attack and that those who attack this greed for power will have strong public support.


Whether, when they say "retreat", they are referring to the fact that the government has practically taken no part in this debate until the minister spoke this afternoon-I should qualify that by saying that the minister's two parliamentary assistants did come to his assistance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have only one.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, the present one and the former one. I thought it was very decent of them to come to the minister's help when he was in trouble. Then we had also the hon. member for Spadina. I suppose he is anxious to have the government think better of him than they do, and he did his best.
I come now to the Ottawa Journal. It will be no surprise to the minister to learn that the Ottawa Journal gives us a leg up. It says we have staged a filibuster. I suppose that is not a secret. Someone speaking to me the other day called it "Mr. Howe's filibuster". We will not dispute the parentage of the child. It is described in that way, and if we are in what is called a filibuster I have no apology to oiler whatsoever. What I consider we are doing is opposing arbitrary measures, and that I am sure is one of the things all members of parliament, not merely those in the opposition, should do.
The Letter-Review, which I think is a very conservative publication, says:
Nor is it easy to see why such powers as those enjoyed by the Minister of Defence Production should be vested in a single individual. Better, surely, that emergency powers, if needed at all, be vested in the cabinet.
I do not take much stock in that because, in my opinion, they should not be vested in anybody. The Windsor Star comes to a point which I think should be mentioned again, again and again. It says:
It will be disappointing if the Prime Minister does not make a statement on the bill. The house and the country would like to hear from him.
That is not much of a secret, of course.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He only speaks on important bills.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not hear that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I say the Prime Minister only speaks on important bills.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh!


Donald Methuen Fleming: Get that one down. I am writing that one down right now. "He only speaks on important bills."


Mr. Nowlan:: Hansard has it down, I hope.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall really feel I have served a useful purpose in my speech if it produces nothing but that.


George James McIlraith: That was all it did produce.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not hear the hon. member.


George James McIlraith: I said that was all it did produce.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You cannot hurt my feelings in this matter at all. I still have a few minutes to go and I propose to use them. If you have all suffered from this it is your own fault. The hon. member for Eglinton has written down what was said, and I think it is well to make sure we give Hansard a repeat so there will be no question about it. "He only speaks on important bills." The reference was to the Prime Minister. That is an interesting idea to pursue. I realize, of course, that the minister said it ironically because-


An hon. Member:: No, he meant it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was not referring to it as not being an important bill, because I am sure the minister does regard it as an important bill and therefore I do not accept the excuse for the Prime Minister at all. Whatever the minister feels about the bill at the present time, I feel it is important and so does the country, and the country is entitled to hear from the Prime Minister on this measure. I have been amazed that the Prime Minister should have introduced it and then left the foundling child on the doorstep of the Minister of Defence Production. I must say there do not seem to be many people rushing in to assist.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You mean, assist the filibuster.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The reason given is a fantastic one. I repeat, I think the Prime Minister has done less than his duty in not speaking on this bill in the house. Before this debate ends he should speak on it.
There is another thing that has happened. Perhaps it has happened in the last two weeks, but at any rate in my belief it has happened, and it gives me a good deal of satisfaction and makes the task easier to carry on with. That is that I believe-and I repeat it is my belief, and it is not the result of crystal-gazing either-there are some members at least of the cabinet and a good many private members opposite who share my feelings in this matter.
It is not at all unnatural that one should feel satisfaction in that. It makes one feel both satisfaction and dissatisfaction; satisfaction when we feel that they bear out our views, dissatisfaction when none of them will stand up and say so. It is my belief-and I say it is not the result of crystal-gazing, either
Defence Production Act -I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that public opinion is moving. If anyone doubts that let him look at the two successive editorials in the Winnipeg Free Press. They do not make altogether good reading from our point of view.


An hon. Member:: They do not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I realize that. I feel myself that they went out of their way to crack us, so I am not going to worry about that. We can look after ourselves. The thing I am pointing out is that if anyone will read these two editorials, the first of which suggested that the powers asked for were silly-I would have preferred if they had used a word like "arrogant"-and the second of which suggested that they should drop this bill, then I think he will find adequate and convincing reasons why it should be done.
In one way this is not a debate at all. The government stays out of important debates. The government stayed out of the debate on efficiency in the government. We were treated with contemptuous silence at that time. I do not know what right the government had to stay out of a debate which called into question their efficiency. Everyone knows that there are great inefficiencies in government administration. Nobody attempts to conceal that. It is a difficult task to introduce the same efficiency you would have in business; and for the government to stay out of a debate in which that was being discussed was, as I say, a piece of effrontery.
I want to come back to these editorials, as I did not mention all the newspapers. I would not like to leave any out, as they might feel hurt. The editorial which appeared in Le Devoir was most interesting. They say:
Mr. Howe has been monopolizing powers for the last fifteen years. He has always had contempt for parliamentary and democratic customs. How will everything end? Mr. Howe's prestige will be affected not only in the country and in parliament but also in the cabinet.
The Winnipeg Tribune speaks of the serious and basic debate and then goes on to say:
The government should bow to the storm it has created and fix a limited period of extension of powers, a step it does not need to take until next session.
Then I go on to the Ottawa Citizen, which is generally supposed to be a Liberal paper. In its issue of June 15 it had this to say:
Canadians should be given some assurance that they are not slipping a little at a time into a state-controlled economy. They might feel happier if any extension of powers such as those contained in the Defence Production Act were to be granted by parliament for no more than a year, and then reviewed.
The Financial Times had this to say:
Giving the cabinet a free rein to carry out pressing business of the country without resort to

Defence Production Act
parliamentary authority is not exactly the same thing as the granting to one individual of sweeping emergency powers except under exceptional conditions. All power to the official opposition at Ottawa in its fight on this occasion.
The first editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press had this to say:
Mr. Howe's proposal is so silly that it almost passes understanding.
I shall not bother reading the rest at the moment, though I may come back to it later if I have time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, when has the reading of editorials been legalized?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then the Globe and Mail had something further to say about this. A great many people are inclined to think that the nice gentleman whom they see and consort with every day would never by any possibility do anything wrong, even unintentionally. Therefore this editorial in the Globe and Mail is most timely when it says:
Canadians should think about this and not be deluded by the notion that the free system of government in this country is indestructible or part of the order of nature. It needs guarding; and the Conservatives in the house deserve the thanks of the nation for their vigilance.
I accept that. Then we had the minister's speech this afternoon. It was an odd speech, and I think on balance it was about as strong an argument against the powers he is asking for as any speech that has been made in this house. Indeed I think we ought to hire him to come over and deliver it from this side. In effect he told us of the great things that had been done, and with pardonable pride. I do not object to that. He rather dazzled us with millions and tens of millions, but I suppose that is not surprising.
I was glad to observe that he almost went out of his way to indicate the co-operation he had had, to indicate how everyone had played the game with him. There was only one occasion in connection with Avro, where he hinted darkly that there had been a difference of opinion and that if it had not been for the big club behind his back he might not have been able to get his way. He was not very convincing on that as far as I was concerned. I think the minister has fairly good powers of assertion, and with $122 million to disburse would be a very powerful figure in any business argument. I find myself rather unconvinced by the idea that even on that occasion he needed these powers.
Then the minister referred to other departments such as public works and national revenue, and suggested that it would be just as silly to have a Department of Defence Production set up and made permanent without


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to learn from the government side of the house the reason they are so insistent on jamming this bill through. There have been very few speakers on that side. The minister has spoken. The parliamentary assistant has spoken because it is his job, but you can tell he had no heart in it. The minister's former parliamentary assistant has also spoken. He did not have any heart in it, either, but he felt that for loyalty's sake he should say a few words on behalf of his old boss.


George James McIlraith: That is complete nonsense you are speaking now.


George Harris Hees: Then we had the speech by the hon. member for Spadina. That I feel was the greatest effort of all, because there was no reason for the hon. member for Spadina to speak. After all, he is a man who should be in the cabinet. He is a man who should have been appointed long ago, but it is well understood that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is one opposing his entry, and I think it was pretty good of the hon. member for Spadina to speak and back up the minister. But he did, and it must have been a tough job, because his heart was not in it either.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member to avoid personalities and speak to the amendment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling, of course.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That has killed the speech.

Defence Production Act


George Harris Hees: I am just making comments as I see fit on this question. I want to comment on the speeches made by the hon. member for Spadina and the hon. member for Ottawa West, because I think they deserve comment. Both hon. members gave as their main reason why this bill should be passed the fact that in the field of electronics, if these powers were not given to the minister, he could not go ahead with the job. In other words they implied that there was trouble in this field, difficulty in getting work done, and that-


George James McIlraith: We did not do any such thing.


George Harris Hees: -if the powers were not given to the minister our defence program would be held up. I shall read from the hon. member for Spadina to show what he said in this regard. I quote from page 5006 of Hansard:
Industry has co-operated and does co-operate. Individuals do not. This bill is for the bad boys, and it keeps the good boys good.
What in effect does the bill say? The bill says that this government through the minister can interfere with property rights in the national interest. That is the effect of the bill.
I ask this house the same question I have asked myself many times.


George James McIlraith: Don't omit lines.


George Harris Hees: -Do we want a minister, a representative of the people, to exercise essential powers in an emergency, or are we prepared to leave those essential powers to be exercised by the great industrialists of this country, no matter how well intentioned they are? Let me give you some examples, as the Leader of the Opposition gave you some examples. Let us take the field of electronics, a very important field. Many important and essential patents are now in use. We need them. If we do not have them, they can well retard our defence effort and in some cases nullify it.
He was implying that co-operation in the electronics field was not forthcoming.
Is there anyone who will say we do not need the power to take and use these patents and to compensate people for them? We may be needing supplies such as strategic materials which are unavailable to us in the ordinary course of business. Is there anyone who will say that we should not have the right to take and use those strategic materials and to compensate those people?
In other words he was implying that the people in the electronics field were not willing to co-operate with the government in providing them with the materials and the information they need. Now I want to quote from what the hon. member for Ottawa West said, and after that I should like to quote from the report of the Department of Defence Production for last year, to show you what this report says regarding the willingness of people in that field to co-operate and the results that have been achieved. The hon. member for Ottawa West said, and I quote

his words from the top of the righthand column of page 5015 of Hansard:
Now there is such a mass of electronic equipment involved that certainly any limited comprehension I have of a technical subject like that is strained to understand even the most elementary things about such equipment. It takes a matter of three years to procure some articles. The field of radar is one in which Canadians can take very great pride, for the Canadian effort in radar has been not inconsiderable. When you examine into some of the electronic devices and what is required to produce them, you realize that, after an emergency arises or a war begins, it is not just a matter of going out and buying them; it is a matter of intensive effort three or four years preceding the time that equipment is required.
Then when you deal with the procurement of aircraft and examine into the type of metals required, you find a degree of quality required in those metals that was not thought of even in 1951, when this bill was previously up for discussion. Those types of metals are neither developed nor produced; nor are the other engineering problems involved in putting them into the finished article worked out after an outbreak of war, if that equipment is to be of any use in any such war.
That again implies there has been a great deal of difficulty in obtaining equipment and supplies, particularly in the field of electronics. I contend there has been no difficulty whatsoever, that industry of all kinds has been extremely co-operative as far as the government is concerned in producing equipment, producing information and giving every co-operation. To prove that I should like to quote from page 21 of the report of the Department of Defence Production for 1954. Under the heading "Electronics Branch" there is the following:
The production of electronic equipment for the Canadian armed forces continued during 1954 at the high level reached in the preceding year.
Note that. It did not merely proceed at a normal level but at a high level.
Canadian ability to produce the wide range of electronic items required for the defence program increased during the year with the result that a greater portion of components and end items was manufactured in this country. Of particular importance was the fact that Canada's productive capacity in this field has been built up mainly by private investment. A small amount of capital assistance was provided by the government for the creation and expansion of electronic facilities.
In other words the industry went ahead with the job by themselves and were completely co-operative. The report goes on to say:
Electronic equipment for Canada's fighter and trainer aircraft continued to be delivered on schedule.
There was no hold-up there. There was no need for these wide powers. The equipment was delivered on schedule. Electronic equipment was produced at a high level. Where was the hold-up? Where is the need for these excessive powers? There is none. From the

government's own report it is apparent that everything was produced on time and at a high level. I continue:
These items have included Canadian-produced gunfire control radars, radio compasses, aircraft radio identification and recognition equipment and automatic pilots. The initial requirement for a very high frequency (VHF) airborne communications equipment was completed during the year.
There is nothing here about any hold-back. No delays are mentioned.
Deliveries of flight simulators for the F-86 (Sabre) commenced late in the year, and production in Canada of flight simulators for the CF-100 (Canuck) was begun. Production of support items and spares for the Royal Canadian Air Force throughout the year included ground control approach systems, diesel generator sets, various types of ground transmitters and receivers, navigational aid installations and mobile microwave units.
Requirements of the Royal Canadian Navy were met with the delivery of such items as gunfire control systems, anti-submarine mortar mounting and control systems and automatic degaussing equipment.
Everything was delivered on time. There are no complaints about any delays. Nobody needed to be urged. Industry came through on time. Where is the need for all these powers to require industry to produce faster and better? There is no evidence of it in the department's own report. The report continues:
Canadian army requirements for proximity fuses for projectiles, radar gunfire control apparatus and a great variety of radio and line communication equipment continued to be met. .	.	. Repair,
overhaul and maintenance work increased in 1954 as a result of the continuing high level of equipment deliveries to the armed forces.
There were no hold-ups there at all. Why do we need these extraordinary powers? I continue:
Nearly all of this work was done in Canada. Development work on a number of important electronic projects continued during the year. These included electronic equipment for airborne guided missiles, mobile and shipboard radars, and many types of electronic instruments. .	.	.
Deliveries and installations for the first line of the continental radar defence system were completed in the earlier part of the year. The second line, that of the mid-Canada early warning system, reached the detailed planning and organizational stage by late 1954.
There is no evidence whatsoever of any hold-ups in the government's own report on defence production for last year. The minister tells us he has to have
Defence Production Act special powers, tremendous, comprehensive, overriding powers, to force industry to produce on time. According to the government's own report, industry has produced on time. This business of needing these extra powers is a lot of nonsense and the minister knows it from his own report. His department has said that every order placed has either been produced on time or ahead of schedule. A high level of production of all materials was maintained throughout the year.


Mr. Deschateleis:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: So I ask the minister why these powers should be continued.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is there not a rule preventing a member from repeating a speech or parts of a speech on an amendment that he has already made on the main motion?


George Harris Hees: I shall answer that.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: You are not the Speaker.


George Harris Hees: I saw the Speaker was not rising to answer. What I have said is completely different from what I said before. May I call it ten o'clock now and move the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Hees the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow we shall take the budget bills, that is, the bill to amend the Income Tax Act, the bill to amend the Excise Tax Act and the bill to amend the Customs Tariff. Then we will take the motion to go into supply and if we achieve supply we will take the estimates of justice and veterans affairs.


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


Wednesday, June 29, 1955