1955-07-07

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 7, 1955


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	In the matter of the photostatic copies of any document or documents which the Minister of National Revenue showed to the premier and/or provincial treasurer of Ontario, on April 27, 1955, were the said photostats prepared in or by the Department of National Revenue?
2.	If so, when were they prepared?
3.	If not, from whom did the minister obtain the said photostats, and when did he obtain them?


Mr. McCann:: Stand.



SUCCESSION DUTY


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	During each of the last three fiscal years, in the case of how many succession duty returns did the Department of National Revenue make, or have made, photostatic copies of any documents submitted in connection with such returns?
2.	For what purpose or purposes were such photostatic copies made?
3.	In how many cases were such photostatic copies brought to the attention of the minister?


James Joseph McCann: Stand.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	During each of the last three fiscal years, in the case of how many income tax returns did the Department of National Revenue make, or have made, photostatic copies of any documents submitted in connection with such returns?
2.	For v/hat purpose or purposes were such photostatic copies made?
3.	In how many cases were such photostatic copies brought to the attention of the minister?


James Joseph McCann: Stand.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	In the matter of the information which the Minister of National Revenue communicated to the premier and/or provincial treasurer of Ontario, on April 27, 1955, did the minister obtain the said information, in the first instance, from the files of his department? If so, when?
2.	If not, from what source did the minister receive the said information, and when?


James Joseph McCann: Stand.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I think that the attention of the house should be drawn to the fact that these four questions that have just been passed have been standing on the order paper now for six weeks. Unless it is the intention of the government not to answer them at all, they should have been answered long before this. I believe there should be some explanation because the estimates of this department will be coming forward and it will be appropriate that the information asked for in these and other questions should be available to hon. members at that time.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, the attention of the house has already been called to that fact and the minister replied that he would be providing the answers before the day fixed for the calling of his estimates.


Mr. Knowles:: Since I am involved in this matter, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether there is any reason why the answers should be delayed until just before the estimates are brought down? Why not give the answers earlier than that?


James Joseph McCann: The answers will be given prior to the estimates.


Mr. Fulton:: How long before?


James Joseph McCann: I should think that the hon. member who has put the questions on the order paper would be the one most concerned with reference to the time of the answers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are all concerned.


James Joseph McCann: Some few days ago when the hon. member asked about the question I gave an answer which appeared to be satisfactory to him. I will carry out the suggestion I made at that time in plenty of time. It appears now that the estimates may not be on for a considerable time, but I am ready to go ahead with them whenever they are called. When they shall be called is at the discretion of the house leader.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is ready to go ahead with his estimates at any time, surely the answers to these questions must be ready.


Mr. Speaker:: So that this debate is not to be regarded as a precedent, may I submit that when questions are being asked with respect to delays in answering questions, they normally should be asked before the

Questions
orders of the day are called and not when questions on the order paper are being dealt with.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Purdy:: Will the necessary action be taken by the government so that during the next session of parliament the problems of general agriculture in Canada may be studied by the committee on agriculture and colonization as well as those of the western grain growers?


Mr. McCubbin:: The government will be pleased to give consideration to the suggestion when the standing committees of the house are being set up at the next session of parliament.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Lusby:: 1.	How many (a) veterans:	(b) widows:	(c)
orphans, resident in the province of Nova Scotia, were in receipt of allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952. as at March 31, 1954, and as at March 31, 1955?
2.	What was the annual liability of allowances for each of the said three classes of beneficiaries at the said dates?


Mr. Bennett:: 1 and 2.
	31-3-54 ;	31-3-55
No.	Annual Liab. No. Veterans, Sec. 3	Annual Liab.2,072	$1,533,992 2,191 Veterans, Sec. 4	$1,635,08512	6,773 13 Widows	7,649590	364,813 659	406,852Orphans (accounts)	12	8,793 13	9,4652,686	$1,914,371 2,876	$2,059,051LOBSTER CATCH, ATLANTIC	PROVINCES


Mr. Balcom:: What has been the total lobster catch for the four Atlantic provinces for the period January 1, to June 30, 1955, in (a) pounds; (b) landed dollar value?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Returns to June 30 are not yet available. Catches and landed values to May 31 in 1954 and 1955 are as follows:
Landings Landed Value (in thousands (in thousands
	of pounds) 1954 1955		of dollars) 1954 1955	
Nova Scotia ..	13,119	13,158	5.110	5,013New Brunswick Prince Edward	1,757	1,823	505	544Island 	3,784	4,763	920	1,207Quebec 	1,239	1,279	319	339Newfoundland	1,467	1.832	376	466Total 	21,366	22,855	7,230	7,569



ALLEGED DELAY IN BRINGING DOWN RETURNS TO ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I wish to ask the Prime Minister when we may expect some of the returns ordered tabled which have been standing on the order paper for some considerable time. There are at this time 17 motions which have been passed by the house calling for the return of papers, the earliest of which is December 2, 1953, standing in the name of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), calling for the production of Trans-Canada Air Lines correspondence with the United States government in regard to the extension of facilities. Coming to a more recent period, there are orders dated February 9, March 9, April 25 and dates many weeks ago.
I think that, having regard to the fact we may at some time in the not too distant future expect to get back to estimates, it would be appropriate if we knew when these returns might be tabled.
Righf Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that instructions are given as soon as the order is made to proceed with diligence to prepare the returns. I must admit that I quite lost sight of the one which goes back to 1953. I will look especially into that to see if there is any special reason for the extraordinary delay because it is not in accord with the general practice nor the instructions that are given to the officials of the several departments with respect to these returns.



INQUIRY AS TO PROSPECTIVE MARKETING CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should like to ask him if he is still of the opinion he gave the house on February 18 as reported at page 1312 of Hansard, that before the crop year ends, any producer who has grain on hand that he wishes to market will have an opportunity to market it. Will that assurance be fulfilled? If not, to what extent will it be left unfulfilled in terms of the quotas for wheat?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): This matter was discussed in the committee on agriculture, and at that time I corrected my former statement to say that there would be certain points in Saskatchewan where there would be undelivered

wheat at the end of this crop year. However, we will certainly arrive at the eight-bushel quota. I am still confident that before the next crop starts to move we will have off the farms all the grain that producers now wish to deliver. But I think the date of July 31 that I mentioned in my earlier prediction will not be met.


Major James William Coldwell: Are there many points where the eight-bushel quota will be in effect on July 31?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: The eight-bushel quota will be in effect everywhere by July 31, I expect. The great majority of the points have the eight-bushel quota today. The lowest quota is five bushels, and some are on six bushels; but I expect that by the 31st of July all points will be on the eight-bushel quota.


Major James William Coldwell: But it will be some time beyond that before the quota will be lifted on the grain now on the farms in storage?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not like to speak about lifting the quota; but there are points in Saskatchewan that have had heavy crops for a number of years and where the eight-bushel quota will not serve to affect delivery of the grain on the farms. They are mostly the larger farms, in the Regina area.


Major James William Coldwell: I might say in my constituency there are farms with a lot of grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yours is a very prosperous district.


Major James William Coldwell: No, not a very prosperous district; on that quota it could not be prosperous.
[Later: ]


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question arising out of the answer he gave to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Can the minister assure the house that, in addition to having an eight-bushel quota in our marketing points, sufficient box cars will be available so that farmers may in fact take advantage of the eight-bushel quota? It is nice to have an eight-bushel quota, but it does not mean much unless there are enough box cars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that the difficulty is not in the number of box cars engaged in moving grain in western Canada. The distribution of box cars is closing in on the points that today have delivery surpluses; and I am afraid those points will be flooded with box cars in the next two or three weeks, and then 50433-367i
Inquiries of the Ministry my hon. friend will have nothing to complain about in the house-a very sorry situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: I take it from the minister's answer that he is saying that the farmers will be able to market an eight-bushel quota?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.
[Later: ]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: May I
ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Can the minister give an explanation for the fact that there have been outstanding shipping orders in many points in western Canada for some time? For example, at Kindersley there have been orders for 50 cars and no box cars seem to be available.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That particular problem has not been called to my attention but I shall make inquiries.



BRITISH COMMONWEALTH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government has been officially informed of negotiations which may apparently lead to the integration of Malta with the United Kingdom. If so, has the Canadian government yet expressed on behalf of Canada any opinion regarding this latest inspiring evidence of the flexibility and adaptability of the British commonwealth relationship, and of the very real ties both of sentiment and of material advantage which unite its peoples?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I have not seen any official information. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) informs me that none has come to the department. Although of course we would express friendly interest in and satisfaction with a move which is something which would be entirely within the jurisdiction and discretion of United Kingdom authorities, we would not wish to do anything that might appear as impertinent, when it is realized that we will certainly make known to them our gratification at the fact that they have found it possible and of advantage to do it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Apparently there has been no official information. I asked the question in the light of a report in this morning's press to the effect that Prime Minister Eden had
5804	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry said that commonwealth countries would be kept informed, or that he would keep in contact with commonwealth countries as they proceeded in this matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No communication has yet been received. But in respect to these matters there is a realization by all of us that we are all interested; and I have never had any occasion to feel that any information which would be of interest to us has been withheld.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister comment on a Canadian Press report in a Montreal paper that the United States is far ahead of Canada in the construction of two radar warning lines in the Canadian north, and whether it is in accordance with the present policy of the department?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the story in question and, like most speculative articles, it is not entirely in accordance with the facts. Since the schedules of completion of both the D.E.W. line and the mid-Canada line naturally cannot be published, it is difficult to compare progress by using specific dates or figures. However, I can say that the D.E.W. line, on which preliminary planning began three years ago and which got going at full speed late in the winter, is making excellent progress. I can also say that the mid-Canada line, on which plans started two years ago, in respect of which the construction phase is now under way, is also fully up to its schedule.
Our mid-Canada construction program is so phased that when the equipment is ready the line will be ready. I might add also that the completion of the mid-Canada line is phased with that of the D.E.W. line.



REPORTED DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN AIR SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on July 4 I directed a question to the Acting Minister of National Defence, which was answered by the Minister of Finance. It related to reports of the flypast of new types of aircraft in Moscow. On that occasion, when I asked if there was
[Mr. Fulton.)

information that could be given to the house in respect to those aircraft the Minister of Finance replied:
I shall get an answer for my hon. friend at the earliest possible moment.
In view of the fact that the estimates of the Department of National Defence are before the house and that any information which might be available on this subject would be helpful in the resumption of the discussion of those estimates, I would ask if that information can now be given.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that at the moment. I shall look into the question to see if I can give any information to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which I was unable to give him because I just received this press report from Halifax. Has the minister's attention been drawn to an interview which appeared in yesterday's Halifax Chronicle-Herald, in which an official of his department is quoted as saying that a 14-day delay is "an optimistic guess"? The article goes on to say:
We are saying two weeks instead of two months, but we are keeping our fingers crossed.
Will the minister make any comment on that?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I would think the press report is entirely without foundation. I am told that my estimate of 14 days is likely to be shorter.


Mr. Fleming:: Shorter than what?


George Clyde Nowlan: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the minister consider sending the William Carson on the run between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor, Maine? I understand she is now cluttering up the harbour of Corner Brook. According to today's Globe and Mail, she is incommoding traffic in Corner Brook.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Globe and Mail is extraordinarily well-informed about Corner Brook.


George Carlyle Marler: All I can say is that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Kirk) mentioned to me the other day the suggestion that the William Carson should be

used on the service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor, but that it was pointed out to him that the William Carson had not been built for that service, the dock facilities would not accommodate it; and its draft is too deep. There were a number of other reasons why it could not be used. These suggestions were made by people who evidently were not aware of these facts.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the same subject for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister comment, for the information of the house, on a press report in the Montreal Gazette of today which indicates that the information in Newfoundland is that the William Carson, instead of costing $11 million, has cost closer to $20 million?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I read the report at an early hour today but I have not had an opportunity of investigating the truth of the facts that are reported.


George Alexander Drew: Will the minister take this as notice and give the house information when he has obtained it?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I think the whole subject can reasonably be discussed when my estimates are before the house. I fail to see any urgency in determining whether the cost was as stated by the Gazette or not.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that it is of considerable advantage to the members of the house to have the facts in advance of the discussion of the estimates, particularly when a statement has been given to the house which, if this report is correct, would misinform hon. members.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. T. Applewhaile (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General. Has the Post Office Department taken any measures to service communities on the Pacific coast and islands isolated owing to the Union Steamships strike? If so, what?


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: As soon as we learned of the strike we instructed our district office officials to make every reasonable effort to provide postal service. A few moments ago I learned that the office had received an interim report giving details, although it has not reached my desk yet. I shall be glad to give the hon. member detailed information tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



ARGENTINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: On June 21, in answer to an inquiry, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, acting for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, told us that our ambassador to the Argentine would shortly be back and would report on the question regarding the detention of Douglas Blanchard, a Canadian reporter. I wonder whether the minister has that information?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I have the information, but I have been saving it for the return to the house of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who asked the question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It happens that I asked a supplementary question with reference to that matter on the same day. I can assure the minister that on this side we all share in common our interest in these matters which is something different from what is happening in the cabinet just now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not want to appear discourteous to the hon. member who asked the question, so I have been waiting for his return.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de
Grace): I should like to direct a question to the Acting Postmaster General. In view of the fact that some publications of the Post Office Department are now being designated "Published by authority of W. J. Turnbull, deputy postmaster general", which indicates a usurpation of normal ministerial control, would the minister inform the house when he or the Postmaster General expects to take over proper control of that department?
John Whitney Pickersgill: I think most hon. members are well aware of the fact that whoever for the time being happens to be responsible to this house for the Post Office Department takes his responsibilities quite seriously.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he can confirm or deny a recent report

Inquiries of the Ministry that effective today the Canadian National Railways or the Department of Transport has ordered the Hillsborough bridge at Charlottetown closed to all traffic.


George Carlyle Marler: Although the hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of his question I have been unable to get the facts to enable me to answer him this morning. I shall endeavour to do so tomorrow.


John Angus MacLean: I should like to ask a supplementary question which the minister may take as notice. Is it correct that the Hillsborough bridge was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Canadian National to the Department of Transport some time ago?


George Carlyle Marler: I shall endeavour to cover that matter in my answer tomorrow.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Owing to the fact that a highway patrol officer was seriously injured by a bottle thrown from a car the other day and had to have many stitches put in his face, has consideration been given to amending the Criminal Code to make it a criminal offence to throw bottles of any kind onto the highway from moving cars?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The answer is no.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Should not
something be done, because the highways are being littered with bottles?



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Transport if he has yet been able to understand the question I asked him several days ago regarding the use of the ferry at Port aux Basques when apparently not one of the three departments concerned knew what was happening until it had happened. Has the minister been able to have that question explained to him by his staff and can it now be answered?


George Carlyle Marler: I may say that I have reread the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood and I am still quite unable to

understand it. I have since had an opportunity to read the statement made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) the other day during the discussion of his estimates and it seems to me that he covered the matter adequately. So far as the statement of my own deputy minister is concerned, it may be of interest to the hon. member for Greenwood that I should tell him that I have reread it and I can find no fault with it. I do not think I can answer the hon. member for Greenwood more fully than that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am very glad to know that the minister accepts the answer given by his deputy. We shall have interesting discussions on that later.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport tell the house whether he will make an inquiry with regard to plans now under preparation for construction in Montreal harbour to meet the changed condition arising from the development of the St. Lawrence seaway?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I had thought that I would say something about the matter when the item of my estimates was before the house.



PRINTING BUREAU


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Secretary of State. Has the minister received representations asking that the employees of the government printing bureau be accorded collective bargaining rights through a union of their own choice? If so, is consideration being given to such representations?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into it and report later. I shall try to give an answer tomorrow.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Victoria, Ont., (Mr. Hodgson)

asked whether a new private car had been built for the president of Canadian National Railways and the cost of this car and what had been done with the car formerly used by the president.
I would refer my hon. friend to the answer given to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on page 2896 of Hansard of the current session, in which he will see that no private, business or official cars for the use of officials or executives of the Canadian National Railways have been manufactured by the railway or purchased for Canadian National Railways since January 1, 1953, but that since that date two obsolete passenger cars, which have been replaced, were converted to business cars in company shops replacing two units no longer efficient or safe for use in the service, and that the cost of conversion was approximately $127,000 for each car. This represents the total cost, as prior to conversion the cars had been retired and written off.
As was stated in the answer given to the hon. member for Prince Albert, no private, business or official cars for the use of officials or executives of the Canadian National Railways were under construction when the answer was given on 18th of April, 1955, and this is the situation at the present time. One of the two cars referred to in the ansv/er above mentioned is made available to the president as required. The car formerly used by him has been returned to the pool of business cars used by executives of the railroad in conducting the railway operations.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue if the answers to the first four questions on the order paper are ready?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, they are being prepared.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does that mean they are not ready?


James Joseph McCann: They are being prepared.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not hear.


James Joseph McCann: I said that the answers are being prepared.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But 1 asked the minister another question, and he made some attempt at an answer which I could not hear, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Joseph McCann: I repeated what I had said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying something, but I cannot hear it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member asked one question and received one answer. He repeated the question but changed the words and he asked if the answers were ready. The minister has said they are being prepared. We all heard that.
[Later:!


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are to be taken into account other considerations than the ordinary details of the Department of National Revenue when the estimates come forward will the Prime Minister take the appropriate steps to assure that the replies to the questions directed to the Minister of National Revenue are supplied as soon as possible so that the information may be available in advance of the calling of the estimates of that department?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is perfectly satisfied that no assurance from him is required in order to have carried out the statements about that matter made by the Minister of National Revenue.


George Alexander Drew: It has taken six weeks.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister inform the house whether, under the disability allowance act, the term "total and permanent disability", or the definition of that term, is the same in every province in Canada so far as administration is concerned?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The answer to the question is in the affirmative. The definition arises out of an agreement following a dominion-provincial conference. The definition is one that is being interpreted by all provinces alike throughout the country.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask a supplementary question? Has the minister received any complaints with respect to the interpretation of the definition or the definition itself?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may be surprised but one of the prerogatives of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is that complaints are almost all he receives.

Inquiries of the Ministry But in this particular case there have been -I do not want to say complaints-suggestions that the definition was too strict. The reply I make is that this is the first year of operation and that in respect of this valuable but difficult legislation we-the provinces and ourselves-are doing our best.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask just one more question? Are any steps being taken as between the minister's department and the provinces to renegotiate that definition with a view to making it more lenient?


Mr. Marlin:: As I said when the legislation was introduced, we will determine future action in the light of the experience that we acquire during the next period.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I
should like to ask a further supplementary question on the same point. Can the Minister of National Health and Welfare inform the house whether cases of total and permanent disability resulting from chronic neurosis are covered by the act? In view of the continuing session and the reaction from the government side this might be important to hon. members of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend has asked an extremely important and engaging question. I was wondering when I would be given an opportunity to characterize the nature of the proceedings of this house. I would be inclined to think that medical opinion would judge, from some of the interrogations, that some hon. gentlemen opposite might qualify.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Except that there is a means test.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was glad to have the definition given by the minister. Would that same definition apply to cases outside of the house?


Murdo William Martin: It would depend on what the relation was to some hon. members sitting opposite.



INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Finance what consideration the government is giving to the plight of the rubber footwear industry


in the light of the representations that were made to them in that regard a few days ago?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, representations were made to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and myself a week or so ago. The situation as explained to us is being carefully studied with the hope that some remedy can be found.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that remedy of such a nature that it may be coming before this present session of the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think the house will be called upon to consider the matter this session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not expect that the house will be called upon to consider the matter at this session.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, July 6, 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.
Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. J. R. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Two hon. members may not have the floor at the same time. Apparently the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough wishes to raise a question of privilege.


James Ralph Kirk: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, before we resume the debate on Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act, I should like to make an observation. During the last eight days the members of the official opposition have been doing their best to persecute the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe).


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Ralph Kirk: There
is a statement that has been made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question of privilege, he must state it. It may be that his introductory remarks do not appear to be part of a normal and orderly

question of privilege, but if he is coming to it now, I think hon. members should give him a chance to state it.


James Ralph Kirk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. About 200 years ago- 183 years ago to be exact-a statement was made by a gentleman not known then but well known now. The statement was to this effect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member in stating a question of privilege must come directly to the point and not give us a quotation from someone who lived 200 years ago, no matter how famous he may have been. Will the hon. gentleman state his question of privilege?


James Ralph Kirk: have is an observation.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to make an observation, and it is one which he could make while he is making his speech, may I tell him that as soon as the hon. member who now has the floor has concluded his remarks, I shall be glad to turn my eyes towards the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough and let him make his speech.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as one who has participated in this debate may I say this. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat made an observation to the effect that attempts had been made by this party to persecute the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production.


Mr. Speaker:: Where is the question of privilege?


John Borden Hamilton: The
question of privilege is this, Mr. Speaker. As one who has participated in this debate may I say that I feel that those words perhaps are not quite parliamentary.


An hon. Member:: That is your opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to hear the opinions of older parliamentarians with respect to the expression. I should like to have the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) or the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) give me their views as to whether or not I should adhere to the wishes of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace and have this expression expunged from the record or withdrawn, with proper apologies.


Mr. Green:: No, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that we get on with the debate.
Defence Production Act


Mr. Speaker:: I fully agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. The hon. member for Leeds may have the floor.


Hayden Stanton: Before I proceed with the remarks I have to make now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the members of my party upon the excellence of their speeches. They have spoken from their own convictions with reference to this Defence Production Act. During my few remarks this morning, I shall try not to repeat myself and I shall try to refrain from repeating any arguments that have been advanced during the last few days. However, I believe hon. members must be excused a certain amount of repetition in order that they may bring the true situation with regard to this bill to the notice of the public.
I should like to read a short extract from Hansard for Monday, July 4, page 5632, where the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) said:
The first thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the rule on repetition should be watched closely. For my own amusement I have at times chalked down the number of repetitions that have taken place. It would surprise the opposition if they could have a little look at that record. The rule should be observed because I should like to see any member of the opposition, who can stand up and speak to the bill, say something altogether his own and not repeat anything. I do not think it is fair to keep on repeating, because these repetitions are costly to the taxpayers.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that we are all of the same opinion, that the hon. member for Fort William is a very kindly gentleman. One could go farther and say that the hon. member for Fort William would never leave this chamber for that which has come to be known as a "quickie". However, I do not believe there is a member in the house who is more guilty of repetition than the hon. member for Fort William. I shall quote again from the same page of Hansard, 5632, where the hon. member for Fort William said: ... I am 100 per cent behind the minister.
I wonder how many times he has uttered that phrase. Whenever he rises to make a speech in this house he informs us that he is 100 per cent behind the minister. Upon closing his address he will invariably say, "I congratulate the minister". I wonder how many times during the past 20 years that he has represented the constituency-how many hundreds of times-he has repeated those remarks? As I said before, Mr. Speaker, on occasion repetition is necessary in order to elaborate on any particular question.
During my journey home over the week end I was in touch with many citizens in my riding. This Defence Production Act and the elimination of the time limit from it was
5810	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act continually on their minds and continually being brought to my attention. They brought it to my attention in no uncertain terms. I am sure that if I were to use the words of some of the residents with whom I had the privilege of talking-and they were not all Conservatives but were of different political viewpoints-I would be immediately called to order by the Speaker. On some occasions, the language was so strong that if I were to use it here I am sure I would be ushered from the chamber by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Perhaps that would not be a bad idea, because it would bring more forcibly to the attention of the citizens of this country just what is contained in this Defence Production Act.
I do not believe that any democratic government has the right to ask that such powers be placed on the statute books of Canada without a time limit. They should be subject to review by parliament at different times as the representatives of the people. I should like to quote the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) from Hansard for July 4, page 5643:
I am sure he does not mean that after three years it would not be needed.


Mr. Ferguson:: No.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But rather that, after three
years, it should be brought back to parliament in order to let parliament look at it again-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Put it at five.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -and to see if the powers can be modified. Perhaps we will not be able to modify them. We hope that circumstances will be improved to such an extent that they can be modified. I am prepared to give the kind of undertaking that was accepted in 1950 and to say to this house that if at any time after the three years mentioned by the hon. member who has just taken his seat there is anyone in the house who feels that the time has come to have another look at these powers-and if we are not proposing it ourselves-let him introduce a bill to amend this act and we will undertake to provide an opportunity, on government time, for the consideration of that bill without any delay whatsoever.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all agree that the Prime Minister was sincere in those remarks. We must remember that no one has a lease on life. No one in this world knows what the next year or two, or even tomorrow, may bring. Hon. members on this side of the house realize that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is well preserved and looks healthy, and we wish him many years in his parliamentary career. Indeed, we hope he will remain in his parliamentary career long enough so that, perhaps in the not too distant future, he may exercise his tact as leader of the opposition.
I should like to give an illustration of what might happen to any of us. I have said that we have no idea of what lies ahead. In


this connection I would direct the attention of the house to an extract from "The Story of the Dominion". This is a short extract, but it will bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that we cannot be too sure of ourselves when giving an undertaking because, when the time comes to fulfil it, we do not know whether we will be here or will be capable of carrying out that promise. It says under the heading "Struggles for Responsible Government":
Neither the troubles of 1837 nor Lord Durham's famous report nor the union of the Canadas in 1841, nor the promising administration of Lord Sydenham, had brought into play or practice the real principles of responsible	governmentprinciples which involve a prime minister selected by the Queen's representative; a cabinet chosen by the premier and, together with him, responsible to the House of Commons; a series of organized departments of administration, each in charge of a responsible minister. Even the Liberal leaders and most advanced reformers had failed as yet to plan out such a complete program and, without every one of the conditions named and including a defined conception of the governor-general's relation to the Imperial government on the one hand and to the colonial parliament on the other, no system could hope to be satisfactory.
Lord Sydenham had the brains and the tact and natural statecraft to have worked out some result which might have averted years of turmoil and much dissatisfaction; but he was carried away by an accidental fall from his horse which ended in death on September 19, 1841. He was not supposed to be entirely in favour of the crude ideas of responsible government which were then in vogue but he would undoubtedly have found a conciliatory way out of the difficulties which developed later and reached such a height in the early days of Lord Elgin. His successor, as governor-general, was Sir Charles Bagot, a man of ability who had held the ministership to Washington in days when it was perhaps the most difficult diplomatic post in Her Majesty's service. He followed, somewhat tentatively, in the steps of Lord Sydenham and died in March 1843, without having had any serious friction with his advisers. Sir Charles Metcalfe, who came out in his place and under appointment by a Conservative ministry at home, was a very different man from either of his predecessors and proved to be the centre of one of the most stormy periods in Canadian politics.
Mr. Speaker, I have placed this on record to illustrate that while one may give an undertaking to parliament, he may not have the opportunity to carry it out. I am sure that if the governors general of those days had lived, and had been able to carry out their official duties, the tumult into which the Canadas were forced at that time would not have occurred.
It is not my purpose to discuss the Defence Production Act in detail. I shall refer to only two subsections. I would direct the attention of the house to section 2(e) and (f) where in paragraph (e) it says-
"Defence projects" means buildings, aerodromes, airports, dockyards, roads, defence fortifications

or other naval, army or air force works, or works required for the production, maintenance or storage of defence supplies.
And then paragraph (f):
"defence supplies" means
(i) arms, ammunition, implements of war, vehicles, mechanical and other equipment, watercraft, amphibious craft, aircraft, animals, articles, materials, substances and things required or used for the purposes of the defence of Canada or for co-operative efforts for defence being carried on by Canada and an associated government.
It will be seen that these paragraphs take in practically everything within the boundaries of this dominion, from the polar regions to the great lakes, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I see also that it refers to "animals". We have been told on many occasions in the house in the debate on this bill that the minister has control over defence production. However, we see in this paragraph that he has control over practically everything manufactured in industry or raised on the farms of Canada. And when the minister can take control over animals raised on Canadian farms it means that he has within his authority not only control over industry but also control over agricultural products. If he were so inclined-and I am quite certain he would not, although his successor, whoever he might be, might have the inclination-he could go out to the farms and say to a farmer, "You must replace your dairy herd with a beef herd." He could say to that farmer, "You must transfer your operations from dairying to grain growing." In other words he is given sole control over the dairy industry as well as over industrial operations throughout the country.
Perhaps I might add, in a jocular fashion, that if he decided that employees in defence production plants were growing fat and lazy and were consuming too much milk rich in butterfat, he could come out to my farm and say, "Stanton, you will have to change from a Jersey herd to one that produces less fat in the milk. You are affecting the workers in my industrial plants. They are getting fat and lazy, and are not fulfilling their duties." I am saying this in a jocular way, but I wish to bring out the immense powers that are given to the minister or to any succeeding ministers who administer this act.
There are other parts of the act which are far-reaching, sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 31 and 36; but I wish to draw attention to section 40, which reads:
The Defence Supplies Act has no force or effect while this act remains in force except in so far as it is necessary to give effect to anything done thereunder before the 1st day of April, 1951.
This act is one of the first acts of the dominion. It has priority over practically all other acts of parliament. It is the one
50433-368i
Defence Production Act act, and I say, Mr. Speaker, we should be more cautious in making this a permanent act on our statute books.
At page 5722 of Hansard of July 5, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Holling-worth) said:
We must divest ourselves of every other consideration for the time being. The times are extraordinary; they are dangerous.
We all agree that the times are not what they were 50 years ago. At the present time the world is uneasy. Yet we will all agree that world conditions are far more settled now than they were in 1951 when this act was brought into being. Indeed, just the other day the Prime Minister informed us that tension in the world had eased. In fact, it has eased so much that the government is ready at the present time to trust the countries behind the iron curtain in the sale of our products. It must have eased considerably. In fact, we are all of that opinion or the government I am sure would not have taken that chance.
However, Mr. Speaker, the times are not such that we must give the minister these unlimited powers for an extended period. We on this side of the house have no quarrel with the Defence Production Act; we know it is necessary at the present time; but it is so drawn, it is of such a general scope, it covers so much of the economy of this country that since we are not in the throes of war, we feel it should have some clause in it limiting its time. The government should be able to bring it back to the house for parliament to pass on it. We must realize, Mr. Speaker, that our representatives in the cabinet and the government should be representative of parliament. The government should represent the citizens of the Dominion of Canada. Therefore, I repeat, this act should definitely have a time limit. We have no quarrel with one year or two years. Perhaps we would be willing to accept three years, but it definitely should not go on and on and be eternal.
The hon. member for York Centre also said:
As a humble backbencher and supporter of the government, may I say that these safeguards certainly satisfy me. But the government has leaned over backward and has gone much further in order to ensure full debate on this measure.
They have leaned over backward. I would say that in asking for the deletion of the expiry date in this bill the government has leaned far over to the left. If they lean much farther, Mr. Speaker, they will fall right into the laps of my hon. friends to the left, the socialists, the C.C.F. It is well-known the Prime Minister made the statement that the C.C.F. were Liberals in
5812	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act a hurry. This act is surely bringing out the socialistic tendencies with which some of the members of the government are endowed.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what action the government would take if they were in the place of the opposition now. As I look back over their history during the past 60, 70, 80 years, or even since confederation, I am sure they would take the same course that we are taking now. What would George Brown, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, or even the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King say if they knew that the Liberal government was bringing into the House of Commons such a socialistic bill as this, asking parliament to give it its whole approval? I just wonder what they would say? I should like to bring to the attention of the house and the government what has happened in other countries over the years and in doing this I want to say that I have no intention of intimating that the minister is at all like the men to whom I am going to refer; far from it. I doubt very much that he would be guilty of such actions as they were guilty of. I want to bring their names to the attention of this house to indicate what might happen if we permit the thin edge of the wedge to be driven into our parliamentary system. I would go back to the time of Caesar, the time of Mussolini and the time of Hitler. Mussolini and Hitler were both elected by popular vote but because of their greed for power they declared themselves dictators.
I want to emphasize that I know the Minister of Defence Production has nothing like this in mind, but it is the sort of thing that might happen in the years to come if the Defence Production Act is made permanent and followed up by other acts which would take away the true democratic spirit of the citizens of Canada and limit the democratic actions of this parliament to which we are elected to represent those people.
I would not be too much opposed to having a separate minister for the Department of Defence Production and the Department of Trade and Commerce. That would give each minister more time to devote to his department. Being a minister of each of these departments is a full-time job. The Department of Defence Production and the Department of Trade and Commerce are among the largest departments of this government and I fully believe that each should have a minister of its own. I am sure that if the Department of Trade and Commerce had a minister who had no other duties but to administer that department he would find he had a full-time job in negotiating trade treaties and endeavouring to sell our manufactured and agricultural products. I do not think there is anyone 

in the house but who is of the same opinion, that these departments are large enough to warrant a separate minister for each.
I come now to my last point. As I said before, we of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are not antagonistic to the Defence Production Act, but we do say in all seriousness and will continue to say that it should have a time limit. This act is too far-reaching, touching as it does everything within our dominion, giving as it does the minister power to appoint controllers and directors to act in his place in helping to control industry, in fact helping to control everything in our country, to be permitted to continue without some sort of brake. The best brake we could have is a time limit under which it would be brought back to the house at intervals to be studied, reassessed and reappraised.
If we should happen to get into a war, parliament could be summoned immediately and we would be happy to give the minister whatever powers were necessary to carry out an aggressive campaign. But for the present we believe we are being asked to go farther than we should go. It would be quite easy for the minister to bring this debate to a close. All he needs to do is insert a time limit of one, two or three years and we would be out of here in a very short time. But the bill as it is is too far-reaching as it interferes too much with our democratic way of life.
Perhaps the minister thinks that if he agreed to our suggestion he would be considered as losing face, but I think the easiest thing in the world for a man to do is to say he is right when he is wrong while it takes a strong and big man, and I believe the country requires such a man, to get up and say that he is wrong when he is wrong. I plead with the government and the minister to insert a few words into this bill which would permit this house to reassess this act at some time in the future.


James Ralph Kirk: Mr. Speaker, reverting to my remarks earlier in the day, at which time I used words that were not to the liking of some hon. members opposite, I can only say at this time that I am sorry. My observations will be brief as I only wanted to quote something that was said in 1772 by Benjamin Franklin. I think this is a statement which hon. members of the house, regardless of race, creed or politics, could well note. I quote:
We must not in the course of publick life expect immediate approbation and immediate grateful acknowledgment of our services.-But let us persevere thro' abuse and even injury. The internal satisfaction of a good conscience is always present and time will do us justice, in the minds of the people; even of those at present the most prejudic'd against us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a very few words, and I might indicate at the outset that my purpose in rising once again in this debate is to attempt what I think many people would like to see done, namely a little job of conciliation.
It seems to me that on one point there is pretty general agreement throughout this house. I had it down as a note even before the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stanton) spoke, but he confirmed my view that on one point there is pretty general agreement among all of us. The words I took down from the hon. member for Leeds were these: "We have no quarrel with the Defence Production Act". It is perfectly true that he indicated the type of amendment his party would like to have in the act, but he said it very clearly and repeated it: "We have no quarrel with the Defence Production Act".
That view, I suggest, is held in all four corners of this house. We all recognize that there is needed at the present time a Defence Production Act. We all recognize that the minister in charge of that department must have certain powers if the job of defence production and defence procurement is to be carried out, and if this is to be done without adversely affecting the economy of this country. I repeat that we are all agreed on that. Some of us feel the need of such an act more than others, and for that reason we of this group have indicated right through the piece our support of the legislation and our readiness to vote for second reading of this bill.
Because we feel the act should be continued, because we want to vote for second reading, we do not feel we can support any amendment which has in it the words that the bill be not now read a second time. Any such amendment, no matter what other ideas it may contain, in our view has the effect of killing the bill and, frankly, we support the bill.
I could go into the arguments as to why we support the bill, but that might not be consistent with my desire to do a job of conciliation. But may I move on and point out that the only question over which the house is divided, the only question that is keeping us here-not only keeping us here but keeping us from the consideration of other important business yet to be dealt with in this session-is this question as to whether the act should be put on a permanent basis or whether there should be a time limit written into the act.


Mr. Lennard:: And the powers.
Defence Production Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to be perfectly fair. The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) indicates that there is some question about the powers. That is a correct statement, and it is particularly true among my friends of the Progressive Conservative party that some of them decry the nature of the powers and think the powers should be limited. Others have said, as did my hon. friend from Leeds just now, that they have no quarrel with the act. The one point on which there is a real difference, a real impasse, is the question as to whether the act should be permanent or whether it should have a time limit.
At the resolution stage I spoke on both aspects of the matter, namely the need for the legislation and the question as to whether or not there should be a time limit, and I indicated then that our prime concern in this group is that we need the legislation. I indicated, putting it on a secondary basis, that we thought that consideration might well be given by the government to the suggestion that a time limit be written into the bill. During the debate on second reading we have said next to nothing about this aspect of the question, whether or not there should be a time limit, because basically we think that industry, particularly industry dealing in war contracts, must be made subject to the control of parliament and the government in the interests of the people, and we support this legislation.
Now let me come to the question as to whether there should be a time limit in the bill or whether it should be permanent. I said on the 14th of March that I wished the Conservatives would consider the government's plea for the legislation and I wished the government would consider the Conservatives' plea for a time limit, but let us look at this quite frankly. If the act is passed without any time limit, it is really begging the question to say that means it is there in perpetuity, that that means it is there for all time-for eternity, as one member said.
The fact of the matter is that any act that is on the statute books can be repealed by parliament at any time. We know very well that, just as the munitions and supply act was repealed on the motion of the government when its usefulness had run out, so, if the usefulness of this act or the need for it were to run out, the government would repeal it. On the other hand, if a time limit were put in the act and when that point were reached it was still necessary for the powers to be continued and for the department to be continued in existence, parliament would extend the legislation.
5814	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
I admit to being a person capable of getting into an argument with all the heat that anybody else can. I admit to taking sides very strongly and fighting hard. But I ask hon. members on both sides of the house if it is not true now that we are talking at length and staying here over a subsidiary issue. We are agreed on the main issue. The only issue we are not agreed on is as to whether the act should technically be made permanent, always capable of being repealed, or whether technically it should be put on a temporary basis, always capable of being extended.
My hon. friend from Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) suggested the other day, with help from some of the rest of us, that this House of Commons consists of a group of grown men and young women. Surely we are capable of resolving this difference. I recognize how difficult it is in the heat of debate to have a difference of this nature resolved, but I think it is possible, and I want to make a suggestion. Others before me have tried. My hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Low) tried the other day and I do not know what success he has had. But I shall make my suggestion.
In the light of the fact, as the hon. member for Leeds said, that we have no quarrel with the Defence Production Act, and in the light of the fact that we are agreed on the need for the department and the need for the government to have certain powers over industry, particularly with respect to defence needs, but that we are divided on only the subsidiary question, I suggest that the Prime Minister invite to his office as soon as he can-and I suggest he do it today-certain people. I shall name some of them, and I have no objection if he invites others. I suggest he invite the Leader of the Opposition; the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar; the leader of the Social Credit group, the hon. member for Peace River; and the Minister of Defence Production himself. The house leader, the Minister of Finance, might also well be invited, and I have no objection to the Prime Minister inviting others.
It does seem to me, and all of us who have had some experience with meetings of this kind, that collective bargaining, bargaining in good faith, can achieve results. It seems to me that if this group of men could get together some sort of settlement could be arrived at. I do not ask the government to give up its insistence on the endorsation of the principle of the bill, namely that the Department of Defence Production be continued.


Frank Exton Lennard: We do not quarrel with that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As my friend the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) says, they do not quarrel with that.


Frank Exton Lennard: The quarrel is with the powers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not ask my friends in the Conservative party to give up their contention that certain modifications should be made but surely we could get agreement on the second reading of the bill and agreement on some course of action to be followed after second reading. I am not going to spoil things by trying to suggest any particular course of action. But surely this group of men could get together on some sort of action to be taken after second reading which would be satisfactory to all concerned. I make this plea, Mr. Speaker, not only in the interests of this legislation. I may say that I think it is important and necessary legislation; it is legislation that I want to vote for and that we in this group as well as most hon. members in this house want to vote for. I make this plea not only for that purpose but because of the interest that all of us have in so many other items yet to come before parliament at this session. We are not objecting to the length of the session. There is not any one of us who is doing that. If some amongst us are obliged to go away for a few days and to come back, that is in the nature of things. However, I think we should all agree that there should be a sense of proportion or a sense of balance. There are all kinds of extremely important issues which have yet to come before this house. From our experience here we know that if we get everything else done but the estimates, and that if it is hot in July or hot in August in Ottawa, the rest of the estimates will go through this house fairly fast; they will not be given the kind of consideration we know they should be given.
I could take longer in developing the various arguments, but I have tried to refrain from arguing. I suggest that our position is that the primary consideration is the principle of extending the department and extending the control of the government over defence industry and defence purchasing. We therefore feel that the important issue is the vote on second reading itself. As to the other question, as I said on March 14, we should be glad to see consideration given to a time limit being written in. Indeed that is our preference, although we are not unduly concerned if that is not done. But surely the government could consider that aspect if it had a good-faith understanding by the

other parties in the house that the legislation itself was the kind of legislation that should be continued.
I hope I have not spoiled in any way my honest attempt to do a job of conciliating.
I make my plea directly to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I hope he will, before many hours have gone by, call to his office these men whose names I have indicated and any others whom he wishes to invite in; and to those who may be called to such a meeting I make my plea that they sit down in good faith and reach a settlement of this extremely important question.


Mr. Churchill:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the hon. member
think that an act which is permanently on the statute books is in exactly the same position as an act which has a time limit attached to it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Technically, there is a world of difference. A statute without a time limit is technically there for all time. A statute with a time limit expires when that time limit has arrived. I thought I had made it clear that in actual practice what works out is that statutes that have time limits in them are frequently extended because-


Gordon Minto Churchill: By parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By parliament, yes. They are frequently extended because it is found at the end of their time that they should be extended. On the other hand, statutes that have been put on the statute books without any time limit are frequently repealed by parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: At whose suggestion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Usually at the suggestion of the government; indeed practically always at the suggestion of the government. My point is that whichever way the statute is written, the determining factor is the needs of the situation later on. Temporary statutes get reenacted. Permanent statutes get repealed. I am quite prepared to answer any question asked by my friend and neighbour the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). But I say again that my point is that this issue over which the house is divided seems to me to be one which is subsidiary to the main issue on which there is general agreement.


Sybil Bennett: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I think I should tell you of a suggestion which was
Defence Production Act made to me by one of the members from across the floor of the house when I was walking up to the house this morning. He said to me, "When you stand up to speak, you suggest to Mr. Speaker that this house take 40 minutes of very profound silence." I do not know whether or not the hon. member was discriminating against me and meant that he did not want to hear me speak. But we should be quite willing to take into consideration 40 minutes-and I must say that I should be extremely glad if that 40 minutes came at this moment-of profound silence if at the end of that 40 minutes we felt that there would be any change, that any good might come of it, that there might be any developments, or that the members across the way and those to my left might really see the light in this matter in the way in which we have seen it.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a protracted and long-drawn-out debate. But this debate has produced some fine and good things in this country. One thing it has produced is proof that democracy in Canada is very much alive. While we have hon. members in this house standing up to defend our constitution and our parliamentary rights, there is no question that we in this country and in this house are cognizant of the rights, privileges and freedoms that we enjoy under our constitution and under our institutions.
I think it is a most unfortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, that all the members of this house on this occasion have not risen to express their opinion. If their opinions are opposed to ours with regard to what is the proper thing to do and if they are favouring this bill, by all means hon. members on the opposite side of the house should rise in their places and express their opinions, as should hon. members on all sides. The people of this country should know why they think this bill should be enacted. The people of this country should know why they think these powers should be extended indefinitely. The people of this country expect that kind of thing. They expect it of their various members coming, as they do, from the various constituencies all across this country. I want to say this. I think every hon. member across the floor of the house, as well as those to my left, will thoroughly agree that this debate that is taking place in this distinguished house has had a great impact on the people of this nation.
Now, this fact is evidenced in the editorials that we see in the newspapers across this country. It is to be noted that these editorials are coming, in many instances, from newspapers that are and have always been entirely friendly to, and have always supported, the

Defence Production Act party-in power in this house. The press has always held a very honourable and a very rightful position in this nation. They are the ones who give guidance. They are the ones who, to a great extent, interpret what is being said in this house; what is being felt across this country. Therefore, when we see these editorials appearing, we cannot help but feel that the people of this country are listening to this debate. They are interested in this debate. They realize the grave issues, and they are grave issues. Let us make no mistake about it. They realize that issues are at hand, issues are being discussed and principles are at stake.
These principles have arisen out of our attitude of mind over a period of years. We cannot help but assimilate some of the attitudes of mind that are prevalent in the world today. This very discussion that we are having in this house actually has arisen out of an assimilation by the people of Canada and their representatives of these new feelings and these new philosophies that are abroad, and which have come to us from other parts of the world. Not only do we see these editorials, not only do we know that the press is voicing its opinion and saying what it thinks is right, but many members who go to their constituencies over the week end are hearing expressions of opinion. Some of us who have these smaller constituencies and have the privilege of walking down village streets, town streets and even cities, of visiting on the back concession lines, find the people are asking questions.
They say, what are you doing down there in Ottawa? What is taking place? What is this debate about, and what is this question of extending this Defence Production Act? What is this question about giving these great undefined powers, for actually they are undefined. We do not know how far they may impinge upon the economic life of this nation. They are asking why, what is this all about? They say, we think the minister has gone too far this time. We do not believe these things should be. This thing is not right. We are living in a free country. A government should not have these powers now that we have moved over into something approaching peacetime. I do not say for one moment that we do not live in dangerous times, because we do. As I said before, dangerous times have become normal. Really, we have to consider the whole thing from that standpoint. They say we do not want anything that has the appearance of compulsion. We do not want anything that leads us to ultimately arrive at any form of dictatorship in any phase of our lives.


So the people in the cities, in the towns, in the villages and along the concession lines have come to know the problem. There is no need to go into all these points that have been argued. They have been argued with great brilliance. Yesterday they were argued by my leader in a most able, magnificent and monumental manner. The whole principle relating to this act was explicitly set out and dealt with. The people of this country know full well what the issues are. Let us make no mistake about that. I venture to say that those members sitting opposite, who have not risen to say anything about this principle but only interject at various times, are deeply concerned about this thing. I have no doubt they are deeply concerned because they go home to their constituencies. They are cognizant of what is being said, and the thoughts that are being expressed. I am sure that if we could get an expression of opinion such as we should have-because if they think this thing is right they should explain to the people of this country why this thing is right-then we would be able to make our decisions and the people of this country would be able to make their decisions. The very fact that they remain silent about the whole thing is almost certain evidence that they cannot go along and do not approve of the extreme powers that are being asked in this act by the minister.
If we are to honestly decide about this act, if we are to honestly review it from every standpoint, if we are to consider and know whether it is a good act or a bad act, a proper act or one that should be on the statute books of this country, we have to look back to the source from which this act comes. We have to look back to the type of thinking that has been forthcoming during the years, and the type of thinking that would propound and introduce such an act at this particular time. It is easy to understand that when we are in an actual war or an emergency, an act of this kind should be passed. We have no quarrel with that. We still believe in that. We are still willing to give these great powers if they are needed, and if they are necessary.
But what is the background? What is the type of thinking on the part of the government that they would introduce this bill and ask that these powers be extended indefinitely? Over the years a great change has been taking place in this country, and it has been evidenced by the party in power. They have been in power a great many years. Right here in this house we have seen the rise of the power of the ministry; we have seen the rise in the power of the cabinet, and analogous to it we have seen a recession in the

power of the members and the members of the government party. They have become docile with the urge to follow. They are under the dictation of the ministers, and those who sit in seats of authority. It has not been difficult for supporters of the government party to assume that parliament feels the same way, or for them to reach the assumption that parliament is something that is very unreal, that parliament cannot act quickly, or that in parliament there is too much discussion and too much debate. We have seen this taking place in the House of Commons on those many occasions when the government party has been unwilling to give us the information we want.
They go ahead with the management of the country and, of course, they have been given the authority to do so. But in what they have done there has been a growing tendency to disregard the functions of parliament, to disregard the rights and precepts and the institution of parliament. And with this going on it has required only a step farther to disregard the rights of the people. In bringing in this measure one cannot help feeling that there has been this lack of regard. It has been brought in at a time when, it is agreed, there is no great or immediate emergency or one likely to arise. It is agreed, of course, that we are living in dangerous times, in times when we must take measures to protect ourselves, build our defences to the level they should be, and keep them there.
But this whole idea of bringing in a bill so vast, so sweeping, so undetermined in its terms and meaning, a bill that reaches far down into the economic life of the people, is something to which parliament must give serious thought. It is something we must discuss. And, in addition to all these sweeping powers, it is indicated that the minister wants to make the legislation permanent, so that these things can be done at all times and under all circumstances.
That we are reaching a normal state of life is borne out by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). It is clear that we are moving into better times; and the fact that we are in a more conciliatory mood toward other parts of the world, and that they regard us in a similar fashion, is borne out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).
But despite all this, despite the economic set-up in the country and in industry, the government insists upon retaining these powers, and that it retain compulsion and dictatorship, if I may use that expression, over industry itself. That is the issue we are debating and that we must consider.
Defence Production Act
I shall not discuss the bill in detail, because there has been considerable discussion as to its provisions, involving the right of law and the extent to which it goes. But I would like to speak briefly and to take the long view as to the far-reaching effects of the bill on the economic life of the people in this country. I would like to point out how the bill affects industry and its rights, and how it affects its future development.
The more I read the speech of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) on June 28, the more I read into the meaning of this bill, and how ominous might be its effects. If one looks into the minister's explanation on June 28, when he discussed the bill in an explanatory fashion, and pointed out what he wanted and what he considered was necessary, that portion of his remarks which impressed me-and I am sure every other hon. member-was his statement that when he listened to the debate, and to what opposition members have to say about the bill, he felt himself in another world.
It is clear from what the minister has said that when we have been debating the freedom of parliament, the rights of parliament, the question of whether or not the representatives of the people should have the right to say what is taking place in the country, and when we have been debating the very principles of our constitution, involving our rights and privileges in parliament, and the rights of members sent here by their constituents to take part in debate, the right hon. minister says that he thinks we are in another world. It sounds to him as though we are debating the problems of another world, problems that, to his mind, are entirely irrelevant. He suggests that we are talking about subjects beyond the provisions in the bill and that do not affect the issue before the house.
If the minister feels that in this debate we have been in another world, then I must say we feel he has been in another world, particularly when he brings in a bill of this kind asking for powers so extensive, so far-reaching and so deeply affecting the economic life of the country. Not only does it affect the economic life but it also affects the social and every other phase of our life, because these cannot be divided.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Sybil Bennett: At the time that we arrived at the noon recess, Mr. Speaker, I had begun to make some remarks regarding the economic

Defence Production Act situation in this country, having in mind its future development. At the same time I was referring to and revealing what the minister had to say about this act in his speech on June 28. The minister said that this act had been in operation for 16 years, and that apparently it had operated very well; that industry, knowing the rules, had come into line. They had lived up to the rules; there were no complaints at all; things had worked very well. This would mean that industry in the last 16 years has been under a form of compulsion, a form of surveillance. Perhaps this may be a little extreme, but they have been under somewhat of a dictatorship. Naturally those concerns, who over the years have benefited and have been making munitions and various instruments of war for the government, were in this position. It would be very strange that one should want to bite the hand that feeds it; it would be very strange for them to make complaints. So far as I know, these same industries and these same people have made no complaint about our debating this matter, about debating the powers of this bill and the question of its termination.
One thing that comes to my mind is this. So far as our commercial and economic advancement are concerned, we in this country are greatly dependent on the industrial life and the development over a broad phase of the industrial life of this nation. I am just wondering how, over a period of 16 years, these contracts were let for the goods supplied. How have they been allotted to the various industries? I would take it from what the minister said that on the whole the government allots those contracts; they hand them out. If the contracts are not handled in the way required, the minister, under the powers that are conceded to him under the act, can step in and provide proper management. I am wondering how, over the period of years, these contracts have been allotted. How does industry obtain those contracts?
One might go a little farther and ask the question, have they been divided well over this country? Have industries from every part of the nation received a like number of orders? Have they been able to benefit? Have they been able to advance themselves by this type of work? Has there been any tendency to concentrate these contracts in very narrow channels, and perhaps concentrate them in a small number of industries? In fact, that is one thing I do not understand. I am wondering why my hon. friends to my left have not raised that very point, because after all they set themselves up as the champions of men working in industry, of labour and labour unions.


I sometimes wonder how many millionaires have been made in this country over the 16 years by the contracts they have received from this government. I also wonder how many small businesses may have gone out of business, having been unable to operate, owing to the fact that they could not meet the competition coming from larger industries which are getting government contracts. I remember very well during the last election campaign talking to a very small manufacturer. I said to him: "This is a fine little industry you have here; it is a fine little manufacturing establishment that you are carrying on, and you are doing very well." He was employing around 12 men. He said to me: "Well, I have met with a great deal of misfortune. Up to a few months ago I had quite a thriving industry. I started in a very small way. We started with one man. I finally got up to where I was employing 25 men. You know what happened to me was this. I was making locks. I found I had no steel, and all of a sudden I was told that there was not enough steel." The controller of steel said: "You cannot use steel for making locks. We have to have this steel; we have to have it for something else. We have to have it for more important industries."
That is very right, Mr. Speaker. We understand it is required in an emergency in this country. But after all is said and done, we have to remember that this whole industrial and economic life that we have, the very fact that in this nation we enjoy the highest standards of living-I think we can say quite honestly that we have the highest standard of living of any country in the world-has come about through the years because we have had unfettered, untrammelled private enterprise through the last 50 years, men and women of initiative and of vision and of outlook. Men and women of enterprise and of courage have been able to go out in this country. There has been nothing to stop them. They have been able to go out into their little industries. They have been able to build those industries. They have competed together. In that way, the brain power, the ability and the personalities of this great nation have entered into the industrial life, and have produced an outstanding economic situation, the free and full life that we have today.
You know, Mr. Speaker, a very good example of this thing came about in the last war. I remember very well it being said that it was the free nations of the world, people like ourselves, who went out and in the fullness of this freedom, with the desire to protect the same, in thankfulness for what we had acquired for generations past in this nation, went into industries and manned

them. We worked and we produced. It was the free peoples of the world, the free nations who supplied the materials. We were able to send the things that were required, munitions, food and everything else, to Russia at the time when she needed those very things. It was by virtue of that that she was able to take her stand and turn back Hitler and all the forces. All those things were combined against her at the time, but because we were a free people, because we were producing for our freedom, because we were ready and willing and anxious to move to preserve those things that we have had in this nation for generations, we were able to help her.
I do not think that this is a thoroughly bad bill. The party to which I belong appreciates that there can be circumstances when there should be legislation of this kind. But this thing means so much and is so vital to the economic life of this country, the development of the economic life, that industry should be given a free hand. When we talk about industry we do not just mean the managerial side, we do not mean the people at the top, we mean those men and women who go to form part of industry. They should not be faced with any compulsion or any dictation, because after all we have fought for the freedom to go into enterprise, for the right to compete.
For that very reason alone and in order to substantiate and uphold and preserve the economic life of this country it would seem to me that the minister, who is a man of business, who is a man of wide experience, would be one person who would be glad, who would be anxious-a tremendous responsibility is laid on his shoulders-to come back to this parliament, and to go back to the people of this country, and review what has happened in the years. Why should he not come back and tell us what the development of this nation has been? He says to us that there are tremendous developments ahead as far as defence is concerned.
We have to learn in this country that we have to combine these things. Not only is there a need for defence; the fact is that this Defence Production Act should be geared, should be drawn, to meet the future situation of this country. In fact I think the whole thing should be reviewed each time, the whole approach to industry in this nation, our whole attitude and approach to the development of this country. After all, every part of this country must be developed. The maritimes require development as well as the western provinces. My hon. friends to my left who come from there have been asking that industry should be moved out
Defence Production Act into those provinces so that they may be developed. That is what should be done.
The time has come actually when we should consider not only this act but a whole review of the defence and civil development and the economic development of this country. Those two things must go hand in hand. As I said before, and I come back to it, with his experience, having dealt with these matters for 16 years, knowing the difficulties with which we are faced in this nation, knowing the keen competition that exists, knowing that industry must be built up, knowing that industry must be given opportunities, knowing that industry must be encouraged, I should think the minister would be glad to welcome the opportunities to do the very thing we ask, the thing which is at the root of all this argument, and come back to this house in a stated period of time and review what has been done, review the situation, civil and defence in this country, and make suggestions to us. We are glad to have these suggestions and we are glad to follow them.
It is very strange and I for one cannot understand why the minister should object to coming back to this parliament and giving the representatives of the people of this country the information to which they are entitled. He should come back and tell us what is going on, what progress is being made, what is required, and so on. If we are living in such dangerous times, surely, if as has been said, there is some emergency, is not that the time of all times that the problems of production, the problems of defence production, should be shared? Is it not time that those problems should be shared with parliament, should be shared with the representatives of the people of this country?
I am certain that the minister knows that never at any time over the years has he been refused powers or rights to carry on until this particular time. Speaking the other day the minister told us what he had accomplished, and there is no question about that; we have never at any time under any circumstances tried to detract from that. He told us that never over the years was he unable to produce what he had been required to produce in munitions, that he had been able to produce those things within a reasonable time.
Sometimes when I hear these things I become a little confused as to just what is the true over-all position. Every hon. member sitting in this house today should remember what we owe to the men and women who put forth great efforts during the second world war. If it had not been for the efforts

Uejence Production Act that they made; if it had not been that they were willing to sacrifice their homes, their positions and their jobs and everything they had to go out and fight for us; if industry itself had not been willing to co-operate and to support those men and women who were out on the fronts fighting for us; if management and every last man and woman in industry had not been willing to give their best, to give everything they had, to do everything they could-I am quite sure that no one would be more ready than the minister to say that he would not have been able to accomplish what he did if he had not had the full, free and magnanimous co-operation of every service man and service woman in this country, of every head of industry and of every man who was working and doing his job in the industrial life of Canada.
We desire to preserve our freedom. We are ready to go along and co-operate and work together in building a magnificent future so that we may give the world leadership that is required of a nation of this kind. We cannot help but be reminded, as I said the other day, that these things come very gradually and subtly. There is no thought as far as the minister is concerned that there would be any question of a dictatorship, but I want to say to you today that many nations, many big states, many great people throughout the history of the world right down to our present time were conquered from within rather than conquered from without. Those principles that form the basis of our freedom and the background of our free institutions are the reasons why I and the other hon. members of my party have taken our stand and have risen in this house on this great occasion to add a word of warning for the protection of the future of this nation.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, following the other members in this debate, I feel it is my job as a member of parliament to interpret to the house the ideas of my constituents. My constituents are not concerned with the particular fine points of the Defence Production Act, but my constituents do know the difference between right and wrong. While I was home over the week end I found, as I have said, that they were not particularly interested in the fine points but they do think there should be a limit to the powers granted to any minister and that the delay in the passing of this act is not caused by the Conservative opposition, but by the failure of the government to be reasonable and to put a time limit on this act.
Of all the prime ministers of Canada, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King was one who particularly impressed upon the people of Canada

the supremacy of parliament. Here we are seeing it denied. Liberalism has gone back a long way. The Liberals seem to forget the principles that Mackenzie King laid down many years ago as to the supremacy of parliament. If parliament is not supreme, then we have a dictatorship. We have approached very close to that in the last few weeks. I am sure that many Liberals across the house and many Liberals in the country, deep down in their hearts, dislike this type of legislation.
I should like at this point to commend the hon. member for London (Mr. Mitchell) for his notable speech of June 20. I just want to emphasize what he pointed out at that time, that the president of the Canadian Bar Association, the man who is now the Prime Minister of Canada, in addressing the Canadian Bar Association in October, 1931, had this to say of an act that was being passed in an emergency, an act to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemployment and farm relief and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada. At that time he pointed out that this was a dangerous type of legislation, but that it was a necessary step. I should like to point out that the present Prime Minister, speaking in October of 1931, described that as a dangerous type of legislation. What must he think today of the act that is now before us?
I should also like to point out that that act of 1931 had a time limit, I believe, of one year. I do not think anyone in the country questions the advisability of extending powers for the defence of Canada, but some do question the advisability of adopting an attitude that this should continue forever-not in a changing world-not in a democracy. Two or three years ago the right hon. Minister of Defence Production paid a visit to South America. It had of course nothing to do with defence production, but had to do with trade. Whilst we cannot say anything very favourable about the increase in trade with the South American countries, I believe he brought back an idea or two with him. There they have dictators, and he probably thought, "This is a good idea; maybe we can adopt this in Canada". I should like to point out to the right hon. minister that history as it relates to dictators through the years ought to persuade him to take another look and seriously reconsider the course he apparently has laid out for himself.
Changing the line of thought for a moment, I should like to say I am amazed at the attitude of the C.C.F. party as far as this legislation is concerned, for under this legislation labour contracts can be ignored or cancelled. Under this legislation the right to strike can be denied. Surely the near

compulsion during the railway negotiations of last year would indicate how far the government has gone in their thinking along those lines. Yet they are prepared to accept this bill, apparently, without a time limit.
Now we find the government in the position of trying to blame the opposition for the delay. I believe I dealt with that a little earlier. All that needed to be done was to put a time limit in the bill and the debate would have been over weeks ago. If a reasonable compromise were offered today, the debate would be over and we could get on with the business. The government and no one else is responsible for this unwarranted delay.
The public in general are not interested in the oriental idea of face saving. Apparently that seems to be what they are engaged in, a plan of face saving. My constituents are not interested in that. The people of Canada are not interested in that. They want us to get on with the business of the country. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) this morning was a good one and should be acted upon. I rather think that the country resented the suggestion the other day of the Prime Minister that another parliament should be in honour bound to carry out the commitment made in this house without an act or a statute to back it up. The Prime Minister is an authority on and a student of constitutional affairs. I think it was very unrealistic of him to make such a suggestion and, frankly, it was not acceptable. I was really amazed at the suggestion.
I return again to the speeches of Mackenzie King on the supremacy of parliament. It is amazing what a few short years of power will do to dull those issues. I am very firmly convinced the people are not pleased to learn that their representatives are failing to find common ground. These same people, these constituents of mine-and they are no different from the other 264 constituencies in Canada-are now aware through the press of the wide powers asked for in the Defence Production Act. They are also aware they are being asked for on a permanent basis, without time limit and without recourse to parliament.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate this. The public generally are of the opinion that reasonable men, the elected representatives of the people, through debate and discussion, should be able to arrive at a compromise satisfactory to all concerned. Compromise is one of the attributes of democracy. For the sake of Canada, let us get on with the business and arrive at a reasonable solution of this problem.
Defence Production Act


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate I want it to be understood that I am not filibustering. The filibuster has caught up with me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We must hear
this.


Frank Exton Lennard: Several days ago the hon.
member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) said that the people of Canada could not care less about this issue. He said that they were not interested in it and that they could not care less. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the reason I am speaking today on this issue is that there is such great concern amongst the people in my riding. On this issue I have been approached-by contacts over the week ends and by letters-more than I have been approached on almost any other issue in the 17 years that I have been a member of this house, with possibly one exception.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have a
great issue here.


Frank Exton Lennard: Yes; I think so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is almost equal to the North Star issue.


Frank Exton Lennard: The exception to which I
referred is that in connection with the debate on resale price maintenance, when this government pushed that measure through. What a flop that has turned out to be. It is closing up small businesses in my part of the world and it is a decided failure.
It is my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to speak this afternoon supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and which I had the honour of seconding. The amendment reads as follows:
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 should like to quote the comments made by the hon. member-for Royal (Mr. Brooks). As reported at page 5376 of Hansard they were as follows:
X 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
5822	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
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.
I thoroughly agree with those words, Mr. Speaker. Then as reported at page 5390 of Hansard the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) said:
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.
For which I would not blame him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You hope.


Frank Exton Lennard: I often think that I should have my head read for being here. The quotation continues:
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 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 the other day, Mr. Speaker, he said that he had had no complaints from industry over the period of time that these powers had been in force.
I might say that I know some instances in which firms would have liked to complain but they felt a bit reticent about doing so.
I might draw to the attention of the house something I had to say earlier in this debate, as reported at page 2002 of Hansard:


Frank Exton Lennard: I merely wish to make a brief comment. Earlier this afternoon some mention was made of reluctance on the part of firms to deal with the government and accept government orders. I feel in that respect the government must 

accept some of the blame because, to use a common phrase, they have not always been good pay. The government sometimes required weeks and even months before making payment to firms for goods delivered. In some cases during the last world war I know that firms were embarrassed to the extent of being unable to meet their payroll obligations because of reluctance or delay on the part of the government of that day in making payment.
I know that to be a fact because many small firms in my part of the country had experienced those extremely difficult conditions.
While I think of it, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I might mention and it is this. Now that the war has been over for some years I hope that the Department of Defence Production have selected a good group of inspectors where inspectors are needed. I know that during the war days, when perhaps some excuses could be made, there were inspectors, especially in the clothing industry, who knew no more about what they were inspecting than I would if I were sent out to judge horses. I happen to have some firsthand knowledge of the textile industry and the inspectors at that time. One inspector in the underwear trade during the war was a broken-down hardware merchant. What he knew about ladies' underwear, I would not know. I am serious about that. This firm to which I refer was manufacturing an order of ladies' underwear, I suppose for the Wrens or some of the women's forces of the army or navy. Another inspector had been a tailor of overcoats, yet he was inspecting women's underwear. He knew no more about it, as I say, than I would if I were asked to go out and judge a horse show.
Another thing that I know would not happen now, but it did then, is that these inspectors were more interested in getting outfits for their wives and children than they were in inspecting the garments in the plant. I know it would not happen now, but I know it did then and I hope it never will again if there is an emergency. I hope the inspection staff will be of a higher order.
I wish to quote from the minister's words at page 4510 of Hansard for June 7, 1955. He said:
At the resolution stage the Leader of the Opposition implied that in asking for the continuation of the Defence Production Act the government is getting away from traditional methods of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary responsibility, and that there is a denial of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. I must admit that I am only a layman in this field, but it seems to me that this is not the case. Under our present parlaimentary procedures the house has an opportunity to review the responsibilities and functions of each department at least once a year, when the estimates are being considered. Traditionally this is the

way in which legislation can be examined critically, the way in which it can be determined whether or not it meets the needs and conditions of the times.
Farther along, I find this:
Before the resolution on the present bill was concurred in on March 14, I gave an undertaking that the government would consider the request made by the hon. members for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and Peace River (Mr. Low). This request was to include in the act a clause which would make the powers of the department subject to review within a reasonable period.
This question was referred to the Department of Justice, and officers of that department pointed out that in view of the fact that a review of legislation is a matter which parliament can undertake at any time, an express provision requiring a periodic review of this kind would have no real significance. In order to require a review by parliament and attach to it legal consequences it would be necessary, for example, to provide that the act would expire at a stated time unless reviewed and reapproved or re-enacted before the expiration of that time. This obviously was not the intent indicated by the request put forward by the hon. members.
Now, reference is made there to the request to include in the act a clause which would make the powers of the department subject to review within a reasonable period. I am not a lawyer, perhaps I am not even an intelligent layman, but for the life of me I cannot see why the Department of Defence Production could not be put on a permanent basis and these extreme powers be granted for a limited period. I am not saying there should not be a Department of Defence Production. I agree that there should be such a department, but these extreme powers should not be continued on a permanent basis but should be renewed periodically by this parliament if they are necessary.
There is another thing that really puzzles me. It is the first time since I have been a member of this parliament that an important government bill has been up for discussion and we have not heard from at least the senior cabinet ministers. For instance, we have not heard from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin); the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearsonb the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney); the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris); the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner); the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann); the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). I stop there because they are the senior ministers in the front row. We have not heard from one of them in support of this bill during this debate. It is the first time I have had the experience of witnessing that, in the 17 years I have been a member of this house.
Has the government attempted to give any reason why this bill could not be brought up
Defence Production Act next session in January, February, March, April, May or June? I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare with a broad smile on his face.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the trouble with July?


Frank Exton Lennard: I beg your pardon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You did not mention July.


Frank Exton Lennard: This act expires in July, does it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Frank Exton Lennard: That would be running it rather close, and I believe the minister would think so, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I mean this July.


Frank Exton Lennard: Well, we might run over into August because I do not see any finish to this thing just yet. If there is some valid, hidden reason for bringing it up now the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) ought to say what that reason is. Has parliament become incompetent to exercise a periodic review of the powers here delegated?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say this. Why in the world should not the minister be willing to submit periodically to parliament his claim for a renewal of powers? As the opposition has pointed out time and again, it is the power of parliament that is at stake. A permanent right to appoint controllers, to operate business, and to requisition defence supplies is repugnant to all our history. We did not withhold these powers in world war I; we did not withhold them in world war II; we did not withhold them in the Korean crisis. But we do object to having our industrial system copper-riveted under unlimited delegated powers of government. Parliament is threatened by the dictates of a huge complacent majority. If the opposition bows to this challenge it will mean not only the weakening of parliament as an institution, but the weakening of the will of the Canadian people.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I was prompted to speak this afternoon because, as I mentioned, I have had so much pressure put on me by the people of my home town and riding that I felt it my duty to express the views of so many living in that district.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this filibuster. Like the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard), the filibuster has caught up with me, also.
I do not like making long speeches-

Defence Production Act


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Absolutely.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: It is a little difficult to hear on this side of the house. Did I understand him to say that he is taking part in a filibuster?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If you call this a filibuster, I would say I am taking part in it-


Clarence Decatur Howe: A small part.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -because it has been called a filibuster by the Liberals.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: No, no, no,-by
your side.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, yes, yes.


Pierre Gauthier: No, no, no; read Hansard; on your side.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, yes. And may I ask the hon. member if he is going to make this speech.


Pierre Gauthier: No, I will listen.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That's fine. That's exactly what I thought.


Pierre Gauthier: Because you are very interesting.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That's the stuff.
I have said that I do not like to make long speeches. Many years ago a senator from Hamilton, the Hon. George Lynch-Staunton, and I used to walk down to the office together. At that time he said to me, "In making a speech, if you cannot strike oil within the first five minutes, you should stop boring." But in this case the opposition have to keep on boring, boring and boring.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are very successful at it, too.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hope we are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was never so bored in my life.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not doubt that the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) is thoroughly bored.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All the oil has run out of him.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And he will be bored much more before this is over. In fact, we hope in time he will be so bored that he will feel that at last he might give in just a little bit.
I am going to vote for this amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and seconded by the hon. member for Wentworth, who has just taken his seat.


Pierre Gauthier: Where is he?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He just left the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He will be back in a minute. He was in the house all morning, and was here when the minister left at noon.


Pierre Gauthier: What morning?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This morning, when there were just 11 Liberal members in the house-


An hon. Member:: Only nine at one time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -and 12 Conservatives, and I do not think there was one cabinet minister. Then there were one or two-


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Get on with the speech.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There were one or two C.C.F. members and a few Social Crediters.


Pierre Gauthier: Where is the seconder now?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He will be back again.
I said I was going to vote for the amendment, and I am voting for it because I think it is fair. It is an amendment that the government could adopt without any difficulty. If the amendment were adopted the Minister of Defence Production would not lose a bit of his power. And I am pausing right now to say that the hon. member for Wentworth is back in his seat, as I told the hon. member he would be.


Frank Exton Lennard: Who was worrying about me?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Liberal members were worrying about whether the hon. member for Wentworth would be back again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Frank Exton Lennard: I will be here until it is ended, if that is what they want to know.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have said that this amendment would not take anything away from the minister.


Frank Exton Lennard: I would like to go fishing, though.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: All we ask is
that the bill be put before the committee on banking and commerce, of which I happen to be a member. In that committee it would be studied and then brought back to the house. The government could not possibly lose anything by taking that action, because

there are only 50 members on the banking and commerce committee, the majority of whom are Liberals. The government could not lose at all, unless, of course, after the Liberal members sat in committee they began to see the light and felt that the bill should be changed drastically.
I have said the amendment should be adopted by the government. I shall not read it, because the hon. member for Wentworth did so just a moment ago. But it is sufficient to say that it does not take away any of the powers of the minister. I am not a lawyer, and I might be wrong in this, but I feel quite sure I am right when I make that statement. If the bill were sent to the committee on banking and commerce it could be examined by that committee and a report could be made to the house as to the advisability of setting up the department on a permanent basis. That is what the minister has asked for, and that is what this party has agreed to do. I believe other groups in the house have said the same thing. Indeed, I do not think any member would take any different stand.
Part of the amendment says that it would confer on the department such powers as ought to be of a continuing nature. Is there any member in the house who would object to that? I do not think there is. With the committee consisting more than half of Liberal members, the government could be assured that the bill would contain that provision, and that the minister would have all the power he wants.
Then the last paragraph of the amendment would confer 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. And I do not see anything wrong with that. I believe the minister would agree. If international conditions are as good as this government seems to think they are, when it can ship wheat and butter behind the iron curtain-


Donald Ferguson Brown: For cash.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: An hon. member says "for cash"-but it is not cash in the pocket. It is just cash on the cuff. And you can never tell when one of those iron curtain countries might send a shirt with that cuff to the laundry.
I have said that this is a fair and clean amendment. There is no reason why others should not do as I am going to do, and that is vote for it.
I have taken very little time in this session of parliament, but as I said before I am going to speak for some little time on this
Defence Production Act occasion. I hope what I am about to say will have some weight with the minister. I doubt whether it will, but I do hope it will. My personal view is that a short speech is better than a long one. However, neither short nor long speeches seem to have any effect whatsoever on the minister. They roll off him just like water off a duck's back. But we do sincerely hope that by hammering, hammering, hammering at him the minister eventually will give in a little bit, and that our hammering will have some effect on him.
The minister said only a few days ago that the government must insist on this legislation being passed. The Prime Minister did not say that; it was the Minister of Defence Production. It certainly seems as though he will not change his mind. It reminds me of something I saw a few years ago down in New Mexico. There was an old mule, and it would not budge one inch, would not take a step one way or the other until the cowboy lit a fire back of it. Then the mule went forward a few steps. That is all we want the minister to do on this bill, just give in a little. That is all that is necessary for all parties to come to an agreement.
One would think even the weatherman has had something to do with this debate, because he certainly has turned on the heat. We have had temperatures around this building running to near the hundred mark for some days. The minister will find that Her Majesty's loyal opposition can be just as stubborn as he; no matter whether they have to light a fire under us, we can be stubborn. We are going to be stubborn. I suppose I should not put any ideas in the minister's mind, but I feel quite sure he will remember that during the war years we sat through July and into August. One day the temperature outside was running pretty near the century mark. I do not know whether the government did it on purpose, but the steam was turned on in the building and the temperature here rose to near the 105 mark.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are saving that for next week.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said he is saving that for next week. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that members of parliament are not permitted to come into the chamber with their coats off or with Bermuda shorts on, Her Majesty's loyal opposition will be able to stand that heat just as well as the minister. The Minister of Defence Production has given us some reasons why he is going to insist on the passage of this bill. I am not alone in this. There are many of us who feel the same way about it. The minister has

Defence Production Act not told all the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about this bill. There must be other reasons behind his insistence, the stubbornness on the part of the minister.
I remember that when during the war years the former minister for air, who sits over in the corner, had his estimates before the house, item after item after item passed just as smoothly as one could wish. A question would be asked of the minister. If he knew the answer he gave it at once. If a question was asked and he was not sure of the answer he told us he was not sure of it but that he would find out. In the course of the debate on the estimates a question came up. I thought the minister had made a mistake. The minister replied and said that he had made a mistake.
Shortly after his estimates were passed the estimates of another minister came up, and we were stuck on the first item hour after hour after hour. Eventually the minister, who was then sitting in a front seat, turned around to the minister for air and said-this was supposed to be in a whisper-"How is it that you can get your estimates through the way you do and I am still on the first item after nearly five hours?" The minister for air said-this was also supposed to be in a whisper, but I heard it in my section of the house and I am quite sure the Speaker heard it-"If you tell them the truth as I did you will get through." Within a very few hours that minister's estimates went through because he followed the advice of the minister for air.
I used to be the representative of an American brick and terra-cotta company. I remember a little printed card that the president had over his desk. I imagine you would call it a motto, and it read something like this. The minister reminds me of it; that is why I mention it. "Ask me no more. The moon may draw the sea; the pickle may be fished out with a fork, but four small words are all you get from me. Ask me no more". That is the attitude the minister has taken in this debate. He will not tell us the other reasons why he wants this bill passed. I am afraid the minister may have one of these mottoes in his pocket at the present time and he is trying to follow it out.
The other day the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) gave a reason why the minister wanted to have this bill passed. I will not read Hansard. I believe his words ran something like this. He said he believed the real reason was the security of the senior officers of the Department of Defence Production. Perhaps if some other Liberal members rise to their feet and speak they may tell us other reasons why this bill should be passed.


I can assure you, sir, that this party is in favour of the security of not only the senior officers of the Department of Defence Production but also of all employees of that department. If that department were made permanent they would have security, and by all means they should have security equal to that of any other civil servant employed by this government.
We are not in favour of all the powers this bill gives to the minister, because some of them are too great. Under the administration of the present minister they might be all right, but who knows who the next minister will be? On top of that, the present act gives more administrative authority to one minister than has ever been given to any minister of the crown in peacetime.
This bill gives for all time almost complete control over industry in Canada, and industry in Canada has done a wonderful job, not only during the war but since. Industry in Canada is trusted, industry in Canada has to be trusted, and industry in Canada if trusted will do a real job. Mention was made that some of these industries had got out of line, but those who would get out of line would be certainly few and far between. They would be like hen's teeth, or to use the slang expression, "there ain't any".
I believe, and it is the belief of many people in Canada and throughout the world, that until the end of time defence must be a permanent feature not only here in Canada and in the United States but in all democratic countries. Our different industries, especially our new industries, should be ready at all times not only to look after peace needs but also to turn to defence needs as quickly as may be necessary. Industry must feel free at all times, otherwise expansion and new ideas will not be forthcoming. Industry will be crippled and not able to meet foreign competition. On June 28, as reported on page 5377 of Hansard, the Minister of Defence Production said:
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 hy 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.
Why is the minister insisting that an act which is absolutely the same be passed at this time? The minister went on:
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.

We must remember that we were at war when the munitions and supply act was in operation, but now we are supposed to be in a peacetime period. The powers granted under the Defence Production Act are far-reaching and certainly should not be given to an individual for all time to come. Surely some limit should be placed on this act with regard to time and with regard to its sections. One section of the act provides that the minister may requisition any materials he thinks necessary for defence, and may seize them under court order if the owner refuses to give them up.
We must remember that any contract given by the Department of Defence Production would be considered a defence contract whether it was in wartime, peacetime or any other time. Rightly or wrongly, the minister would have the right at any time to step into a plant and not only take it over but seize the materials in that plant and use them as he saw fit. Heads of industry across Canada have told me that the present minister has been extremely fair in his dealings, as he should be, and has not been too unreasonable in the past. But do you, Mr. Speaker, or does any hon. member know who the next minister of defence production is going to be. We do not know.
We would like to know just what is what. It may be the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I think he would be reasonably fair and try to do a good job and not be partisan in his handling of the department. It might be the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).


Lester Bowles Pearson: Highly unlikely.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It might be the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), or it might be some other individual who would be biased by politics above everything else. Just a week ago a federal building was opened in Peterborough. It was not the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) who did the inviting to that affair or the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) or his deputy; it was some outside individual entirely. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Henderson), the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Follwell), the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Robertson), the hon. member for Durham (Mr. James) were among those invited.
What I am getting at is that those Liberal members were from outside the riding, some of them being at least 125 miles away. But the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White), a Conservative member, was not invited though he represented half of Peterborough county. The hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson), a Conservative
Defence Production Act member who represents the adjoining riding, was not invited. I am sorry that took place, because it was not a pleasant thing to have happen. But I think it offers proof of what I am trying to say, that we might get a minister of defence production who was completely biased.


Mr. Hodgson:: Was there not a senator present?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There was a senator from Trenton; he ran the works. But the whole thing backfired on the Liberal party, because since that time I have had three dyed-in-the-wool Grits come to me and say, "Gordon, in future we are voting Conservative; we cannot stand anything of that kind." One man asked me for a membership in the association and he is now a member, and the other two are joining.
The average taxpayer is getting pretty well fed up with the controls that have been placed not only on industry but on the individual. No matter where you turn you run into a control of some kind that either shoves you ahead or holds you back. There is a limit to what the public can stand. This bill certainly is something they do not want unless a time limit of from three to five years is placed on these powers and there is some easement in some of the sections of the act.
The bill which the minister insists on passing looks to be an extremely innocent piece of legislation. It is only 11 lines long. Two of those lines have only one word each. But the real meaning of the whole bill lies in the last line. That last line just says, "Section 41-".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will please not read the clause in the bill.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Very well, Your Honour. As I said, that does not sound dangerous at all. When they say this section is to be repealed it sounds as if something is being taken away from the Defence Production Act. But the only thing that is being taken away from the Defence Production Act is the time limit, July 31, 1956. If this bill goes through we will have that act until the world's end.
The Conservative party has at no time said that this department should not continue to function. We are in favour of this department, but some of its powers must be curtailed or, as I said before, they should be modified and a time limit placed in the bill. The minister said he was bored before-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have a call.

Defence Production Act


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I shall be expecting him back. I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, that this debate has been carried on on a very pleasant basis with everyone, despite the heat, in pretty fair humour.


An hon. Member:: That is what you think.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think a remark was made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I made a very complimentary remark about him a few minutes ago, and I hope he reads it in Hansard-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just told about it, and I am still blushing.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not know how much it takes to make the Minister of National Health and Welfare blush so it can be seen through the tan, but I imagine it must take quite a bit.
The minister with this bill reminds me of a farmer who used to live near Albion Mills, just east of Hamilton on the way to Niagara Falls. When I was a small boy in Hamilton, on Good Friday we would all meet, take lunches with us and head for Albion Mills where we would go for the first swim of the season. The old farmer objected to our taking a short cut through one of his fields, despite the fact that it was only a pasture and there were no animals in it at that time of the year. One Good Friday morning when we were heading through the field we heard a loud noise in the woods beside us and discovered that this farmer had fired a shotgun at us. We found later that he had loaded the gun too heavily with rock salt and it had backfired on him.
That is exactly what has happened to the Minister of Defence Production. He has loaded this Bill No. 256 a little too heavily and it has backfired on him, and likely he will keep on hearing the repercussions of it for some time to come. The minister may be a little more careful in future as to what he tries to force on the people of Canada. They can stand just so much. There is a limit to what they can stand.
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zap-litny) said on the 5th of July that the people of Canada are concerned only with defence appropriations, as to whether or not they are spent to advantage. That is right as far as it goes, but there are also other concerns. One of these is this. Is every purchase made by this defence production department necessary? We have many questions on the order paper. Some time ago, before the 1953 election, there were hundreds of questions on it. Information was brought out in the answers to those questions to the effect that many of the articles that were bought were not necessary; for example, 11 pairs of socks for every


man and woman in the armed services, and so on. Eventually they had to be dumped on the market and sacrificed at the taxpayers' expense. The money came out of the taxpayers' pockets. It is a question as to whether this department needs to stock up so heavily. This affects the pocketbook of every taxpayer, and that is the man or woman who is interested in this bill.
What would happen if the wrong man were in charge of this department? Although the present minister says he will be here for some time, you can never tell. He might change his mind. Ministers of the crown have changed their minds before. I know it is said that a woman changes her mind very often and that is why a woman's mind is so clean. If the minister would only change his mind in regard to this bill and stop insisting that it be passed at this time as is, I feel quite sure that his mind would be clear, free and clean, and he could go on his fishing trip and enjoy himself.
As I said before, industry has had a good word from the present Minister of Defence Production, but now there is a doubt in these people's minds as to why he needs these controls, and as to whether or not it is a good thing to give these powers to the Minister of Defence Production without any strings whatever attached. It is true, as the Minister of Defence Production says, that new ideas of defence are coming forward every day, such as supersonic missiles. The supersonic missiles that might be designed today will be absolutely outdated six years from now, which is the time the minister says it will take to produce them. If you read some of these science fiction books and so on you will find these supersonic missiles and many other things that years ago we thought were absolutely impossible and only to be found in fairy tales. Today they have become an actual fact.


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


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have participated in this debate, which I have been following with a great deal of interest. It seems to me that the crux of the whole question before the house at the present time is very simple, namely whether the minister is to be given this power indefinitely or whether the house is to place on the minister and the government some time limit. In order to bring this controversial debate to an end, I am of the opinion that the government would be wise to announce here at this time that when we move into committee the government will be prepared to suggest that

this bill-or the act, as it will be then- should come before the House of Commons for consideration and revision at certain periods of time, such as three years or five years.
May I just say to the Minister of Defence Production that no one knows what will happen within the next three years. Undoubtedly a general election will be held, because the lifetime of this parliament will run out within three years. If this act remains upon the statute books indefinitely, then the government that succeeds the present government-whether it be the present Liberal government, a government composed of the Conservatives or any other government-will have on the statute books a measure which will enable them to carry on in the manner the bill outlines. It seems to me that what should be done is that the government should place a time limit in this bill. I am not suggesting that it could be done on second reading. There has been quite a good deal of controversy, but if the minister would announce that when this bill goes into committee the government will be prepared to consider an amendment to the effect that it should remain in force for three years or five years, I am convinced that this debate would come to an end.
We have been told that if a C.C.F. government took office after the next general election-something which may or may not be likely; I am not going to suggest one or the other-these powers might be used in the manner in which some hon. members suggest. I want to say that, of course, if a C.C.F. government took office after the next general election it would function exactly in the same way as any other democratic government would function in a parliamentary institution.
We have had examples of labour and democratic socialist governments in power in various countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and in my own province of Saskatchewan. I want to say that those governments have been more democratic than any Conservative or Liberal government which preceded them. Indeed, they have been ultrademocratic. Indeed, in those countries legislation guaranteeing civil and personal rights has been placed on the statute books by governments of the C.C.F. complexion. You have only to look at the statute books of Saskatchewan or the statute books of the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden or Denmark to realize that that is true. To say that we have any aims directed at subverting democratic institutions is, of course, entirely false and wrong.
May I say this to my hon. friends. If this legislation is left on the statute books and
Defence Production Act a Conservative government takes office after the next election, what then? Has the house or the country forgotten the record of the Bennett Conservative administration between 1930 and 1935? Has the government forgotten the blank cheque legislation under which the Bennett government subverted all democratic rights of many of the people of this country? Have the people of this country forgotten the record of the Conservative government in those years when Mr. Bennett came into this house and, after questioning by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and the former member Mr. Ilsley, admitted that under the legislation that had been passed by the Conservative government they had given to certain financial institutions in this country the right and power to issue false balance sheets in order to mislead the people of Canada into believing that those institutions were in a condition other than that in which they were? Have we forgotten that? I say to my friends to my right, look at the record of the Conservative party in those years from 1930 to 1935, and compare it with what has been the record in recent years in this country.
I say to my right hon. friend the Minister of Defence Production that elections are uncertain. If this legislation is put on the statute books without any limitation, there is no reason to suppose that a Conservative government might not take office after the next election and use this legislation in the same manner as the Bennett regime used that legislation to which I have referred in the 1930's. From every point of view I think it would be much better to have a time limit placed on this legislation, and I make that suggestion to the administration at this time.
I think that might be done when this bill goes into committee. We have now reached the stage where there is a contest between the official opposition and the government on the second reading of this bill. I am in favour of the second reading of this bill, but after the bill has been given second reading, endorsing the principle of the bill, I have that suggestion to make.
What is the principle of the bill? It is to give authority to the minister and the government to do those things that may be required in order that this country may carry out its defence activities at the present time. Under present world conditions I think the government should have the right to say that certain materials should be channelled in directions that are necessary for the defence of this country. I do not think there is any dispute on any side of the house in that regard.
May I just say in parentheses, Mr. Speaker, that I believe, as do my colleagues, that those

Defence Production Act industries that are essential to national defence should not be profit-making industries but should be owned and operated by the people of Canada through crown corporations representing the people of Canada. That is the position we take. But that is not the problem that is under discussion at the present time. What is under discussion at the present time is whether we shall give to the government of this country the right to obtain the necessary raw materials and to direct those raw materials into the channels that will be to the best interests of the Canadian people for the defence of this country. We are prepared to support that proposition although, as I say, it does not go as far as we should like to go in connection with these matters.
I say this to the Minister of Defence Production. If the government would say that at the end of three years or five years this Defence Production Act would be brought back to the house for examination and report, I believe this debate would end. It seems to me such a simple proposition.
I am not suggesting that the ministry or the minister should recede from the position that they want the principle of this bill adopted by the House of Commons at this time. We are prepared to support the adoption of the principle that the Minister of Defence Production and the government itself should have certain powers that are inherent in this legislation. But I should like to see the other safeguard provided, namely that from time to time this house would have the opportunity of reviewing the legislation. A few days ago the Prime Minister went a long way toward meeting that request, when he said that any hon. member in this house could, in a subsequent session, introduce a motion to consider the legislation and bring about changes in it.
While the Prime Minister gave that assurance, there is this to be said. The Prime Minister is an individual, and the Prime Minister may not be here for any considerable length of time. Life is very uncertain. While that pledge has been given by the Prime Minister, it is not enough, I think, to satisfy the desires of most members of the House of Commons. In my opinion, if the government would say that when we reach the committee stage they are prepared to give the house an opportunity of placing in this bill a limitation so that in three years or five years it may be reconsidered, we would be in an entirely different position. Parliament must be supreme.
I want to see the authority of this parliament maintained. Make no mistake about it; I am not one of those who believe that the authority of parliament should be undermined in any particular. I do not think the


minister believes that. I am certain the government does not believe it either. To argue that the minister or the government does believe that, I think, is to introduce into this debate a very unreal consideration. My view is that on all sides of the house we believe in the supremacy of parliament.
If that is so, then it seems to me there should be no objection to the house having an opportunity to review this legislation, we will say at the end of three or five years. We expect an election in 1957, two years from now, or at the latest in 1958, three years from now, which would be the normal lifetime of this parliament. If these powers were left in the statutes without a review, it would mean that a succeeding government, no matter what its complexion-and I know my hon. friends of the Liberal party are confident that they will be the government after 1957-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not so confident. You never can tell what the electors of a country will do. It is quite possible that they might put on the right side of Mr. Speaker a Conservative or a C.C.F. government. If a Conservative government is put on the right side of Mr. Speaker, what guarantee is there that we would not have the same kind of administration we had under Mr. Borden in 1919 or under Mr. Bennett in 1930? Has the house forgotten that in 1919 Mr. Borden invoked certain powers that were far beyond any powers that any subsequent government has invoked? I have not forgotten that in 1919 a Conservative-dominated government of this country ordered the arrest of certain individuals in the city of Winnipeg, and ordered their deportation because they were British born. They wired the authorities in Winnipeg to arrest and deport them, and subsequently they would introduce legislation to validate that illegal action. That was a union government.
I am not prepared to leave on the statute books of this country legislation which would enable another government of any stripe, I do not care whether it is Conservative, Liberal, C.C.F. or Social Credit, any sort of government, to do the kind of things that Conservative government did in the early 1920's. I might add that subsequently Mr. Woodsworth was elected to this house and Mr. Heaps was elected to this house. It was on Mr. Heaps' motion, of course, that the telegram from Mr. Meighen to Winnipeg was produced in this chamber in 1926. Nor am I forgetful that it was a Conservative government that placed on the statute books section 98 of the Criminal Code, which for years and years this house tried to repeal and ultimately succeeded. I am not forgetting that.

I want to caution my hon. friends that you are doing a very dangerous thing in leaving on the statute books of this country, as you propose to do, permanent legislation which may enable subsequent governments to do all the things I have suggested. You have no guarantee that the next government of Canada will be a Liberal government, no guarantee that it will be a Conservative government or any other kind of government. After all the charges I have heard levelled as to what a C.C.F. government might do, I am surprised that any members of the two or three opposition parties should be prepared to leave any legislation on the statute books which a C.C.F. government allegedly could use to subvert the democratic powers of this parliament.
May I say at once that the record of governments representative of parties like that which I represent in this house, the Norwegian government, the Swedish government, the Danish government, the British government, and to come closer to home the Saskatchewan government, are the governments that have given the widest democratic freedoms to their people of any governments that have been elected anywhere in the world.
But I say if all this is true, and particularly I say to my Conservative friends, then why all the difficulty in coming to a conclusion in this debate? I want to say very definitely that I feel if the Minister of Defence Production would rise in his place this afternoon and say that when this bill goes to committee he will be prepared to consider placing a limit on the time this act will remain in force before it will be reviewed by parliament, I do not think this debate would continue very much longer. I have listened to dissertations on Magna Carta; I have listened to dissertations on the Bill of Rights. The only things that were left out were the peasants' revolt and the black death. But it left me rather cold when I remembered the record of the party of the hon. gentlemen who were bringing these matters to the attention of the house.
Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that we of the C.C.F. are prepared to vote for the second reading of this bill because we consider that, in the interests of the country, the government and the Minister of Defence Production should have the power to say to these powerful industries that are assembling the basic supplies necessary for defence, "This is where we want these basic supplies to go". We are prepared to support it on this ground. We are prepared to say to the government that they should have the power to direct strategic material and industry into the channels that are necessary for the defence of this country.
Defence Production Act
We know that at the present time it is essential that our country shall be strong. It is essential that we shall do everything to strengthen our country, not so much in the light of possible aggression but because of the negotiations that are about to proceed across the world. We know quite well that if we are going to deal with those who may be our potential enemies we have to deal from a position of strength. We are not prepared to do anything that will weaken our side when it negotiates from a position of strength.
We say, therefore, to these powerful industries that these supplies which are essential to national defence should go, if necessary, to the defence production field. I know my hon. friends to my right feel that this should be left to private enterprise. Well, private enterprise has not always served this country except when it was compelled to serve this country in the early days of the last war.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: Now, just a moment; I was here in 1939 and I heard the Minister of Defence Production rise in his place and tell this House of Commons that it had been very difficult indeed to obtain plans, specifications and supplies which would enable this country to embark on the production of aeroplanes for the defence of this country and of our allies. I sat in my place and heard the present Minister of Defence Production, the then minister of munitions and supply, make that statement to the house. I am not prepared to deny to that minister today the right he did not have at the beginning of the war, to say to industry: These supplies are essential to the defence and welfare of this country. That is the reason I am going to vote for the second reading of this bill.
As the minister said the other day, take nickel for example. I know there are powerful interests in this country who can sell nickel on the world market at a much higher price than the government of Canada is prepared to pay for that nickel for our defence production. And I think our country should have the right, after giving those people a reasonable return for the services they are rendering to their country, to say that the first obligation of those concerns is to provide Canada and our allies with the supplies we need for our welfare and that of our allies as well.
I think the time has come, having had this prolonged debate, when we should reach a conclusion. I say to the official opposition that I do not blame them. They have been carrying on this prolonged filibuster, if you wish to call it that, for some time. If they

Defence Production Act believe that private enterprise should be given the first right over the interests of this country-


An hon. Member:: No one said that.


Major James William Coldwell: -I do not deny them the right to express that opinion. On the other hand I do not deny the right of the government to come before this house and demand powers that are essential in the public interest. But I do say to the government and to the official opposition that I think the time has come when we should conclude this debate on a conciliatory understanding, that understanding being that while we all-and I say "all" advisedly, because hon. members of the opposition have said it over and over again- are in support of the bill, that is the principle of having a department of defence production, the only thing that separates us is whether it should be permanent or whether its powers should come before the House of Commons for review in three or five years.
If the government would give an indication to the house that if we accept the principle of the bill-which we should do-when we get into committee it will be prepared to consider placing in the bill a limitation of three or five years so it would come back to the House of Commons for review, then this debate could end and we could get down to the other pressing business before the house which we have not yet attempted to consider.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the C.C.F. party has asked me to make a statement. I can do so only with the indulgence of the house, because I have already spoken in this debate. But if the house will permit me to proceed for two minutes I believe I can complete what I have to say.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the legislation before the house is primarily to make the Department of Defence Production a permanent department. The bill that is before the house is one that makes permanent the Department of Defence Production, with its powers and its authority. The motion before the house at the moment is that the bill making the Department of Defence Production permanent be not now read a second time. Obviously, if the government must sit here until the snow flies, it must not permit that amendment to pass.
However, the statement by the Prime Minister-and I think he has made two statements-certainly indicates that the government is not rigid about every clause and


condition in the bill; and at the proper time, which is when the bill is in committee, the government is willing to consider any reasonable proposal. But it cannot consider a proposal of a limitation that would not permit the creation of a permanent department.
Possibly for any particular section of the bill about which hon. gentlemen opposite feel strongly we may be able to consider a time limit, but we cannot consider a time limit for the Defence Production Act as a whole and also attain our objective of a permanent department.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would point out that the bill before the house is not a bill to set up the department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am just-


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition has risen on a point of order which it is not. What I propose to do is what I did when the Minister of Defence Production rose, namely ask the house if unanimous consent is given, just so as to regularize the proceedings. Has the Leader of the Opposition unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: It is important, and we are anxious that this be discussed on the basis of the facts. The bill before the house is not a bill setting up the Department of Defence Production. The bill before the house is one which strikes out of the act setting up the Department of Defence Production the section which terminates that act on July 31, 1956.
Furthermore, in relation to what was said by the Minister of Defence Production, the motion before the house is not that the bill setting up the Department of Defence Production shall not be read. It is on the contrary a motion that the committee be instructed to so draft the bill that the Department of Defence Production will be permanent. It is important, in view of what has been said by the minister, to understand that it is the committee that is being instructed to draft such powers as are appropriate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would my hon. friend tell me the first ten words of the motion? He knows that the first ten words are that the bill be not now read a second time.


George Alexander Drew: That Bill No. 256 be not now read, but that it be referred to the committee on banking and commerce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The subject
matter.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, the subject matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, and that kills the bill.


George Alexander Drew: That is the only way the resolution can be drawn-"but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce." But that is not the end.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It can never come back then.


George Alexander Drew: There is not an hon. member in the house who does not know that a resolution of that kind instructs the committee, in effect, to report back to the house. And, after all, there is no illusion in anyone's mind about the fact that the government's majority on the committee will follow the government's instructions. We are putting it on that basis, knowing that the majority of government members can bring back such a bill, consistent with the undertaking of leaving the same powers or of revising them as the government advises its own members. We know that. But we protest any proposal for a Department of Defence Production unless it were appropriately defined and consistent with the government's earlier statement that there were some provisions which should not be continued.
That is the result. It is certainly neither the end of this bill, nor is it in any way a vote against the Department of Defence Production, because that is not an issue in the amending bill now before this house.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, following the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. party, who accused the Conservative party of things that happened 30 and 35 years ago and unearthed a lot of politicians who have been dead for years, I am reminded of the soldier who knows most about war, the one who was there.
The debate has gone on for a long time. I assure you, sir, and hon. members that I will not take up too much time. I do not think anybody can accuse me of taking up very much of the time of the house at any time, and especially during this session. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important legislation that has come before the House of Commons in many years.
I notice that the Ottawa Journal of July 6 calls this debate a filibuster. Well, you may 50433-369
Defence Production Act call it what you like; it matters not. It does not affect the process of parliament one iota. If it is a filibuster I must say, sir, that the Conservative party has shown more energy and initiative in carrying on the filibuster than the Liberal government has in coping with the situation.
I cannot understand why the government will not accept the amendment. It changes the original bill very little. It does put a time limit on the bill, which has been discussed here in the last few minutes.
This bill does more than give the government the power over defence production or munitions. If it did only that I would be in favour of it. The bill gives power to one man in the cabinet; it vests power in one person, the Minister of Defence Production. He has more power than the Prime Minister so far as defence production is concerned. Probably he has quite a lot to say about many things in the Liberal party. The Prime Minister said the Minister of Defence Production drafted the bill and came to him and said, "You present it to the house." It seems to me the instructions were given by the Minister of Defence Production rather than by the Prime Minister.
Many kind things have been said about the Minister of Defence Production, and many of them are true. He did build up a reputation as a good business executive during the last war, especially in the department of munitions and supply. Because of the powers he has possessed over the past 16 years he has grown into the habit of wanting more power; he may be getting power hungry. Probably he wants to set an example for all time in Canada. Probably he wants to show that he has been delegated more power than any member of parliament in Canada has had in the past.
In the past this same minister has made remarks such as "What's a million? Peanuts." Another remark he made in recent years was, "Who will stop us?" If this bill is not designed for "who will stop us?", then 1 do not understand it. It has taken out "we" and "us" and has replaced them with "I" and "me".
The minister made a statement to the effect that he seemed to be living in another world. Perhaps this is a different world from that in which he has lived in the last 16 years, because in my time here I cannot recall any occasion when the minister did not get his own way in any legislation he brought into the house. He has had his own way in running his own department. With that everybody, I think, the minister himself included, will agree. Statements have
5834	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act been made that almost amount to contempt of parliament. It is a far cry from the Liberal party of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's day, and it is a far cry from Mackenzie King's day. It is well known that in Mackenzie King's time when an appointment was made to the cabinet and the member accepted his appointment, he signed a resignation that could be used at any time. This kept the cabinet under the control of the Prime Minister. Today a change seems to have taken place in the rules and laws, because the Minister of Defence Production is now giving instructions to the Prime Minister.
Under this bill the minister is given full control. He has personal control. He does not have to come back to the cabinet or to parliament for anything. It goes much further than any blank cheque legislation. It goes much further than the munitions and supply bill. The minister has the right to appoint controllers. I have talked to some of the managers of defence production plants, and so on. Many of them were not too well pleased with the controls. If the minister were a superman and could act as controller himself it might be different, but he appoints the controllers, as and when and whom he wishes. He is not going to have much complaint over the control business from industry or the men employed in industry, because they know what happens when they find fault or any such thing as that. They are dependent for their livelihood and their profits on the contracts they receive from the Minister of Defence Production, or at his bidding.
Then again this is the same minister, with a different department, who probably had something to do with selling wheat and butter behind the iron curtain. I am told-I have nothing authentic on it-that at the present time a deal is being made for the sale of $100 million worth of goods behind the iron curtain. If so, I am more or less in favour of it. We are a producing country. We have to sell in the markets where and when we can; but if we are going to sell behind the iron curtain we should be looking for cash; we should be careful about our credit, because this government has had an example of that in the Ming Sung ships. They lost the ships and they lost the credit.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I want him to consider that what he is saying now is not relevant to the bill.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I think I am just as relevant as the leader of the C.O.F. party was a few minutes ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, the leader of the C.C.F. party was speaking of the various suggestions that have been made with respect to reviewing this bill and other matters related to what he called terminating this debate. I think if the hon. member were referring to the various suggestions that had been made to terminate the debate the house would listen to him just as carefully as it listened to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the Minister of Defence Production or the Leader of the Opposition, who have spoken on the same matter. But as I understand it the hon. member chose to speak on the second reading of this bill, and now when he goes into the various deals that have been made I do not think that is relevant to the principle of the bill.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I always abide by your rulings, but I want to say that the leader of the C.C.F. got preference over me to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should not say that the leader of the C.C.F. got preference to speak.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I gave it to him.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is always obliging and it was very good of him to do that. But he did it of his own volition and he should not complain now. The hon. member will get just as much latitude as was given to the leader of the C.C.F. party.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I always abide by your rulings.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Some Liberals are worrying about the question. I feel highly honoured today because there are more Liberals in the house listening to me than there have been in the last few days of this debate. I am quite proud of it. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal reads:
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 cannot see anything wrong with that amendment. I cannot see why the Liberal government cannot accept it. Very few changes are being suggested; I think the most important one would be in the time limit. The leader of the C.C.F. referred us to the 1935 legislation and the time limitation in

the blank cheque legislation of that day, which was a period of one year. That was to be brought before parliament once every year, but this legislation can go on forever.
The Montreal Gazette of July 5, referring to this debate, said it was unfortunate that the minister who had served his country so well in wartime should impair his reputation by going one foot too far. They stated that this legislation was going a little too far and more or less reprimanded the minister for it. The minister has said that the time limit of five years could be adopted by him only with the full knowledge that another extension would be necessary. We all know that an extension of this legislation would be necessary. The minister could come back to parliament and ask for an extension, and I do not think there would be any doubt about his getting it. But there should be a time limit, and not too long a limit either.
The minister went on to say something about supersonic planes, guided missiles, and hydrogen bombs as examples of why he should have these powers. I do not think that is any argument for an indefinite period of time. New instruments of war will be invented; probably greater things will come along in the future, and an extension of this legislation will be needed. We need a permanent Department of Defence Production, but at the same time I feel that the control over the manufacture of war munitions and machines should be in parliament, and parliament should have the opportunity to review this every two or three years and give its sanction. If that is not done then the minister will have the power for all time, no matter who he might be. Governments change and people change, and for that reason I submit that this bill should have a time limit.
I should like to refer briefly to a speech made by one of the younger members of parliament, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), and I quote from page 5705 of Hansard of July 5 as follows:
I believe we are living in very critical times, and I believe most hon. members would agree with that statement. I would say we are living in the face of a world emergency, and that our dear land of Canada is right in the middle of it. Who can tell how long the emergency will last? Who will dare say at this juncture that we should relax, so far as defence production activities are concerned? Will these conditions exist for two more years? Will they exist for three more years, or five? I am sure none of us knows. In the meantime we cannot afford to let the Department of Defence Production Act lapse. No one is asking that; but we cannot afford to let defence production itself lapse, nor to allow the act to come within a year of lapsing. For that reason alone I support the bill.
That is a true statement, but a sort of ridiculous one. No one in this house has asked that the Department of Defence Production
50433-369i
Defence Production Act lapse. This parliament or this country cannot afford to let that department lapse. We must go ahead with our defence program; we must have munitions and tools to supply that program. The very fact that we are prepared may be the means of bringing about a lasting peace. We tried before with disarmament but the peace lasted for only a short period of time. As I said before, a good Department of National Defence and a good Department of Defence Production to supply the tools may be the means of bringing about a lasting peace. Then the hon. member continued:
-is there anyone in the house who will say that the powers contained in the Defence Production Act should be allowed to lapse at this time.
Nobody has even suggested that. No member of this party has suggested that sort of thing. Then the hon. member continued:
-if for no other reason, I propose that I shall support the bill and vote against the amendment.
I cannot see where the hon. member advanced any reason why he should not support the amendment rather than vote against it. Some hon. members will say these things cannot happen here, but they have happened in other countries. Once there was a man named Mussolini who rose to powers by means quite similar to this act. This is merely the thin edge of the wedge. When he got control of one of the old and great countries, he was coaxed, pleaded with and talked to by Sir Winston Churchill and asked not to take his country into the war. In spite of the pleading and everything else he took his country into the war, and we know that as a result his country was rent asunder, as Churchill had predicted to him.
Some people might say we did well in the last war in building a war machine. Our war machine was something like the Minister of Defence Production's "what's a million dollars?" We could not build a trans-Canada highway without help. The Americans built the biggest part of the trans-Canada highway, and it was used for the transportation of goods and services. Airplanes flew over it when going to take supplies to Russia. Some members of parliament might not know it, but if they are in Edmonton I would ask them to look at the log book in the Edmonton airport, and they will see there what happened when the Germans were turned back at Stalingrad. For four long months an average of 428 planes a day went to Russia through the Edmonton airport.
Hitler built a great war machine. Members of parliament will agree that it was the greatest war machine ever known in the history of man. He rose to power quickly. He was not even heard of in 1920, but in

Defence Production Act 1930 he was, and in 1938 he was chancellor of Germany. They passed an act similar to this making him all-powerful so far as the production of war materials and munitions were concerned, and practically the running of all Germany. He began as a humble man, a paperhanger; but when he rose to power he had no safety valve. He did not know where to stop, and he carried his country to a point where it had to go to war.
That war machine came to the English channel. We all know how it turned and went the other way into Russia. We know how it was turned back at Stalingrad. So far as the Russians were concerned, there was nothing in Russia that could stop that war machine from going right through to the Pacific, if they had not received help from Britain and the United States and a meagre bit from Canada. That is what those planes going through that Edmonton airport were doing. They went to European and Asiatic countries to protect the Russians at that time.
The Russians had great losses of men, but it was not they who turned back the Germans at Stalingrad. It was the war material produced in the United States, and some in Canada, that turned them back. The war machine that Hitler built never was as ruthless as the Russians were when they went back over the same country and drove the Germans back into Germany. I must say they have been the most ruthless people ever known in war or peace. That was their first victory, and they had no idea what power meant until that time. They took advantage of it and went too far, as we all know.
This amendment to the Defence Production Act now before the house is the most important legislation that has been before parliament in my 10 years of service here. I am greatly disappointed that the Prime Minister has not taken a more prominent part in this debate. I consider it is not fair to the house that he has refused to give us a lead. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke today I looked around the house and did not see the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence Production, the opposition leader or the leader of the C.C.F. party present in the house, and I thought immediately they had been called into conference and that something was going to happen.
As I said to my colleagues, we have quoted eloquent statements made by the Prime Minister before he was in politics in praise of all that the rule of law stands for. Alas, all in vain. While three months ago he showed an attitude of conciliation, now he remains dumb. We are convinced that many-perhaps a majority-of the government supporters share our dislike of this bill but


cannot face turning down the minister, as he seems to be the boss of the Liberal party rather than the Prime Minister. If a concession were made by the government which would bring this debate to an end, then the session could end early in July. If not, it may go on longer.
We in our party consider that it is our manifest duty to carry this question to its satisfactory conclusion, and to the public, whose servants we are, so that public opinion may have time to assert itself. We think there will be many Liberals as well as Conservatives and members of other parties in this house who believe we are right in this matter and will rally to our support and vote for this amendment, and that -they will vote according to what they are thinking and their principles, and not from a party standpoint.


Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my participation in this debate I wish to say I regret very much that this bill has been brought before this house for consideration at the time it has, in view of the date of expiry of this act, which is July 31, 1956. I can see no reason why this bill could not have been brought in during the early part of the next session, in 1956, nor why, if it was in the minds of the government to establish this Department of Defence Production as a permanent department, it could not have been brought in during the early part of this present session. Why it was brought in at this stage of the session is beyond me, and I hope no motive was behind this action in bringing it in at this particular time.
Many have participated in this debate, particularly those who are in the Conservative party in this House of Commons. They have voiced their objections to this bill, particularly on the aspect of the indefinite life of the act. To my way of reasoning their arguments in the main have been very logical, because this bill has been in existence for a definite period of time and has to be brought before this house for consideration when that period of time has elapsed.
This debate has been a very long one, and as I have sat here listening to it, it seems to me it has created a certain amount of obstinacy and stubbornness on the part of the government because of the things that have been said in the heat of debate on both sides of the house. But surely we who represent the people of Canada in this House of Commons are broad-minded and reasonable enough to disregard personalities. We should be willing and ready to arrive at some compromise on the one aspect of this bill which seems to have bogged down the progress of

this house on the many matters that are awaiting our attention on behalf of the people of this country.
This act is an extraordinary one. It is unlike any other act in the statutes of this country, because it gives powers to one individual. It gives him wide and sweeping powers which during its existence have not, thank God, been abused.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in speaking this afternoon said the members of the Conservative party who have parti-pated in this debate have done so in the interests of industry alone. May I point out to him that in the many speeches to which I have listened it has been definitely stated that not only is industry in jeopardy under this act, but so also are persons. May I read from the Defence Production Act, which is chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, section 31 (d):
(d) require any person who supplies any essential service to supply the service to such persons, to such extent and on such conditions as the minister may prescribe;
Certainly the act affects individuals. It affects labour and everyone in this country. Our argument has been based not only on the protection of industry but on the protection of individuals, labour and everyone who comes under the jurisdiction of this act. This act has been in existence for limited periods of time. As a result of that provision it has had review by parliament, and there has been opportunity for private members to discuss the necessity for its prolongation when the life of the act expired or it was reasonably close to expiration.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is an act that has no place in the statutes of a country with a democratic government. The only time it has a place in these statutes is when there is extreme emergency in the production of defence materials. It is not my intention to discuss personalities but rather to appeal to the Minister of Defence Production, to his fair-mindedness and logical thinking. When I describe the Minister of Defence Production in this manner, Mr. Speaker, I do so because in most quarters in Canada he is considered in those terms. It is my hope that his logical thinking and fair-mindedness has not been overcome by stubbornness and obstinacy.
Since this debate commenced I have had an opportunity to talk to a number of Canadians and to ask their opinion on this particular bill. In the majority of cases they have expressed themselves voluntarily but quite forcibly to the effect that the precedent which has been set in this act should be maintained. By this precedent I mean that the
Defence Production Act time limit of three years which has been in this act should be again included and possibly should be increased if at the present time there is some logical reason why it is necessary to have it for a longer period of time. Most certainly the opinion expressed very emphatically was that the act should not be extended for an indefinite period, as is proposed in this amending bill.
It is hard for me to understand why an indefinite period is necessary at the present time, particularly when we have had this act during times when world conditions were far more threatening than they are now. No one has expressed the opinion in this house or outside it that this act is not necessary, nor has anyone suggested that the minister has at any time abused the powers contained in this legislation. In his statement in this house on June 28 of this year, as recorded at page 5380 of Hansard, the minister stated:
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.
Then he goes on to say this:
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.
In his remarks of that date he also mentioned that the government has moved into the field of guided missiles, a field in which no country has accomplished very much up to the moment. He also stated that this program will require large sums of the taxpayers' money for its development. If that is so, then the minister knows fairly well that this development will not continue indefinitely, and that it should be completed within a certain length of time. Why is it, then, that this bill cannot have a time limit which would coincide with the development of these weapons?
In the past it has not been the experience that the opposition has refused at any time to give the minister these powers under this act with a time limit set, and it will not be the experience in the future; because every member in this house is well aware of the fact that protective weapons must be developed, that industry must be geared to produce these weapons that are necessary and that are on the government program for defence purposes.

Defence Production Act
It seems to me that the introduction of this bill to amend the act, enforcing it for all time, has no definite rhyme or reason. As members taking part in this debate have pointed out- and that includes members on the government side also-nb actual emergency exists at the present time, except that a program should be maintained in order to keep up with those countries which threaten the peace of the world. Therefore this is not a piece of legislation pertaining particularly to emergency, but is on the same basis as any legislation brought forward by this government at any time.
A number of formulas have been advanced by members of this house for conciliation with respect to this debate. I listened to one which was advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre this morning. I might say I thought his suggestion was very reasonable. I hope it is given serious consideration by the Prime Minister.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish again to appeal to the Minister of Defence Production to give fair and logical consideration to this matter of a definite time limit in this bill. If that were done I am sure this debate would then end in the agreement of all concerned.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the following motion. The Minister of Defence Production (for the Prime Minister) moves, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, that this bill be now read the second time. In amendment thereto the hon. member for Royal, seconded by the hon. member for Wentworth, moves:
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-
Shall I dispense with the reading of (a) and (b)?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The amendment continues:
- (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.
The question is on the amendment to the main motion.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode).


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Finance.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I move, seconded-


Mr. Speaker:: In seeing the minister, I
want to point out that if I look at the list of speakers today I notice seven members of the Progressive Conservative party, two members of the C.C.F. party, and of course the Minister of Defence Production, who spoke with unanimous consent, and the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Kirk), who spoke for only a few seconds on a question of privilege. See standing order 35. The Minister of Finance has the floor.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney):
That the question be now put.


George Alexander Drew: The guillotine.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The guillotine; end of democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can't stand the gaff.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, this motion is of course one that is well recognized in parliamentary practice.


George Alexander Drew: As a gag.


Walter Edward Harris: It is employed on those occasions where it is evident that two things are present; or at any rate, my reading of past examples has indicated that to be so in those instances. Mr. Speaker, we have the almost unanimous opinion, just as I think has been indicated by every speaker in this debate, that the Defence Production Act now on the statute books should be continued. We seem to be discussing rather the question of what parts of the act might have some limited extension after next July. Throughout the
Defence Production Act whole of this debate there have been frequent references to two things; first, the statement of what I think is a fact, of the confidence that almost the whole of the Canadian people have in the conduct of the minister responsible for this act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Shaken by what just happened.


Walter Edward Harris: Indeed, I think nearly all
opposition members, including those of the official opposition, have been careful throughout their remarks not to make any charges against the minister for the conduct of his department. But during the debate this week in particular several suggestions have been made as to how the apparent impasse that we have reached might be solved. I mention only two speakers, namely the leader of the C.C.F. party and the leader of the Social Credit party, each of whom made suggestions as to what might be done by the government, or perhaps by parliament-by agreement, if you like-in the committee stage when we reach that stage. I include, of course, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson), because I gathered from his remarks that he was rather unhappy at having to support the procedure his party was undertaking in this debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are certainly astray on that one, widely astray.


Walter Edward Harris: In the course of his remarks earlier this week the leader of the Social Credit party suggested that consideration might be given in committee as to particular powers that are now in the statute. In his speech this afternoon the leader of the C.C.F. party indicated what he thought the government might do at the committee stage with respect to those powers. Unfortunately the government would not be in a position to consider, or rather to carry into effect, any of the suggestions unless we did reach the committee stage on this bill. The purpose of this motion is to ensure that at some time in the future we do in fact reach the committee stage. When we reach that stage we shall consider all the suggestions that have been made, and I hope we can meet some of them, at least, to the satisfaction of those who have put them forward.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this debate has come to the point, I need not say, where repetition has been rampant, even though those on the other side who have spoken have been prepared to explain their remarks as not being repetitious, in case the Speaker should call them to order. I think every argument has been advanced that can be advanced against second reading.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.

Defence Production Act


Walter Edward Harris: This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition tried to make a distinction between the amendment that was being moved and the continuation of the Defence Production Act. It is quite true that at another session we could bring forward a bill such as this, provided that we brought it forward before July, and there would then be an opportunity to debate again whether the powers ought to be continued. But the government is doing it at this session for reasons which I think commend themselves to all members of the house. For that reason we have felt that-


Mr. Michener:: What are they?


George Alexander Drew: We have not heard them yet.


George Clyde Nowlan: Do not say that they commend themselves to this side of the house.


Walter Edward Harris: I have listened to almost every speech that has been made.


An hon. Member:: No, you have not.


Walter Edward Harris: I admit I have been out on occasion, and-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What are the reasons?


Walter Edward Harris: I think I can boil them all down to merely opposition to the government itself.
For the reasons I have given I would hope this motion would ultimately carry and that we might then in committee consider all the suggestions that have been made with respect to the sections in the act which might commend themselves to hon. members. For that reason we have moved a motion which will eventually result, we hope, in a vote on second reading.
I hasten at once to say that nothing I have said should indicate that in the committee of the whole we would consider all the sections of the Defence Production Act. In case anything I might have said would indicate that, I say that in the meantime we shall consider all the proposals that have been made with respect to the act and be prepared, perhaps, to suggest some amendments at that time.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, although we now face closure in this debate-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is a polite form of closure; that is all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Think again.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Although the minister who has just resumed his seat, as well as the Minister of Defence Production in his statement this afternoon, have thrown out vague


hints that there will be opportunities to consider all the objections that have been raised by speakers who have taken part in this debate, nevertheless we are just as much at sea as we ever were.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An honest witness.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We may be at sea, but we are on a craft which at least can find a harbour. The Minister of Defence Production spoke this afternoon. We did not expect anyone from the government side to even throw us a life raft or a lifebuoy, nevertheless I think we will get home all right. When the Minister of Defence Production made his statement this afternoon with the indulgence of the house, in reply to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar as I recall he said that at the committee stage he would be quite willing to accept any reasonable suggestion. The minister shakes his head, but I had a pencil in my hand and those were the words I took down. I do not know what he would call a reasonable suggestion, but he did make it clear, to my mind at least, that he was not willing to accept the specific suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that there be a time limit on the legislation. That is what I understood the minister to say and I would be quite happy to have him correct me if I am wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister says that is correct. I think that should be borne in mind by hon. members, that the minister is not willing to accept a time limit. If there are any other suggestions that hon. members are ready to make they will be considered by the government, with the exception of that one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would the hon. member like to have the right version of what I said? I said I could not accept a time limit on the entire defence production bill, but we would consider a time limit on particular sections.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Perhaps the minister
would be kind enough to indicate just what sections he is prepared to accept.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In committee.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is no wonder that we are still swimming. I would think the minister himself would realize that he has indicated it would be wise to consider the course we are following at this stage of the game. We like to know where we are heading.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would take all the romance out of life.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: To know where you are going? Now I have heard everything. All the time I have been labouring under a misapprehension, and now this hard-boiled Minister of National Defence-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This Minister of Defence Production; I am sorry.


An hon. Member:: They are both hard-boiled.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister wanted
power for the sake of power alone, and now he tells me that all he has in mind is romance.
I am disillusioned; I must say that I do not believe him.
I should like to reiterate that members of the official opposition are not opposed to the permanency of the Department of Defence Production. We have stated repeatedly that taking into consideration the times in which we live and the threats which face us, some of them probably more pronounced than others, we consider that the Department of Defence Production should be a permanent department. To that end we are willing to support that portion of the act which sets up the department and makes it permanent. In time, as the minister has indicated, it will probably be under the jurisdiction of a separate minister.
However, when it comes to establishing permanent autocratic powers, we arrive at the point where we can no longer keep pace with the government. We come to a parting of the ways. We cannot under any circumstances support that particular aspect of the act. We believe very firmly that powers as sweeping as those laid down in the act should have a time limitation and that the government of the day, whether it be the present government or whether it be the present official opposition which may have moved into that spot by the expiry date, should be forced to come to parliament if it wants the powers in this act prolonged.
I should like to make one more comment on the remarks of the Minister of Finance. He was most careful to point out that no member had criticized the conduct of the minister's department. The conduct of the minister's department is not an issue here. We are not debating the conduct of the Department of Defence Production. It is just such statements as that being thrown into the debate that cause the discussion to get off the track and become bogged down by various arguments on matters which should not properly be introduced into this debate. We 50433-370
Defence Production Act have many instances of someone making a small statement like that, and then the house engaging in a debate on the statement rather than dealing with the point we wish to keep clear in our minds; that is, the matter of making permanent powers which we believe should not be given to any government, to any cabinet or to any minister without a time limitation being placed upon them.
The act which this bill will amend is not an act to meet an emergency, according to its wording. At no time has it been stated that it is an act to meet an emergency. In his remarks the Minister of Defence Production hinted that there might be an emergency and that these powers were required because of situations which he expected to develop within the next few months or the next couple of years at most. It was a fictitious emergency, at best a phantom. Despite repeated requests by members on this side of the house, at no time has the minister set down exactly what that emergency was nor what the threat was to the security of this country by reason of which he thought he should have these powers.
Even had he said that, even had he explained that particular point, I still think we should take the action we took when we gave these powers previously, in 1951. When the act was introduced it was a time of quite apparent emergency, but it was thought by members of this house and even by the members of the government that there was a necessity to place upon the terms of that act a time limitation of five years.
The five years are not yet up. We are just approaching the end of four years. I do not know whether the government feels, as a government sometimes does before its term has expired, that it has reached the psychological time when it would be easier to prolong its power than if it waited until the expiry of its term. Possibly that is the explanation. Possibly the minister who is seeking these powers thinks it is going to be easier to do that now in July, 1955, than it will be in January, February or any month in 1956 before the expiry date.
These are unusual powers. True enough the department has operated under them for some time, but they are unusual powers and they should be given only in times of unusual emergency. If the minister were asked to set up these same powers for any other government I doubt that he would do it. He would probably be willing to set up these powers for his own government under a different minister, because he would then still have a finger in the pie; but I doubt very much that he would be willing to give these powers to any other government in

Defence Production Act this country, headed by any other prime minister and with any other cabinet. He would be the first to object, and I really believe he knows that in his own heart.
Power is an insidious thing. Meditating on this very subject, a famous German philosopher, Ernst Cassirer, who passed away in 1945-a man who, incidentally, had seen the rise and fall of various powers in Europe-in a study which he wrote in the 1940's entitled, "The Myth of the State", included a paragraph which dealt with Plato's "Republic". It produced some very interesting comments. These are meditations of a philosopher of wide experience and great renown. I should like to read into the record just a few sentences of his considered opinion. He said:
Obviously we do not wish for the sake of wishing-we aim at a certain end and we try to attain this end. But the lust of power does not admit of any possible attainment. It is the very character and essence of the will to power that it is inexhaustible. It can never some to a rest; it is a thirst that is unquenchable. Those who spend their lives in this passion are comparable to the Dana'ides: they strive to pour water into a leaking butt. The appetite for power is the clearest example of that fundamental vice that, in Plato's language, is described as "pleonexia"-as the "hunger for more and more". This craving for more and more exceeds all measure and destroys all measure-and since measure, right proportion, "geometrical equality" had been declared by Plato to be the standard of the health of private and public life, it follows that the will to power, if it prevails over all other impulses, necessarily leads to corruption and destruction. "Justice" and the "will to power" are the opposite poles of Plato's ethical and political philosophy. Justice is the cardinal virtue that includes all the other great and noble qualities of the soul; the greed for power entails all fundamental defects. Power can never be an end in itself; for that only can be called a good that leads to a definitive satisfaction, to a concord and harmony.
I wish to comment further on this matter, but I do not know whether I can get much further in the next two minutes. I wonder whether Your Honour would be prepared to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: As I mentioned on Monday, Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking on the amendment to the main motion, there was an incident in Hamilton which at that time I merely touched on. Since then I have refreshed my memory, and I should like to describe a situation which occurred in my city in the years 1940 and 1941, during the first years of the second world war.

At that time the citizens of Hamilton were gravely concerned, as they had good reason to be, over the threat to Hamilton industry, and consequently to the war effort, by reason of communist activity within those industries, and possibly not only within the industries themselves but among the organizations which had sprung up within our city and which directed the members of the communist party who were engaged as workers in the Hamilton plants.
Because of this situation and the concern which was felt generally by the citizens of Hamilton-which, as I said on Monday, is not only an industrial city but is one which is extremely conscious of its duty to government, is extremely patriotic and also within which there are a number of able and renowned military units-these people got together and formed what was known as the Hamilton civil defence organization. They had a fair idea of what might be required of them, and they applied to Ottawa for weapons and other assistance to further their anti-communist campaign, which was largely a matter of guarding against a possible onslaught on industry. They found that neither weapons nor funds were available.
They were not daunted by these circumstances. They went among the citizens of Hamilton and collected funds. I am proud to say that the city of Hamilton contributed also, in addition to the funds which were collected from private individuals and industry. With the funds they collected they planned their campaign. They organized an infantry battalion. I might say that most of the men who served in that battalion were veterans of the first world war. They already knew something of military training and knew something of what was required of them. In order to serve their fellow citizens, they gave their time over and above that which was required of them in the industries in which they were engaged.
As I said, about that time no weapons were available, and there were no armoured vehicles. As a matter of fact Ottawa had said that armoured vehicles could not be produced in Canada. These people proceeded to arm themselves, and they bought in the United States 800 shotguns with which they armed their battalions, and they also bought six Thompson submachine guns. I might point out, as I said a few minutes ago, that these weapons were purchased out of funds subscribed locally. There was no tax money in those funds. There was no exemption from income tax for the people who contributed to those funds. These people purchased these arms out of money which was subscribed. Then on top of the purchase price of those

arms which came into this country from the United States because no arms were available in this country, they paid the nice round sum of some $3,000 duty; and never could they get any remission of that duty which they paid on the arms purchased in the United States and which they needed for their purpose.
Then they wanted an armoured car. The government said that an armoured car could not be produced in Canada. I spoke of this matter the other day. At that time I was depending almost entirely on my memory.
I remembered this incident. It was extremely dramatic. It was one of the things you do not forget easily. However, I thought I had better find out about it for sure, since it occurred some 15 years ago. I therefore checked back with the people who had been actively engaged in that endeavour at the time.
I find that industry in Hamilton collaborated in the production of that particular armoured car. Despite what my friends to the left say about industry doing nothing at all unless they are paid for it, I should like to draw their attention to the fact that the first welded armoured car produced in Canada was produced by the joint endeavour of the industries of Hamilton, and it was done on a voluntary basis. It was done as a patriotic effort.
Fabricated and built by local industries, it was equipped with the Thompson submachine guns which I mentioned previously and on which duty was paid. It was manned by an officer and crew from a local Hamilton military unit. I might say further that for the duty which these men performed in the manning of this armoured car they were paid at army rates and allowances. Again, that expenditure came not out of tax money but from the funds collected by way of voluntary contributions from the citizens of Hamilton.
Only then, after it had been shown that Canadian industry could produce armoured vehicles, did the government pay any attention to this particular event. Subsequently the vehicle was thoroughly tested and tried out at Camp Borden. Then General Worthington, who is well known to all hon. members of this house, brought the plans and specifications of this vehicle to Ottawa. Eventually tanks and other armoured cars were produced in Canada.
I mention this incident a second time for two reasons. I mention it first of all to show that citizens of Canada have faith in their country and in themselves. I mention it also to refute the allegations, which are scarcely 50433-3701
Defence Production Act worth noticing, of the socialists to my left, who on every occasion open to them rise and accuse all industry in Canada of motives which, to say the least, are unpatriotic. The minister himself, I know, agrees with me that industry in Canada, far from being unpatriotic, has played a part in the production of defence requirements and also in cooperation with the government of this country which far from being derided by the socialists is to be highly commended in every phase.
I come from an industrial city and I think I know whereof I speak. It is also all very well for the socialists from the plains of western Canada to talk about lack of patriotic endeavour on the part of industry in general, but they would be much better to stick to the things of which they know something and leave to the people who come from industrial ridings-


Mr. Winch:: We have industry in British Columbia; big industry, too.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Do you find, my friend, that industry in British Columbia is unpatriotic? Do you find that they do not co-operate? Do you find that these people do not take their fair share of the load of responsibility, of civic responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: I have been asked a question, and I can only answer it in the words the Minister of Defence Production used during the last war, when he said he had trouble because if they were limited to a 5 per cent profit they would not co-operate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He did not say that.


Harold Edward Winch: Those words are on Hansard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Even he did not say that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I realize that we are probably a little off the subject. I realize that the point the hon. member raises is not one for me to answer but for the minister to answer. My purpose is not particularly to defend the minister, but merely to uphold the good name of the people of Canada who try to do their best in whatever role they are cast in this country.


Mr. Maltais:: You speak for yourself.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, I speak only for myself, as the hon. member has said. I consider that when people are elected to this house to represent many thousands of people they should have a fairly comprehensive idea of what motivates the people they represent. When

Defence Production Act I stand in my place and say I think most Canadians try to do their best, I do not think any member in this house has the right to say to me, "You speak for yourself". I think I speak for a good many people, and I shall continue to do so. I shall continue to defend them until such time as I find that my faith has been misplaced.
To get back to my story, Mr. Speaker, the plans and specifications for this first armour-plate vehicle were brought to Ottawa by General Worthington. After that vehicle had been thoroughly tested at Camp Borden, whether or not the demonstration was persuasive I cannot say but we did produce armoured cars and tanks in Canada. In regard to this particular vehicle I might add that I remember it well, with its revolving turret. It patrolled the streets of Hamilton for some considerable time as mute evidence to anyone who might think otherwise that there were serious-minded, patriotic citizens who intended to undertake the protection of vital military supplies even if they had to do so independently of the government of the day.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that we think the establishment of a permanent Department of Defence Production is an admirable thing. But I wonder if the government is convinced of this necessity? I wonder if it is planning for the industrial production of defence supplies? Does it propose to resurrect its former plan for a series of so-called pilot plants to develop designs and techniques for defence purposes to be made available to industry? I admit that I ask this question because of a very provocative article which I read this morning in the Globe and Mail. I noticed a reference to a scheme by which, as I understand it, the development and production of defence requirements could be fused with the normal peacetime facilities with a minimum of dislocation of ordinary production methods.
In commenting on this matter this morning the article to which I refer alleges that the pilot plants scheme died a peaceful death in a government pigeonhole. If this is true I should like to ask the government whether or not a resurrection is imminent or at least a de-pigeonholing? Do the government now take the view that such a scheme was not feasible, or do they propose to pull it out of its little niche and examine it again?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What does this pilot plant pilot?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister should know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You should know, because it was a scheme that was considered very carefully by the government some years ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have many pilot plants.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It was a plan whereby pilot plants would investigate the feasibility of defence requirements, do the necessary research to promote these and then pass along to the plants which were engaged in defence production the results of their investigation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We always pilot one weapon at a time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Well, I am sure the Globe and Mail will be glad to know there is no pilot plant scheme and no pigeonhole.


Mrs. Shipley:: The Globe and Mail would not be glad to know anything.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have at times accused my hon. friend of having many attributes, but I never knew before that she was psychic.


Marie Ann Shipley: You do not need to be psychic.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If we are to give permanent status to the department it stands to reason that arrangements will have to be made whereby the production of defence requirements may be accomplished without imperilling the stability of industries, either financially or productionwise. I should like to quote just a word from an article about which I spoke. It is this:
Instead of reviving the basic idea that national peacetime production and national defence production are both integral parts of our economy, the government now asks parliament permanently to convey to the cabinet some more of its own basic responsibilities.
Before the dinner recess I had something to say about the allocation of extraordinary powers to an executive, in general, and to a specific minister, in particular. Such power as would be conveyed by this measure to the minister and the cabinet exercises a disruptive influence on industry and trade in general. I quote again from the same article:
If the whole defence production problem was thought out again from the beginning there would be no disruption and no production emergency; and nothing but active warfare would again lead to conveying the constitutional powers of parliament to the cabinet or a single minister. An industrial dictatorship is no substitute for more thorough defence production planning either now or at any time.
Since that article was written the minister and his followers have turned down our request for alternative measures, but I urge him to consider this matter once again. We are patient; we can wait. In fact we would be most happy to wait until the next session

of parliament if the minister and his colleagues would undertake to go all through this matter once again. We would be happy if they would look for places where they could meet the suggestion made from all sides of the house, or perhaps to be more specific I should say from all parts of this side of the house.
It stands to reason that members of parliament, particularly members of the opposition, who speak in debates in the house are required to do many hours of study for every 15 minutes during which they speak.


Marie Ann Shipley: One would never suspect it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You are entitled to your opinion, my friend. I have run across some interesting parallels, and I am sure the minister himself will be interested in a story about a namesake of his, with which he must be very famliiar. During the war of 1812, which was the last war of aggression when Canada was in danger of invasion by a more powerful neighbour, the gentleman to whom I refer was engaged, though not in defence of Canada. It was at that time that the threat of invasion from the United States was as real to Canadians as the threat of invasion of the northern part of this country by the Russians is today. Stephen Decatur, the American hero, from whom the Minister of Defence Production takes his middle name, was a commander-


An hon. Member:: Time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: My time is not up yet; don't get excited. He was a commander in the United States navy and was, as well, a brilliant and personable officer and, like the minister, a great scrapper. I do not know whether he was romantic, because I did not live at that time. It just shows how brief a century and a half is in the life of a nation when-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise her that her time has expired.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I took very careful note of my time. I commenced speaking between 15 and 10 minutes to six o'clock. I do not see how my time could possibly have expired.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Three minutes overtime.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say I have always found the officials at the table extremely accurate in their timing. May I inform the hon. member that she commenced speaking at 5.41 and stopped at 5.58 and that therefore she spoke 17 minutes before six
Defence Production Act o'clock. Then she resumed this evening at 8.03 and I interrupted her at 8.26, which makes 40 minutes in all.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry, but may I just state-


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member is requesting unanimous consent to exceed the 40 minutes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, no.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Then I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I shall give this document to one of my confreres.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, as you can see, on this side of the house we have been following and participating in this debate with great gusto.


Marie Ann Shipley: And very little else.


Margaret Aitken: Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am exceedingly proud of my colleagues for their sincerity, their tenacity, their originality-


Marie Ann Shipley: Their repetition.


Margaret Aitken: -and the calibre of their speeches. I am also extremely proud of our leader, the Leader of the Opposition. I say he gave in this House of Commons yesterday a speech such as few, if any, other men in public affairs in Canada could have delivered.


An hon. Member:: Thank God.


Margaret Aitken: Mr. Speaker, we are fighting for a principle that is as old as Magna Carta. Nor do I feel that we have been fighting alone. It has not been a lonely battle, though it was at first. This is something that can and does affect all Canadians. We have been accused of conducting a filibuster. Without bias or prejudice, there was an interesting editorial in the Toronto Telegram last night in which it was said that this has not been a filibuster.


Marie Ann Shipley: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would she mind telling us how anything in the Toronto Telegram could be without bias?


Margaret Aitken: I did not use that expression with respect to the Toronto Telegram. I meant without bias or prejudice on my part.


Marie Ann Shipley: May I ask another question; how could that be?


Margaret Aitken: As I was saying, the Conservative party was commended for conducting a spirited opposition against those

Defence Production Act matters of policy with which we disagree. It was pointed out in the editorial that the opposition is the voice of the minority, and that in a democracy the minority has its rights, just as does the majority. The editorial further points out that the opposition has been serving the best interests of parliament, if not the convenience of the majority, in forcing examination of and deliberation on the implications of the bill.
There is an old maxim, Mr. Speaker, which says that if you cannot say what you want to say in 20 minutes you should go hire a hall or write a book. I suspect there are a great many members on the opposite side of the house who subscribe to that maxim, but I think the saying was meant for receptive minds. What we have been saying to the minister actually could be said in six words, if he had a receptive mind.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would take your leader at least 12 words to say it.


Margaret Aitken: These six words are "Don't sell parliament down the river." What does he reply? I have quite a number of copies of Hansard here, but I do not think I shall quote the minister because I can see he is bored. The minister dissociates himself from our world. He said he felt as if he was living in another world. If you ask us, that is the truest thing he has said in this debate. He is living in another world. He is certainly far, far removed from this debate; yet this afternoon the Minister of Finance gave us some hope that perhaps the government was moving into our world a little bit.
The minister has claimed that there was nothing new in the Defence Production Act. He said there were just two purposes of the act, control over critical supplies required for defence production and other provisions affecting property. Then the minister said similar acts in the United Kingdom and the United States were even more drastic than this one. The minister accused us of exaggerations. He said first of all "many" and then corrected it to "any" legitimate objections to the bill were drowned in a torrent of exaggeration, and he gave a wonderfully lyrical description of the corpses of the arguments now floating around in a vast ocean of words.
The minister said he had never known Canadian industry to see the Department of Defence Production in a jam without coming to its assistance. There are the four points, Mr. Speaker, which I take from the minister's own words. He said there was nothing new in the Defence Production Act; he said it was not as drastic as the United Kingdom or the United States act. He said the co-operation of industry, under the Defence Production Act with its time limit, had been good.

Let us look at these four points. There is nothing new about the Defence Production Act, the minister said. We know that the history of the powers conferred upon the minister go back 16 years, but they were conferred by parliament. We are not even asking him to relinquish those powers granted by parliament. We know that these times are extremely dangerous and will probably remain so for our lifetime. We live in a divided world. But how long is an emergency an emergency? Does it go on generation after generation? On July 5 the Ottawa Journal pointed out that the Defence Production Act is not an emergency act. The Leader of the Opposition pointed it out yesterday, as did the hon. member for London (Mr. Mitchell).
The Defence Production Act is not an emergency act. We are at peace at the moment; not a shot is being fired anywhere in the world, and within the next few days or weeks world leaders will be meeting and perhaps relieving the tensions even more. Yet at this precise moment in history, when tensions are lessening, the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Production are asking us to give powers and rights that traditionally and historically belong to parliament.
The Journal says these powers should be yielded by parliament only in a state of mortal peril. On Dominion day the Globe and Mail had an editorial pointing out that in speaking of emergencies the Minister of Defence Production might switch to his other mantle as Minister of Trade and Commerce; that the economic emergency in Canada is more serious at this time than the defence emergency; that Canada had slipped to fourth place in world trade, with Western Germany taking third place, and that the economic emergency is being obscured by the rose-hued glasses of the Minister of Defence Production or the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The next point, Mr. Speaker, is a more important one. The minister has said that these powers are not as drastic as those of the United Kingdom and the United States. I have already asked when is an emergency an emergency. Now I ask, how drastic is drastic? Again and again we have said, take the powers but not permanently. That to us is the drastic angle. In regard to the United Kingdom and the United States, the hon. member for Kamloops, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for London said the United Kingdom and the United States defence production acts have time limits. As I said before, that is the drastic angle to us. Both the United Kingdom and the United States acts have definite time limits written into them, and there has never

been any attempt to take the time limit out. All we are asking of the minister, Mr. Speaker, is a time limit on these extraordinary powers.
Now we come to the minister's accusation that we have been exaggerating. One of the examples he gave-I do not know who said it-was this:
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.
We believe that is true. There has not been a greater issue. I looked up "exaggeration" in the dictionary to get the literal meaning. It is "to enlarge in description beyond the truth." We do not believe it is to enlarge in description beyond the truth to say that this is one of the greatest issues ever to come before the House of Commons.
In entering this debate, Mr. Speaker, we were prepared to be jeered at, to be sneered at and to be heckled. It is a good thing we were prepared, because that is exactly what has been happening. If one looks back over Hansard-and all of us on this side of the house have been studying Hansard very closely for the past few days-one finds that it is quite a lesson in dull-witted repartee. I do not believe that posterity will ever chuckle over the wit of the Liberals as evidenced in the second session of the 22nd parliament. I am not going to take up the time of the house to reiterate the contributions of the various wits on the other side. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was one of them, and if you will look at pages 5755 and 5766 of Hansard you will find his words of wisdom peppered through them. The senior member for Halifax was another, and his words will be found on pages 5624, 5625 and 5626 of Hansard.
As I looked at those pages of Hansard I was reminded of a poem by A. P. Herbert, who knew his House of Commons extremely well. Mr. Speaker, this is not Shakespeare, and I think it is pertinent. In his poem entitled "The Interrupter" Mr. Herbert had this to say:
He never made a speech himself, they say:
But how he interrupts the men who do!
He could not argue with a load of hay:
But hear him crying "Rubbish!" "Bosh!" or "Boo!"
He sits there like a frog among the birds;
And every time he utters "Bosh!" or "Boo!"
Great Hansard solemnly records his words-
And it's repeated in the locals too.
He is as vocal as an old tin can;
He is as useful as the old cow's "Moo!"
But Bogton thinks "Our member is a man!"
He's always saying "Rubbish!" "Bosh!" or "Boo!"
I think that describes the contributions of the Liberal party to this debate on what we consider to be one of the most important
Defence Production Act issues to come before the house since the British North America Act of 1867.


Mr. Lesage:: The British North America Act never came before this house.


Miss   Aiiken@: Since it was enacted; I am sorry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Many amendments have.


Margaret Aitken: The minister has accused us of exaggerating. We do not believe you can exaggerate the dangers that lurk in the extension of these powers for an unlimited time, as is being demanded by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production. We do not believe you can exaggerate when the rights of parliament are being jeopardized. We do not believe you can exaggerate when the sovereignty of parliament is in danger. We do not believe our democracy tolerates a minister of the crown placing himself above parliament and above the rule of law. We do not believe in a dictatorship. If that is exaggeration then perhaps we have exaggerated, but we feel it is better to exaggerate today than to lose our freedom tomorrow.
The other point I wish to make comes from the minister's speech. He said that Canadian industry has not seen the Department of Defence Production in a jam without being willing to contribute toward solving the dilemma. If that is true, and we do not doubt that it is, why in heaven's name is the minister demanding these extraordinary powers over industry on a permanent basis? We are not at war; we are not even in a crisis; we are not in a state of emergency. The minister has complained of the ocean of words which have been spoken in this debate. He can blame only himself and his own stubbornness. All we are saying could be put into two little words; I said six at the beginning, but I now say two: "Protect parliament". All we are asking is the deletion of five little words, "Section 41 shall be repealed."
We on this side listened with great interest this afternoon to the Minister of Finance, and we placed considerable hope in the words he spoke. I should like to conclude with a quotation from Right Hon. Herbert Morrison, another man who knew his parliament. He describes the duties of the opposition as follows:
The duly elected majority must rule; but the opposition has its rights and duties. The opposition. has been elected by its supporters to put their point of view in parliament. And it is in accordance with the spirit of our parliamentary democracy that the government should be prepared to listen to and to consider opposition arguments and representations, for our belief in government by majority certainly does not mean that that majority should act in an arbitrary spirit. It is

Defence Production Act silly as well as intolerable if the government, without considering the merits, assumes that every opposition amendment to a bill or opinion on policy is wrong and, therefore, to be rejected out of hand. Oppositions can be right and governments can be wrong. Therefore, ministers should fairly consider arguments seriously advanced from both sides of the house.
We of the opposition reiterate that statement. Our belief in government by majority does not mean that the majority should act in an arbitrary spirit. Oppositions can be right and governments can be wrong. We ask the minister to give fair consideration to our arguments and to our suggestions when we are in committee.
I must finish with the story of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). This concerns a gentleman by the name of Stephen Decatur. I do not know whether he had any relationship to the minister. In the war of 1812 the British blockade held him powerless for more than two years, during which time he attempted in every possible way to force his way through the ranks of the defenders of Canada's liberty. When he broke out at last and ran for it he was held in battle by the resolute commander of one small British ship until the rest of the blockading squadron could come up. Then, in the words of the United States narrative, he had to surrender.
It could happen to the minister who bears his name as it happened to Stephen Decatur over a hundred years ago. It may happen that the minister will be successful in running the current blockade and may perchance feel he is free, but I warn him-and these are the words of the hon. member for Hamilton West -that he may still encounter storms outside the harbour.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in this chamber late this afternoon hon. members witnessed what may well prove to have been a memorable scene in Canadian parliamentary history. It had something of the elements of a climax about it. There has been proceeding in this house for some days now a debate on a government measure the true essence of which, as we have contended before the house, is to confer upon one minister powers which can only be properly described as dictatorial. But the pattern of dictatorship could not be complete as long as it remained open to free members of a free parliament of Canada to voice their opinions. Continual attempts to override parliament, to brush parliament aside and to vest in one minister these sweeping and untrammelled powers were the pattern and design of dictatorship that remained to be completed.


What hon. members saw in this house this afternoon in that climacteric moment was the completion of the design.
The right of hon. members, which we thought was assured to them under the rules of this house, to introduce amendments on second reading is now in process of being taken away from them by government action. The government, which under every concept of responsible government is responsible to this house as the supreme power, has now decided that the right of parliament to talk- that thing for which parliament exists-shall now be taken away from parliament. I may say I shall have some direct words to address to the Prime Minister before I am finished.
May I recall to hon. members that when the vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) had been completed this afternoon, three members of this house rose to their feet seeking the floor. They rose simultaneously. For the reasons which he explained Mr. Speaker recognized the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), the house leader of the government. He had a motion. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) rose to her feet with an amendment to be introduced on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and one of the Social Credit members also was on his feet. Whether he had an amendment to introduce I know not, but at any rate I think it may be assumed that when he was on his feet he had such an amendment.
The motion that was introduced on behalf of the government by the government leader in this house was that the question be now put. That motion, as all hon. members of this house well know, precludes the introduction of any further amendment at this stage of debate, on second reading of this bill. It precludes any further discussion except of the motion itself. Once this motion is carried no further discussion will be possible on second reading of the bill and no amendment of any kind may be introduced by any hon. member-


Walter Edward Harris: On second reading.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -on second reading. That is what we are talking about. That means that the amendment which the hon. member for Hamilton West sought to introduce cannot be introduced. That means that the amendment which presumably the hon. member of the Social Credit group was about to introduce will not be and cannot be introduced. Other amendments which other hon. members at later stages of the debate on second reading of the bill would have sought to introduce can now never be introduced. Such is the effect, and such is the calculated

effect, of this government motion introduced by the government leader of the house.
Yes, the one thing that remained to parliament, the right to talk, the right to introduce amendments to a government motion for second reading, is now about to be taken from this house. The purpose is plain. The purpose is barefaced. It is to throttle debate in this house on a measure the lasting importance of which before the bar of Canadian history no hon. member of this house dare deny. If hon. members opposite who normally follow the government follow the lead of the government now, this will represent and constitute a ruthless use of power by the majority in the house to suppress discussion in this house of a measure of cardinal importance by hon. members who feel it their duty to discuss it in discharge of their obligations to their constituents and to Canada.
Yes, this motion was introduced on behalf of the government by the government leader of the house. The heir apparent of Liberal leadership in this country has now complied with the invitation that was extended to him and other hon. members of this house just a few days ago by the Minister of Defence Production, when he called upon the house, in asking for these sweeping and dictatorial powers without any limit whatever, and said, "Give me the tools". The Minister of Finance has complied with that request as far as he was concerned by supplying the Minister of Defence Production with one of the tools; that is, the suppression of free discussion in this House of Commons.
Those of us who have retained or sought to retain some respect for Her Majesty's ministers in this country hoped against hope that there might still remain in the minds and hearts of the ministers opposite some allegiance to those liberal principles upon which they have sought in fair weather the endorsation of the Canadian electorate, that there might be, somehow, some lingering loyalty on the part of those ministers to those principles. We knew that the Minister of Defence Production had no place left in his loyalty for liberal principles. The only thing left there is this insatiable demand for power without any limit set by parliament.
There is an old Chinese proverb which is rather plain spoken and, lest I be misunderstood, I shall paraphrase it. It is this: "When the fish rots, it is the head that rots first". There has been evident in this cabinet plain proof of the fact that the dictatorial attitude exhibited this long time by the Minister of Defence Production has now infected the whole cabinet with its contagious blight. The rot has started at the top and is going
Defence Production Act steadily down, permeating all ranks of the cabinet. The government says now it will tolerate no more discussion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why are you
talking?


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as discussion is concerned, the various amendments which under the rules of this house it is possible and proper to introduce on second reading of the bill, especially one of such vast importance as this, are no longer to be permitted to hon. members. If Cromwell were to walk into this house tonight and look at that mace and just repeated those historic words of his, full of contempt for the authority of the elected representatives of the people-"Take away that bauble"-he could not under the rules of this house choose a more effective or direct way of doing it than this government has chosen today.
The government has undertaken now to decide how long parliament shall be permitted to discuss this matter of such great importance. It has taken away the right to introduce amendments. We were made aware on June 28 of the Minister of Defence Production's command, and I am sure hon. members opposite have not forgotten it, when he said the time has come when the government must insist that the bill be passed. This is logical step No. 2, in carrying out that command.
Is this the government's response to the appeal for conciliation made this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and echoed in his introductory remarks by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), although the concluding portion of his speech was anything but conciliatory in tone? Be it not forgotten that both those hon. gentlemen have proven themselves in this debate such effective and willing allies of the government. Both demanded that before consideration be given to any changes in the bill, the bill must first be given second reading, the principle of the bill must first be approved-this principle which, if it receives approval, could destroy the authority and the prestige of parliament.
I hope we shall hear from representative spokesmen of the C.C.F. in reply to this question. Is this your idea of that conciliation for which you appealed in the house today to the Prime Minister? It is a rather odd and novel way of expressing the conciliatory spirit when you say to one of the parties to the problem, one of those to whom the conciliation must extend, "We will deny you your rights. No more amendments from you. Your rights of speech shall be limited to this
5850	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act motion that we are now putting forward to deny members any further right of debate in this house".
I wish to say this to hon. members of the C.C.F. If that is their idea of conciliation, I think they have been taken in today. But if they choose to regard themselves, in a political sense, as babes in the woods, outsmarted by government craft, it may be that they will be able to seek refuge in repentance for what they have done today. But so far as what the government has done is concerned, whether under this pretence or that, the fact remains that what the government has attempted to do here today was too barefaced to be denied some cloak or disguise. So it remained for the leader of the house to supply the disguise. He seized upon what he called suggestions that had emanated during the course of this debate-evidently only in the last day or two-from the C.C.F. and Social Credit groups.
What were those suggestions, sir? Apart from the appeal for conciliation today on the part of the C.C.F. members, the suggestions were that the bill be broken up; that those portions relating to the organization of the Department of Defence Production should be made permanent, and that the other parts should be subjected to limits and restrictions;
I refer to those portions conferring these sweeping powers upon the government. Mr. Speaker, we had been saying that in this house for days, but it did not suit the book of the government to pretend even to take notice of sensible or constructive proposals that have been made in this house on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition from the outset of the debate.
It fell to my honour to be the opening spokesman in this debate on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, on June 7. If hon. members will take the trouble to look back at the record they will see that even then, at the outset of the debate, I made that kind of proposal. But it did not suit the government to give any credit where credit was due for proposals of that kind. So, for the record apparently, they said they were interested in proposals that had come from the C.C.F. and the Social Credit groups.
It was a hollow pretence. Those were hollow and shallow words that came from the Minister of Finance this afternoon. He knows that those proposals for dividing up the bill and for permitting those portions relative to organization of the department to be permanent and those portions conferring these sweeping powers upon the minister to be limited had been made a month ago by


the official opposition. Let it never be forgotten, Mr. Speaker, that almost within a matter of seconds before the Minister of Finance was making his statement in the house in support of this motion to prevent proper discussion in the house, he and all those associated with him had joined hands to vote down and defeat our amendment which sought to carry into effect these very proposals. On their heads will rest that responsibility.
Do you call that consistency? Do you call that statesmanship? Do you call that fair dealing with the Canadian people? By their fruits ye shall know them! The Canadian people will some day have the opportunity of deciding, Mr. Speaker, whether they will judge this government by their fair but empty words or by their deeds, and will remember that at the very moment when they were paying lip service to suggestions from sources to your left, they were plunging their daggers into an amendment of ours that would have given effect to proposals of this kind.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the cloak of amiability and reasonableness was dropped. It did not last for very long. My leader asked that whatever proposals the government had to make should be made in this house. So far as we are aware this party, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has had no part in or awareness of any of these talks or pourparlers about which there have been rumours in the press.
So far as any proposals are concerned, we want them made in the place where they ought to be made, namely on the floor of this house; and we want them to be made by the Prime Minister in whose name this wretched bill stands. So, in the light of what was said this afternoon, I ask: What has the government done? What has the government undertaken? What commitment has the government offered to the house in asking the house to deny itself the right of debate and amendment of this measure?
The Minister of Defence Production was the first minister to speak this afternoon. This is what he permitted himself to say. He was speaking of what would happen if the house denied this right of further debate by passing the present motion, and then gave the bill second reading and went into committee. At that stage he said: "The government is willing to consider any reasonable proposal, but it cannot consider a proposal of a limitation that would not permit the creation of a permanent department". We have been saying that for days. There is no quarrel about that. Everybody in this house has subscribed to the idea of making the department permanent, so we do not need to spend any time

[DOT]on empty words of that kind. Then the minister went on to say this, and I ask the house to note the language used. It has been carefully weighed. He said: "Possibly for any particular section of the bill about which hon. gentlemen opposite feel strongly we may be able to consider a time limit, but we cannot consider a time limit for the Defence Production Act as a whole".
The house naturally wanted to know more about that. What is the meaning of statements of that kind? What reality does the government attach to them? So when the government leader was speaking later this afternoon he made one thing very clear. I am sure most hon. members thought that the Minister of Defence Production, in his words, was talking about the possibility of dealing with sections of the Defence Production Act, over 30 of them in number, and not the two little sections of the bill now under debate. But the Minister of Finance was quick to prick that bubble when he said: "I hasten at once to say that nothing I have said should indicate that in the committee of the whole we would consider all the sections of the Defence Production Act".


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, and just by way of clarification on the point, I meant that we would not go over the sections of the Defence Production Act in committee of the whole, not on this bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister continued: "In case anything I might have said would indicate that, I say that we shall consider in the meantime all the proposals that have been made with respect to the act and be prepared, perhaps, to suggest some amendments at that time."
Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize in the first place that this government is very reluctant, finds its very difficult, to condescend to make commitments or offer assurances to this mere sovereign parliament of Canada. Hon. members of this house would like to think that the government did attach some reality and significance to those remarks, even in the face of their guarded and qualified terms. I have said that we would like to think those have significance, that those have meaning; that the government really means that, having heard the earnest pleas of this house for a limitation upon the powers which are conferred by the Defence Production Act upon the minister, the government means to offer to the house in committee of the whole effective limitation of those powers. I hope, sir, that is the fact.
But, sir, in approaching this guarded statement one cannot overlook certain facts that stare us clearly in the face. First, when on March 14 similar assurances were given to
Defence Production Act this house by the Prime Minister, as well as by the Minister of Defence Production, we thought that they would be given effect and the government really would give meaning to its undertakings. At page 2002 of Hansard for March 14, 1955, we find the Minister of Defence Production saying, in response to a request from this side of the house that some effective limit on these powers be retained in the bill:
. . . the government will consider the request of my hon. friend.
On the same page the Prime Minister stated:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has already stated that the government would give consideration to the views which have been expressed here in that regard.
There was a categorical undertaking to give consideration. It was not even as limited as the words used by the Minister of Defence Production today, when he said that "possibly we may be able to consider a time limit." We will not have forgotten the very empty performance, the very empty interpretation, that was put upon these two undertakings of March 14 by the government. When, after dawdling along for long weeks and holding back this measure until the dying days of the session, they brought it forward, there was no speech by the Prime Minister, no accounting by him to the house for the solemn assurance he had given on March 14. So far as the Minister of Defence Production was concerned it was brushed aside by saying that so far as the government were concerned they wanted all the powers in the bill and no limit upon them would be considered. Yes; the Prime Minister did not even condescend to report to the house on his very solemn undertaking.
In his speech on July 4, when the Prime Minister was finally coaxed into this debate and engaged in a brief 12-minute intervention-characterized, I regret to say, by evasions of the issues that had been put before him during the debate for his answer, and characterized also by braggadocio-he said in categorical words that there would be no time limit. These are the words of the Prime Minister of July 4, as reported on page 5643 of Hansard:
... we are not prepared to put any definite time limit upon it at this time.
That is the bill.


Murdo William Martin: "At this time".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then he put forward a feeble proposal for a very limited, inadequate and, as the minister well knows, ineffective right of discussion. It would be three years after the present expiry date of the act-that would mean 1959-before any hon. member of this

Defence Production Act house would even be permitted by this government to have an opportunity of raising a question in regard to the amendment of this act or any effective limitation on the powers conferred. The Prime Minister has not withdrawn what he said on July 4. In the face of what was said this afternoon, this very guarded statement which we would like to hope is meaningful, we of Her Majesty's loyal opposition recall that there stands on the record of this house the categorical statement by the Prime Minister that there is not going to be any time limit on the bill.
We want from the Prime Minister now, in this house, a precise statement of just what it is the government proposes to do if the bill is given second reading and sent to committee of the whole. That is a fair proposal. The statements made today were extremely vague. The matter is important. It was important enough that this measure should be introduced in the name of the Prime Minister in the first place; it was important enough for the Prime Minister to speak in introducing the resolution preceding the bill last March. It is important enough, particularly having regard to the weight attached to the principle of this measure in a debate which may well go down in Canadian history as an historic one, for the Prime Minister to come before this house now and make a categorical statement as to just what the government is prepared to do in committee of the whole if the house is prepared to accept his assurance and allow this measure to go to committee of the whole. That is a fair request, a fair demand.
We do not intend to take chances, in the light of the experience we had with the undertaking given to us last March. We do not intend to take chances with vague and doubtful statements made by a minister. We want something plain, categorical and unequivocal. We would be untrue to our duty here in this house, in view of the importance of this measure, if we did not firmly insist upon it. We would not wish to find ourselves in the committee curbed, denied our right of speech, denied our right to discussion, denied our right of amendment, by the kind of stratagem to which the government has resorted here today in its craft.
Let the house not fail to see how this stratagem resorted to today by the government reflects upon what has been said in this house concerning the true nature and effect of the proposed bill. If the bill were as good and even half as harmless as the government has pretended it to be, then surely it did not need to resort to the kind of stratagem-I could use a stronger term-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Strategy is the word.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and craft to which the government has descended here today in a move which some day it may live to regret. If the measure were harmless, why resort to methods as base as these? It is passing strange indeed that the government should seek, because the bill has not yet had second reading, to commend the bill to the decision of and support of hon. members in this house by resorting to this kind of manoeuvre that denies the house its right to discuss it and propose amendments to it.
Yes, perhaps we now have exposed more clearly in its ugly, naked form, the true purpose of this bill. We have said that the undeniable purpose of this bill, indeed the undeniable effect of the bill, would be to deny to parliament the opportunity of keeping any effective control over these vast and sweeping powers vested in the minister and the government by this Defence Production Act.
This manoeuvre now adds this, that it seeks to prevent parliament at this present session from discussing defence production. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think we now have a clearer picture, a clearer view of the true effect of this bill. The bill, as we have said, was to take power from parliament, to deny parliament any participation in and any effective control over the exercise of these sweeping powers in relation to defence production. The effect of the bill was to destroy the power and prestige of parliament.
We have pointed out, sir,-my leader pointed out yesterday, and the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) pointed out last night in his excellent speech-how the Defence Production Act takes from individuals in this country one right after another, or could be used for that purpose; the right to counsel when they are under investigation by controllers and officials appointed by the minister; the burden of proof that is cast upon them under the provisions of the bill of disproving charges laid against them under the act; the creation of unnamed offences that we are invited to continue here today, because offences can be created under this act in relation to things that do not exist today, that may arise tomorrow or next year, or in 1958 or 1959. We are being asked to say now that orders made in future are to have the force of law, and the breach of which may be visited with fines of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to two years. Here now we have an opportunity of seeing again the deprivation of rights of the Canadian people.

Sir, it is small wonder, I suppose, that certain members in the house do not feel alarmed about this bill. They heard yesterday at long last from the reluctant lips of the Minister of Defence Production the admission that he does not seek to justify this measure on the basis of the existence of any national emergency. Weigh that fact well. He disclaims the existence of any emergency as justifying the continuance of these powers.
Let members keep in mind that the method of placing a time limit upon wide powers has been an effective parliamentary safeguard, honoured by long usage in the history of the mother of parliaments. When the Emergency Powers Act was introduced in 1951 it contained the very effective time limit of a year, and simply had to be continued from year to year if it met the approval of the House of Commons.
As the hon. member for Peace River pointed out in his speech two days ago, the wheat board has a time limit placed upon its powers for the purpose of ensuring strict parliamentary control over those powers. And may I remind hon. members that the greatest landmark in all parliamentary history has been the effective time limit of one year imposed by the British army annual act on the raising of armed forces in that country. This is well recognized parliamentary practice. Ignore it, cast it aside, make no use of it here, and you do so at your peril, at the peril of parliamentary prestige and power, at the peril of our way of life in this country!
The C.C.F. of course have welcomed this measure and given it their strong support. Measures of this kind are inherent in the machinery of socialism. Would that I had time to refer to some of the well recognized socialist texts in this country, books published by the C.C.F., in which they have applauded methods of that kind. But we do not need to refer to those books, because we in this debate have heard the plaudits heaped upon this measure by members of the C.C.F. in this House of Commons.
They want the bill to have second reading before consideration is given to any change or amendment that would safeguard the maintenance of parliamentary control. This measure may be good socialism; but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I tell this House of Commons, that it is bad democracy.
Yes, this is a bill that creates two kinds of ministers. There is the super minister, the Minister of Defence Production, and then there is the ordinary garden variety of ministers. There are two types, the big type with all the powers, and then the ordinary variety.
Sir, in my closing words may I say this, and I am addressing myself particularly to
Defence Production Act hon. members opposite who normally support the government. I addressed them particularly when I spoke as the first opposition speaker in the debate on June 7. I say to them that the ultimate responsibility for the maintenance of parliamentary safeguards and parliamentary control over these powers and, in the light of what has been attempted today by the government, responsibility for the maintenance of the good name of parliament as a place where free men can freely debate the affairs of the Canadian people, rests upon them, because they are the majority. It should not be left to members of the opposition to defend the rights of parliament, for these are the rights of all Canadians and the rights of all members of parliament.
There is heat and discomfort here. There is interference with summer plans of members. That affects all of us. But this measure has been brought on now, by government design. We received an increase in our parliamentary indemnities last year. I take it that when we received that increase we meant to give service for what we received. But I am not basing my appeal upon dollars and cents. I am appealing to the good conscience of all hon. members in this House of Commons; I am appealing to their duty to maintain parliamentary institutions unsullied and unabridged, in all their strength and vigour.
It was on June 28 that hon. members opposite were ordered by the Minister of Defence Production to line up and vote for this bill. Today the leader of the government-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; he said, "The time has come when the government must insist that this bill be passed," and those were your walking orders, your voting orders, and you know it. Today you have been summoned by this government to take away the right of free speech in this House of Commons, and the right of amendment. Will you submit to that?


An hon. Member:: Keep your shirt on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will seek to keep alive the rights of hon. members in the House of Commons, including the hon. member opposite who, whether he has one shirt or 50 shirts, is in the process of bartering away the sovereign and sacred rights of the Canadian parliament.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the hon. member
will make his own speech rather than make interruptions from his seat. Let him rise up and say it like a man.

Defence Production Act
To one bad precedent, in the introduction of this kind of measure, the government has today added another bad precedent. The powers of parliament stand as the ancient guardian and safeguard of freedom. Today the prestige and power of parliament, the freedom safeguarded by parliament, and the right of free expression in parliament, are fugitives from pursuit by the Minister of Defence Production, with the backing of the Prime Minister of Canada. Unless the Prime Minister, in response to demands in the House of Commons, comes forward with a clear and unequivocal assurance, we can only say that we want something better by way of safeguards than we have been offered yet. We are dealing here with something that is sacred, something that if bartered away cannot lightly be recovered. That is the lesson of history. Whether or not other hon. members are prepared to pay attention to the lessons of history, they are not going to be lost upon the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.


Mr. Carrick:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, with pleasure.


Donald D. Carrick: The opposition may not have known until today exactly how the majority in this house felt on this question. I think they had an intimation that the majority supported the bill. They certainly know from the vote that was taken this afternoon that the majority support the bill. The question I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, is this. Is it not a fact that the filibuster, if continued by the opposition, is nothing more than an attempt by the minority of this house to coerce the majority of this house by resorting-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald D. Carrick: It is a fair question. If hon. members do not want me to continue the question I will not finish it. I was asking the hon. gentleman if this filibuster is continued-


Mr. Hees:: Order, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Gauthier: He is asking a question.


Donald D. Carrick: I shall try once more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: May I point out to the house that the hon. member for Trinity asked for and obtained permission to ask a question, and unless the question is contrary to the rules, or is objected to by the hon. member for Eglinton, he should be allowed to ask it.


Donald D. Carrick: It is a serious question. Is it not a fact that if this filibuster is continued,, in essence it is an attempt by the minority of this house to coerce the majority by abandoning the usual parliamentary method of persuasion and by having recourse to a trial of force based on physical exhaustion?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am happy to deal with the question of my hon. friend. It was a rather long question. I think it might better have been made the occasion of a speech on his part, but I am happy to deal with the question of my hon. friend, for whom I have every respect.


An hon. Member:: It is going to be a long
answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was a long question. I do not intend to abridge my answer to it, if you do not mind. In the first place, sir, I reject the expression "filibuster".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I reject it. I do not care what hon. members opposite, in their impatience, wish to call it. It is not a filibuster, carried on for the purpose of delay. I have made it quite clear that we do not like to be here in hot weather and discomfort any more than anybody else, but we are here to carry on debate in accordance with the rules of the house, as we have heretofore. There has been no breach of the rules of the house. We have carried on strictly within the rules of the house, and we have put this case as strongly as we could.
If there is anything in the statements made this afternoon by the Minister of Defence Production and the Minister of Finance, then our long and very great effort has achieved some result; and not one minute of the speeches, not one word of the speeches by hon. members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has been wasted in this debate if it brings from the government in very truth a surrender on essential questions such as was almost suggested, though a little vaguely, a little equivocally, in the statements this afternoon.
Now, I conclude my answer to my hon. friend by saying that if what was said here today by these two ministers means anything, then what the official opposition has received has been endorsation and justification for every minute and every word spent in this debate.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Speaker, the motion we have before us is that the question be now put which, as has been explained very fully and very lucidly by the previous speaker, will have the effect in time of concluding this debate on second

reading. There is no question of the effect of a motion of this kind. It is to limit the opportunity for debate on the second reading of the bill. That cannot be denied. Whatever government supporters may think of the desirability of the motion, they cannot deny that its effect is in fact to limit the opportunities for debate.
As has been said very effectively, this debate has not been carried on for the simple pleasure of remaining here ourselves or keeping the government here. It has continued over an interval of nine or ten days from June 7, most of it in hot weather. It has, I think, been a notable debate by any test of impartial observers. I do not expect my colleagues opposite to agree with my conclusion, but I have heard many expressions of opinion about this debate, about its effectiveness and about the spirit shown by the opposition in a cause which they consider worth fighting for. I think any fair member of the house will give the opposition full credit for having conducted the debate in that spirit.
We have no desire, any more than any other hon. members, to prolong the debate. Our objective, our only purpose, is to produce a modification of the decision of the government. May I ask what courses are open to the government on this particular point? They may give some indication whether there is any point in my continuing my speech or in any other member speaking further on this matter in this house. What are the courses open to the government? The first course, which is suggested by the Winnipeg Free Press as the only honourable course open to the government, is to drop the bill. That is not the only course. An attempt could be made to patch up the bill during the course of the session. That is not an easy thing to do, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, to rewrite the bill overnight.
The minister has come to the conclusion, as he says on legal advice, with which I cannot agree, that it is impossible to separate this act into two parts, one continuing the Department of Defence Production and the other granting special powers to that department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When did he say
that?


Daniel Roland Michener: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that was the first proposition the minister made, and that was why he had to have the act in its present form and only in its present form. If the possibility of considering changes in the bill means something, then obviously the government has to consider a patchwork job on this act, if it insists on going forward with it at the present time.
Defence Production Act As I have said, it is not an easy thing. The act is a unit and was written as a unit.
As a matter of fact this act is a most remarkable legal document. It is not the outgrowth of any draftsman's consecutive work. It has been built up brick by brick. It is a pyramid which has grown and was constructed from 1940 onward. It carries forward all of the experience of the department of munitions and supply, which had very competent legal advisers. The experience which they obtained in meeting every problem that arose in the enforcement of the defence program in time of war is contained in the act. Therefore they built up an instrument which to my mind has no loophole, no way of escape from the overriding authority of the government if it wishes to exercise that authority.
Therefore this act is a rather remarkable document as it stands. As I say, it is a unit. It is something which has been improved and polished until today, I agree with the minister, it is not an easy task to take the departmental authority for the Department of Defence Production out of the act and consider it as a usual departmental act such as that creating the Department of Public Works or any other department. On the other hand, they should take such powers as the government is prepared to stake its reputation on as being necessary, and put them in a part which would be limited as to time. That is what the two ministers who have spoken have hinted at. That is one course.
I suggest that if the government had been serious they would by this time have had a pattern for the repair of this act. They have known the attitude of the opposition since June 7, and in the interval of 30 days it should have been possible to produce some pattern of repair of this act along the lines which have been hinted at by government members themselves, so we would have before us when we go into committee the assurance of certain modification which had been explained, which was specific and which was understood before we abandoned our position in this debate. If that course had been followed the government necessarily would have had to announce some specific program of amendment. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Eglinton, that is precisely what the government failed to do when it made its proposals today.
For example, it might have been stated by the Minister of Defence Production or by the Minister of Finance, when the suggestion was made that the government was prepared to take a certain course in committee, that they would segregate clauses 24, 25, 26, etc., whatever clauses they were prepared to deal with,

Defence Production Act and deal with them in a different way from the act as a whole. If that had been done, then the opposition and other members of the house would have known at this point what course the act would take and would have had some assurance that they could abandon the only weapon they had to meet the government's determination, the weapon of argument on second reading.
It is very clear what the ministers have said and what the government has done. The proposition of the Minister of Defence Production was too conditional; it was full of such conditions as "maybe" and "possibly". No certainty could be placed upon it. The Minister of Finance was no more specific when it came his turn. He suggested that the government might make some change in the bill if it were now permitted to go to the committee. In fact the government has not committed itself to any degree on which any hon. member of this house could rely. All we have is simply an expression of intention to consider. Instead of doing that which I suggest to this house is the second course to the abandonment of the bill, the government has attempted to put a lid on the debate.
There was some appearance of response by the government to the appeal made by the opposition, by the leader of the C.C.F. party and earlier by the leader of the Social Credit party. There was some appearance of response to the appeals to deal properly with this unreasonable act and to find some reasonable basis of compromise. All that we have evoked from the government is a request to trust them to do the right thing in committee, or else closure, the lid, the steamroller will conclude the matter. We do not know at this point what to expect when we get into committee. Perhaps before we get there the government will have pulled itself together and prepared some concrete amendment, some patching-up as I have called it of the act which we can then consider. Certainly if the government wishes to save time that is the best means of doing so.
It may help the government in its consideration of this matter, and I hope it is still considering the matter, to look at the present position of the department. During the course of this debate I have heard no attempt on the part of the government to deal with the activities of the department. There has been an assertion or indication by the minister of four or five lines of major activity, but there has been no review of the activities of the department as such. There has been no indication of the functions and activities at this point of time. There has been general agree-

ment that there should be such a department. This has been repeated to the point where there is no need for me to repeat it. We must bear that in mind in considering what the department does.
The second problem, of what powers it should have, might emerge from a consideration of the activities. I am going to ask the house to consider with me for a few minutes the latest report of the Department of Defence Production, which is for the period from January 1 to December 31, 1954. This is not a very recent report by any business standard, as it is some six months old, but it is perhaps a recent report by the standard of government departments, which usually report somewhat more tardily than would an efficient business organization. In any event, the latest report we have is to December 31, 1954.
Before looking at the activities of the department as described in this report let me take you to the first report of the department in 1951. We will see there what its original purpose was under the stress of the crisis in Korea. The Department of Defence Production was established on April 1, 1951 by the proclamation of the act we are now being asked to extend in order to carry out the procurement functions of Canada's expanded defence program. The new department assumed the responsibilities previously discharged under the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce by the Canadian Commercial Corporation in so far as defence procurement was concerned, and by the Department of Trade and Commerce relating to essential materials under the Defence Supplies Act.
I digress here to recall that the Defence Supplies Act contains fairly broad provisions for the procurement of defence supplies. It was designed for peacetime operation, but was suspended by reason of the enactment of the Defence Production Act and would come into effect today if the Defence Production Act were repealed.
The responsibilities of the department in 1951 were said to be summarized as, first, the procurement of all requirements of the Department of National Defence and, second, to take steps necessary to ensure an adequate supply of materials to support the defence procurement program. It states in this report of 1951:
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 . . . was enacted.

Here is the opinion that was expressed at the time. On page 14 of the 1951 report it is stated:
Although the powers now in effect are virtually the same as those which existed during the last war, it has been understood that these powers would be used to the minimum extent necessary. The comparative simplicity of the Canadian industrial economy and the full co-operation of industry have made unnecessary any elaborate system of controls in order to meet the requirements of defence and defence-supporting industries.
There you have it. In 1951 the Canadian economy was such that any elaborate system of controls was unnecessary. That program which was undertaken in 1951 is described in the report of December 31, 1954, of the Department of Defence Production, and I think it is very significant to note how the work of the department has been put in hand and organized to the point where it is now beginning to taper off. In some respects it is diminishing, and it is organized on a businesslike basis, which gives anything but a picture of emergency activity by a wartime department. This is what is said about the present activity of the department, on page 9 of the report:
The department is charged with the procurement of those goods and services required by the Canadian armed forces under the present defence program. It also acts as buying agent for the Canadian civil defence program and for the Canadian Commercial Corporation, a crown company primarily responsible for the purchase in Canada of goods required by foreign governments, including requirements under the Colombo plan and other international agreements.
The only thing there that might warrant exceptional powers is the continuing defence program, with which the report deals further in these terms:
Continuing shifts in the emphasis on the various aspects of the defence program required a number of changes in the internal organization of the department. 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.
There is a complete abolition of part of the department.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Read the next part of that.


Daniel Roland Michener: A secretariat was established in the deputy minister's office to carry on residual operations-
This is getting now to the point of residual operations.
-formerly handled by branches and divisions now disbanded and to assist in co-ordinating the work of the department as a whole.
Defence Production Act
Then it deals with personnel. The personnel was reduced from 1,631 to 1,509, a reduction of the order of 8 or 9 per cent. It says:
This staff reduction was made possible as a result of the completion of the work of the materials and small industries divisions at the end of 1953, and a lessening in activity by the Pinetree project office, the economics and statistics branch, and certain head office sections of the general purchasing branch.
We hear a good deal about the needs of the early warning line, but there is a lessening in the activity of the Pinetree project office. Then there is another significant factor about the department:
The number of key personnel on loan from industry was sharply reduced during the year.
We all know the activities carried on under the right hon. minister brought great credit to many men in Canadian industry and business who volunteered their services in wartime. Many of them have again volunteered their services or have been loaned by industry to the department.
By the end of 1954 there were 23 men from industry employed under the Defence Production Act, four serving the department without salary. The number of senior personnel serving on the basis of partial salary or honorarium was reduced from 20 to 9 during the year.
There you have a further reduction. Then, Mr. Speaker, the number of crown companies that served this department was reduced:
The number of crown companies associated with the department and reporting to parliament through the Minister of Defence Production was reduced from 8 to 5 during the year. This change was the result of the transfer on April 1, 1954, from the Minister of Defence Production to the chairman of the privy council committee on scientific and industrial research, of responsibility-

for three of those corporations. These are not emergency activities. These are scientific and research projects which have been transferred entirely from the Department of Defence Production. The opening sentence of the main report in 1954 acknowledges this by saying:
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, the emphasis was shifted to the scheduling of production to meet a continuing high level of defence procurement.
There is a significant comment on page 13:
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.

Defence Production Act This is in the report of the minister on the work of his department, and indicates that 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. That is the present state of activity in the procurement of supplies for defence projects. In the words of the department itself, it does not indicate a very great state of urgency requiring controls of an unlimited order such as we have been protesting in the course of this debate.
On motion of Mr. Michener the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take third reading of the Customs Tariff bill; then the Department of Justice, beginning with the items for the R.C.M.P., both the main and supplementaries; and the Department of National Health and Welfare. Then I understand that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is responsible for the public archives, the national library and the national film board, will be here and we shall take those. Then if there is time left we shall continue with the Department of Labour, if that is agreeable to hon. members opposite.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 8, 1955