1955-06-08

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say from this side of the house how very happy all of us are to welcome the Postmaster General back to his seat in the house. I feel sure he will share my own experience of the very encouraging effect that the friendly welcome from both sides of the house really does give one who has been away for some time. I think I can do no better than to extend to him my earnest hope that his recovery is as complete as mine.



PRIVILEGE


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. An hour before the house opened the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence gave very important statements to the press which I think should have been given in the house while the house is sitting. I think the announcement of the retirement of Lieutenant General Guy Simonds is something that should have been announced here.
I think also that the announcement of the appointment of Air Marshal Miller as the new deputy minister of national defence is something that should have been made here. These are matters of concern to the members of this house. There are other appointments which I need not mention of considerable importance also dealt with in these statements.
We are sitting here doing the business of the people of Canada. These appointments affect very important aspects of the affairs of Canada. Naturally, at a time when the house is not sitting there is no choice but to make these statements to the press in the ordinary way. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is treating the members of this house with scant courtesy to announce an hour in advance of our meeting here information of this importance. As the people's representatives we 50433-286
are permitted to obtain our information through the press at second hand, which we should have obtained here. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a practice which should be discontinued, and that this offers another example of the disregard both of the dignity and the responsibility of parliament which should not be overlooked.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the tone of his remarks. Perhaps this is a practice that should be discontinued, but it is one that has been in existence since the beginning of this parliament some 88 years ago. These appointments have always been announced when they were made, and up to the present it has not been felt they should not be disclosed until they could first be announced to the house. But I am sure that so far as I am concerned, and so far as all of my predecessors and their colleagues are concerned, there never has been any intention of being discourteous to the members of the house. We will, of course, take very seriously these remarks by the Leader of the Opposition, and we will consider whether a change should be made in the matter of reporting to the house, before the public is informed of the usual permutations that take place in the civil service, even when it has become apparent that, either through speculation or otherwise, there has already been publicity in the press about the probability of their being made.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement issued by the Minister of National Defence relative to the retirement of Lieutenant General G. G. Simonds, with particular reference to the reason therein given, namely, his having completed the normal four-year time as chief of staff, is the retirement of General Foulkes imminent, seeing that he has held the position of chief of the general staff and chairman of the chiefs of staff committee for practically the entire period since the war?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is confusing two different positions, one of which General Foulkes did hold and the other which he now holds. When any change is made in his present position, I shall be

International Trade Fair glad to announce it. General Foulkes was for some time chief of the general staff and subsequently became chairman of the chiefs of staff committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: I realize that. The first position was held for more than four years. Surely General Foulkes was appointed to his present position when Lieutenant General Simonds succeeded him four years ago.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Picard.
Third and fourth reports of standing committee on industrial relations.-Mr. Viau.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That items numbered 92 to 111 inclusive of the main estimates, 1955-56, approved and reported upon this day by the standing committee on external affairs, be referred back to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to make an announcement about the government's decision regarding the future of the Canadian international trade fair.
The trade fair was established by the government at the end of the war to promote Canadian trade. It was hoped that Canadian producers would take advantage of the opportunity to exhibit their wares to buyers from other lands. Equally important, it was hoped that the people from other lands, particularly from overseas countries which were striving to reconstruct their war-shattered economies, would use the fair to re-establish themselves in the Canadian market. This was to be a truly international trade fair, based on the principle that trade is a two-way street.
In many respects the Canadian international trade fair has been an outstanding success. I am sure those hon. members of the house who have visited the eighth fair now being held in Toronto will bear me out as to the excellence of the administrative arrangements and the attractiveness of the exhibits.
The government is also satisfied that the fair has played an extremely useful role in the re-establishment of overseas countries in the Canadian market. The fair has been used

by many overseas manufacturers, not only to establish trade connections in Canada and in the United States during the post-war period, but it has become the means of inducing a good many foreign and commonwealth companies to establish plants in this country.
However, in spite of the unremitting efforts of the trade fair administration and of the Department of Trade and Commerce generally, the fair has not lived up to expectations as a medium for the direct promotion of Canadian exports. Three or four years ago, in response to an appeal from me that the fair would close unless there was a greater measure of Canadian participation, Canadians did exhibit in greater numbers. But enthusiasm soon waned, and in this year's fair Canadian participation, apart from prestige exhibits by some very large Canadian companies and provincial and municipal exhibits, is very limited indeed. The conclusion one must draw from the experience of the past eight years is that a trade fair of the kind we have been running in Toronto is not of much value to Canadian exporters.
On the other hand, while the fair has made an outstanding contribution to the re-establishment of overseas countries in the Canadian market and thus has indirectly aided Canadian exports, it does not appear to have fulfilled the hopes of those who believed that the fair could become a more or less permanent market place. Our experience has been that, to a large extent, overseas exhibitors use the fair to make initial contacts in Canada and then turn to other methods of trade promotion which are more natural to the Canadian environment, including exhibitions in other fairs such as the Canadian national exhibition, as well as industry exhibitions of one kind or another. In the post-war period it was highly desirable to have a fair just for this purpose of repairing commercial connections. On the other hand, this does not seem to offer a solid base for an annual trade fair under government auspices and with government financial support.
For these reasons the government has decided that the Canadian international trade fair has fulfilled its purpose and fulfilled it well and should now be discontinued.
This decision will, I know, cause some disappointment. I can assure the house that there is no change in the government's view as to the desirability of stimulating two-way trade with our customers. The trade fair was one of Canada's main contributions to this end during the post-war period. It has been an outstanding success. We shall now bend our efforts in other directions and I hope with the same success. For example,
[Mr. Campney.l

the Canadian government will this year be exhibiting in 15 trade fairs, and exhibitions of one kind and another in 13 different countries. In this competitive world we cannot wait for the customers to come to us; we must carry our merchandise to the buyer in his country, just as we expect that he will continue to bring his merchandise to Canada.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made a statement that, I take it, was at least in part prompted by the question I asked him on this subject several days ago. The international trade fair has been an extremely useful institution in these recent years. It has been a good advertisement for Canada. It has helped to create good will for Canada with other countries, and it has provided a meeting place not only for private citizens engaged in trade but also for officials at government levels from various countries with which Canada seeks to stimulate her trade.
I should like to express regret that the government has found it necessary to reach the decision the minister has announced today.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, based on the statement which he has just given to the house. In view of press reports of the success of the fair in relation to imports into Canada and the fact that sales opportunities have increased, can the minister state whether or not the high-priced Canadian economy has anything to do with the reason for discontinuing the trade fair?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the trade fair is being discontinued on the recommendation of my trade officers and after consulting a good many Canadian businessmen and commercial organizations.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: May I
ask the minister whether the province of Ontario has contributed anything toward the fair?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask a supplementary question? If the province of Ontario were willing to contribute a substantial sum of money, would the federal government reconsider its decision not to continue the trade fair? I know definitely that a large number of industries from Europe were brought to the trade fair. They are now established and are doing very well. They are producing products that were not produced here before. There is no doubt that the trade fair has 50433-286J
Questions
been tremendously beneficial to Canada from one end to the other. Since it has created labour opportunities, it is a shame to close it up. Ontario could well afford to contribute substantial sums of money to keep this fair open. Possibly the federal government could afford to spend a substantial sum of money in association with the provincial government because the fair has benefited all of Canada and not only the province of Ontario. I repeat, the province of Ontario could well afford to contribute to the fair to keep it running. Would the federal government reconsider its position if the province of Ontario were to offer assistance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, although the expense of operating the fair is considerable, that is not the reason why it is being closed. Replying to my hon. friend's question, I may say that if the Ontario government is interested in continuing the fair we shall be very glad to deliver the fair to them as a going concern, with all the equipment that has been accumulated over the years and with such technical assistance as the Department of Trade and Commerce can offer.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is a very generous offer. The province of Ontario could well afford to contribute toward keeping the fair going.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many extra gangs of the R. F. Welch Construction Company (British Columbia) Limited are at this day working on all divisions of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What is the total number of employees in all of said extra gangs?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:-
As of May 24, 1955-
1. 20.
2. 558.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Balcom:: What amount was paid to residents of Nova Scotia for old age assistance in the year 1954?


Mr. Martin:: For the fiscal year 1954-55 federal payments to the province of Nova Scotia on account of old age assistance amounted to $1,063,165.10, being 50 per cent of the total amount paid to recipients.

Defence Production Act MOTION FOR PAPERS



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, since January 1, 1954, which have passed between the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any person for and on behalf of the railway and any department of government, including any letters written by any official of any department of government whether in answer to previous correspondence or not, concerning the use of the expression "royal" by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Mr. Pinard:: I table the return forthwith. LABOUR CONDITIONS



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can say whether a date has been set for the federal-provincial meeting of cabinet ministers and whether at that meeting, in addition to discussing the method of unemployment relief, there will be discussion as to the timing of joint works projects in order to overcome unemployment.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In reply to the first part of the question, may I say that no date has yet been set. I am meeting with some of my colleagues and officials this afternoon to go over the information which has been received from the various provincial governments bearing upon the volume of relief that was extended by the provincial governments and the municipalities during the last few years.
With respect to the second question, I do not anticipate that there will be anything more considered at the forthcoming meeting than the matter which was reserved for discussion at that meeting, namely, some system of sharing in relief that might be necessary for unemployment as well as handicapped and other needy persons.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe, Port Arthur (for Mr. St. Laurent) for the second reading of Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will be glad, as I am, that the second opposition speaker in a debate of this kind does

not have unlimited time. If I may say so, I think the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) would have done better last night had he tried to make his remarks in something less than the 101 minutes which he took, at the end of which he failed to tell us how his party is going to vote on the motion now before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought I made it perfectly clear to everybody that we intend to vote against the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, how many more minutes does the hon. member get?


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not blame hon. members opposite for their interjections, but I am sorry I did not hear the hon. member for Eglinton. Maybe he told us in the half minute he was now speaking how his party intends to vote. At any rate-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I remind the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -that no one man speaks for this party; we speak for ourselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I gather from the interjection of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) that the members of the official opposition may vote both ways on the motion.


An hon. Member:: Would there be anything new about that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, that
would be the logical conclusion from the speech made last night by the hon. member for Eglinton. He spent a great deal of time -101 minutes to be exact-railing against the government and against the Minister of Defence Production in particular, and railing against the bill that is before the house. But toward the end of his speech, in one of his many attempts to conclude his remarks, he said:
Mr. Speaker, the position of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is this, and I emphasize it again. We support the continuation on a permanent basis of the Department of Defence Production.
Well, if they support the continuance of the Department of Defence Production on a permanent basis, that is exactly what this bill calls for, and I presume therefore they will vote for the second reading of the bill.

Of course, true to Eglinton form, the hon. member went on and said:
We are prepared to give the government what powers are adequate to meet any proven existing need, or any that can be measured within the foreseeable future under present conditions, bearing in mind that parliament is never far away and can be called at any time if the government needs it. According to our view, these powers must be clearly defined-
And they are defined in the bill, as a matter of fact-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not part of the
quotation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and must be commensurate with a proven need. So far as we are concerned there will be no wholesale abdication on the part of parliament to satisfy a ministerial appetite for power.
Those sentences, Mr. Speaker, are like the whole speech; they are so wordy that one cannot be quite sure what they mean. But I admit that in those latter sentences there is a possible basis for a vote against the measure, as there was in the first sentence I quoted a moment ago a possible basis for a vote for the measure. So our hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party are once again going both ways.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Good old socialism.


Mr. Knight:: At the same time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was a great indulgence in words last night. All the cliches were trotted out.


Mr. Sinclair:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Fisheries is wrong so often that I am beginning to wonder if there is not something wrong with what I am saying, in view of his endorsation of my remarks.


An hon. Member:: Well you might.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Despite that concern, I
would point out that we were told last night that we must not stand for concealment, that we must not stand for secrecy, that we must not stand for any infringement of the rights of parliament, and that we must not stand for any curtailment of the principles of freedom. Yet what we are doing is not being done behind closed doors. There is no concealment about it; there is no secrecy about it. We are right out in the open, dealing with a measure to lay down the rules and to lay down the basis under which defence purchasing will be done. So far as we in this party are concerned, we believe in responsible government; we believe in parliament laying down the rules for the executive departments of government to follow. That is what this bill does. This bill does not leave
Defence Production Act the question of defence purchasing in a vacuum. It lays down the rules by which defence purchasing will be carried on.
We think it is the responsibility of parliament to lay down these rules. If there are some clauses in the bill that hon. members do not like, it is their responsibility when we reach those clauses to move any amendments they may feel to be necessary. But to oppose the whole proposition of there being a set of rules, of there being a statute to govern defence purchasing, is, I suggest, the height of irresponsibility. If the hon. member for Eglinton meant in his 101-minute speech last night that his party was going to vote against this measure, I ask them: What is their alternative? How do they propose that defence purchasing should be handled?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was said very plainly last night but apparently you did not listen. It was said about three times.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I remember listening with great pain to every word that the hon. member uttered last night, and even though it was adding to the pain I looked through his speech again today in Hansard-I still say that if he is opposed to defence purchasing being carried on by a department regularly established by a statute, he has not presented any alternative. I hope some speaker in his party who will be limited to 40 minutes will be able, in that lesser amount of time, to tell us what alternative the Progressive Conservative party has unless, of course, in the end they are really going to vote for second reading after all.
As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the bill will continue to repose in the elected government of the country, a government responsible to the people of Canada, the power to direct and, if necessary, to control industry in the national interest.


Mr. Trainor:: Excellent socialist doctrine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And that is what my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party do not like.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When they rave and prate about freedom what they mean is freedom for private industry.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minute they see any government, even if it is a private enterprise government, bringing in legislation that proposes some direction of private industry in the name of the people, boy, they trot out all the words, all the cliches and use all the

Defence Production Act time they can to rail against such a proposition. The hon. member for Eglinton had great pleasure last night quoting various remarks that have been made about this legislation by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) as well as by others. I was waiting for the hon. member for Eglinton to give certain quotations from the Minister of Defence Production which he seemed to overlook. I am sure he is not unaware of these remarks of the minister because they were made at an earlier stage in the debate on this measure in response to questions asked by the hon. member for Eglinton. I refer to statements made by the minister as recorded on pages 1993 and 1994 of Hansard of March 14, 1955. In answer to one question that the hon. member for Eglinton put to the Minister of Defence Production, the minister said:
In the last war there was great pressure for textiles that were needed to clothe the troops. One particular textile mill refused to make cloth for the services on the ground that it did not like to do business with the government. It had the facilities and should have contributed its bit to the government program but it was more profitable for that mill to refrain from government work and to serve the domestic market which was also short of material.
When the hon. member for Eglinton objected that that was an example from the days of world war II and the minister should get up to date the minister said this:
But it might occur tomorrow. For instance, we are going into the far north to build a great project under conditions of considerable stress. Suppose our steel fabricating companies say, "Sorry, we do not like that type of work; we are going to use our facilities to build something else".
I maintain that we have a right to insist that those facilities be used for that early warning line which we believe is urgently needed, whether the steel companies prefer to do something else or not.
Then over on page 1994 the Minister of Defence Production is recorded as saying:
I seriously suggest that I can think of firms in Canada-not in the steel fabricating business- that I would not be too sure would willingly give up their domestic business in order to do defence production business.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Eglinton, who had unlimited time and could have quoted at length, did not bother with these quotations from the Minister of Defence Production which point out the need in the national interest for legislation of the kind that the government now asks parliament to keep in force. Of course the hon. member for Eglinton was not here in 1939 so he would not be expected to quote from anything the Minister of Defence Production said on that occasion. But it is relevant to the question before us, and I think we should

remind ourselves of what the then minister of munitions and supply said in reply to a question from the then member for Weyburn, now premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. T. C. Douglas, as reported at page 179 of Hansard for September 12, 1939. This is what the minister said:
The provision of 5 per cent was put in the last act after a good deal of consideration as a minimum return for the service rendered, but it was one which men of considerable experience believed to be unworkable. I can say to my hon. friend that from that day to this the defence purchasing board has done its very best to place contracts on that basis and has used every pressure that could be brought to bear in the form of patriotism and so on, but to date it has not succeeded in placing a single contract on that basis.


Mr. Gillis:: 1939.


Stanley Howard Knowles: These statements I have quoted, which seriously condemn the ethics of private enterprise, are not remarks that we socialists make on street corners. These are statements made on the floor of the House of Commons by the Minister of Defence Production. If he feels there are circumstances such as these with which the government must be in a position to cope in the national interest, I suggest it is the height of irresponsibility for the member for Eglinton to say that the government should be denied this kind of legislation.
I could not help but feel that a good deal of the 101-minute speech of the hon. member for Eglinton last night was by way of a personal attack on the Minister of Defence Production. I do not blame him for that. I have had occasion to attack the minister frequently during the past 13 years, and I shall probably continue to do so as long as he and I are both here. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think that if that same Clarence Decatur Howe, instead of entering parliament, had remained in private industry and had become a great captain of industry with great powers, able to influence and direct great sectors of our country's economy, able to push men here and there and do all sorts of things as a great captain of industry, he would have been a hero in the eyes of the Tory party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not a chance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But when he wields power in the name of democracy on the basis of responsibility to parliament and responsibility to the people, oh no, that is a different story. He is interfering with the great basic concept of freedom because he enunciates the principle that the national interest should come before the interests of private firms. That is the position of my Tory friends.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You will be a new senator soon. You will be in the Senate all right.


An hon. Member:: That is all you think of.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have had a lot of nonsense from my friends to the right and we are still getting it.


Mr. Lennard:: There is more truth than poetry to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Eglin-ton had a great deal to say about controls in his remarks last night. He and his friends do not like controls over industry when they are put into effect by parliament, by the government, by the people of this country through their elected representatives. But I have yet to hear a hue and cry from the hon. member for Eglinton or from any Tory in this house or out of it against the way in which private firms, private individuals, the heads of great corporations and boards of directors control and influence the economy of this country. Thousands upon thousands of Canadian workers have the question of whether or not they will be employed determined, not by the elected representatives over whom they have some control but by the individual heads of great corporations.


Owen C. Trainor: They know how to do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here is the hon. member for Winnipeg South with an interjection that they know how to do it. In other words, he is saying he does not believe in democracy. He would rather have the country run by these people who, he says, know how to do it, rather than by elected representatives responsible to the people. Not only do the same captains of industry, who have no responsibility to parliament and no responsibility to the people of this country, determine the extent to which there will be employment or unemployment, a livelihood or a lack of livelihood for thousands of Canadians, but they are wielding a tremendous power with respect to the natural resources of this country.
We have no control over companies like the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway or the Hollinger interests or the Aluminum Company of Canada, the pulp and paper outfits or the timber companies. This country is rich in natural resources, mineral and timber and so on. Surely these resources really belong to the Canadian people, to those who are here now and to generations yet unborn. But whether or not the generations yet unborn will reap their heritage of these resources is determined to a large extent by private interests outside of this parliament and in many cases outside of this country so far as their ownership and direction are concerned. If my hon. friend wants to rail against controls, wants to rail against the wielding of great power over the lives of Canadians, there is a field for him to get into
8,	1955	4535
Defence Production Act instead of levelling all of this at a man who, for all his faults-he has them and he knows it as well as I do-at least is a member of parliament, a member of the cabinet responsible to parliament and responsible to the people of this country.
We believe in responsible government. We believe that the affairs and the economy of this country should be run in the national interest and that it is important that parliament, on behalf of the people, should have the say in economic activities of all kinds, particularly where the national interest is involved as in the case of defence purchasing. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Eglinton did not bother in his lengthy speech to face up to the question as to the issue-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It was 105 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was 101 minutes; he started at 8.19 and quit at ten o'clock.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I certainly wish I had been here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Sim-coe North is luckier than he realizes.
What is the issue that is before us? The question is, how will defence purchasing be handled? Is it to be by order in council? Is it to be handled in some vacuum without any arrangements or regulations whatever, or is it to be done by a department with the rules and regulations of that department laid down by parliament? We think that-


Donald Methuen Fleming: They will not be laid down by parliament under this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend still believes he is debating the emergency powers measure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have not read the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I have read the bill. Not only did I read the bill, but the hon. member read most of it to us last night.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I had better read it to you again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend thinks he is still debating the Emergency Powers Act which did have in it undefined powers. He and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as well as we in this party, complained against the Emergency Powers Act. What we complained against was that its powers were undefined. We said that any powers to be given by parliament to the government should be specific, should be defined, should be spelled out, and that is what we have in this legislation that is now before us. But the hon. member for Eglinton does not seem to realize we are dealing with a different piece of legislation.
4536	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
Mr. Speaker, we will deal with the matter of the extent of our defence expenditures when we come to another subject. It may be possible, in view of world conditions and the efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and others, to reduce defence purchasing one of these times. I certainly hope so. But even if we do achieve a reduction in defence purchasing to whatever extent may be possible, it will still be necessary to have a department to do the purchasing. We feel, therefore, that this department of government should be continued. We want the government to do something about health and welfare. We do not leave it to the cabinet in a vacuous state, we set up a Department of National Health and Welfare. We want the government to do something about agriculture, so we set up a Department of Agriculture and we lay down rules and regulations. The trouble with that department is the minister seems to find ways of getting around those rules and regulations. If we want something done about labour matters, we set up a Department of Labour. I submit that one could go down the list, and if we feel there is a need for defence purchasing we have to have a Department of Defence Production. So far as parliamentary control over the matter is concerned, I may tell the hon. member for Eglinton that we can deal with it on the estimates, and unless we do parliament is not on the job.
He wants a time limitation in the bill. He did not state how many years or what length of time. I suggest it is parliament's job not just to say we will turn these powers over and we will review them in two, three, five or ten years. No, it is parliament's job to maintain a constant scrutiny of a department of this kind. It is parliament's job not only to examine the expenditures of the Department of Defence Production, but to examine closely the expenditures of the Department of National Defence. A good deal of public money is spent in making purchases through the Department of Defence Production.


Owen C. Trainor: How much chance is there of that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend wants to know how much chance there is of that. Instead of spending so much time opposing measures of this type, it would be better if we were to spend the time examining the estimates of this department and other departments. In fact I feel, and I make an appeal to the house leader, that at the next session of this house this whole department should be referred to the committee on estimates.


I believe it is obvious from what I have said that, although the hon. member for Eglinton spoke at great length last night without ever saying which way his party was going to vote, we believe in responsible government. We believe that this sort of thing, defence purchasing, should be done by a department responsible to parliament, with rules and regulations laid down by parliament. Therefore, although we may have some suggestions to make when we get into committee on the bill, we intend to support second reading of this measure.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: We look upon the bill that is now before us as a very grave and important measure, Mr. Speaker, and one which we view with considerable concern. I hope that the gravity with which we view the bill, and one of its provisions at least, will not be judged by the length of the speeches which we make. We cannot, of course, hope to compete with the hon. member for Eglinton who spoke last evening, and who made what I thought was a very long speech. The rules of the house, of course, forbid our carrying on that long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is one good rule.


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps it is a good rule. I feel that the hon. member who has just interjected has spoken, if not so long at one time, very often and fairly long at each time. So I think he should have no complaint about the length of the speech given by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). If you just multiply 40 minutes by a sufficient number you can get easily an hour and 40 or 50 minutes. I just draw that to the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because he made quite a point of the length of the speech by the hon. member for Eglinton.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not mind its length. I just wished he would tell us where he stood.


Solon Earl Low: I do not think it is necessary in connection with this bill, especially after the case put up by the hon. member for Eglinton, to speak at great length. So far as the arguments are concerned, I think the hon. member did not leave much to be said. Furthermore, I find myself in substantial agreement with the position he took on the bill. It may be that the hon. member did not state specifically how he and his party would vote on the motion for second reading. I do not suppose any one of us can tell; and it is none of our business, anyway, until the vote is taken.
But on March 14, at the resolution stage of the bill, I think that all on this side of the house took a reasonable position and made

a reasonable request of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). The stand we took then is exactly our position today; and I wish to put that categorically so that there will be no misunderstanding. I assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that before I sit down I will tell him where we stand on the vote to be taken shortly-at least I hope shortly.
In the first place we support the provisions of clause 1 in the bill. In my judgment it is only right that the salary of the Minister of Defence Production should be in line with those of other ministers. It appears that at the time of the revision of the Salaries Act some action was taken; and we have no objection at all-in fact we want the Minister of Defence Production, so long as there is a separate minister, to have a status in keeping with that of his colleagues in the cabinet. So that there is no quarrel in that regard.
In the second place we are in agreement with the minister when he says that the Department of Defence Production should be made a permanent part of our government set-up. We agree that the employees of his department should be able to count on something like permanent status. I can understand how unsettled they might be without a status that could be considered permanent. It is only right therefore that they be permitted to count on such permanent status. As Canada grows in population and in prestige, in what has become an unsettled world, our security will be more and more bound up in an efficient Department of Defence Production.
Let me hasten to say that I do not make that statement because I think in terms of war. I do not. Nor do I make the statement because of any belief that we have no hope of achieving peace in the world. I do say it however because the facts of the world situation tell us quite plainly that we are going to have to make almost constant defence efforts and preparations perhaps for many years to come. Even if peace does come- and I sincerely hope and pray that it will, and very soon-we will not even then be able completely to relax in our defence efforts. Nor can we hope to depend upon other countries to do our defence producing for us. And so we support the minister in his request that the department be made, looked upon and considered in every respect as a permanent part of our government set-up. We do express the hope, of course, that the time will come, and come speedily, when that department will not need to be as busy as it has been and as it is now. And I would
Defence Production Act expect that if such time should come soon, good sense would prevail, the powers that are in the Defence Production Act would not be invoked, and that no one would expect to make them permanent so that they could be invoked.
The third important point is this: We believe that the minister and his department should be clothed with powers sufficient to enable them to furnish Canada with all the materials needed to secure us as best we can be secured. We realize that the powers as set out in the act of 1951 are very broad and very sweeping, and to anyone unaccustomed to considering the transfer of such powers to government they appear a bit frightening. I do not think that at any time during the emergency of war this parliament and its members have looked upon the transfer of such powers as are outlined in this bill with anything but grave misgiving-even in a time of war and stress.
How, then, should we look upon them now, in a period, not of war, but surely one of great danger, but not one considered to be of great emergency? I think we can all be excused for looking upon such transfer with some misgivings, and not with the apparent joy with which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seems to view the transfer. Once those powers are transferred on a permanent basis, as a parliament we could exercise no effective check over them.
I draw my hon. friend's attention to the growing number of items in the estimates that come before us from time to time bearing the notation "S", with a circle around it. When we are in committee of supply and reach one of those items, what do we do? We leap right over it, for the simple reason that these are statutory provisions, clothing the minister of the department with powers this parliament has no right to question. And that is something to which I believe careful attention should be given.
Any time anyone says that all we need to do is exercise vigilance, I would say to him that all the vigilance in the world will not exercise a check on those powers permanently transferred by statute, because by statute they are given, and only by statute can they be returned. And if a majority sits in the House of Commons and refuses to bring in a statute for their return, or to support such a move, then how in the name of common sense can any vigilance be exercised or any review be made of such power which in any way could be considered effective?
I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to consider that, when he says so glibly that he is not afraid. Let me point

Defence Production Act out that it is easy, in any country that seeks this, to build up at some time or other what the hon. member for Eglinton last evening described so well as a compulsion of fear. And I say to the house that there are certain parts of our country where there is compulsion of fear, and where that compulsion of fear can be exercised in unrighteous ways and in ways that are good for the government but certainly not good for the people.
All one has to do is to travel through the province of Saskatchewan today to find out about compulsion of fear. All he has to do is hear some of the businessmen in that province talk about the fear under which they have to carry on, and how unsettled they are.


Mr. Campbell:: Baloney.


Solon Earl Low: The hon. member says "baloney"; I expected some such interruption as that. But I have travelled through there, and-


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Tell me one merchant who said that.


Solon Earl Low: I have travelled through that province; I have talked to many people. They have given me that statement, that they do live under compulsion. Why is that? It is because the government has unusual power. Consider some of the acts they have put on the statute books of the province-and I am thinking particularly of the crown corporations act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I might interrupt to say that the debate should not deviate into a discussion of provincial affairs. If that were permitted we might have a lengthy argument.


Solon Earl Low: I ask your forgiveness, sir. I
was led away by the statement that was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I merely wanted to use evidence to cement the thing that I had said. I will respect your wishes, sir, and will not deal with that any further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question just to get him back to his own line of thought?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he know how many items there are in the Department of Defence Production that are marked statutory?


Solon Earl Low: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only one, the minister's
salary.


Solon Earl Low: I could not say. I did not say
the Department of Defence Production. What I did say was a growing number in the estimates, and it is a growing number, and

year after year you will find more and more of those statutory provisions. Those statutory provisions represent a straight giveaway by parliament of powers which we cannot exercise. It is just a question of vigilance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are only seven items for the whole department.


Solon Earl Low: One out of seven is a very fair percentage. However, it is difficult for any of us to say with any degree of assurance that we are right; that the powers as set out in the act of 1951 are excessive to the needs of the government today. I would not like to say so at all. I know, as I said, they are broad and they are sweeping and they are such as to make it possible to create that compulsion of fear in the country. But at the same time I say it may be that the situation in which we live is such as to demand those. I would not like to say to my hon. friend the minister that I believe they are excessive at all. I do not believe they are excessive at all in times of emergency or of great danger. In times of war or in times of strong threat of war, I believe the Department of Defence Production requires vast powers. We have recognized that in times past and we have given vast powers for the reason that we expect them to act quickly and effectively, and they must have them if they are to work fast and effectively. In time of danger parliament has granted more powers, even more powers than may be used; for in my judgment there is always uncertainty about what the department and the government might have to deal with.
War is not what it used to be by any means. In these days no one is inclined to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules with respect to war. As the minister said last night, we do not have the leisure or the time these days to get ready for war. It simply strikes like lightning, fast, and in most unexpected ways and places. Therefore we are not inclined to beef too much about the powers in the bill of 1951, although one contrasts, and cannot help contrasting, the powers in the Canadian bill with those in the British bill.
I draw your attention to the contrast which was made last night by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). When one looks at those and makes a comparison he finds that the powers in the Canadian act do appear to be excessive. Would the minister or anyone else say that the United Kingdom government has been any less efficient in preparing for defence than we have been? I should like to have a statement on that. It appears to me that the United Kingdom has been most efficient and has done a good job, and one

does not hear any complaints about it. When you go back to the days of the Labour government in Britain you find that they did not resort to the kind of transference of powers to any department that we have here, and that we are asked to make on a permanent basis.
The minister admitted last night that there are powers in the Defence Production Act which he has never used. Probably he will never have to use them. I sincerely hope not. I hope he will get that kind of cooperation in the Dominion of Canada that will make it unnecessary for him to use those powers. When it is essential in the interests of our security to invoke those powers, then we think they should be made available to him to use. We are not kicking about that. Our position in this respect was well put by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) on March 14, when we were discussing the resolution. I just wish to quote briefly what he said as recorded at page 2003 of Hansard:
What conceivable chance has the opposition of obtaining a review of this act once it is passed and goes into the records? What assurance have we that 10 years from today there will be in charge a man who will be as sane, as wise and as responsible as the present Minister of Trade and Commerce? I do not hesitate for a minute to say that I think what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has done, with the tremendous powers he has had during the last few years, has been admirable. I do not see how a man could have done any better. But let me say this. We do not often find a man like the Minister of Trade and Commerce; we do not find more than one in about every million. We therefore must take precautions to see that the country shall be reasonably safe no matter what kind of minister gets into that position.
I say amen to that. We cannot always count on having the same kind of person in the department as we have now. Therefore we must be careful. That is as far as the agreement with the minister goes. But when he asks today that the powers in the defence production bill of 1951 be made permanent or continuing powers, then we have to part company with him.
Both the minister and the Prime Minister have said, in different ways it is true and at different times, that there are powers in the bill that should not be continuing powers. Why then does the Prime Minister, who introduced this measure, ask that section 41 of the act be repealed? Section 41 is that section of the act which terminates the unusual powers in the midsummer of 1956. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Defence Production has advanced one single good reason why the unusual powers should be continuing or permanent powers; not one. I listened with great interest to what the minister said last night, and I read
Defence Production Act over again what he said and marked it in Hansard so that I would not make any mistake. He did not give one single good reason to show why he needed to have those powers made continuing or permanent powers. He did convince me with his logic that the department should be made permanent, and we agree with that. But, as I say, he did not give one single good reason to help us to believe that these unusual powers in the act should be made permanent and continuing powers. I searched carefully through what the minister said yesterday and I could not find a single thing that would make me believe that I should vote for the repeal of section 41 of the act, except of course that the department should be made a permanent one and that the employees should be given permanent status.
I have already said that we are prepared to support the two things that the minister has asked for, namely, permanent status for the department and permanent status for his employees. But we are unalterably opposed to any action of this parliament to give permanent status to the powers that should only be given to a minister or a department in times of emergency and great danger, and for those times. We made that quite clear on March 14, too.
While we were considering the resolution we thought, from what the Prime Minister said at that time, we had some reason to believe the government would bring in some amendment to the bill before it was taken up again, which would make it necessary for the government to bring this act before parliament periodically for complete review. After three months we are now told by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) that he wants the bill as it is or not at all, which means that he has closed his mind to the reasonable request we made on March 14.
We have not heard anything from the Prime Minister, and I am wondering why, as did the hon. member for Eglinton. I think the Prime Minister should make a statement on this bill and tell us why in the three months that he has had to consider the matter he did not bring in some provision to successfully replace section 41 and make it mandatory upon the government to bring the act in for periodical review by parliament so we could have a check on it.
We have heard nothing from the Prime Minister and I suppose we must assume from that that our request for inserting such a provision in the bill as I have suggested, a terminal provision or a provision requiring that it be submitted periodically to parliament for review, is not to be met and that he has closed his mind on that matter as well.
4540	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
I speak for my group in this house when I say that we have approached this whole matter with a view to finding out what is right. We believe that it is right that parliament should never delegate powers to any individual, group of individuals or department without surrounding the granting of those powers with adequate checks and balances as insurance against the misuse of the powers. I think that that is the principle of the rule of law and the supremacy of parliament. We believe that this parliament is the repository of all the sovereign authority of the people of Canada and therefore we have no right to dispose permanently of any of those powers. Even if we hand over powers only on a temporary basis we are obligated not to do so without a provision for terminating the grant or the requirement that parliament be given an opportunity to review and to make full scrutiny of the way in which the powers have been used.
That is what we want now. I think our request is reasonable and fair. What is the right thing for us to do on this motion for second reading? I think the right thing for us to do would be to support those things which the minister requires and which are right, but also to serve warning that when the bill is in committee we will move for the deletion of clause 2, which repeals section 41 of the act, and offer an amendment to make it mandatory upon the government to bring the act back to this house for complete periodic review and scrutiny. We are unalterably opposed, may I repeat, to the granting to the minister and his department of unusual powers on a permanent basis, and against that we will continue to fight.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with keen interest last night to the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and today I listened with interest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I find myself somewhat in agreement with the last speaker with reference to certain things in this bill which has been moved for second reading on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
I am surprised that the Prime Minister has not been in the house during this debate.
I realize his responsibilities are great, but I can think of no greater responsibility after having moved this motion than to be here to safeguard the rights of parliament which, in the years that have passed, have been championed so often by those who sit to your right.
I observed that the hon. member for Eglinton spoke at some length and with some


enthusiasm about this issue as it concerns parliament itself, as it concerns the rights of members, and as it concerns the rights of the Canadian people. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that the hon. member for Eglinton had spent 101 minutes. I have been in this house for a long time and in the last 30 years in this parliament I have never known anyone who has talked so much and so long and said so little as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. During the last session he spoke over 700 times. One week I observed that during the five days he spoke 30 times. I sometimes think that as he belongs to a party that will never have the responsibility of government he feels that he can talk as long as he wants and say as much as he wants, as often as he wants.
I cannot quite understand the admiration he has for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He was almost offering bouquets to the government today. I have heard the hon. member in the past speak quite differently, when he was more critical of the government than he was today. This seems to suit the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre quite well. He says that if the Minister of Trade and Commerce had been in business he could have shoved men around. How he could have shoved men around! Now he wants to lay down legislation so that someone in the minister's place can shove all men and all industry in Canada around. They are not satisfied to be just a little dictator in connection with one industry; they would like to nationalize all the industries of Canada.
I have great regard for the Prime Minister, who has moved this motion, and I have keen regard for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I realize that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has had long experience in engineering. Since I have been in this house I have become convinced that there are two professions, that of Your Honour, the law, and that of engineering, which are best fitted for parliamentary service. A lot of engineering must be done in political tactics and careful observation must be given to see that the rule of law is maintained.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has rendered good service to this country. In fact he almost became a hero in the wartime boom. His ability is undoubted and indeed his integrity is unchallenged. He has been a most fortunate and happy victim of favourable circumstances so far as prosperity is concerned.
There is another thing I want to say about this bill. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is said to be usurping powers, but he cannot usurp powers because he has the

power to do as he likes under this act. In all fairness I want it understood that I am not speaking personally, but this is laying a pattern which is dangerous for the welfare of this country. That is why I submit that in connection with an issue as important as this the Prime Minister should be here during this debate.
We of Her Majesty's loyal opposition want to hear from the Prime Minister on this issue. We want to know where he stands. Last night the Minister of Trade and Commerce was quite indignant and spoke with some heat about the rumour that there was a difference of opinion in the cabinet in connection with this matter. I notice that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and the Prime Minister are conspicuous by their absence today, and there are not very many ministers in the house either.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite a few members of your party are absent.


Mr. Mcllraith:: What about the members of the loyal opposition who are absent today?


William Earl Rowe: It was not so well timed. Perhaps this was timed so that it would come at the same time as the Ontario provincial election when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce expected that many hon. members would be away. That is how they expected to slip this through without too much attention. After all, our members wish to exercise their franchise, even in provincial affairs. In fact those who sit to your right said a short time ago they were all going to be down there campaigning, but when they saw how things were going they came back to their original tents very rapidly.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker-


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be disturbed at all by the cackles and growls from the back benches on this issue, because this is an important issue. This is one which concerns the life of this house. This is one which concerns the supremacy of parliament. This measure is unnecessary today. No doubt the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre enjoys it. You could not put his type of policy into practice without it. You have to have all these powers in order to nationalize industry and socialize industry across Canada. It is a socialistic move, as far as the government is concerned. The government has never been embarrassed. But, Mr. Speaker, no government of this country has ever been embarrassed by the policies of the Conservative party in times of emergency. All through the years our record has been clear in that regard. We have
Defence Production Act never stood between the government and necessary authority in time of trouble. Our record is clear, back over the years. In the years of the 1914-1918 war this party suffered because of its stand in that regard. We would not be worthy of our place here if we did not follow that attitude. The Liberal party has at times refused to take the action it should have taken, as when it refused to provide for airfields in 1938. But today where is the emergency? Is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance now studying it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my hon.
friend a question? Why are we spending $300 million or $400 million to build early warning lines across Canada?


William Earl Rowe: If there were a greater emergency than there was when you said this should not be continued, why are you reducing your over-all expenditures this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are not.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, by some $20 million or $30 million. Why is the expenditure less?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What percentage of the total estimate is $20 million or $30 million?


William Earl Rowe: I know, "What's a million?" In this case it is, "What is $20 million anyway?" Under this act you can deal with $100 million without coming back to us. Yes, what is $20 million in the kind of expenditures that this government carries on? They have increased their expenditures all through the years on civil account and for a time reduced them on defence; yet they come to the house now and tell us now that there is such an emergency in connection with defence that we have to have powers that five years ago we would not touch at all. The Prime Minister himself, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce also, said as far back as 1951 that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers and should not be of a continuing nature.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now read the rest of it. That is half a sentence.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Trade and Commerce himself said that it should not be of a continuing nature at that time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believed that it should be continued as long as the emergency continued.


William Earl Rowe: Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce not intimate by that that we will be in an emergency as long as we live?


Donald Methuen Fleming: As long as he is minister.

Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to my hon. friend that in 1947 I liquidated an act with powers equal to this, because I did not think it was needed any more. It would have remained liquidated except for another emergency. When this emergency is through we may wish to liquidate this act. I do not propose to be told now by any hon. member just when I will liquidate it.


William Earl Rowe: I realize that, but somebody may liquidate you some day, at election time. I do not know whether it is a falsehood, but we hear rumours that the minister is going to retire, and in fact we even hear rumours that the Prime Minister is going to retire. What is going to happen then? Is this a deal that has been made? Has the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a deal with the government so that there will be a coalition between the socialists and the Liberal party in this country? I wondered why he was so happy today. Somebody is going into the Senate. He may be going into the cabinet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When my hon. friend takes over, he can repeal it.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a great champion of free enterprise and he knows, as well as he knows I am looking at him, that he does not need this par-manent bill. No emergency needs a permanent bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If you think that, you do not know what is going on in the world.


William Earl Rowe: He has said that when the fact that it is not needed has appeared he can liquidate it as and when he wishes, not when parliament wishes. Mr. Speaker, I have listened for a quarter of a century or so to speeches in this parliament-


An hon. Member:: And learned nothing.


William Earl Rowe: You have not learned much in the few years you have been here. I have listened to my hon. friend for many years talking about the supremacy of parliament and saying, "Trust the people", and I have heard him say that when a government fails to trust the people the people fail to trust the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The people do trust us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Forty-eight per cent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When they trust you, you can do something about this legislation.


William Earl Rowe: It is like the answers we get from the other side of the house. They say, "Look at the support we get in the country; that is why we can liquidate acts when we please; that is why we can hold parliament in contempt; that is why we do not need to listen to the opposition". A trend has been developing in this country so rapidly since this government has been more or less power-drunk, in the last several years, that one would think no one had any right in this house to criticize the government in any way. If we use that term "for emergency", why does not the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce take us into his confidence? If they are not satisfied to let the public in the gallery know, they can call a private session, a war session, and let us know what this emergency is. They have the War Measures Act, if required, and they have all the powers they need without half the powers of this act. If they need it at all, then they should tell us why, and not say, "We are a free enterprise party, but we want to make this permanent. We are not at war, but we want a plan for an emergency that has passed, so that we will have a pattern for socialism for the future for our friends to the left."


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am glad to know the emergency has passed.


William Earl Rowe: I am speaking in terms of an emergency that needs the powers under this bill. I am speaking of the use of the term "emergency". This party has not criticized the government for the amount of money it has spent even though we have criticized the way it has been spent in some respects; we have not criticized the war budget. We do not intend to criticize the war budget. We have told the people that we need taxation, that people must pay taxes in order to defend this country. There is no monopoly on sincerity in that regard. But there is no monopoly on the rights of parliament. There is no monopoly on those who would destroy the powers of this house. I say in all sincerity that this, in the guise of a war emergency, is a blueprint of a perfect pattern for a socialistic regime. True, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has more confidence in his party and his free enterprise policies than to believe that he or the Prime Minister would use it as a socialistic plan. But why do they want to make it permanent? Why have it after they are gone?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have confidence in our judgment.


William Earl Rowe: We have heard that said before by certain people in Europe who ran everything in a one-man show. I cannot understand why a party that has the powers that this

party has must have a form of an act that is a pattern for a totalitarian state. All they need to do is to have the socialists elected and get into this house, and then they would be able to put that into effect.
The pattern is made to order. I think that is why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre appreciates it so much. I have never seen him laud an act of the government as vigorously as he has lauded the bill before us today. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production have both said that these are unprecedented powers, powers that should not be continued. But now they are continuing them with, I say again, less of an emergency staring us in the face than there was when they said they did not need to be continued.
Why do they need to be continued in this manner? Is there any minister or any member within the sound of my voice who will say for a moment that if we pass this legislation now for a period of a year we will not do so again next year if the emergency remains? Why this permanency, why this long-term socialistic pattern even for an immediate emergency, if the Minister of Defence Production is right?
The minister attempts to frighten us today by suggesting that there is an emergency. I do not know what the emergency is, Mr. Speaker, but I think I have a right to know something about it. A lot goes on in this department and in several other departments that I do not know anything about because questions often go unanswered or are sidetracked and debates are juggled and fumbled so that we only get a few days on one debate and then it is postponed in order that the government may get through the session as easily as possible, and with the least embarrassment.
Let the government take the house into its confidence. If we are facing an emergency, if we need this measure let us know it. If conditions are that bad then let them clear the galleries, clear the press gallery, call a secret session of parliament and tell us why they cannot face the emergency unless they have this authority. We can count on the Canadian people to support us, exactly as they did all during the war. Every industrialist, every workman in the country played the game just as the soldiers did.
But I do not believe the Minister of Defence Production has decided that he will nationalize the whole economy of Canada. Why then does he seek this power? Why have the power to do it? No wonder the socialists to my left are lapping it up. They would be delighted, in the same way as the socialists in the United Kingdom who almost ruined the
Defence Production Act country and who recently suffered a terrible defeat. If they need powers of this kind then let the minister tell us in private session, if necessary, or in committee that the situation is so serious that he needs the power to take over real or personal property at whatever price he decides, that he needs the power to make contracts and then turn around and break them if he wishes to do so. He has that power under the act. Let him tell us that the situation is so serious he needs power to examine the books of a corporation and then refuse to believe the books; that he needs power to name an agent to run a business when he does not think it is being run properly, even if only part of that business has to do with war production; that he needs power to force a company to enter into a contract and to take over the company if it refuses to sign a contract. If they sign a contract and make a deal he can refuse to pay them what he said he was going to pay because he thinks they have made too much money. If he likes the colour of their eyes he can pay them more than he agreed to pay them.
All these things can be done under this bill. If the minister's agent at Ottawa thinks the bookkeeper of a corporation has had more expenses than he considers reasonable, the agent can set the figure to suit the minister. These things sound ridiculous, but the bill is ridiculous. These are the powers vested here. Are these the reasons the cabinet benches are so empty today? Are some members of the cabinet not satisfied? Some conspicuous members of the cabinet are not here now, and they did not look happy when they were here. There are many members in the party to your right, Mr. Speaker, who must squirm when they read that if a person refuses to make a contract with the government the minister can make him enter into a contract or surrender his business. They must squirm when they see that if the person makes such a contract and loses money he must regard the position as being the same as if he had tendered on the job.
I do not believe for a minute that the Minister of Defence Production, as long as he is in office, would use this legislation to injure Canada. I do not believe he would use the act to nationalize industry. I know his inclinations in that regard quite well. I do not believe he would use the act to tell a candidate he could not run for the Conservative party.


Mr. Cardiff:: I believe he would.


An hon. Member:: I think he would.


William Earl Rowe: I do not believe he would say to a person, "I do not think you can fulfil
4544	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act this contract if you are going to be a Conservative candidate." I do not believe he would use the act for political purposes. I do not believe he would tell them not to contribute to the Conservative party and I know he would not tell them to contribute to the Liberal party. But under this legislation he has power to do almost anything he likes. In fact I should like to know what he could not do under the act. He cannot take a man and throw him into jail without a trial, as he could under the War Measures Act. He cannot tell the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that he has to quit parliament and go and dig ditches.
But, Mr. Speaker, if I am the head of a corporation which is engaged to some extent in defence production, and if I make a contract with a labour union-let the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre tell his labour friends about this-under the act the minister has the power to break the contract made with that labour union, whether it means 10 cents an hour more, 20 cents an hour more or guaranteed annual wages. That is a pretty far-reaching power. It can be done at the whim of the minister. It can be done by the action of his agents. As I watch the actions of the government and look at this legislation I am more than ever convinced that what Lord Acton said is still true, that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When power is being sought that is not needed can you blame us, Mr. Speaker, for being critical? I do not like to be critical of the government. I realize the responsibilities they carry. I realize the Minister of Defence Production has carried a great load of responsibility. We have long since recognized his sound ability in many respects, as have most Canadians. In fact before he was in parliament he was employed by the party to which I have the honour to still belong, and he performed great service for us. If we had known he was going to enter politics we might have persuaded him to join us.


An hon. Member:: Then the bill would be O.K.


William Earl Rowe: But, Mr. Speaker, that is beside the issue. Let no one think I am attacking the Minister of Defence Production or the Prime Minister, but it is our duty as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to see that the supremacy of parliament is maintained, and we are not going to be sidetracked by the anxious and hungry desires of the socialists to our left or the whims of a minister who seems to think all power is safe as long as it is in his own hands.


This is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. This bill says that if the officers or directors of a corporation are not doing a service as the agent of the minister thinks they should, and if by their conduct they are going to fail to complete a contract as they should, then they can be dismissed. The innocence of their failure must be proven by them. The old axiom has been changed, and no longer under this act are you innocent until proven guilty. If the government does not like you, you are guilty until proven innocent.
As I said at the outset, I am not a lawyer. Neither is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. But I am amazed that the Prime Minister of Canada, who has been the head of the law society of Canada and is such an eminent member of the bar, would ever allow an act like this to be made permanent. In time of war no one in this house and few in the country would not be satisfied to pay their debts like the boys and girls have paid who lost their lives; that is not an issue. Surely we can trust the people. But why introduce an act with all these powers merely because a minister says, "You should trust me; I liquidated one act before and I can liquidate this." Should we sit idly by and wait and wonder whether or not the act will be liquidated, or the minister liquidated by an election? Elections are uncertain.
Does anyone think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-of course I know it is but a dream, and there is little chance of the hon. member sitting where the Minister of Trade and Commerce now sits- would ever let go of these powers? He would laugh and hang onto them like a bulldog to a bone. They would be the blueprint for his socialism. He could say to anyone sitting in the opposition that his party did not introduce this act. It was brought in by that great free enterpriser the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This act was brought in by that great Prime Minister who had been head of the bar association and was an eminent lawyer. This act was brought in by the party that received the greatest majority in the history of Canada. This act was brought in by the party that talked free trade one day and attacked it another. This act was brought in by the party that talked about the supremacy of parliament from one side of their mouth and destroyed it from the other. This is the party that talked about the individual rights of parliamentarians, and then ignored them one after another. The Minister of Trade and Commerce today has demonstrated his qualities more than ever by the fact that he says he alone should liquidate it; that he should be trusted to liquidate it.


Mr. Philpotl:: He did not say that.


George James McIlraith: Quote him accurately.


Frank Exton Lennard: Take the plugs out of your ears and listen.


William Earl Rowe: Perhaps I did add a word, but the meaning is still the same. In this instance the Minister of Trade and Commerce did say he liquidated one before and he thought he should be trusted to liquidate this one as he saw fit.


Elmore Philpott: My hon. friend told the house the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that only he could liquidate it, and of course he said no such thing.


William Earl Rowe: No, Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. He did not say only he could liquidate it, but he said he would be the only one who would liquidate it. He said he should be trusted to liquidate it. I realize that someone else could liquidate it, but the chief liquidator is the man who has the power. I realize there is a clear-cut distinction. In fact the hon. member, being a member of the press for so long, is closer to being a lawyer than I am, but the spirit of the answer is the same and indicates the same socialistic trend.


James Sinclair: You are just confused.


William Earl Rowe: If I were confused I would not seek any help from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), who has just interrupted.


James Sinclair: I am glad of that, too.


William Earl Rowe: I know, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will not likely tell his labour friends just what these powers mean. I say quite seriously that the minister or his agents have power under this act to annul or repudiate any contract between a company and a labour union, when even part of the work of that company is for defence purposes. This same power could be used to repudiate any contract made with a government, any contract made with a municipality, or any contract made with a province. In fact the minister has power under this act to repudiate even a statute of this parliament.
Where are those old champions of the supremacy of parliament? Where are those who have worshipped at the shrine of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mackenzie King? Let them go back and read the speeches of 1921 and 1925, as well as others. Why, Mr. Speaker, those men would almost turn over in their graves if they saw their successors now so hungry to take these powers and make them permanent. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce will do nothing else, will he not rise in his place today and say that these powers are only needed for defence purposes,
Defence Production Act and that if we think the act is that strong they will only ask for them for three years or five years? I believe that is longer than the Minister of Trade and Commerce intends to be here. According to rumours it is longer than the Prime Minister expects to be here. It will be longer than that before the Minister of Fisheries can ever hope to be prime minister.


James Sinclair: You will be gone.


William Earl Rowe: I was here before you were.


James Sinclair: You can console yourself.


William Earl Rowe: I hope I am not here then. I do not wish any of you ill luck, but I do expect to be around for a long time. I know some of the younger people, the youngest of them all, will have lived a long time before the Minister of Fisheries ever assumes the role upon which he casts his eye sometimes.


James Sinclair: You have been here 30 years and learned nothing.


William Earl Rowe: You have done pretty well. I do not intend to say much more, but I am amazed and shocked, and I say in all sincerity that never in my experience in this house, which now covers 30 years, have I ever witnessed a spectacle like this. I have never witnessed the spectacle of a government seeking powers such as are being sought in this act and trying to make them permanent.
Another thing no less conspicuous is the fact that the Prime Minister himself, the sponsor of the bill, has not been here to listen to a single word of the argument for or against it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has not been here either. I can tell by the weary and worried face of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) that if it were not for the sake of decency he would probably rather not be here.
So, Mr. Speaker, last night when the hon. member for Eglinton was charged with uttering a falsehood I believe the hon. member deserved the sympathy of the house. All one had to do was look at the faces of those opposite to realize that there must have been many of them who were worried. I have watched the faces of cabinet ministers for a long time and I cannot help but think there must have been rumblings in the mulberry bushes over this bill.
I would urge the Prime Minister to come back into the house and tell us what he thinks of this bill. Tell us why he has moved it. Tell us why he has to have powers he is never going to use. Tell us why all these spectacular powers are going to be conferred.

Defence Production Act
Is there an hon. member within sound of my voice, any hon. member among this great mob of government supporters, who cannot see the real intent? Are they content to sit idly by and listen to the gibes of the Minister of Fisheries and the rumblings of some other backbenchers, such as the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and others who, so long as they pound their desks or interrupt Conservatives while they are speaking, believe that they are paying homage to the all-powerful Liberal government? Some of them act like socialists and are admired by socialists, whether they are socialists or not.
I hope there is no collusion between those who sit to my left and the government; because while hon. members sitting to my left have no chance alone, they perhaps feel that if they clothe this government with power through this bill, then they will be making some sort of negative contribution to the economy of this dominion.
This government has taken many powers it did not need. It has done so, not only for the general purpose of having power, but-


Clarence Decatur Howe: We thought the hon. member had finished his speech.


William Earl Rowe: Well, I believe my time has almost expired. I realize, of course, that what I say will not matter very much. If this bill is going to pass it will not matter whether one talks for 40 minutes or 20 minutes. It would matter very little, in fact, whether individual members spoke at all. The government seems to think that it matters very little what kind of deal they make with the provinces and the municipalities. It will matter very little except as to the personnel, the man who is going to administer the act. I have complimented the present minister much more than he has complimented me, and I believe more than the Minister of Fisheries. He is a lawyer, too, and-


James Sinclair: No, thank God.


William Earl Rowe: I was going to say that if he is, then he must be a very poor one. But I say in all sincerity that if this act is made permanent we will have it that way forever in Canada. Sound, sensible and honest people, people who believe in the free enterprise system, have made this country what it is, despite what is said by hon. members sitting to my left. Here is a pattern made to order, a blueprint ready to be followed by the wildest socialists we have ever seen, if they wish to use it.
I urge the Prime Minister, who is not present this afternoon, and I urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce to do some quiet and private thinking in the quiet hours


tonight. Let them go home and conclude that perhaps they can do with three years. Perhaps it would be safe to have five years. Perhaps it would be safe to make it ten; or will they just leave it so that no matter who comes into power they can do as they like, and instead of having parliament supreme it will become negative and almost useless because they do not like parliament anyway.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been 30 years in the house so perhaps I may be excused if sometimes I am somewhat puzzled. I have been under the impression that we are discussing a bill to amend the Defence Production Act, a bill of two clauses. But as I listened to the two wings of the Conservative party yesterday and today I find that they are concerned with the actual provisions of the Defence Production Act itself.
I would like to know if either of these groups is going to have the courage to implement the complaint they made last night and again today, by bringing in a measure to amend the powers set out in the Defence Production Act. Are they going to have the courage to call for a reduction in defence expenditures? They have changed their line. Now they are no longer the voice of doom, predicting communist aggression almost every other Thursday; now they have decided that there is no urgency. Are they going to bring in a motion to reduce defence expenditures?
I listened last night, as long as I was physically capable of doing so, to the hon. member for Eglinton, and I did not discover a single argument, except his argument against the powers that are in the act and have been in it ever since it was passed. It may or it may not be that the government requires these powers. But I suggest that it is frivolous irresponsibility on the part of members to stand up in this house, on the pretext of an amending bill of this sort, to object to the powers in the act, if they have not the courage to offer amendments to that act themselves. It is frivolous irresponsibility, and I challenge the spokesmen for the Conservative and Social Credit parties to bring in an amendment which would curtail these powers which they consider so extremely dangerous.
We have been told for the last two years, time and again, from both wings of the Conservative party, that we have to watch out, that communist aggression is lurking just around the corner. If that is so, then presumably Canada requires defence. And if Canada requires defence, then we have to

purchase materials for that defence. I do not mind being called a socialist; I am a socialist. In fact I do not care if you call me a communist. But I will say this, that the welfare of Canada and of the Canadian people must take precedence over any private interest.
Let me point out to members of the Conservative and Social Credit parties that, as has been pointed out before, it was private industry that went on strike in 1939. I would tell the honourable and loquacious member for Dufferin-Simcoe that it was not labour that went out on strike; it was capital that went on strike in 1939, and that was prepared to let Canada go down the drain if they could not have the terms they wanted from the government and people of this country.
I suggest that these hon. members who have been objecting should name specifically the powers they would take away from the Minister of Defence Production. Let us have it spelled out so we can understand easily. What is it he is no longer to be allowed to do? If they are not prepared to come forward with that information, then let them tell us just what is the sinister aspect of making this department permanent.
I heard it suggested here last night at appalling length, and again this afternoon, that it is not possible to do anything with the Department of Defence Production once this amending bill is passed. That seems to me a confession of failure on the part of members of the House of Commons, because every year the operations of that department are under review by parliament. Every year every act of parliament is under review, potentially. Any member in the house who feels that there is an act vesting the government with powers they should not have is free to bring in an amendment.
Do we hear them doing it? No; we hear them getting up on the basis of a small amending bill and making an attack on the Department of Defence Production, and they have not the courage to make the attack openly. They have not the courage to state specifically that certain powers must be taken away.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we have an emergency as we are told we have-[DOT] and I have not the slightest doubt that some time, even in the remaining few days of this session, members of the Conservative and Social Credit parties will be warning us about the dangers of communist aggression-then we must face the realities of this modern world. We must realize that we have to prepare for that emergency ahead of time. It is no use to say that we will give the
Defence Production Act minister these powers when the first hydrogen bomb drops. If there is any way of stopping that bomb from dropping he has to have power to act now.
I do not know how he has exercised his power in the past. I have been told that he has exercised it well. He may have done it well or otherwise; but somebody has to exercise this power in the paramount interests of the Canadian people so as to override the selfish interests for whom the parties to my right and left are such eloquent spokesmen.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the various speeches that have been made I must admit that there is very little left to say. However, one way of emphasizing certain points is by repetition, and I want to emphasize very clearly the stand enunciated by our leader, the hon. member for Peace River, a few moments ago.
Before doing that, may I say I was rather intrigued by the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. But I must say I was not surprised at his socialistic views favouring national control. We expect this, and expected him to commit his group to support a measure that is centralizing control of industry in the national government.
I trust the government appreciates the fact that it is sponsoring control over private industry, which meets with such enthusiastic support from our socialist friends.
Another statement the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre emphasized was "we believe in responsible government". Who does not? We in this group are as jealous of our belief in this principle as any group in this house. But at the same time we also realize it is possible to have too much government. We believe the people of Canada are entitled to enjoy a wide degree of individual freedom and individual rights, and we shall oppose any action by any government, national, provincial or municipal, which takes away these rights in times of peace, in times of non-emergency.
The only criticism I have to offer of the speech of the hon. member for Eglinton is that he left very little for the rest of us to say. Another statement that rather tickled my fancy last night was one made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in describing this bill. He said, "It is a very simple bill". Well, it is simple; it is one of the shortest, if that is what he means by simplicity, that have come before the house this session. There is an old saying that many good things are done up in small parcels. It is equally true that many highly explosive articles can also be done up in small parcels.
4548	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
The sad part of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that it is another one of those package deals that we have been getting so often this session. Clause 1 deals with raising the salary of the Minister of Defence Production. I do not think there is any quarrel with that. So far as we in this group are concerned, we believe there should be a permanent Department of Defence Production. We are firm in our belief that whoever heads the department should be paid the salary that is being paid to other ministers of the government.
While saying that and agreeing that the Department of Defence Production should continue, we should also like to pay tribute to the right hon. member who has occupied the position of Minister of Defence Production for the past few years. He has been paid a good many compliments during the last few hours, but a few more might be in order.
I believe the people of Canada, from one end to the other, are well aware of his personal contribution to the business of government and to the wonderful developments that took place from 1939 to 1945 which made it possible to win the war in which we were engaged. When the minister steps out of office, as he is bound to do sooner or later, to take that well-earned rest to which he is entitled, I often wonder where the government of the day will find two men to fill the position which this one man is filling at the present time.
While we are in favour of a permanent Department of Defence Production, we cannot agree with the arbitrary powers over industry in time of peace that are given by this act. We admit that in time of emergency, or in time of war, rigid controls are necessary, and I am sure we would have no objection to invoking the War Measures Act, or any legislation necessary to make this act effective. These measures could be invoked by parliament on very short notice.
We maintain that Canadian industry should not be under the heel of any dictatorship; and I am afraid, despite other words to the contrary, that is what is being set up in this house at the present time. I was going to read some of the sections to which we take such strong objection, but the hon. member for Eglinton read them last night. They are sections 23, 24 and 27. To my way of thinking they are most objectionable, but I recall that last night the Minister of Trade and Commerce interjected and said, "Did you read section 25?" Well, I read section 25, Mr. Speaker. It says the party concerned shall be compensated. Well, surely to goodness no one believed that any department of government would confiscate goods and plants, if necessary, without compensation.


These are dictatorial powers, and the least I can say about them, using language that is not too strong, is that they certainly are not democratic powers. In wartime and in peacetime industry has done a good job under free enterprise. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group, I would say let us keep it free until an emergency calls for some drastic regulations.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention this afternoon of dealing with the challenge thrown out by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). I merely say that sometimes I am reminded of the statement made by the C.C.F. party in this house on the outbreak of the last war, when they urged upon members of parliament and on the nation that Canada should send all the materials she could overseas but under no conditions should send one man. They were so far out of line with reality on that occasion that when they get out of line again, as they have done this afternoon, I suppose none of us should be surprised. Their stand on some of these issues shows much more clearly than I can in a few words just why they are unlikely to be entrusted by the people of Canada with the direction of the affairs of this nation.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it might be of some value this afternoon for me to outline the course of the debate on the resolution which preceded the bill. That debate commenced on March 10. It was opened by the Prime Minister. It has already been pointed out by several hon. members that this measure has been sponsored throughout by the Prime Minister. As I said, he opened the discussion on March 10, though yesterday he failed to open the debate on the motion for second reading of the bill. As yet he has not taken any part in the debate at this stage.
Speaking on March 10 the Prime Minister admitted that the Department of Defence Production had been set up to meet an emergency which had been brought to a head by the fighting in Korea. He admitted also that at that time, which was three months ago, the peak of Canada's defence program was past. As a reason for this present measure he stressed the production of aircraft and electronic equipment, but admitted that there were certain powers under the Defence Production Act which were not being used. I quote from page 1905 of Hansard of March 10, where the Prime Minister had this to say:
There are other powers which are not being used at this time but which were placed there because they were considered to be essential in dealing with any emergency which might arise and which might interfere with the regular production and procurement of what was necessary to build up our forces and to discharge our commitments to our associates in this joint undertaking.

After the Prime Minister had spoken, members of the opposition pointed out various facts in connection with the Defence Production Act. For example, we referred to the statement made by the Minister. of Defence Production on March 2, 1951, a little over four years ago. On that occasion as well the Prime Minister was the sponsor of the bill, but the first speech on the motion for second reading was made by the Minister of Defence Production, and I quote from page 836 of Hansard of March 2, 1951, as follows:
It Is proposed that the act would expire on July 31, 1956. There is no particular significance to this date, other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature. Bearing in mind the present situation, and the program which has been announced by my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), a period of five years seems a reasonable minimum for the duration of the act. In the bill, provision is also made for the repeal of the Essential Materials (Defence) Act and for the suspension of the Defence Supplies Act during the period of operation of the Defence Production Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was a three-year program.


Howard Charles Green: At that time the minister
pointed out clearly that some of the powers in the Defence Production Act should not be of a continuing nature. In the same debate I questioned the Prime Minister about the extent of the powers contained in the act. The interchange is to be found at page 908 of Hansard of March 5, 1951, as follows:


Howard Charles Green: Then may I ask the Prime Minister
whether any further powers would be required to carry out defence production if we were actually in a third world war?
That was a clear question, whether there were any powers not in the act which would be required in the event of another war. The Prime Minister answered as follows:
I do not anticipate there would be. I think the enabling sections here are expressed in language which probably would be broad enough to apply: but of course with respect to that, as with respect to all our other moves in this connection, we would expect to declare any change in policy to parliament, and we would have to be asking parliament to appropriate moneys, so there would be ample opportunity for parliament to concur or refuse to concur in the carrying out of any further policy that was declared.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister has said that
this bill as presented contains all the powers that would be required in the event of a third world war.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not want to promise the house that if we ran up against something where the courts said this was not good enough we would not come back to parliament; if we thought it should be done, we would ask parliament to authorize it; but I think the law officers have drawn this in language that should be sufficient to cover all the enabling powers apt to be required.
We pointed this out to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production when
Defence Production Act the present measure was under debate in March of this year. We also pointed out that in the report of the department for 1951 there is an admission that the powers possessed by that department are war powers. I would refer to page 14, where the following statement is made:
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.
I have not heard the Minister of Defence Production state during the course of this debate that the powers in the Defence Production Act are not all the powers that would be required in a third world war. I think we may take that as an admission that such is the case. When the previous debate took place, in March of this year, the Minister of Defence Production confirmed the statement that he had made in 1951 to the effect that some of these powers should not be continuing powers. I would refer to page 1967 of Hansard of March 11 of the present session, where the minister is reported as follows:	'
I quite agree that all the powers set out in the act should not be continuing powers;-
This was not back in 1951; this was three months ago.
~ bat I do maintain that if they were necessary in 1951, they are just as necessary today.
Of course our whole argument hinges on the question of whether these powers, which it is admitted should not be continuing powers, should be placed in a statute along with all the other statutes of Canada and thereby given permanent status. The minister went on:
My hon. friend reads out these paragraphs as though they were fantastic.


Howard Charles Green: They are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I can tell him that every one of those powers has been exercised during the period I have been in charge of defence production in this country, and exercised not once but many times. The reason they were put in the act is that experience during the second world war indicated that that type of power is necessary to mobilize the industry of this country for war.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a question? Has the minister used these powers within the last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; they have not been needed.
Then three days later, on March 14, the minister made another most significant statement, and I refer to page 2001 of Hansard of that date, where he is reported as follows:
If we get back to a reasonably normal time and the powers are not required, I think the government of the day will certainly come forward and revise the act voluntarily-
Of course that was wishful thinking. In my experience I have never known this government to do anything of that kind; they have always had to be prodded.

Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: No one prodded us to repeal the munitions and supply act.


Howard Charles Green: They had to be prodded into that, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No one prodded us.


Howard Charles Green: The minister went on:
-but neither the hon. member nor I can see too far into the future-
These are the significant words.
-and I do not think we should attempt now to decide whether or not the powers of this act will be required over a long period in the defence of Canada.
Yet what the minister is trying to do is make these powers permanent, in spite of that statement made by himself on March 14 of this year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend is trying to discuss this logically. I am trying to make the status of the Department of Defence Production permanent. I do not know how I can make the status of the Department of Defence Production permanent unless I can make the act which creates the department permanent. If my hon. friend can tell me that, I would be very glad if he would elucidate.


Howard Charles Green: Nobody is questioning the wisdom of making the Department of Defence Production permanent, just as all the other departments of government are permanent. We have had bills here in recent years setting up the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Nobody objects to the Department of Defence Production being made a permanent department, but what we do object to is giving this department these terrifically wide powers on a permanent basis. We have argued that if they require extensive powers of this kind, then let us give them those powers for a period of years, say for another period of two years, and then at the end of two years we can again take a look at the act and see whether they still require the powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, if we extend the act for two years, we are extending the life of the department for two years.


Howard Charles Green: No. I cannot see why it is so hard for the minister to understand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You cannot contribute much to this debate if you cannot see this point.


Howard Charles Green: The minister never admits that I contribute anything to any debate. If that


is his view he is welcome to it. There is no reason why the department cannot be set up as a permanent department and yet not be given these powers on a permanent basis. Look at the Defence Production Act. Read section 41, which shows what can be done:
This act, except subsection 6 of section 4, shall expire on 31st July, 1956.
In other words, in this very act subsection 6 of section 4 is made permanent, while the rest is made for a period of five years. If that can be done, why cannot the reverse be done; divide the Defence Production Act into say two parts, one part setting up the department and the other part giving them powers. Why not make the first part permanent and provide that the second part shall continue in existence for a period of three years? That has been done time and again in legislation since I have been in the house, and I cannot see any reason why it cannot be done with this particular act.


Frank Exton Lennard: There is a contribution right there.


Howard Charles Green: My friend the hon. member for Eglinton points out that the first 14 sections of the Defence Production Act provide for the setting up of the department, and most of the sections from there on deal with the powers. I am afraid that this talk by the minister that you cannot make part of an act permanent and the other part for a period of years is merely a smokescreen, merely an alibi, so he can get all these powers put into permanent form. It was admitted during the debate in March that most of the powers about which there has been complaint have not been needed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Have not been
used.


Howard Charles Green: We shall not quarrel over the word. I think he said "not been needed" himself on several occasions. First of all, reference to section 23 is made on page 1993 of Hansard. The minister was questioned by the hon. member for Eglinton about section 23, as follows:
Let us take section 23, for example. It is the section which empowers the minister to oblige someone to enter into a contract with him to furnish defence supplies or to construct defence projects. What use has been made of that section by the minister? Have there been any cases where the minister has resorted to the powers conferred upon him by that section in order to procure defence supplies or to procure the construction of a defence project.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, since this act was passed there has been no resort to that section; however it is a section which I think should be in the act.

Then section 27 is dealt with at page 1996 of Hansard:


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has not answered my question, so I shall put it again. Have any conditions arisen or has any situation arisen where the minister has found it necessary to exercise the powers conferred by section 27 and appoint a controller?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, we have not appointed a controller since 1951, but we have had situations where if the owners or others responsible had not been willing to resolve them we would have appointed a controller.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was it necessary in any such case for the minister to threaten to appoint a controller?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We never threaten. That answer, of course, brings smiles from all sides of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You never threaten?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Never threaten.
Then section 29 is dealt with at page 2000 of Hansard:


Donald Methuen Fleming: The next question is in relation to section 29, under which the minister may where he deems it expedient cause an inquiry to be made, and may appoint an investigator. Has it been necessary at any time for the minister to act under section 29?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Inquiries are carried on by a section of the audit division of the treasury which is attached to the department. These inquiries have been carried on quite frequently. As I recall, I do not think we have appointed a special investigator.
Then, section 30 is dealt with at page 1994:


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I now ask the minister a question with respect to section 30 which is the section under which the governor in council may designate materials as essential materials and certain services as essential services. What orders are outstanding under that section now? What orders are in effect under section 30?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None at the moment.
Section 31 is dealt with at page 1995:


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that the same answer would apply to section 31 which is the section that gives the minister power to do certain acts and things and to make orders and regulations with respect to control and regulation of production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition or use of essential materials' or the supply or use of essential services for the purposes that are set out in the subsections. I take it that there are no orders outstanding under section 31 today.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at the moment.
These facts all came out during the discussion of this measure in March. Eventually the official opposition made a proposal to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production for changes to be made in this act so that all the parties in the house could unite behind it. They will be found in Hansard commencing at page 2002:
Surely some legislation could be brought in which would provide that the defence production department will continue as a permanent department but the question of what powers it should have shall be reviewed within a certain length of time. If some provision of that kind were made I think it would pretty well meet the objections which have been brought forward in this debate.
Defence Production Act
Here was the answer given me by the minister:
Mr. Chairman, I remind my hon. friend that he fought the Defence Supplies Act much more violently than he has fought this act; he kept at It for days. I do not know why anyone would get any comfort from going back to the Defence Supplies Act, but if the house wishes to adopt this resolution before the bill is brought in. the government will consider the request of my hon. friend. I do not know whether or not the government will accept the hon. member's suggestion, but at least it will be given consideration.
Then the Prime Minister was asked this question by the hon. member for Peace River:
Surely it would be a simple matter for the Prime Minister to say "We shall give consideration to such a provision in the act and will bring something in". That is all we are asking. What about It. Mr. Chairman? May I ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to give consideration to such a provision?
Here was the Prime Minister's answer:
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 we had a suggested compromise after there had been a somewhat extended debate on the measure. Obviously the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production did not take the same strong stand against any change that is now being taken by the minister. In fact they had shown out of their own mouths reasons why the powers of the department, as distinguished from the department itself, should not be made permanent. That was three months ago. We had hoped that in the meantime the government would decide there was no reason to place these drastic powers on the statute books in permanent form.
But the Minister of Defence Production went to Australia; and whether he was chased by a kangaroo or what happened to him over there I do not know, but in any event he has come back now and he alone, without the Prime Minister beside him, is taking the stand that he must have all these powers or no act at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has read excerpts from my remarks. Why does he not read excerpts from my remarks of yesterday bearing on that very point?


Howard Charles Green: I am just going to do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Good.


Howard Charles Green: They are found at page 4511 of Hansard of yesterday. The minister said then:
Either you have a defence production act with these powers, and all these powers, or you have no act at all.
4552	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
That was the stand he took in the house last night. Certainly neither he nor the Prime Minister wanted these powers so badly in March. The minister also said yesterday, as found at page 4501 of Hansard, "We believe it is a model act". Let the Prime Minister come into the house and tell us he believes it is a model act, that he believes the department must have these powers and all these powers without any change. It is very significant that the Prime Minister has been absent today.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is very significant that the Leader of the Opposition has been absent, too, and a lot of other hon. members opposite.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He will be back in a moment.


Howard Charles Green: Never mind about the Leader of the Opposition. You will hear something from him about this matter before the debate is over.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Good.


Howard Charles Green: Let the Prime Minister of the country tell us why he wants the department to be given these dictatorial powers.


An hon. Member:: Read on.


Howard Charles Green: Last night the minister dragged in arguments to support the new, tough stand he is taking on the measure. First of all he tried to explain the statement he had made in 1951 to the effect that some of the powers should not be continuing powers. He apparently forgot he had said the same thing in March of 1955.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All right, you have read it. Don't read it again.


Howard Charles Green: I have what the minister said last night right here. He said, as found at page 4510 of Hansard:
I should like to deal first with the statement I made In March, 1951, on the nature of the snecial ^powers contained in the Defence Production Act.
Then he went on to say that conditions at that time were different but, as I pointed out, he made exactly the same statement in March of 1955. Then he referred to the position of the defence program, and went on to indicate that the defence program was in such condition that he simply had to have all these powers. In answer to that I read the following from page 11 of the report of the Department of Defence Production for the year 1954:
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.
The report goes on to indicate all the steps that have been taken and all the progress that has been made. Then at page 13 we have this sentence:
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.
The report of the minister's own officials shows that the argument about needing these powers for the defence program was a phony argument. Then the minister said last night that the house could review this legislation on his estimates. That of course was the most fantastic excuse of all, to say that on the estimates the house could review these powers written into a permanent statute. How long would it be before we would be ruled out of order by the chairman if we tried to raise an argument of that kind on the discussion of estimates? What power has anyone in the opposition to bring in and put through a bill amending a measure such as the Defence Production Act? Consider how ridiculous the argument that we can review this legislation on the estimates would be as applied to any other act on the statute books of Canada, and particularly an act of this nature.
Then the minister got all confused and at page 4511 he said, with reference to the question of the wording of an amendment:
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.
He was referring to the request made by the hon. member for Peace River and myself. All we had requested was that there be a time limit placed on the powers which were being granted to the department; and the minister, in making an excuse of that kind, was merely trying to confuse the issue. Then the minister said it was impossible to separate the powers, that they could not draft an amendment to separate the powers. That is done in the house at every session. In fact the minister's own bills, the essential materials (defence) act, the munitions and supply act and the Defence Supplies Act all have different provisions, and there has never been the slightest difficulty about varying the provisions from bill to bill.

The minister made one other excuse. He said the powers taken in this act were no greater than those in the Expropriation Act. How he reached that conclusion is quite beyond my ability to understand. The Expropriation Act provides a procedure for filing a plan in a land registry office, expropriating the land, and then compensation, but there is nothing in that act such as is contained in this act giving the power to appoint controllers, to seize a man's business, conduct investigations into his business, and all that sort of thing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not read what I did say?


Howard Charles Green: On page 4511 of Hansard for June 7, 1955, I find this:
It is in fact no different from the Expropriation Act which has been in force since confederation, and longer if we go back to English law. Under the Expropriation Act the land is first expropriated by the crown and compensation is worked out afterward. As I have already pointed out, this is similar to the procedure under the Defence Production Act.
The sections of the Defence Production Act go farther than the Expropriation Act and the minister had no business trying-


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is reading a portion that refers to a particular section that I mentioned before I made those remarks, and he then refers it to the whole act. If he feels that is fair debate, then carry on.


Howard Charles Green: Even if the minister meant to restrict that to a comparison of sections 23, 24 and 25 of the Defence Production Act, I suggest to him that those sections go infinitely farther than the Expropriation Act.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill tailored to suit this one minister. I point out that under section 5 all the powers given to the minister can be exercised by an appointee. It reads:
The minister may authorize any person, on his behalf and under his control and direction, to do any act or thing or to exercise any power that the minister may do or exercise under this act.
The minister says that his appointees and his department must have these wartime powers. That is the way he does business, Mr. Speaker, and that is the way he has been doing business for a good many years in this house. It may be summed up by the expression "he carries a big club". The fact that he believes in carrying a big club is shown by statements made by him down through the years. On September 8, 1950, when we were considering the essential materials (defence) act, I find these words on page 460 of Hansard:
X suggest to the committee that a word from the government is more effective if there is a law
Defence Production Act in the background that can be applied in case the response is not all that may be desired.
The next year, 1951, on May 21, page 3253 of Hansard, we find him saying this:
Who would stop us? Don't take yourself too seriously. If we wanted to get away with it who would stop us?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is quoted from Conservative election propaganda that did not work. That is what my hon. friend is quoting now.


Howard Charles Green: And C. D. Howe is pretty deeply mixed up in election stuff, too. In 1953, April 21, page 4197 of Hansard, we find this. We were discussing an order in council passed under the emergency powers act when the house was in session, and which was thrown on the table here:
If we have overstepped our powers. I make no apology for having done so.
On March 14, 1955, just three months ago, at page 1996 of Hansard, we find this:
We did not take action under the powers. The powers were there, however.
Here we have a case of the greed for power of one man. Parliament is asked to bend the knee, just as business in Canada has been asked to bend the knee to this minister. It is high time this tyranny was stopped. We offered to agree that the minister could keep the powers if they were made for a period of time, say for two or three years, when they would again be subject to review. We offered to endorse the bill if the powers were restricted to such products as aircraft and electronics, instead of having a definition of defence supplies so broad it covers everything produced in this country. We suggested that the government go over the bill carefully and remove the sections that they themselves admit should not be continuing. We have been met with a refusal of each one of those suggestions. The minister's stand today-not the Prime Minister, and we want to hear his stand-is all or nothing.
The war has been over for 10 years, Mr. Speaker. The emergency powers act was dropped last year, and the Prime Minister admitted that act should be dropped. The Defence Production Act, in its present form, is not needed today any more than the emergency powers act was needed last year. If the minister cannot operate this Department of Defence Production without these powers, then let him give up that portfolio and devote himself to the Department of Trade and Commerce. He has a full-time job in selling Canada's wheat and looking after some of these trade problems he is having with the United States. I suggest the minister take on that job and let somebody else handle the defence production department.

Defence Production Act
If there were a new minister there is not one member in the Liberal or C.C.F. parties who would suggest that he be given these wide open powers the present minister is demanding. If a new minister asked for powers of this nature he would be laughed out of the house, and properly so. Because it happens to be this minister, the members of the Liberal and C.C.F. parties are prepared to give him all the powers for which he asks.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say there has been a lot of emphasis on the need for building up our defences, and a lot of emphasis on the need for defence production. That is all very true, but the strongest weapon of this country is not defences or defence materials; the strongest weapon of this country is freedom. This act takes freedom away from the Canadian people. For that reason there is no excuse for this government asking that the act in its present form be accepted by the house.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: It is with considerable hesitation that I take part in this debate-


An hon. Member:: Why bother?


John Angus MacLean: -but for reasons which the hon. member who has just interrupted would perhaps not appreciate, I feel I should take part, because I consider the subject matter to be one of the most important to come before this parliament in recent years, or likely to come before it in the near future.
On this occasion we are debating a piece of legislation which strikes at the very roots of our democratic system. We are being told, of course, that it is quite innocent legislation, not only innocent but necessary. It is necessary because at this time we find ourselves in a world which is divided into two factions. We are told that we must keep ourselves strong militarily in order to survive. These, of course, are facts and I do not disagree with them; but they are not justification for throwing away bit by bit the liberties and freedoms which we have set out to defend.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to take part in this debate because I realize my capabilities are perhaps not such as will measure up to the magnitude of the problem. This is a subject which would require the full powers of a Churchill, a Burke or a Lincoln to appreciate and expose the full significance of the insidious tendencies exhibited in this legislation.
It has been urged that it is necessary to make permanent the Department of Defence Production, and I do not think there are many members in the house who would quarrel with that suggestion. So far as we

can see into the future it seems likely that we will require to procure large amounts of munitions. Therefore in the view of most of us it is justified that the Department of Defence Production should be permanent. I, for one, am perfectly willing to go along with that suggestion.
The first clause in the bill would increase the minister's salary. That would appear to be an innocent clause, to which no one objects so far as I know.
However, when we turn to the second clause we find that not only would it make permanent the Department of Defence Production, but that it is a package deal. Tied up with the objective of making the department permanent we find that it also makes permanent these extraordinary powers now contained in the act.
The minister has suggested that it is impossible to bring about the desired result in any other way. He even led us to believe that he was open to suggestions as to how this package deal could be avoided. If the minister was sincere in that suggestion, then I am sure there are many who could offer suggestions to him to solve his dilemma.
As was said by the previous speaker, the sections of the act to set up the department on a permanent basis could be enacted in their present form. On the other hand those sections in the act which would make permanent these extraordinary powers vested in the minister could have a time limit imposed upon them. That is one suggested solution. Another solution would be simply to extend the life of the present act but to impose a time limit of four or five years during which it would operate.
Then an entirely different approach could be made. The present act followed the Defence Supplies Act. I think the purpose of the procurement of defence supplies could be met if an entirely new bill were introduced which would set up the Department of Defence Production in much the same way as every other department of government is set up. That act could come into force at the expiration of the present one; and when the present act expires the Defence Supplies Act would automatically come back into force. It could give the power required by the Minister of Defence Production for the procurement of defence supplies.
I should like to quote briefly from what was said by the minister in the house on March 2, 1951, when the Defence Production Act was under debate. This is what we find at page 839 of Hansard:
By and large, these are the powers that are now contained in the Defence Supplies Act-

He was speaking o f the powers in the present Defence Production Act.
-which, hon. members will notice, is only being suspended during the life of the present proposed act. Other powers are of an extraordinary nature but fitted to the extraordinary circumstances of today.
That is, fitted to the extraordinary circumstances existing in 1951. Then I should like to quote what the minister had to say when the Defence Supplies Act was being debated in the house in 1950. These are his words, as reported at page 3633 of Hansard:
The threat seems to be made from all sides of the house that this legislation will be defeated. I will say at once it is all right with me if it is defeated because I will at least get full marks for having tried to remove from the statutes legislation that is far too dictatorial and stringent for peacetime. I have tried to retain from the existing legislation only those powers which are reasonable peacetime powers for carrying out the procurement duties involved in the defence of Canada.
I am curious as to why the minister realized in 1950 that the powers required for an all-out war effort are not suitable for peacetime, and why he now turns his back on his viewpoint of five years ago.
It is a fact of history that most civilizations of the past, setting out to make sure that they would continue into the future, taught that their sole danger was from without, and that they could be destroyed only by attack from without. History teaches us, however, that in nearly all cases civilizations have ceased to exist not as the direct result of attack from without but because of rot from within. And the principles upon which they first prospered were whittled away to such an extent that eventually those civilizations collapsed from within.
That is my fear at the present time. Many people take the shallow view that progress is inevitable and democracy is permanent. I see no reason why our civilization or our way of life should be considered immune from the forces which have existed throughout history. I feel there is a real danger that in our efforts to defeat totalitarian attack from without we will destroy our civilization from within. To my mind that is a great threat.
Many people realize, too, that when we give extraordinary powers to any minister- and I am not casting any reflection upon any particular minister or any particular individual, because I make due allowance for human nature-such extraordinary powers tend to corrupt. I should like to quote briefly from a book entitled "Faith and Freedom", by Barbara Ward. This quotation is found at page 202, in these words:
After the French revolution, thoughtful men were profoundly impressed and disturbed by its brief showing forth of total dictatorship.
50433-287i
Defence Production Act
They came to believe that any attempt on the part of the community to concentrate all power- moral, political and economic-in the hands of the state and to use that power to bring about an earthly Utopia could result only in unmitigated despotism and the defacement of humanity. They appealed to the older traditions of Europe-incorporated in the political systems of Britain and America-to the separation of powers, to the supremacy of law over government, and governed, to the idea of a religious loyalty which transcends the state, and to a modestv in political aims which could recognize that paradise cannot be built and ordinary men deified by violent acts of state.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What did Cleopatra say about it? Did she not have some comment along that line?


John Angus MacLean: I notice that the minister is attempting to make light of the statement that I have made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; Cleopatra was quoted yesterday on another matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, there was no remark by Cleopatra. It was about Cleopatra.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Was it Mark Antony?


John Angus MacLean: No. There is a great deal to be learned from history, and I commend a study of history to anyone with such aims. Anyone who would preserve our present civilization can certainly learn from the mistakes of the past.
Behind all the constitutional checks imposed by medieval theory upon the governors of society lay the perception that unchecked power will be abused. Power is never exercised in vacuo. It is exercised by men. Expose them to the possibility of unlimited domination and they seize it: all but a minute fraction of them will deteriorate in the process as the ego grows by what it feeds on. This is the lesson of all history. This is the fundamental reason why human freedom fills so brief a span in the long development of man.
I do not consider for one moment, Mr. Speaker, that this is something to be taken lightly, or that it is only a case of getting a bill enacted by this parliament within a certain length of time, or anything of that sort. It should be remembered that all dictatorial powers which get into a position of control do so by a gradual and insidious process. It behooves us to guard the ramparts of freedom, not only by military arms and by efficient military forces, although they are necessary, but by safeguarding the principles on which our free civilization and our democratic system of government are based.
I should like to read a quotation from a book entitled "The Urge to Persecute" by A. P. Davies. The quotation may be found on page 139, and reads as follows:
It is always "little by little". As James Madison warned us, "There are more instances of abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Defence Production Act
Many peoples and many civilizations have realized their mistakes when it was too late. They looked upon trends that were taking place as necessary ones that were not especially dangerous, but before they realized it they had gone beyond the point of no return.
I should like to read another quotation from "The Urge To Persecute". It will be found on page 111:
The time to deal with tyranny is before it becomes established; once entrenched, it maintains itself with ease against those who could have ore-vented it. This, unfortunately, is the lesson which, again and again, the human race has learned too late. The little courage which it would have taken to stop a would-be tyrant before he had achieved power was more courage than his prospective victims could muster. They wrung their hands, they muttered their dismay to one another, they whispered their fears-but they did not act. They were too afraid.
My suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that now is the time to act. There can be no valid justification for the extraordinary powers which the government would have us give to the Minister of Defence Production. The purposes of the Department of Defence Production in the efficient procurement of supplies for the defence forces can be achieved without such extraordinary powers. I continue with the quotation:
Yes, evil ascends unchallenged, not because it is unrecognized as evil but because good people are not brave enough to check it. It is all in those six short words: "For goodness dares not check thee."
This United States writer goes on to say:
That is what has been happening in our own country in the last few years. Not that we are yet ruled by tyranny; we are still a free people who elect our own government. But we are indulging tyrannous elements that operate under the protection of our government. In the eyes of many, what these elements are doing is not alarming; if there is wrong in it, it must be condoned because of the end it serves-or which they think it serves. They do not see that this is how tyranny has always been excused-until too late!
I should like you to pay special attention to these words:
No would-be tyrant announces that his aim is power; he is the protector of the people, warning against their enemies, the popular champion of a plausible crusade, a persecuted hero, intrepid and dauntless amid the host of his detractors. Thus he presents himself, and although his character is plainly manifested by his deeds, thus he is accepted -by too many until it is too late.
I believe that is exactly what is happening now. This extraordinary legislation is being justified in the name of the protection of freedom. It is being justified because the minister admittedly has to work under difficulties, and the procurement of sufficient defence supplies is naturally a great problem.


For all of these reasons attempts are being made to justify this very extraordinary legislation.
The quotation I have read is only one man's opinion, it can be argued. It can be said that it does not carry any more weight than anybody else's opinion. The man who wrote it happens to be an authority on the study of present-day history, and I think his opinion is worth while. Nevertheless we can test the validity of the opinion. We can consider for a moment the statements that have been made in support of this legislation. It has been said that this legislation is necessary because it is for the good of the employees of the Department of Defence Production, who want to know that there is permanency in their jobs. It has been said that it is a good thing because it will help in the procurement of munitions and supplies for the defence of freedom, which is a worthy cause. It is justified on the flimsy suggestion that you cannot have a Department of Defence Production without extraordinary powers. Those extraordinary powers are justified by the statement that they will rarely be used, that likely they will not have to be used in the future so there is no harm in having them since they will not actually be brought into operation.
That reminds me that our most recent dictator came to power under constitutional law, using the ordinary and recognized methods of gaining power to a great extent. Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany by having a large group of his party elected to the parliament of Germany in election after election, supported by the socialists. I think they are familiar with what nazism stands for.


Clarence Gillis: The socialists were in the internment camps.


John Angus MacLean: Nazism happened to stand for the nationalist socialist workers party.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member has not read his history as well as he should have. He is at the wrong end.


John Angus MacLean: I admit that the party was backed by the industrialists, who went along because they wanted to curry favour with what they considered the strongest party. They realized their mistake, as many people do, when it was too late. As I was saying when I was interrupted, the nazi party in Germany came to power by using the accepted methods of politics in that country to a great extent, until eventually by negotiation with

other parties and by dealing with the communists and by the use of other methods they obtained a majority in the German parliament.
Hitler gained his first important position of power by the passage of a bill in the German parliament. It was a simple bill, and it was said that its provisions would not need to be used and it would do no harm. Just as we have been told now, it was said that the rights of parliament would not be disturbed or lessened. When I listened to the explanations given by several members of the government-I say this in all sincerity- they unwittingly and by absolute chance reminded me of Hitler's statement in the German parliament when he introduced the enabling bill of which I am speaking. I took the trouble to look up his speech, and these were Hitler's words on that occasion:
The government will only make use of these powers in so far as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures. Neither the existence of the Reichstag nor that of the Reichsrat is menaced.
It would not interfere with either houses of parliament.
The position and rights of the president remain unaffected. It will always be the foremost task of the government to act in harmony with his aims. The separate existence of the federal states will not be done away with.
In other words it would not interfere with the rights of the provinces.
The rights of the churches will not be diminished and their relationship to the state will not be modified. The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one.
The law is justified because the occasions on which you could possibly use it are few and far between.
All the more, however, the government insist upon the passing of the law. They prefer a clear decision.
Every sentence in that statement has a familiar ring.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I should say that no member of the government has ever said that these provisions are not to be used if the occasion arises where they are required.


John Angus MacLean: That is exactly what I am saying. The speaker on this occasion did not suggest they would not be used, either, but he justified their existence by saying it would be necessary to use them only rarely.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I never attempted to justify it on that ground. My hon. friend is dragging in extraneous material and trying to make it fit.
Defence Production Act


John Angus MacLean: I admit that the minister is annoyed, but I quoted from that particular speech because I was reminded of it by what has been said in the house during the last few days. I have not said what I have just said for the pleasure of annoying the minister or any other member of the government. If I happen to be annoying them-


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


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


George Alexander Drew: Ten minutes is not long when you are trying to kill off a parliament.


John Angus MacLean: It is because I believe in the democratic way of life which was established by our forefathers that I think it behooves us to protect that way of life by retaining our parliamentary system which has been gained with such great difficulty. I feel sincerely that these things must be protected, not only by means of war or military defence but also by the exercise of unspectacular and tedious methods through the use of free speech and seeing that no undemocratic bits of legislation creep into our code of law.
This piece of legislation is being enacted because there is a threat of communism, and we must make ourselves strong against that threat so we may bargain from strength. The vast expenditures of treasure and energy which are being made for defence purposes by the western world are being made to defend our way of life. It is just as necessary to defend our way of life in less expensive ways.
In closing I should like to sum up this point of view by another quotation from a book from which I have quoted already, called "The Urge to Persecute" by A. P. Davies. This quotation will be found on page 212. The book was written by an American, and it looks at the problem from the American point of view. It is a point of view that applies not only to the United States but to Canada as well, and to the whole western world. He says:
If our cause is just, if we are worthy of it. if we serve it wholeheartedly, the laws of God are with us.
We have not sufficiently remembered this. It is not that we have done badly in all respects. In some we have done well. We have fed the hungry, succoured the needy, defended the oppressed, resisted the aggressor, pled for peace. But we have also distrusted-many of us-our great traditions and we have lost confidence in our freedoms.
Communism is the enemy. But we cannot defeat it by remaining as we are. We cannot shorten the struggle. We cannot subdue it by force of arms without inviting-even if we won- a measureless catastrophe. We must wear it down.

Defence Production Act We must resist its aggressions and be alert to its conspiracies. We must outplan it, outperform it. We must carry our way of life to a level that leaves communism a hopeless and irrelevant contender. Our truth must defeat its falsehoods, our liberty its servitude, our justice its oppressions, our compassion its cruelties, our faith its cynicism, our humanity its degradations and debasement.
We cannot do this if we lower our own standards and betray our [principles. That is why we must rebuke those who say that they are fighting communism but who are careless of our moral values. They could all too easily lose us the battle. For the struggle is not between communism and a debased democracy; that would be a struggle that we could not win. The real struggle-and the one we can win and must if we are to survive- is between communism and democracy's moral values.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I find it impossible to support this measure in its present form. In saying that I do not minimize in any way the importance of our military forces or the importance of having them adequately equipped. However, I do believe there are better ways of achieving that objective than what is suggested here. I believe those objectives could best be achieved by setting up a defence production department on a permanent basis like any other department of government, but having these extraordinary powers limited to those which are appropriate in a situation which is short of all-out war.
For myself I freely say that if the government would come forward with any reasonable compromise limiting these powers, either in extent or by a time limit, or finding some solution that will break up this bundle bill that is being handed to us, I would almost certainly support it, if there were no other strings attached. But I cannot possibly vote for this legislation as it now stands.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) made a thoughtful suggestion in answer to the minister. He pointed out a simple alternative in keeping with the views expressed by the minister on the 2nd of March, 1951, when he stated that these powers should not be of a continuing nature, apparently because of their absolute nature. However, there has been no suggestion on the part of the government that it intends to deviate one whit from the trend
that apparently is to be followed, of establishing for ministers of the crown and this government an absolutism.
It begins to look, from what we heard this afternoon through the press, before parliament opened, that in the department of defence as well a spirit of absolutism is coming into being. One wonders, in view of the paucity of the explanation this afternoon, whether General Simonds is about to depart from the service of this country because of a lack of sycophancy in his attitude to the government. Certainly that is but another example of the trend that is revealed in this legislation now before parliament, which in effect emasculates parliament and places the minister in a position where he is all-powerful, under a statute which places him above parliament by the extension of powers far beyond those that are necessary, regardless of what conditions may be.
The Prime Minister introduced this legislation. The Prime Minister's place is in this house, to explain why such extraordinary powers are being asked for an indefinite period into the future; why the pathways of absolute power, which was previously limited, are to become under this legislation the highways of permanence. This is a serious bill. It is one that in its simplicity looks innocuous, but on examination it reveals that continuing trend to absolute power. Under this legislation the Minister of Defence Production will have granted to him absolute power for an indefinite period into the future, uncontrolled by parliament.
As I sat and listened to the debate I waited for something other than the specious explanation given up to the present time as to the reason for the change in attitude from that of 1951.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with this debate tomorrow, and when it is concluded we shall take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 9, 1955