1955-07-04

Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to draw the attention of the house to the achievements of the University of British Columbia eight-oared crew sponsored by the Vancouver rowing club in defeating the Russian crew at Henley on Dominion day and in rowing a great race the following day against the University of Pennsylvania. These young men are the pride of British Columbia; they come from various parts of the province and are truly a British Columbia crew. I am sure that their wonderful spirit and true sportsmanship have been an inspiration to young Canadians, and some who are not so young, from coast to coast. I know that hon. members will join me in extending to them the congratulations of Canada's parliament.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member. While it is true that the crew was sponsored by the Vancouver rowing club, hon. members will be interested in knowing that with one exception they came from rural areas of British Columbia and I am proud to say two of them came from my own constituency.



SUGGESTED PROVISION OF SUMMER UNIFORMS FOR OFFICERS AND MESSENGER STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the likelihood of the session lasting several weeks, will the acting leader of the government give consideration to providing summer uniforms for the officers and messenger staff of the house who are now undergoing this extreme heat in their winter uniforms?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps the Minister of Public Works should consider providing winter overcoats for the members of the opposition who seem to be troubled with cold feet.


William Earl Rowe: We expect to finish before that.
I Later:l



ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUDDEN DEATH OF FORMER MEMBER FOR MACKENZIE

Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: might rise, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I think all members of the house will be sorry to learn that about two and a half hours ago my former roommate, the former member for Mackenzie, passed away. I understand, from a phone conversation with his son Russell, that his mother is standing up fairly well and that his father passed away quietly.
I may say that I had the privilege of rooming with Mr. Ferrie for some four years, and found him unceasing in his efforts for the welfare of his constituents. Under that rough, bluff exterior, he had a heart of gold. I cannot add very much to that, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that I regret his passing greatly.


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful to the hon. member for informing the house about this sad news. All hon. members, especially those of us who have known Mr. Ferrie, the former member for Mackenzie, feel great sorrow at his passing. I can assure hon. members that I will make it a point to send expressions of sympathy of all of us to his wife and other members of the family.



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move:
That items numbered 112 to 127 inclusive; and item 539, in the main estimates 1955-56; and items 653 to 656 inclusive, and items 789 and 795 in the supplementary estimates 1955-56, relating to the Department of Finance, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the special committee on estimates, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


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


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: This comes as a surprise. It was mentioned some time ago, it is true, but I had rather thought it was dropped. So far as I know there has been no formal notice of this. I certainly hope that it will be dropped. Some time ago it was discussed, and while I do not know that

Special Committee on Estimates any formal arrangement was made not to go on with it, I certainly thought it had been dropped. Then it was raised a week or more ago; and as I say, without any formal assurance on the point, I had hoped that it was being dropped. Now it comes as a surprise at this moment, with no notice.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the minister a question? The reason I ask the question is that some of the members of that committee might not be here today. Is it intended that the committee shall meet today? If the committee meeting is to be held today, with the unanimous consent of the house I trust we could replace any hon. members who are absent.


Walter Edward Harris: We shall of course replace any members that the opposition want replaced and that this side may wish to be replaced. It would not be the intention to meet today; it would be tomorrow.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why is it felt necessary to bring this up? It seems very clear that the intention was to drop it. It had been dropped in effect for a good many weeks. May I ask why it is thought necessary at this time, when we are supposed to be trying to get ready to close this session, to bring this up again?


Walter Edward Harris: I agree with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) it is not debatable.


Mr. Fleming:: On a point of order, there has been no notice of this motion, and having regard to its importance, I for one take objection to its being put forward today without notice.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May
I ask a question? I believe these are the estimates of the Department of Finance. Was it not suggested from this side of the house some time ago that estimates should be referred to this committee in order to facilitate the work of the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: About four months ago.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, when I presented the motion that there should be an estimates committee I stated that it was the intention of the government to send certain estimates to that committee during this session. I included in that statement my own Department of Finance. We were not able to carry out that promise because of the budget and many other things, and because at one time there were so many committees sitting it was not possible to man them all. For that reason I did feel at that time we could not proceed with what I had said. Now there is no reason

why the committee cannot sit and no reason why this work cannot be done during this session.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I concede that there will be plenty of time for matters of this nature, but there is also plenty of time for the regular procedure of the house, and therefore I would point out there is no formal notice before the house, and without consent this cannot proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Not very long ago there was constituted by this house a special committee on estimates. It was said that the committee was constituted for the purpose of having referred to it from time to time estimates from the committee of supply, and formal motions which have been made referring estimates of the committee of supply to that special committee have been made in this fashion. Therefore this is the practice that has been established. Pursuant to that particular committee that had been constituted, this is the procedure which has been followed. It does not necessarily follow that after this sort of pattern has been established, every time some estimates have to be referred from the committee of supply to that special committee on estimates, consultation must take place or notice be given. It is a routine proceeding. I allowed debate to a certain extent for the purpose of clarifying what the situation was and trying to have the parties come to a certain understanding. But at this moment my duty is clear and that is to put the motion.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it has been the practice in this house, very carefully followed, for the house leader to announce the business of the house for the next sitting. In announcing the business on Friday evening the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) made no mention whatever of this motion. I submit to Your Honour and to the house leader that it is improper for him to put this motion at this time without having at least given us notice on Friday night that he was going to do it. The motion involves various changes in the personnel of committees and one thing and another like that. We cannot carry on the business here in co-operation between the parties unless the government follows that practice of letting the house know what the business is to be for the next sitting.


Walter Edward Harris: 
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from the matter of debate, the leader of the house has made a statement that simply is not supported by the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: This is more than an ordinary routine proceeding. When the interjection is made by the leader of the CCF party that requests have been made that estimates go before this committee, he is stating what is true. That request was made months ago. It was made at the beginning of the session. This, after all, is typical of the disorganization of the business of the house that we have seen throughout the whole session.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might read to hon. members what is to be found at page 128 of Votes and Proceedings:
That a select committee to he designated he appointed to consider such of the estimates as may be referred to it and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
Therefore, that committee having been constituted, this is merely a routine motion by the leader of the house referring some estimates to it. It seems to me that is all this motion is. The estimates come back to the committee of supply, all powers being saved.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, without challenging what you have said about this being a routine matter, you will appreciate the fact that this motion does take us by surprise. When the house decided to undertake morning sittings 2 j weeks ago, it was on the understanding that the committee work of the house would be completed at about that time. We are sitting long hours in the house-eight hours a day-and it is simply impossible to do justice to the business of the house if committees are going to be sitting at the same time. At this stage we are not going to save time by this expedient; and that was the whole purpose of having the estimates committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must bear in mind that whatever consideration may influence him to oppose this motion, it is something that perhaps he should save for another occasion because, as far as I am concerned, at this moment I am not making a ruling. I am simply putting a routine motion pursuant to a practice which has been adopted ever since that committee was constituted. That committee being in existence and having as its order of reference to have referred to it from
Special Committee on Estimates
time to time estimates which may be moved in this fashion, all I have to do now, and I have no other alternative, is to put the motion. The hon. member may ask for a vote if he wishes, but at this moment all I can do is put the motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in view of the ruling you have made I presume we are precluded from debate on the subject and, as you have said, our only course is to vote against the motion, which we must do as a protest against this way of trying to do the business of the house.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. J. P. Deschateleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed with legislation, I would like to table a petition prepared by the ligue d'action nationale. This petition, which has my full support, is presented under the provisions of chapter IX, clause 68 of the standing orders of the house.
To the honourable house-


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member to tell him that, while he is entitled to present a petition, he has no right to read it.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present this petition, according to the standing orders of the house. It bears more than a million signatures of citizens of various municipalities or municipal councils of the province of Quebec, who wish that the name "Queen Elizabeth Hotel" be changed to "Chateau Maisonneuve."


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member to tell him that, at this stage, he must not comment on the terms of the petition he is presenting.
(Text):



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


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


Mr. Prudham:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has asked me to request that this motion stand in his absence.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE, MANITOBA FLOODS

Mr. Zaplitny:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged

between the government of Manitoba, or any department thereof, and the government of Canada or any department thereof, since January 1, 1955, relating to emergency assistance to those who suffered losses due to flood waters in Manitoba in 1955.



NEWFOUNDLAND


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


Mr. Weir:: I am advised by the Prime Minister's office that there is no correspondence dealing with the matter referred to in this motion and no return could be made.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we ought to have this motion stand until the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is here. The hon. member can read in Hansard the remarks of the parliamentary assistant and when we call the motion again perhaps he will have decided what to do with it.
Motion stands.



MARKETS, SUBVENTIONS, ETC.

Mr. Gillis:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys or the dominion coal board and the government of Nova Scotia or any department thereof, and the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation or any subsidiary thereof, relating to the question of markets for coal, subventions for the movement of coal, or subsidies on the export of coal outside the country for the period July, 1954 to July, 1955.


George Prudham: There is no objection to
tabling the documents as requested, subject of course to the usual reservation that we obtain the permission of the provincial government.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to those reservations, shall the motion carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the very optimistic estimate he gave over a year ago and

the recent discussions which have a bearing on the matter, I wonder if the minister would bring us up to date in regard to the situation relating to the ships of the Ming Sung company and indicate what correspondence there has been between this government and the appropriate authorities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am not in touch with the Ming Sung ships and the Department of Trade and Commerce was not involved in the matter. I shall be glad to find such information as is available and discuss it on my estimates, or otherwise I shall refer it to the proper department.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this could be taken as notice. The minister might inform us, having regard to the fact that it was the minister originally who supported this item in the estimates.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Labour if the department has been officially advised of the strike at Union Steamships on the Pacific coast and, if so, what action is the department taking?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the department has been advised that the strike took place yesterday at noon. It arises out of protracted negotiations following a conciliation board decision. The report of the board of conciliation affected three companies but only one is involved in the strike. The departmental officer in Vancouver has been instructed to contact the employers and the employees' union and place his services at their disposal.



REPORT OF PROPOSED EXCLUSION FROM UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what action the government proposes to take in view of the latest United States steps to exclude Canadian rye?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the facts of the rye transaction are not as stated, in the newspapers. During the current year we have a quota into the United States of 50433-355
Inquiries of the Ministry
3,300,000	bushels of rye. A reference was made recently to the tariff commission having to do with the continuance of that quota. After hearing witnesses the tariff commission recommended to the president that the quota be reduced 50 per cent to 1,650,000 bushels. Strong representations were made to the president and the executive that this violated the traditional pattern of trade with the United States. The result was that the president did not act on the report of the tariff commission but has set the same quota as is now current, namely, 3,300,000 bushels per year. We were asked whether we would prefer a one-year quota or a two-year quota and under these circumstances the government suggested that a two-year quota would be preferable. We can live with the quota as established at present. Until the situation changes to the extent that the quota can be dropped, we think that a 3,300,000 quota is reasonable, representing about the average sales of rye in that market over the last 10 years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I take it that the United States government has agreed to the two-year extension of the present quota?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And that has become law now by presidential decision?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.



BLINDNESS ALLOWANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister comment on a report appearing in the June 1955 issue of Liberty magazine, a copy of which I have sent him, attributing to Dr. J. H. Grove, chief of the blindness control division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the statement that the great majority of Canadians who are now blind, even though their sight could be restored, preferred to remain so in order to continue drawing the $40 a month blindness allowance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank my hon. friend for bringing this matter to my attention and giving me notice. I discussed the matter with Dr. Grove, who is a very valued officer of my department, and I may say that the statement attributed to him was removed from context; and of course he was not the author of anything such as is suggested in the article.
5622	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION	FERRY SERVICE



GIRL GUIDES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that the Minister of National Defence informed us on Thursday last that it would be impossible, because of military commitments, to provide Connaught ranges as the location of the international girl guides' camp in 1957, will the minister take into consideration the possibility of discussing the matter with his colleagues to find another suitable location?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to discuss the matter again with my colleague. I have already discussed it with him.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps the minister did not understand my question. In view of the fact it was apparently impossible to obtain Connaught ranges for this purpose, will the minister discuss the matter with his other colleagues to see if some other place under some other department can be obtained?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to discuss it with anybody, sir.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I had a question that I wished to ask the Minister of Justice. I see the hon. gentleman is not here, but since there is some urgency to the matter, I wonder whether the acting prime minister would be good enough to take notice of the question and make the appropriate inquiries? I wanted to know whether the minister had received from various municipalities in British Columbia, including the city of Kamloops, a request for reconsideration of the demand that payments under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police contract be increased? This is imposing a very serious burden on municipalities. If this request has been made, may we be informed whether favourable action is to be taken?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to make inquiries. If it is not possible to give an answer soon, the subject matter can of course be discussed on the estimates of the Department of Justice.



SUGGESTED PLACING OF &quot;WILLIAM CARSON&quot; ON SAINT JOHN-BOSTON RUN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, or to his assistant. In view of the present difficulty the William Carson is experiencing in entering Port aux Basques, has the department considered the suggestion that this vessel be placed on the Saint John to Boston run, at least for the summer season?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: The answer to the question is no.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to whichever minister is acting as Acting Minister of National Defence in the absence of the Minister of National Defence. Can the appropriate minister inform the house as to what steps were taken to inform the Canadian government, and particularly the Department of National Defence, about the developments in the Russian air service, as displayed in the fly-past yesterday at Moscow?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall get an answer for my hon. friend at the earliest possible moment.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Palleli (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to the recent announcement in the United States of a new proposed method of producing the Salk polio vaccine. Can the minister inform us whether similiar steps have been taken in Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that similar steps are being taken. As my hon. friend knows, we have taken steps which our scientists believe to be sound and thorough, and I believe these steps are being followed elsewhere.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe, Port Arthur (for Mr. St. Laurent) for the second reading of Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Brooks.
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the most extraordinary and one of the most unbelievable aspects of this whole controversy is the fact that the Prime Minister, who sponsored this bill, has refused to stand up in this house and defend it against the very severe criticism which it has received from the opposition and from the press right across Canada, irrespective of what party they normally support.
I think that the Prime Minister, by refusing to take part in this debate, is showing contempt both for parliament and for the press of this country. On Tuesday the Minister of Defence Production tried to excuse the Prime Minister's absence from this debate by saying that he spoke only on important bills. Now, surely the Prime Minister does not consider a bill which undermines provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights is an unimportant bill. I certainly hope he will rise in his place very soon and defend this very bad bill against the criticism which has so justifiably been directed against it.
As a matter of fact, I think the Prime Minister, like the majority of the cabinet and the other Liberal members of the house, has no real liking for this bill. I think they all realize that if these wide and all-inclusive powers, which make the Minister of Defence Production a virtual dictator over industry, both in peacetime and in war, are granted, then this bill when it becomes an act will prove to be a very serious political liability to the Liberal party at the next election. I think they realize that. That I think is the reason why the Prime Minister does not speak. He has no heart for this bill. He does not support it. I think he has been forced into it.


Mr. Dickey:: Why do you oppose it, then?


George Harris Hees: If the majority of the Liberal party and the cabinet are, as it is very reliably believed here, against this bill, why is it being pushed forward? I have done a lot of thinking about this and have talked to a lot of people. The conclusion I come to is that the reason why the bill is being pushed forward by the minister is that he 50433-355i
Defence Production Act is smarting under the defeat he received this spring in the cabinet over the pipe-line issue. It is very reliably reported around parliament hill that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to back down from his original project of an all-Canadian pipe line, and has been forced by his colleagues to accept an alternative, which is a gas exchange policy with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would speak to the bill.


John Horace Dickey: Where is the relevancy there?


George Harris Hees: The story widely circulated on parliament hill is that the Minister of Defence Production has said that either the cabinet will back him on this measure, or he will resign. I do not think they are ready to have him resign at the present time. And so we see the government going forward with a bill which the Winnipeg Free Press very rightly describes as imprecise, illiberal, feeble, lamentably bad, and as the lazy, playing-safe alternative beloved of bureaucracy. That same paper goes on to advise the government that as it has become jammed into a position which is as painful as it is undignified, it should drop this bill. I think that is some of the best advice that has been given for some time by a serious-minded supporter of this government.
This bill has been described by the Liberal press as bad in principle; and as the Winnipeg Free Press has so well put it, it is bad in principle because the circumstances are fundamentally different today from what they were in 1951, when this bill was first introduced. The Free Press says that for the minister to argue that there is an emergency today is simply ludicrous. Referring to that particular statement, I should like to go back to the debate of last Tuesday and quote an interchange that took place as reported at page 5380 of Hansard. The Minister of Defence Production is there quoted as saying this:
They say,-
"They" is referring to the opposition.
-"Yes, but the atomic bomb threat is not very serious-"


George Alexander Drew: Nonsense! Nobody said that in this house.


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


George Alexander Drew: Nobody said that in this house.


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


George Alexander Drew: Give the quotation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall certainly give it if I can get the blue sheets.
The minister has now had plenty of time to get the blue sheets and to go through Hansard. I should like to ask him what is the line and page in Hansard where an
5624	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act opposition member is reported to have made the statement which he contended had been made.


John Horace Dickey: You said it was ludicrous, which is the same thing.


George Harris Hees: I am asking the minister it he will tell me where to find that statement which he has said positively was made in this house on Tuesday morning last. I should like him to tell me when it was said and by whom. He said he would be glad to see who had said it and to give the line and quotation when he had received the blue sheets. He has had several days in which to get hold of the blue sheets and to read Hansard. I have gone through Hansard and have studied it carefully; and as far as I can see, that statement was not made. I ask the minister to tell me who made the statement and where we can find it in Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry but my time has been fully occupied on a salmon river.


George Alexander Drew: On what?


An hon. Member:: Salmon fishing.


George Harris Hees: You will note, Mr. Speaker, that according to the minister fishing salmon is much more important than is the matter of dealing with a bill of this magnitude.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: The minister said it himself. So, Mr. Speaker, you can see why the Winnipeg Free Press says that statements made by the minister are ludicrous. He made a positive statement on Tuesday morning last, when he said three times that this statement was made. He knows it was not made. We know it was not made. I say it is just an example of the kind of statements which we have been getting from the minister, and which make you wonder just how much credence you can give to any statement made on important matters of this kind.
As the Free Press again has said, the bringing in of this bill can only be explained by the lack of foresight which has been shown by the minister's colleagues in allowing the bill to come forward. It finally concludes these very objective comments on this whole matter by saying that the government's persistence in pushing this bill forward will leave a nasty taste in the mouth of all Liberal members who, through their respect for the minister and through their faithfulness to him, will rise in the house and vote for it. It further goes on to say that the opposition will not need to exaggerate to make the government appear weak, foolish tMr. Hees.]

and bureaucratic, because it says that is what the government is being if it sticks to this bill. That is a clear, objective criticism of the government's whole attitude in this matter by one of the great newspapers of this country. I think that the minister and the government would do well to consider carefully the criticism which has been levelled against them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend aware of the fact that the same great newspaper has published a more recent editorial?


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member had better get his reading up to date.


George Harris Hees: I should just like the minister to answer this editorial. Let us just take it editorial by editorial and clear the matter up as we go along.


John Horace Dickey: Why do you not keep up to date for a change?


George Harris Hees: I would say that this is fairly up to date. The minister last Tuesday, as reported at page 5378 of Hansard, said:
Other provisions of the act affect property, but there is no provision in the Defence Production Act that affects the freedom of any person.
Following that statement I should like to refer the minister to section 31 of the Defence Production Act, subsection 2, paragraph (d). First of all, section 1 reads as follows:
31. (1) The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he deems necessary to control and regulate the production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition or use of essential materials or the supply or use of essential services for the purposes of
(a)	ensuring the availability of defence supplies or the construction or operation of defence projects for the defence requirements of Canada and for co-operative arrangements for defence being carried on by Canada and associated governments* or
(b)	ensuring that abnormal requirements of essential materials and services for defence supplies or defence projects are obtained in the manner least likely to cause disruption of the trade and commerce of Canada dependent on those materials and services, which disruption might impede or prejudice the defence preparations or the economic stability of Canada.
Then subsection 2 reads as follows:
(2) Subject to the regulations, if any, the minister may, by order, as he deems necessary for the purposes specified in subsection (1), . . .
and paragraph (d) reads as follows:
(d) require any person who supplies any essential service to supply the service to such persons, to such extent and on such conditions as the minister may prescribe;
Mr. Speaker, as I read that section, it gives the minister complete jurisdiction over hours and conditions of work of those who work in what the minister, in his discretion, may describe as an essential defence industry in

peacetime; and if those working in an industry which the minister, in his discretion, designates as a defence industry disagree with the extent-which is the hours of work-or the conditions of work which the minister may prescribe, then it appears to me that this act denies to those workers the right to strike in protest during peacetime.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nonsense.


George Harris Hees: That is a section which we will under no circumstances accept, a section which denies in peacetime to those working in an industry which the minister may designate as a defence industry the right to take the only kind of effective action which is afforded to labour to protest-namely by the formal strike-in peacetime against conditions of work and hours of labour which the minister in his wisdom may prescribe.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a legal opinion that is very unsound indeed, in my opinion.


John Horace Dickey: It shows great erudition.


William Earl Rowe: Will you abolish the labour unions too?


George Harris Hees: Further, in section 28, the minister assumes the right to cancel any contract. Section 28, subsection 1, of the act reads as follows:
The governor in council may, by order, direct that a person shall not be bound by any obligation, restriction or limitation imposed on that person by or under any statute, order, rule, regulation, bylaw or contract with respect to such matters as may be specified in the order affecting the entry into or performance of a defence contract by that person or the carrying out of an order made by the minister under this act.
That simply gives the minister the right during peacetime to cancel any labour contract. These are the kind of things, Mr. Speaker, for which we do not believe there is any justification in peacetime. Under these sections the minister simply assumes the right to cancel a labour contract and to designate the hours of work or conditions under which working people shall work in an industry which he designates as a defence industry. That gives him complete and dictatorial power over all of industry, because all the minister has to do at any time to assume these powers is to designate, in his wisdom or lack of it, that a certain industry is a defence industry.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of thing for which we will not stand. We believe that the right of labour to protest, in the only way it has at its disposal, against hours of work and conditions of work, namely, the right to strike in peacetime, must be preserved, and we do not intend to see this
Defence Production Act minister or any other minister or this government take away from labour-


Mr. Marlin:: You know this bill does not do that.


George Harris Hees: -the right to strike in peacetime. That is exactly what these sections say, and the minister has not denied what I have said.


John Horace Dickey: It has been denied.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I now deny it.


George Harris Hees: The minister simply gets up and says that he denies it-


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not want to be as foolish as the present speaker.


George Harris Hees: -exactly as he got up and said, as found at page 5380 of Hansard of June 28, that we had said that the atomic bomb threat is not very serious.


John Horace Dickey: You said it was ludicrous a minute ago.


George Harris Hees: No member of the opposition ever said anything like that.


John Horace Dickey: You just said it was ludicrous a moment ago.


George Harris Hees: So when the minister gets up and makes the positive statement that a certain thing is or is not so, how can we believe his statement in view of what he said on that occasion which has been proved to be untrue? I believe it gives us cause to think many times about the validity of statements made by the minister. I see that the minister's answer to statements he cannot answer is simply to get up and walk out of the house. That is an example of the attitude of the minister. It is obvious that the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) throughout this whole debate is that he simply does not believe in the bill. He does not believe it is a correct bill or that there is any justification for it, and therefore he has not spoken on it. Otherwise the Prime Minister would speak on a bill which he is sponsoring. If the minister sponsoring a bill should not speak on it, who in the world should? Of course the Prime Minister should speak on the bill. Otherwise, why did he sponsor it?


John Horace Dickey: Repetition.


George Harris Hees: He is not speaking simply because his heart is not in it. He agrees with the majority of his colleagues in the cabinet that the bill should never have been brought forward. The cabinet and the other Liberal members of the house are being forced, because of the stand taken by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) that he will either be given his way or he will resign, to

Defence Production Act stand up when the votes are called and do what they are told, as they so often do. This shows what a lamentable state a government can get into if it has been in office too long.


John Horace Dickey: Speak for the opposition. You know more about it.


George Harris Hees: The government does not care about parliament. It does not care about the press or the people. It decides that a certain thing is going to be done, and done it must be. Near the end of his speech the other day the minister made one of the most dictatorial and arrogant statements I have ever heard in the house.


John Horace Dickey: You are the expert on arrogance.


George Harris Hees: As found at page 5382 of Hansard of June 28, the minister said:
The situation has reached the point where the government must insist that this legislation be passed.
In other words, we have come to the time when the government is not even going to make the pretence of listening to the arguments of the opposition. With its big majority in the house it is going to demand that this measure be jammed through. There is dictatorship if I ever saw dictatorship.


John Horace Dickey: You have never seen it.


George Harris Hees: It shows that when a government is in power too long it forgets about parliament and the people. It simply decides it is going to have its own way, and that is all. I think it is clear to every fair-minded member of the house that these powers should not be granted. I know what a lot of the Liberal members are thinking. It is not hard to hear what they think around the corridors of the house and in the cafeteria. We know what they are thinking. We know the Liberal party has no heart for this bill. We know perfectly well that they know what a great political liability it is going to be to them on the hustings at the next election. This dictatorship is being imposed on parliament and the country in peacetime, denying labour the right to strike, denying the sanctity of labour contracts-


John Horace Dickey: Nonsense.


George Harris Hees: -giving one minister the right in peacetime to cancel contracts, giving him the right to say what men's hours of labour and conditions of work will be. They have no recourse, as is normal in peacetime.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Such bilge.


George Harris Hees: The government is quite willing to deny labour the right to strike and to cancel contracts. That is exactly what they
IMr. Hees.]
are doing. If the Minister of Defence Production had any argument against what I am saying he would have remained in the house and presented his argument. But what did he do? He got up and walked out.


John Horace Dickey: You talk about arrogance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker -


George Harris Hees: That is typical of the attitude of the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister of Labour is not here, but on his behalf may I say that what my hon. friend is saying about impingement of the rights of labour is wholly inaccurate and nonsensical.


George Harris Hees: The Minister of Defence Production is sponsoring the bill on behalf of the Prime Minister who refuses, in contempt of parliament, to come forward, present his bill, as he normally should, and defend it. The Minister of Defence Production, having no arguments he can put forward against what I have said, gets up and walks out of the house, and his little brother, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), rises manfully in his place and tries to defend him.


John Horace Dickey: On a point of order-


George Harris Hees: Now we have got the little, little brother, the little wee brother.


John Horace Dickey: On a point of order, I submit that the entire remarks of the hon. member are completely out of order and unparliamentary-


Howard Charles Green: You do not like it.


John Horace Dickey: -but in any event the particular point on which I wanted to rise is that the hon. member apparently is under the impression that we are in committee. He has been asking questions and then making the claim that because they are not answered there is no answer to them. The fact is that the minister, to whom the hon. member has addressed these questions, has already spoken in this stage of the debate and under the rules of parliamentary procedure, which the hon. member obviously does not know or understand, cannot answer these questions.


Howard Charles Green: Why do you not speak?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about you and all the
other ministers? Where is the Prime Minister?


George Harris Hees: Now we are having arguments being put forward by the 18th sub on the junior team. The captain will not speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member be good enough not to indulge in personalities.


An hon. Member:: He does not indulge in anything else.


Mr. Speaker:: He should not refer in the fashion in which he did to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production. His expression should be struck off the record and I instruct the Hansard reporter to expunge from the record the remarks made by the hon. member for Broadview with respect to the parliamentary assistant.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I protest.


George Harris Hees: If I have said something unparliamentary about the parliamentary assistant in referring to him as the junior sub on the junior team-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it the hon. member for Eglinton wishes to make representations on the point. I am sorry if I did not let him have the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it it has to do with the action I have taken.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, it has, Mr. Speaker. I say this with great respect, that I believe something should be said by way of protest against your proposed ruling that these remarks be stricken from the record. In my respectful submission the words themselves indicate nothing that is offensive in a parliamentary sense; no unparliamentary expression has been used. Considering the provocation to which the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) was subjected this morning by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) and others, in my submission the remarks were not unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is one thing I should like hon. members to remember. If on both sides they are engaged in a debate in which some heat develops, I want them to know that so far as I am concerned I remain quite cool. I have heard the remarks made by the hon. member, and I could have asked him to withdraw because, in my opinion, they were unparliamentary.
My rulings are not debatable.


Howard Charles Green: Would Your Honour say what remark was unparliamentary?


Mr. Speaker:: Since I did not think it was parliamentary, I do not think it would be proper for me to repeat it. The hon. member did say that the parliamentary assistant was the 18th sub on the team, if hon. members want me to repeat that. I do not think that
Defence Production Act is the type of expression that should be used to describe an hon. member of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, of course, there are those who seem to believe that any kind of expression can be put on Hansard. I am not of that view. There was an expression used prior to this one. I have not the transcript before me, but it had to do with little, little, little and I do not know what followed. These are remarks which should not be used in this debate, but instead of declaring the expression unparliamentary and asking the hon. member to withdraw, I simply asked the reporter to strike the expression from the record.
I feel that from now on, we can continue this debate.


George Alexander Drew: Is Your Honour prepared to state the words which are to be struck out?


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, yes. I said that when the hon. member for Broadview referred to the parliamentary assistant as the 18th sub on the team, those were the words-


George Harris Hees: On the junior team.


Mr. Speaker:: Those are the words which I asked to be stricken from the record.


George Alexander Drew: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I must submit that some of us may think it was complimentary to think he was on the team at all. I feel that the line is being drawn rather fine when remarks that, in themselves, contain no suggestion of unparliamentary expression are stricken from the record in this way. If Your Honour feels such action must be taken I must confess that, with great respect, I have no course but to challenge Your Honour's ruling and call for a vote on it.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) wishes to appeal this ruling I shall be very pleased to give him the opportunity. However, I just want to point out to him standing order No. 41 which reads:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof.
Who is going to say whether or not the words are offensive, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) or the Speaker? It just so happens it is my duty to interpret those expressions. I let one go by, and in so far as this one was concerned, I thought that in order to make sure we did not have derisive expressions against hon. members appearing in our records, I would ask the reporter to strike it off the record. Now, when I do that, I do it as a matter of order. There

Defence Production Act are other examples in our practice of expressions being stricken from the record of this house. Mr. Speaker Lemieux did it; Mr. Speaker Black did it on several occasions, as did Mr. Speaker Casgrain. I have done it myself on at least two or three occasions since I became Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a word, Mr. Speaker. I recognize the correctness of what Your Honour has said to the effect that previous Speakers, like yourself, have on occasions expunged certain references from Hansard. I hope Your Honour will permit me to take just a moment to express strong objection to that practice, except on very rare occasions. I am not at this moment discussing whether or not the words used by the hon. member for Broadview were offensive. I will say parenthetically that I think they were intended to suggest disrespect for a member of the house. I do not believe we should treat each other that way. The words were not naughty words which people could not read and still maintain their morals. However, they are not the kind of words that gentlemen should use about each other, in view of the fact we are sitting here as the representatives of the people of Canada.
Having said that, it seems to me that expunging remarks from Hansard should take place on only rare occasions. In fact, I feel it should take place only when remarks have been used containing the kind of words which, in themselves, should not appear on the record of parliament. As a matter of fact, if the hon. member for Broadview has indulged in the use of disrespectful words he should not have the privilege of having those words stricken from Hansard. I feel they should stay there to his discredit for having used that kind of language. I am not quarrelling with your right, sir, to expunge words from Hansard. I am not quarrelling with the suggestion that there are times when it should be done to protect the good name of parliament, and that is in the Speaker's judgment. But I would ask Your Honour to reconsider this case. I feel you should either ask the hon. member for Broadview to withdraw the expression he used or, in keeping with citation 123 of Beauchesne's third edition, you could ask him to explain, apologize or retract, or you could ask him to modify, as you have done so well on other occasions. But I do think that in this instance, the words are not the kind that need to be expunged from the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member and I
are in complete agreement except on one point. As I understand, the practice of

having words expunged is followed either because the words are improper or because they are severely unparliamentary. It is the duty of the Speaker to ask the member who has uttered them to withdraw. It is precisely because I considered those words were not definitely offensive, but they were simply thrown in in a very-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Childish manner.


Mr. Speaker:: -no, I would not imply
that expression, but I thought it was better to deal with the point in this fashion than to submit the hon. member to the procedure of withdrawing. I wanted to speed up the proceedings and deal with the point in a hurry. I realize now that I did not attain my objective. I am very sorry. Perhaps I would have had better success if I had asked the hon. member to withdraw. As I said, because I did not consider the expression offensive enough for that particular procedure, I simply asked to have the remarks stricken from the record. I did not think for one moment that there would be this upsurge of protest because I did not think the expression was very offensive. I thought perhaps that kind of expression, especially after the one that had been used prior in the hon. member's speech, would be better off the record. It was for that reason I dealt with it in this fashion.
Now, I have no objection to revising whatever I have done, because I want to meet the wishes of hon. members. If it is felt it would be better to have the hon. member withdraw, I have no objection to asking him to do that and I am sure the hon. member himself will have no objection. To refer to an hon. member other than by his title, if he is a minister or, if a parliamentary assistant, by the name of his constituency, is not in order. That is number one.
Then, number two: To refer to a member in a discourteous manner is also out of order, under standing order 41. The hon. member did refer to the parliamentary assistant as the 18th sub on the junior team, or something like that.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I think the actions of the hon. member for Broadview have been properly described as childish, and in view of the source from which they came, I take no objection to them at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now, that was a reflection.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the wish of hon. members, then I am quite willing to retreat, and let the words appear in Hansard, and ask the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) and others to disregard what I have said in connection with the matter.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the remark I made was not intended to be disrespectful, at all. On the first football team I ever played on,
I was a junior member, but I was a very proud boy to be chosen on the team. But I do claim that the remark the hon. member has just made, where he said that he would consider the source from which the remark came, was disrespectful.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member be good enough to carry on with the discussion on the bill.


George Harris Hees: I will be glad to.


George Alexander Drew: I take it those words are not to be stricken out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The whole record stays as it is.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The whole record stays.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Harris Hees: It is clear to all of us that if this bill becomes law, it will simply be a big stick which the minister can hold over both industry and labour. And more than that, it is to be effective during peacetime.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I again appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and in his absence to the Minister of Defence Production, either to withdraw this bill or to bring it in with a definite time provision whereby it would be brought before parliament periodically. And as the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has so well suggested, the sections to which I have referred, section 28 and section 31(2)(d), should be deleted, so that this measure could be brought before parliament at regular and reasonable intervals by the Prime Minister- if at that time he will deign to discuss the matter with his colleagues and with the house-pointing out the extent of the emergency existing at the time and the requirements of the government with regard to defence production. If that is done, I can assure the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) and the Prime Minister that if there is an indication of an emergency, the opposition will be very glad, as it did in 1951, to vote these powers to the government on a definite, time-limit basis. *
I again urge the Minister of Defence Production and the Prime Minister to give these suggestions serious consideration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said several times that the Conservative party voted for this bill in 1951; they did nothing of the kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was no vote.
Defence Production Act


George Harris Hees: Either we voted for it, or there was no vote; we did not oppose it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has not the hon. member spoken in this debate?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about the Minister of Defence Production?


George Harris Hees: In other words, we told the minister at that time that we had no objection to the bill, provided there was a time limit on it.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker,
I have not taken part in the debate since the resolution was introduced in March. I listened to the minister when he spoke in the house on Tuesday, June 28, and over the week end I had an opportunity to read some of the speeches that were made in the earlier stages by both the minister and the leader of this group. It is largely as a result of some of the statements that have been made that I feel inclined to speak at this time in order to try to clarify some of the issues.
I was interested in the minister's statement at page 5377 of Hansard when he said:
We have seen many legitimate objections to the bill drowned in a torrent of exaggeration, and the corpses of the arguments are now floating around in a vast ocean of words.
If at this stage anyone knows what the argument against the bill is I am sure that I cannot be one of that number.
I agree with the minister that, after reading these speeches, there is a vast ocean of words. But may I draw attention to these words:
We have seen many legitimate objections-


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I correct something there? It should read "any". It was a misprint. I did not make that correction in Hansard. I intended to say "any", and I think I did say "any", although I have noticed in reading Hansard that the letter "m" is in, but it should not be in. I meant to use the word "any".


Victor Quelch: The minister will admit that there may be some legitimate objections. It is only natural that after listening to the lengthy debate he has lost track of those arguments. But he lost track of what I consider to be the real objections, and it is for that reason I speak now, in an effort to draw those to his attention. Because I do believe that, in a house, composed of reasonable men, it should be possible to come to an early conclusion on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Victor Quelch: I want to refer to the minister's statement to be found at page 5382 of

Defence Production Act Hansard. And this is the whole crux of the situation, so far as I can see:
If it had been suggested earlier that it would relieve people's minds-and I think it would have relieved the minds of the Social Crediters-to put a time limit of five years on the legislation, that might have been considered. But we would have done it with full knowledge that another extension would be necessary, because the very development work on the supersonic planes I am talking about is a six-year program, and I am satisfied the guided missile program will go far beyond that period.
Note these words:
If it had been suggested earlier that it would relieve people's minds-and I think it would have relieved the minds of the Social Crediters-to put a time limit of five years on the legislation, that might have been considered.
Those are rather amazing words. Surely the minister has not forgotten the earlier part of the debate, when the whole argument at the resolution stage was that a time limit should be put on the bill. In order that there may be no misunderstanding let me go back to the month of March, and quote the words of the leader of this group, as they appear at page 2001 of Hansard:


Mr. Low:: Would the minister not say that it might be wise to make it mandatory upon the government to have this legislation submitted for review at regular intervals? I think the idea suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is an excellent one, whereby the minister could consider including in the act some provision to make it mandatory upon the government to submit it to the house for review, let us say in three or four years, or whatever he feels desirable.
The words my leader used were:
-in three or four years, or whatever he feels desirable.
The minister now says that if we had made a suggestion of a limit of five years, it might have been taken into consideration. Well, we did made a suggestion of "three or four years, or whatever time he feels desirable" -that is any time the minister might consider was advisable. In the light of that statement I do not think the minister can say at this time that we did not make a suggestion that a time limit be put in. If hon. members will turn to the next page 2002 they will find that the leader of this group when speaking on this very point had this to say:
That is exactly what it would be, and that appears to us to be the meaning of it. 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?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 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.

In the light of that statement the Minister of Defence Production cannot say today that we did not make a recommendation for a time limit. Yet he says that if a recommendation had been made this government would have been prepared to give it consideration. So I say that in view of the fact that that recommendation was made, in view of the fact that the minister now says that had that recommendation been made he would have given it consideration, I think that the minister might very well even at this late date give consideration to that point and suggest that a time limit be inserted in the bill.
Up to the end of the resolution stage I would say that the government had adopted a reasonable attitude. They had listened to the arguments of the opposition. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production had stated that they would give consideration to the proposals of the opposition. Then on June 7 the minister made it clear that they were not prepared to act along the lines suggested by the opposition, and he is reported on page 4510 of Hansard as saying:
Such is not the case, and it is in the light of present-day circumstances that I am compelled to recommend the continuation of the Defence Production Act in its present form.
And then on page 4511:
Either you have a defence production act with these powers, and all these powers, or you have no act at all.
The minister made it quite clear that he was not prepared to accept any amendment to place a termination date on the powers in the act. If the Minister of Defence Production still has some doubt in his mind as to what I have just said, I would refer him to what the leader of this group said on June 8 as reported on page 4550 of Hansard:
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.

In the light of what was said at the resolution stage; in the light of what was said by the leader of this group at that time and by other members of the opposition the Minister of Defence Production cannot say today that a recommendation to put in a time limit was not made in the early part of the debate. It was made time and again; it was repeated day after day. In the light of that I think the minister should be prepared to give further consideration to that point and should say now that he will be prepared to put in a five-year limit so that the act can be brought back to parliament. He has stated that if that recommendation had been made by the opposition in the early stages of the debate it might have been possible to do it. In view of the fact that he now finds that it was made I think in fairness and without having to back down in any way the minister might well say, "All right, I missed that point, I am quite prepared to put in that clause with a five-year limit to the powers."
I would say that the present debate is an example of parliament at its very worst. After all, we are supposed to be reasonable men, we are supposed to reason out things rather than having long-winded debates using a lot of language which is not always complimentary, the kind of language that Mr. Speaker thinks would be better left off the record. Surely we should be able to deal with matters without that kind of thing happening. In view of the fact that the minister has made it clear that he would have been willing to take action on a time limit it seems to me that what we need at this stage is just a little co-operation between the government and the opposition.
I am reminded of a picture which used to be circulated in the early days about the benefits of co-operation. This was circulated mainly throughout western Canada. It showed two stacks of hay between which two donkeys were tied together. Both donkeys wanted to feed but they both insisted on pulling in opposite directions. The result was that neither got what he wanted. I am sure both the government and the opposition have the same objective, the best defence we can get for Canada. We find that there is a certain difficulty between the government and the opposition. Would it not be wiser if they turned around and instead of pulling against each other both tried to go toward that objective? The minister may say that this comparison is wrong because in the case of the picture the two donkeys were evenly matched whereas the government can be said to be the larger of the two donkeys and able to pull the opposition over. I agree that there is some truth in the argument of the
Defence Production Act government being the larger of the two and that eventually they can force the opposition to give way.
The minister is a reasonable man and it seems to me that in the light of the statement he made on Tuesday he should be prepared to put in a five-year limit. On page 4511 of Hansard of June 7 the minister referred to the difficulty of making the act permanent and the powers temporary, and I quote what he said:
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 and re-enacted before the expiration of that time. This obviously was not the intent indicated by the request put forward by the hon. members.
Let me interject there. It is true that we said we would go along with the minister and make the Defence Production Act permanent; it was merely the powers we wanted to terminate. If, on the other hand, it is not possible to make the powers temporary then we feel that the whole act should be terminated at the end of five years and re-enacted. The minister pointed out that apparently that was the attitude of justice, and he goes on to say:
Suggestions of the Department of Justice to achieve the results desired by the hon. members were along these lines, as in each case they required that certain sections of the act be singled out at this time and designated as clauses which should expire at a given date in the future.
I would have thought that the Department of Justice could have redrafted the act in such a way as to keep the powers under the act apart from the rest of the act. However, if it is not possible to do that, then the act should be brought back and re-enacted. Personally I am quite prepared to support the Defence Production Act if it is needed. The minister has quite convinced me that these powers are needed at the present time. I am not objecting to that, but not even the minister knows what the situation will be five years from now. We all hope that eventually there may be some agreement reached between the nations of the world. The United Nations are working toward that end. We hope it may be possible to have disarmament. Perhaps in five years' time we shall have achieved that goal.
I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare would not say he is such a pessimist that he does not think we can come to an agreement. Possibly an agreement can be reached by that time. If it were reached by that time, then the minister himself would admit that those powers would no longer be needed.
5632	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would then be repealed.


Victor Quelch: I wonder whether we could not have a section put in the act under section 41 which would state that instead of this act expiring in 1956 it would expire in 1961. Then, in the spring of 1961 we could review it again. If the situation warranted further extension, the extension could be made.
Let me give the minister an example of another act in which this is done. This is a totally different act, but its powers are very widespread. Take the wheat board act. Part II of the wheat board act, under section 23, is repealed in 1957. I am sure the minister will agree with me that the farmers are not asking for the act to be repealed. They would like to see that section eliminated entirely and part II made a permanent part of the act. Under section 23 of the act, part II is repealed in 1957. I do not think the minister believes-I certainly do not-that we are going to do away with part II in 1957. There would be a tremendous protest from the farm organizations if the government decided to do that. The farmers have not asked for section 23. The minister feels it is only right that where wide powers are given to the wheat board under that act they should be subject to review from time to time. Therefore, the minister, in this instance, has insisted upon putting a time limit in the act, a time limit ot four years. At the end of that time the act has to come back to parliament for review. Surely, if in the case of the control over elevators it is necessary periodically to bring the act back to parliament for review, then in a case like this, where the powers are so much greater, it should also be a matter of wisdom to bring the act back to parliament to allow parliament to decide whether or not those powers should be extended.
Perhaps I should read the amendment moved by the Conservatives to the bill before us:
That Bill No. 256, an act to amend the Defence Production Act, be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce with instructions that they have power to examine and report upon the advisability of
(a)	placing the Department of Defence Production on a permanent basis and conferring on the department such powers as ought to be of a continuing nature; and
(b)	conferring for a period of one year, or until extended by parliament, such additional powers as may be strictly necessary in the light of the existing world conditions.
I presume that (b) which reads:
conferring for a period of one year, or until extended by parliament,-


means for one year or for whatever time parliament should see fit to extend the bill. If the bill is to be left as it is we shall support the amendment. In the light of what the minister said on page 5382 of Hansard we would much rather that the minister would state to the house that the government are prepared to put a five-year limit on it. Let me read again what the minister said at that time:
If it had been suggested earlier that it would relieve people's minds-and I think it would have relieved the minds of the Social Crediters-to put a time limit of five years on the legislation, that might have been considered.
In the light of that statement, and in the light of the evidence I have now put on the record, I say, without the shadow of a doubt, that that suggestion was put on the record, and that therefore the minister now, without losing face at all, could very well say he would be prepared to put a five-year limit on the act. In which case we would support the bill.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I have just three things to say. In order that nobody on the other side may have any misconception, may I say that, just like every other Liberal in this house, I am 100 per cent behind the minister.
The first thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the rule on repetition should be watched closely. For my own amusement I have at times chalked down the number of repetitions that have taken place. It would surprise the opposition if they could have a little look at that record. The rule should be observed because I should like to see any member of the opposition, who can stand up and speak to the bill, say something altogether his own and not repeat anything. I do not think it is fair to keep on repeating, because these repetitions are costly to the taxpayers.
The second thing is this. I remember that during the second world war we were caught unprepared and that the government chose the present minister as minister of munitions and supply. I can remember that very distinctly because I knew what the minister was doing. The statement that came from all corners of the opposition was, "Too little, too late." I do not think anybody will doubt that. I can remember when he organized the best brains of Canada to get the best tools for the air force, the army and the navy. He did an outstanding job for us. Then it was "Too little and too late."
The minister shows his common sense when he says that he is not going to be caught again in that way, whether there is going to be a war or not. I myself think there is not

going to be a war, but he is not going to be caught again with his hands tied and to hear the cry "Too little and too late." I wonder what the opposition would say if he were caught again; but he is going to be prepared.
The third thing has to do with the right to strike. Anybody who works for the minister is so well treated that he does not want to strike. Those of us who come from the head of the lakes know-and I have used this before, and I shall use it again-that he was the only man in Canada who selected for his staff the best engineers and the best assistants that he could get. When there was no more work for them to do he told them to come in and play as they liked, and their salaries would be paid just the same. I wish to heaven our industries were headed by men like the minister. If they were, there would be no unemployment and no relief. He knew how to treat men; he knew how to treat all those who worked in his departments, and I have known many of them. They would like to continue to work for him. Therefore he wants the people who work in his department to be sure that the department is not limited to five, six or 10 years, but is like any other department.
I am going to support this bill, I do not care how long the discussion takes. If it takes until Christmas or until Easter I am going to stay with it, because I think it is right.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) raised a matter a moment ago, to which some reference should be made, when he placed very fully on the record the discussion which took place in this house on March 14, and the amazing statement of the Minister of Defence Production the other day when he said that if any suggestion had been made, then perhaps it might have received attention. There is no question but that a suggestion was made; there is no question but that a discussion took place between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence Production, and, as I recall it, the Minister of Finance, the house leader. The house waited for a moment or two while the discussion took place.
The hon. member for Peace .River (Mr. Low) suggested that perhaps we should proceed with a division. Those on this side of the house suggested that perhaps we should wait. In the end it was agreed between our friends in the Social Credit party, who were urging a division at that time, and ourselves, on the statement of the Prime Minister that the government would be prepared to give
Defence Production Act careful consideration to this matter, that the resolution should pass. In view of the statement of the Minister of Defence Production that no suggestion of a time limit was made, I am wondering whether the discussion that night was a parliamentary trick to get us to pass the resolution.
I would hate to think that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and possibly the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) did indulge in a parliamentary trick to get such a resolution passed. But if it was not to be taken seriously, as the Minister of Defence Production says, then it was undoubtedly a parliamentary trick; and it was a cheap parliamentary trick, Mr. Speaker, and one not worthy of any of those who are taking part in it. However, I do not really believe that they were indulging in a parliamentary trick. But if they were not, then something must have happened in the international field. Where has the international situation worsened since then-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member consider that accusing somebody who has introduced a bill of having used a cheap parliamentary trick is using an expression which is parliamentary?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I said I did not think it really was a parliamentary trick but that, if it was not a parliamentary trick, then the only other explanation is that since that time the situation had so worsened internationally that the government could not accept that suggestion.


William Earl Rowe: He said he did not believe it was a parliamentary trick.


George Clyde Nowlan: If the situation has worsened, I should like the Minister of Defence Production to show us how the situation internationally has deteriorated since March. As I said, it was either one or the other because it was on the strength of that assurance that the resolution was allowed to pass without a division. I want there to be no question about it. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) was leading the opposition at that moment, as I recall it, and there was no question in the minds of all of us who were here at that time that there would have been a division then if it had not been for the suggestion made by the hon. gentlemen on the other side that they should be given an opportunity to give further consideration to the matter.
I think the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has now put the record fairly on Hansard, bringing the whole picture up to date. Certainly some explanation is due to this house because of what transpired in

Defence Production Act March and again the other day. I do not agree entirely with the hon. member for Acadia when he says-and I am speaking freely and not trying to quote him exactly- that this debate was, perhaps, an example of parliament at its worst. I do not accept that statement, Mr. Speaker. Mankind has different duties to perform. Somebody might say that man was at his best when he was at church, peaceful, quiet and calm. But there may come a time when that man is threatened by attack or he fears the loss of something which is valuable. Then that man becomes belligerent. At least he resists; he stands on his rights. I am not sure that you could say that a man was at his best in church or that he was better in church than he was when he was defending something that was valuable. That is the situation with respect to the opposition in parliament at this time. We believe that we are defending something that is valuable and something that is right. We resent any suggestion of a Tory filibuster. If there is any filibuster, it is being carried on by the Minister of Defence Production and nobody else. That is the only filibuster that is being carried on in this parliament at the moment. We are simply carrying on an orderly, peaceful debate, dealing with matters of fundamental rights-


An hon. Member:: Smile when you say that.


George Clyde Nowlan: I smile. Because I appreciate the seriousness of this matter, it is hard to smile when you see parliamentary rights challenged as possibly they are being challenged at this time. It is true that the bill itself is a simple one. Much has been said about exaggeration. The Minister of Defence Production referred to it the other day, and it was referred to in some of the newspapers as if that in itself was a horrible thing to take place in parliament. I am not sure that it has been entirely unknown in this forum previously, Mr. Speaker. I do not think this forum is like a court room where one is always cold, logical and analytically correct. I think even the Minister of Defence Production himself will admit that on occasion he has indulged in something closely resembling exaggeration. We have always had the most roseate views of the future which he has to meet next year by even greater roseate views of a further future rather than perhaps looking back at the past. But in any event, as I said, I do not think exaggeration is a matter which is entirely unknown to anybody in this house. I do not think it weakens the position that anyone may have taken here to say, "You have indulged in exaggeration".

After all, if you are starting out on a road, up on the hill or on the mountain top, you may know where that road is going. You know that the road is going down over slippery precipices into ravines, swamps, morasses and into a bog. While it may be that you are standing up in clear air and on firm ground where you are at the moment, if you know where the road is going I do not think it is any exaggeration to refer to the swamps, the ravines and the precipices over which you are going to go rather than to the relatively calm air in which you are standing at the moment.
That is the situation with respect to the opposition in dealing with this bill. On the face of it, it is an innocuous bill with two sections; it is a simple piece of legislation. But we feel that it is starting on a road which has been well marked by history, one which all of us know, and one which takes us down off the hill of parliamentary supremacy, over slippery precipices and down into the swamp where parliament has lost control and where there is autocracy or where something else of that kind has taken place. It is true that it is the beginning of the road, but I say that it is not an exaggeration to paint what happens on the road when one is dealing with the matter. That is all that the opposition has tried to do in dealing with this matter.
There are other matters to which the right hon. gentleman referred when speaking the other day-


Howard Charles Green: One o'clock.


George Clyde Nowlan: -in dealing with this matter which I think bear out that contention. I would therefore ask to call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at one o'clock I was referring to the statements which have sometimes been made here by the minister that the opposition was dealing with exaggerations in discussing this bill. I questioned that fact and pointed out that when one saw the road on which one was entering one could be forgiven for discussing the latter part of that road which perhaps you could not see clearly but which you knew was there as well as the part on which you were starting. In that connection I should like to refer to the speech of the minister delivered last Tuesday, the 28th of June. As found at page 5378 of Hansard, the minister, in referring to his powers and the

fact that it had not always been necessary to use them officially, went on to say:
We said to the steel companies that we must have our steel requirements in the interests of national defence and that they would have to set aside or postpone civilian orders in order to give us this steel when we needed it for this most essential defence project. That has been done and there has been no need for formal government action.
Then the minister went on to say:
As I say, that procedure is one way of handling a well-disciplined munitions industry.
I want to emphasize that phrase particularly-"that is one way of handling a well-disciplined munitions industry". I remember a gentleman who achieved power in another country years ago by the name of Mussolini who said that he needed to inspire more discipline in the workers. We know of another gentleman who achieved power in another country, and I know people of this country who praised Hitler because they said he was inspiring discipline in the workers. I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that you can search the Hansards of all of the parliaments of the free countries of the world and you will not find a phrase equivalent to that which I have just read to you, that this procedure is one way of handling a well-disciplined munitions industry.
Of course, there is the discipline and then there is the carrot on the other end because a little later the minister says, as found at page 5879:
-I have never known Canadian industry to see the Department of Defence Production in a jam without feeling willing to do whatever was needed to make their contribution to solving the dilemma.
So you have the handling of a well-disciplined industry by this legislation and then, as I said, you have the holding out of the carrot when the minister says that, after all, they are good, and he has never known them to leave him in a jam. I wonder where coercion ceases and co-operation begins. That would be an interesting question and one to which I think more attention should be paid than we have had so far.
We are now going to have this same system applied to parliament, Mr. Speaker, because when you turn to page 5382 you see that the minister says:
The situation has reached the point where the government must insist that this legislation be passed.
We have got a well-disciplined industry and now we are going to have a well-disciplined parliament. That is what that means. It cannot mean anything else if words mean anything. Therefore when one says we are indulging in exaggeration I say it is not
Defence Production Act exaggeration at all. One takes the words of the minister the other day and, as I said, I challenge him, I challenge any hon. member of the house, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or anyone else, to find an equivalent statement in any Hansard of any parliament in the free world.
But it is so reminiscent of those things which we have known before. The minister says in dealing with parliament that "the situation has reached the point". What situation? What situation has reached the point? Parliamentary debate. There is no change in the international situation. How has the international situation changed since last March? The legislation is effective until July of 1956. Why has the situation reached the point where the government must insist that this legislation be passed? Only one point has been reached. Members of the House of Commons have been indulging in orderly debate, but by doing that we arrive at a point where the government must insist that this legislation be passed.
As far as we are concerned, we deny emphatically that there is any suggestion of exaggeration in this matter, and we welcome this debate. A lot of us have been glancing through Hansard in the last few days. I remember Sir Robert Borden once referred to a session of parliament by saying that the snows of the late spring were falling when parliament assembled and the snows of the early fall had fallen before parliament prorogued. That is a picture which I suggest the seriousness of this debate would warrant. If that has to happen then we feel we are justified in our action and we welcome this debate.
As far as we know, officially debate on the bill is only going to be for this day, although we understand from information we have obtained that it may go on for three days or so. I am glad of that. I think the house leader has shown-I do not think Machiavellian would be out of order- a shrewd sense of timing in dealing with debates generally. They start, then they are broken off, they start again, and then they are broken off. Altogether we do not usually get continuity of debate. We would have preferred to have continuity so that this situation could have been presented clearly to the public over a matter of several days instead of debate going on for one day, then breaking off for a week, and then going on for another day.
But if we are now to have the opportunity of dealing with this matter fully for three or four days I am sure we of the opposition welcome it, and I do not think that in the end you are going to find that parliament is

Defence Production Act disciplined. I think that probably what the minister would like to do is discipline some of his colleagues in the cabinet rather than discipline parliament itself. I am not just sure where he wants the discipline applied, but in any event that is the background of this debate, that is why we are here at the moment, and that is why we intend to stay here until this debate is concluded. I can tell you now that is not going to be within a short time.
In his speech the other day the minister gave various reasons why the legislation had to be extended. I must say the ground has shifted, I think, from that which he took in March when he said it was because of the emergency, the crisis with which we were confronted. Last Tuesday he gave several reasons as to why the bill had to be passed at this time. I am going to refer briefly to them.
In the first place, he gave us a horrendous tale about the A. V. Roe expenditures, and the fact that he lost a great deal of sleep at night because between $30 million and $40 million had been invested in that plant and he was not sure we were going to get it back. He said that we had paid $122 million before a single plane had been developed. The minister went on to say at page 5382 of Hansard that the only purpose of this bill which we are discussing was to protect the taxpayer of Canada. That is bringing it down to quite a different plane from that upon which it was put in March when this bill was necessary to protect the liberties of the free world. Now, it is necessary to protect the taxpayers of Canada. He uses the $122 million as an example of why it is necessary to have this bill. Well, $122 million, as we know, Mr. Speaker, is a large sum of money. I am willing to admit that I am very much of a layman when it comes to the construction of aeroplanes. I do not venture to give any expert opinion on it whatever, except that which one has read in the newspapers or has heard from people who are associated with the industry.
Then, the minister said he had to change the management. After he entered into this agreement, he found something was wrong and after he had spent $40 million he had to threaten to use his powers in order to save the $40 million. He said that was why he needed the bill. I would suggest to the minister that the best way to avoid that is not to enter into any such agreement at all. I do not think the taxpayers of Canada expect us to indulge in all kinds of experimentation and pioneering work that call for the powers of a czar to carry them through. This is a relatively small country with a population of

14 or 15 million. We are associated with the United States, with Great Britain and with France, so I doubt if it is necessary for us to go ahead and-develop prototypes for various aeroplanes or the other mechanics of war, unless there is the closest co-operation and consultation between the various countries involved. Certainly, from some of the other examples which the minister gave I would not suggest that we need to do that.
Surely, the United States, France and Australia have been willing to enter into plans for the construction of aeroplanes by licence from Great Britain. Surely, the engineering facilities of that country, the technical skill and the production lines of the United States should be able, and be expected, to take up a good part of this load instead of our having to pioneer in these fields and risk hundreds of millions of dollars to the point where you have to give a minister the powers of a czar in case he enters into such agreement and might lose the taxpayers' money. Frankly, I do not believe the people of Canada expect that of this government. They expect us to do our share. They expect us to develop where we can and to produce what we can, but certainly it should be done in co-operation with the other powers rather than by doing it on our own.
The minister gave us another example over which he says he is losing sleep and that was the supersonic aeroplane. He says we are going to spend six years in developing a supersonic aeroplane. At page 5380 of Hansard he said that we had already invested $30 million in that project, and before we get through the investment will run over $100 million. I am not saying the minister was attempting to mislead anyone, but certainly as I read his speech I gathered the impression that we were pioneering again in this field. We were developing a supersonic aeroplane and supersonic engines, as he said, and that we would invest over $100 million in that one project. If we were successful we would get our money back and if we were not successful we would not get our money back. Certainly, as I said, he created the impression in my mind that this was something new, something revolutionary, and therefore we were going to lead the free world in this matter.
I was rather surprised last night, Mr. Speaker, having read the minister's speech over carefully several times during the day, to find upon reading the Sunday edition of the New York Times for a little relaxation that on page 16 they refer to several squadrons of supersonic planes which are now in operation in the United States. As I have said, I am wondering again why we should

be pioneering in the development of this if other countries have already achieved what the minister is going to try to do at the expense of so many sleepless nights and at the risk of several hundred millions of dollars.
The minister told us too that he needed these powers because of guided missiles. He says we are going to spend a great deal of money in that field in order to develop guided missiles. On page 5380 of Hansard, he says that this is the field in which no country has achieved very much as yet. I am sure that is going to be complimentary to our United States friends who have been boasting-I will not say boasting; that is perhaps an unfortunate phrase-who have been telling us of the great achievements they have made in that field. The minister probably would not accept the statement of Stewart Alsop in his writings about what the United States has done in that field, but perhaps he will accept what Hanson Baldwin says. He says the United States is leading the world and is making such terrific progress that soon the problem will be solved. I suggest to the minister that rather than have sleepless nights and waste so many millions of dollars we should manufacture these articles under a licence from the United States. At least, he will save some sleep and we will save some money and we will not need this bill.
Another example he gave-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why bother with any defence production at all?


George Clyde Nowlan: Why bother with defence production at all? Bother with it just the same as other countries are doing, and do it in co-operation and co-ordination. We have said there was some co-operation and co-ordination between the free nations of the world, and the Minister of Defence Production would have you believe that there is none. I can tell you this, sir: if there was one speech which would be encouraging to the enemy it was the speech made by the minister the other day when he said that Canada was pioneering in every field to develop these things and until they are developed apparently the free nations are not going to have them.
I am not unconscious of the fact the minister once said that if the Department of National Defence told him to get a gold-plated piano, he would get one. It may be that they have told him to get a gold-plated piano and I am suggesting that he buy the piano from some country that has developed it now rather than impose the developmental and manufacturing costs on this country.
Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am glad to know the policy of the Conservative party.


George Clyde Nowlan: We have been trying to impress upon you the policy of the party for quite some time, but you would not listen.
Again, we are told about the development of this anti-aircraft gun and we are led to wonder whether this is co-operation or megalomania. Apparently the suggestion is we are to do everything on our own and we are not to take any advice or accept any co-operation from any other country. It would appear that this is the sole justification for the bill, to save the taxpayers' money. We are told about this naval anti-aircraft gun. We have to develop and pioneer that, too, and it is going to cost us millions and millions of dollars. One would have thought that the navies of the United States and Great Britain, which are somewhat larger than ours, would have developed such a gun. Our navy has been essentially an antisubmarine navy and one of the most efficient in the world. If this gun is as powerful as the minister would have us believe, then I do not believe any of our little frigates or corvettes would be able to mount it anyway. I do not know whether they could mount it on the William Carson, which has no point of anchorage.
Anyway, those are some of the examples. Those are the arguments which the right hon. gentleman used the other day. And I say frankly that if those are the only justifications he has to offer, then certainly he has not advanced any reason for our accepting clause 2 of the bill. And I am beginning to wonder if we should not reconsider it even with respect to clause 1, because if he is indulging in all these experiments, then it might be necessary, if we are to have proper co-ordination and co-operation, that we review that decision.
But, be that as it may, as I said, it was not the picture of co-operation, co-ordination and integrated development between the nations of the world, which I expected was taking place-and which I think frankly is taking place. I wonder if there was not some exaggeration on his part, and if he did not develop those arguments because he felt that he had to make as strong an argument as possible, and because he felt he was alone in this debate, and did not have the support that he should have, and that he was putting forth an argument that would not appeal to the great majority of the people of Canada.
Then, of course, he brings in the mid-Canada line. He says that this bill is necessary in connection with the production of steel for the construction of the mid-Canada line.
5638	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): Why build the mid-Canada line?


George Clyde Nowlan: Somebody has asked that question; I am not asking it. But I will say this, that the minister reminds me of a story once told me by a predecessor of yours, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. E. N. Rhodes. He at one time occupied the chair you now occupy, sir, and he told me about a trip he had made to Great Britain during the first war, and of a conversation he had with the director of the Armstrong company in Great Britain. He said, "I suppose you have solved all your problems?" The manager said, "No, there are two yet to solve. We have to solve the problem of a shell which will pierce any armour plate, and we have to solve the problem of constructing armour plate that will resist any shell."
I suppose that is the problem confronting the minister. He says he is building supersonic planes and guided missiles which will jump so high and so fast that no radar screen can get them, while at the same time he is building radar screens that are to detect those planes. And that is probably necessary in this day and age.
But I do suggest this, that for the minister to tell us that this bill is now necessary, or an extension of it, for the construction of the mid-Canada line is certainly a confession of failure on his part. Because, while none of us knows how far construction has gone, yet certainly there has been enough in the press of this country and enough statements made to leave any person in Canada- and this has been done by the department as well as by the press-with the impression that it is well under construction.
We have this act which has another year before it expires; and for any responsible man or any irresponsible man, for the minister or any member in the house, to stand up and give the construction of the mid-Canada line as the reason for the extension of these powers for another five years is, I suggest, an insult to the intelligence of this House of Commons, and is certainly one of the greatest points of weakness, in so far as arguments for the necessity of this bill are concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a very helpful speech.


William Earl Rowe: It is not helping you much, anyway.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am glad the minister thinks it is helpful, and that at least he is getting some amusement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This will be quoted often two years hence.
[Mr. Nowlan.)


George Clyde Nowlan: The minister is not getting much out of the debate, so far, and certainly he has not contributed much to it.
Then, again, he talks about the stresses and strains of today, and increased emergency. After all, we do have the statement in the press of yesterday where Sir Anthony Eden states that when the big four meet at the summit next week-that is, Sir Anthony Eden, the President of the United States, the President of France and the Russian representative-there will be a positive suggestion with respect to disarmament. I am not saying that the suggestion will be accepted. But that statement is recorded in the press, as a dispatch from London appearing in yesterday's New York Times.
I do say that there is no increased tension. Nothing has arisen since March which could possibly justify the extension of this bill for a period of five years, as was suggested by the minister. Somebody told me the other day, someone who has been around here for a long time, that this situation reminds him of what took place in 1916, when there was a very strong and self-willed minister, who was then minister of national defence and also perhaps the equivalent of the minister of defence production. That minister had difficulty with the minister of finance of that day over the way in which he was spending money. The man told me that a great deal went on behind the scenes, but he pointed out that there was then a strong prime minister in charge of the situation. At that time one minister had to retire, and the whole matter was put on a different basis.
That is an historical allusion which comes to mind, and which was pointed out by someone who has been an observer of debates and of parliamentary procedure for many years. Certainly there is something in common between the situation we have today and the difficulty that arose in another government, and at the time of another war, when Sir Robert Borden was prime minister, and when there was a minister of finance who apparently disagreed with another minister. The prime minister of that day had to intervene and deal with the matter so as to preserve the orderly processes of government. The self-willed minister went out, while the minister of finance received the support of the prime minister and was carried on.
I notice today in the report of the dominion fuel board that they say there is a necessity for creating a fuel policy, if the coal industry of this country is to be saved. I am wondering if there are not many things which should be engaging the attention of the minister, as well as these matters to which he

drew our attention the other day. There are many other problems in this country that require his attention, and to which he could give a solution. I do suggest co-operation in those matters is required, rather than going ahead on experimental lines as he is in this instance.
And again-and this is a rather amazing thing-we are told about the great emergency, and the necessity for these powers. Yet the press have suggested to us, and we have read apparently about differences in the Department of National Defence-differences over some sort of policy-but there does not seem to be any sign of emergency, so far as national defence is concerned.
If there is any great emergency in this country and if there is any reason for these statements which have been made, and the heads which have rolled because of disapproval of the statements made, then one would think that there would be some necessity for action in that department. Yet you have one going ahead serenely on his own and the other apparently demanding further and greater powers for the emergency.
I do not believe, frankly, that the arguments which were advanced the other day by the right hon. gentleman give support to his claim that this bill should be extended. I do not think they do that at all. I do not think that is the reason for it. I think that everyone must feel that there is something more here than meets the eye. Without indulging in any political gossip whatsoever, I have the feeling that there is an internecine feud somewhere, and that this matter is being fought through on the basis of stubbornness and self-will rather than because of any necessity for it in principle.
Certain people, having taken a position, will not back down. I know that we used to read in our nature book about the old head of the tribe, or whoever it may be-the old bull at the head of the herd-who would not give way until he had done battle with someone younger, and one or the other would be forced out.
We wonder if we are not seeing an internecine feud like that at the present time and, in parliament, in which gouging and goring is going on. I am not sure whether the battle-scarred old bull or the young bull will win, but as far as we of the opposition are concerned we intend to see that parliament will not lose.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, when the election ballots are counted there is always one party in power with the other party in opposition. I have always been imbued with the idea that the party
Defence Production Act in opposition has a very definite task to perform, that is to criticize the government when they feel it is in the public interest to do so. We are often asked why we do not suggest something constructive. Those who ask that question do not realize that if we suggested these constructive ideas those in the government would soon tell the suggesters that they had nothing to do with the running of the country, that their role was purely and simply that of opposition critics.
We all know that this world has been through some trying experiences. We have had two terrible wars and anyone with any degree of intelligence knows that when we entered the first world war in 1914 we were inadequately equipped to meet the German hordes. Many lives were lost because of lack of equipment. At the time of the second world war I did not happen to be a member of parliament but there are many others sitting here who were in the same position. But I say that those who were in the trenches in the first world war were told that they could shoot only so many shots from their rifles, that there were only so many 16-pounder shells a day. Those men had to serve time and a half overtime at $1.10 a day in order to defend their portion of the trenches because there were no reinforcements available.
There was a Conservative government in power, and to say the least they fell down on the job badly and it cost thousands of young Canadian lives. It was not only the Canadian government that fell down, the British government also fell down. After that war we all said that we would never find ourselves unprepared against an enemy; but along came 1936 and 1937 and we heard of a man named Hitler who had aeroplanes galore, who had underground hangars and all kinds of equipment and yet the people were assured by the parliament of Great Britain and this parliament that we had it in the bag, that we had something up our sleeves to meet this man Hitler who had all the necessities to carry on a successful war.
What did we discover? In 1939 we discovered that we had very few aeroplanes and practically no anti-aircraft guns. The loss of life of peoples of the British empire was appalling and unnecessary. There is not a part of the British empire which does not realize the necessity for preparation, and certainly not the Conservative party in the House of Commons today. Ninety per cent of all members of the Conservative party served in one war or the other. These men have suffered and have seen other people suffer through lack of preparation.
Men who have seen such things would be the last in the world not to stand firm behind any government or any member of a
5640	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act government in demanding common-sense preparations for adequate defence needs. We in this party know that we need munitions. We are not children; we realize and believe in our hearts that the Russians are up to their old tricks. Nobody on this side of the house, no one in the ranks of the Liberal party, or among even our friends here in the C.C.F. can possibly conceive that the Russians are going to give up their grasp on China, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Bulgaria and all those countries. We are not sure what they are trying to do, but I think we can be sure that in the back of their minds they mean nothing less than the destruction of the people on this side of the iron curtain by insidious methods of working through labour and creating discontent all over the world. We saw their tactics here in Ottawa when spies were discovered, even one member of the House of Commons. They are finding that more effective and easier than actual war.
They may be ready to give up Austria and give her back her rights, and they may be even willing to let West Germany and East Germany unite. I hope they do for the sake of East Germany. But we must remember that they have indoctrinated those people with communist principles. The young element in East Germany have been indoctrinated. Any person who has been there and who has studied the situation knows full well that if tomorrow the Russians said that they were going to let East Germany unite with West Germany they would feel that the younger element had been sufficiently educated to create devastation and destruction far greater than they could bring about with war.
West Germany has recently been given permission to rearm. A very eminent and cultured university graduate, a great industrialist of Germany, said to me that if they had 900,000 armed men, if Germany were united with that force of well-trained Germans the Russians would not dare use the atomic bomb. He said that even with the 20 per cent of the people who want Russia to remain in East Germany they could still defeat the Russians.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If he would speak loudly enough I would know who was talking.


William Earl Rowe: It would not matter.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It would not make any difference but I would like to know. I am saying these things because the minister must realize that we are just as loyal to our country as he ever will be and that we 

realize the necessity for immediate action in preparation for defence. We will not tolerate under any circumstances any party in Canada saying to the government that they will not permit the proper thing to be done at the proper prices and in the time necessary. The minister would have a 100 per cent unanimous vote of this house if he would lay his cards on the table. He would find that there would be nothing lacking. Anyone who with his own eyes has seen what happened knows the price we paid for a lack of preparation. He will know what the mothers, the fathers, the husbands and the wives had to suffer. We have been through two great wars.
The trouble in Great Britain and in Canada in the past has been that they did not think it was necessary to tell the people of the necessity for preparation. They were afraid to tell the people that it would be necessary to increase taxes in order to defend the country. They did not want to do that because some of their members might lose their seats in the House of Commons. They were afraid to tell the truth and shame the devil. There is no man who did not wonder why we were not better advised as everyday civilians. Our forefathers defended this country against an enemy who tried to take it over. They shed their blood on the banks of the St. Lawrence river, and I shall do it if necessary. We are associated with a neighbour to the south, and nobody in the world can have a finer neighbour. They have proven that, beyond any shadow of a doubt. So far as our defence is concerned they are part and parcel of it. We can rely on them and they can rely on us. We require every sinew of our strength to meet the enemy who does not mean peace, who does not mean to give up his control over the countries he has overrun today. It may mean war. That may be his second decision. We must be prepared for that.
I have had dealings with the minister outside the House of Commons. He is a man who comes from a great university. He came here and he entered a great university. He tackled the business of the construction of elevators at the head of the lakes, and made a huge success of it where other people had failed. There is no doubt of the ability of the minister in his own line of endeavour. There is no doubt about the contribution he made to this country. He has been so successful that he has shone brighter than most of the cabinet ministers. They think he is God himself.


William Earl Rowe: So does he.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I have often asked for reasonable things. When I had evidence to show that a particular thing was necessary, I have never had a kinder reception or a more tolerant hearing than I have received from the minister. If I was right I received concessions. I say to the minister that none of us here is trying to upset the applecart, to leave this country unprepared. Since that is how we all feel, we think we have a right to believe in this great over-all picture. We also feel that there is power in parliament. There is a democratic form of government here so long as there is an opposition. I cannot say that much for the Senate. But here we still have the privilege of electing men to parliament, and no matter how small the numbers may be, those men will be admired if they stand on their feet and if they believe in what they say, and if they say to the House of Commons, "This is what we believe in, for the following reasons". Surely that is not unreasonable. Surely the word "filibuster" should not be used from now on. Irrespective of politics, I believe there are men here who must say to themselves: These people have a just cause, they are carrying out their function as an opposition. It is a good argument. Some good points have been brought out here, and the minister must say to himself, "If I were sitting in opposition, I might have the same thoughts myself, if I were to carry out my duty to the people who sent me here."
I can also realize the minister's apprehension, because I believe he feels as I do with regard to the enemy. He might strike without notice. He is in a preferred position with respect to making decisions on defence. He may build aircraft and lose $100 million. There were times when we would have been better off if we had lost a few million dollars rather than create the position of blocking the path of the enemy with practically nothing else but human flesh. Do not deny it.
The Conservatives were in power during the first war; the Liberals were in power during the second war. Canada was proud to call itself a nation in 1914. I had the idea that the Canadian army could whip the German army with one hand tied behind its back. Do not forget the Niobe; that was our navy. We volunteered. We went to Valcartier. The bands were playing. We could not get there fast enough. After being there for a short time we thought we would never get out of the place.
We remember the recruiting in 1937. There were so many recruits that they would not take a man in the Canadian army unless he was five feet nine inches tall. I began to
Defence Production Act think that the Japanese would not have a very large army if the soldiers had to be five feet nine, but those little fellows gave a very good account of themselves. Before the war was over, we were taking boys five feet two, five feet three, and 16 to 17 years of age. It was a great honour to be enlisted in the army in 1914. I remember going to my family doctor and saying to him: "Do not turn me down." He pushed me in without even examining me. I will never forgive him as long as I live. I often wish he could have found a bunion or something, but unfortunately he did not.
These are serious times, gentlemen. The opposition have to formulate opinions. We want to go along with the government when we know what is going on. We also want the government to say to us: "We hope and pray that these powers will not be necessary. We do not want to take power away from the House of Commons and make it like the Canadian Senate today. We at least want to come back to you people in three years. What man in the Conservative opposition today, or in any party, for that matter, would refuse the government's request if the Liberal party came to the house and asked for a renewal of those powers, if they were necessary? I think it is a gross insult to the country. What man here would not give the government power for three years, two years or 10 years to defend the people whom they have sworn to defend? That is why I am speaking. I represent the constituency of Simcoe North, of which I am very proud. The men and women of that constituency volunteered for service in both wars. They are people who love their country; but above all they expect Julian Ferguson to come to parliament and make a plea on their behalf, as he sees the situation.
I believe I am speaking for them, and if at the next election they believe that I have not spoken for them they will have the privilege of telling me so. That is democracy. But I say to every member on the government benches, and to the minister: please have confidence in your fellow members of the House of Commons, and remember that united we stand, divided we fall in any crisis, and that blood courses through the veins of the members of the Liberal party in the same way as it does in the veins of the people of the opposition.
It is my opinion, and I am sure it is the minister's, that we face a terrible situation; but why in the world would the minister ask for powers for an unlimited time? Why ignore the powers of debate? Let us have a discussion openly and on behalf of the people with members of the press gallery

Defence Production Act present to take down our words, right or wrong, and publish them across the country for the information of the people. Do not give the power to any individual or to any government that is in office, and leave the crumbs of the pie to be consumed in the house.
I ask the minister and the members of the House of Commons to give this more considered thought, because it is our duty. The inventors of the world are great men. When they say that a thing is perfect they often find that they have to give it a second look and change their minds. These are the greatest men in the world, who created all the marvellous things we have today. They may say a thing is perfect, and three seconds later they say it is not and it must be improved. They are men who change their minds. We do not think they are incapable or incompetent because of that. We do not lose our regard for them. The minister has had appeals from people who are not against him. I can assure him of that but I want one thing to be clear, irrespective of who the minister may be who may be forcing through something that is voted on now or something that is consented to now and who thinks these powers are necessary. I for one also think these powers are necessary. I believe in them 100 per cent. I believe we are treading as dangerous ground as any that we have ever trod in the past, and that the more the Russians can lull us to sleep, the more they will do so. We do not need to go back very far to see what they permitted all over this world. I refer to persecution and massacres almost beyond the imagination of man. These are the people-hundreds of millions of them- with whom we are dealing. They will use any tactics in the world.
Let us be united. We can talk frivolously politically. We can talk on the hustings about this or that minor thing, about our getting a new dam, a better road, a new post office or some such thing. These are trivialities compared with the subject that is now being discussed in this house. It is a subject upon which we should all be at one. If I were to ask my party, if it wanted plainly to show its position, to stand up and say whether they are 100 per cent behind the effort for creating positive protection and contributing along with all other countries outside of the iron curtain, I would say that every one of them would stand on his feet and do so or resign from parliament if you want them to. I plead with you and say, "Please carry on the democratic form of government, Mr. Minister, and say you will come back to parliament". It is even better to face a filibuster-as some

people might call it-three or four years from now than to have us go home thinking that we might as well not come here at all. From the bottom of my heart I believe that if the minister would do as I have suggested, and if the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would accede to it, I would be up catching a 52-pound muskelunge, the same as that caught by some other gentleman about whom I read this morning. I love it up in my part of the country just as every other member likes his part of the country. I think we have been here a long time. It will not hurt anybody if the minister does what I have suggested he might do,-


William Earl Rowe: Go fishing.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Go fishing. As I say, knowing him as I do, I do not think any harm would be done if the minister would say, "We do not mind your four days or six days of filibuster; I guess it was worth it in order to permit you fellows to earn your money in parliament as Her Majesty's loyal opposition and to voice your opinions. If I have got to listen to you, with great horror, for another three or four days in the same kind of argument, nobody is going to be hurt." Leave us with the semblance of something to believe that we have the privilege of coming to parliament and of addressing men like the minister and the Prime Minister, whom we regard highly. Outside of politics and the party that we may follow, we have the highest regard for these men and we hope they have for us. I have even heard it said that our party was a little bit slow or we would have had Howe in the Conservative party-that he was born to it-but that the Liberals were a little bit quicker and they got hold of him. I hear some laughter, but that is all right. Some of these boys have discussed that matter. That being so, I appeal to the minister and to the Prime Minister and his cabinet to grant the concession, even at the expense of the horrors three years from now, of having to listen to a filibuster by men who believe what they say is true.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, in the course of this quite long debate there have been several suggestions that the Prime Minister might have something to say. Hon. members will realize that on the main motion I could not, after having moved that the bill be now read the second time, speak until my speech closed the debate; and I did not notice in any quarter of the house any urgent desire to have the debate come to an end. On the amendment that was made after quite a large number of speeches had been heard on the terms of this bill and the threat it made to

democracy in this country, there really was nothing that I could add that would have been a contribution to that kind of a debate.
We have had many of those debates over the last 14 years that I have been in this house. One of them that I remember in 1950 lasted for some considerable time and then it was possible to make a suggestion which hon. members opposite will recall, and with which they declared that they were perfectly satisfied. I have nothing to say at this time but to make a short statement to develop what has been said already by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). I think everybody is agreed that at this time we need a Department of Defence Production and that we need to have our scientists and our experts using their brains to devise what might be best for the defence of this country. It is all very well to talk about buying gold-plated pianos from those who make them elsewhere, but what is being considered at the present time is something far different from gold-plated pianos.
I think everyone agrees that the Department of Defence Production should be a permanent one. I think everybody agrees that there are extraordinary powers in the act and that the extraordinary circumstances of the present day make them desirable. As the hon. gentleman who has taken his seat suggested in one of his last phrases, everyone thinks that those powers, if circumstances changed, should be reviewed by parliament; and the Minister of Defence Production has said that it was his intention and the intention of his colleagues that, when circumstances justified a modification of these powers, the government would bring forth an act proposing their modification.
I want to say something that may make it a little bit more concrete and a little bit more precise, as was possible in 1950 when we were dealing with the Emergency Powers Act of that time and when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and I put our heads together to draft the things that we would put into those regulations about which the hon. member for Eglinton said he was perfectly satisfied and after which the bill went through. I do not think that the country suffered any ill consequences from the fact that the bill went through at that time. The hon. gentleman says, "Put a time limit of three years" on this legislation. I am sure he does not mean that after three years it would not be needed.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No.
Defence Production Act


Mr. Si. Laurent:: But rather that, after three years, it should be brought back to parliament in order to let parliament look at it again-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Put it at five.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: -and to see if the powers can be modified. Perhaps we will not be able to modify them. We hope we may be able to modify them. We hope that circumstances will be improved to such an extent that they can be modified. I am prepared to give the kind of undertaking that was accepted in 1950 and to say to this house that if at any time after the three years mentioned by the hon. member who has just taken his seat there is anyone in the house who feels that the time has come to have another look at these powers,-and if we are not proposing it ourselves,-let him introduce a bill to amend this act and we will undertake to provide an opportunity, on government time, for the consideration of that bill without any delay whatsoever.
Hon. members may say, "You are talking about three years from now; there will be an election before that time three years from now and you may not be here to carry out your undertaking". In reply to such a suggestion may I say that all of us on this side expect to be here three years from now to carry out any undertaking that we give to the house and to the country. If we should be mistaken-of course we do not pretend we never make mistakes-in the expectation that we will all be here three years from now, then somebody else will be here, somebody from the opposition who will do what they like about it at that time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You will not need this if you
are going to be here for sure.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We will not need this
bin?


William Earl Rowe: Not if you are going to be
here for sure. You can put it in then.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is there and we are
not prepared to put any definite time limit upon it at this time. But we are prepared to say that parliament can consider it at any time it wishes after three years, and that we will proceed in such a manner as will make time available on government days to give full and expeditious consideration to any private bill put forward by any member of parliament asking for amendments to the Defence Production Act. By unanimous consent such a bill could be made a prior item on any given day; and if unanimous consent cannot be obtained I have ascertained from the Speaker that after 48 hours' notice a

Defence Production Act resolution supported by a majority can provide what I am undertaking to have provided.


Mr. Winch:: A majority of what?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: A majority of the votes
of the house. Perhaps the hon. gentleman feels we will not be here, but if we are not here it will be the official opposition or the hon. gentleman's party or the Social Credit party.


Harold Edward Winch: That was not my question at
all. In order to be able to raise the question of the utilization of the legislation, will it require a majority of the house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All it would require
would be for one member to get leave to introduce a public bill to amend the Defence Production Act. It would be read the first time and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the house. As a special item of priority we would then undertake to provide on a government day an opportunity for the consideration of the motion for the second reading of the bill.


William Earl Rowe: Very generous.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think it is
generous at all.


William Earl Rowe: I do not either.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is what is implied
in what the Minister of Defence Production has said. There may be a difference in judgment as to the proper time when it might be in the public interest to have modifications made in these powers. If we think the time has not arrived and the hon. gentleman opposite thinks it has, all he will have to do to test the opinion of the house is to propose, as a private member, a public bill to amend the Defence Production Act, which will get first reading and will be ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the house. If we are here, as I expect we shall be, we will undertake to provide an early opportunity on a government day for the consideration of the motion for second reading of that bill.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? What is the Prime Minister's objection to putting a time limit on the powers in the bill?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because we attempted
to do that and thought we were allowing sufficient time, but we have now come to the conclusion that expiry on the 31st of July, 1956, would not be proper; and this time we are not proposing any limitation with respect to time. We are saying that these powers should be reviewed when the circumstances
are such that it will be compatible with the public interest to take away some of these powers from the minister.
If you couple that opportunity for a review of the legislation with the undertaking the minister gave to have inserted in the present bill a provision that every order will be tabled in the house and that an opportunity will be made available to discuss that order and ascertain the responsible opinion of the majority of the members of the house on the continued existence of the particular order, what more can you require? What threat can there be in that to the democracy of this nation? Where in the world is there a nation where democracy is better respected and better lived up to than it has been in this country, in spite of the fact that ever since the beginning of the war there have been extraordinary powers vested in the governor in council?
The hon. gentleman said it would be pleasant to go fishing. It would be pleasant to go fishing, but it will be more pleasant to leave this place with the satisfaction of something having been achieved that is regarded as compatible with the dignity of parliament and with the responsibility of members of parliament.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he would care to answer a question. Consistent with some of the views he has expressed, may I ask him why it would not suit every purpose better to let this measure stand and consider this whole subject at the next session of parliament, when we will have all the facts before us and will still have plenty of time to decide what should be done before the expiry of the legislation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My only answer is that we have had experience with the minister who is now Minister of Defence Production, and who has done a pretty good job. We want him to continue to have what he requires as his tools to be able to continue to do that job in the interests of the public.


William Earl Rowe: That is not much of an answer. That is no answer at all.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I was glad that the Prime Minister spoke before I took the floor. I had intended to follow up what was said so well this morning by my colleague the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), but the Prime Minister has now made a proposal which I think will allay the fears of many of the people of this country. I hope he will do me the honour of listening to what I have to say, because I do think there is a point he has

overlooked. I go along with the Prime Minister in practically every single thing he said, and I believe he will recall that when the hon. member for Acadia was speaking this morning he also went along very substantially with the position the Prime Minister has taken.
He did indicate, however, that there was some difficulty about the kind of suggestion which the Prime Minister has made. I want to point out that difficulty. I think the suggestion of the Prime Minister is better by far than the position taken by the Minister of Defence Production that the bill must be made permanent, together with all the powers contained therein; but the suggestion the Prime Minister has made is limited in its application in this house. If a private member should bring in a public bill to which first reading was given, I think the Prime Minister knows that even though he may give an undertaking at this time that the government will allow it to be discussed on government time on the motion for second reading, it may not be so discussed. It depends on who are here in the house at the time. Whether there will be a disposition to grant government time in which to discuss the motion for second reading will depend on how persuasive some of the members of the house may be at that time.
I think it would be too dangerous to leave the matter in that position. The house is master of its own rules and procedure at the time, and the house is never governed by a declaration or undertaking made by someone in times past. I think we have all experienced that, and I believe the Prime Minister will be reasonable enough to recognize that there is that very serious limitation.
There is another serious limitation. The government having brought in the bill and realizing that something should be done now that will allay possible fears in the minds of the people of the country, I think the government should bring in at this time whatever amendments or changes may be necessary to allay those fears. I make a suggestion. This morning the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) pointed out that the government already has on the statute books and is administering an act that could be used as a pattern for this act. The wheat board act is divided into two parts, and the second part of that act comes up for review every four years. In other words, the whole act is couched in such terms that it has to terminate every four years.
This does not mean it actually does terminate, but it does come into this house for review and extension every four years. As the hon. member for Acadia pointed out, no one wants 50433-356
Defence Production Act the wheat board act terminated in four years. Everybody realizes that it is a good act and it does provide for the orderly marketing of Canadian grown wheat. At the same time, the powers in the act are such as to make it desirable to have the minister bring it in for review every four years, to see whether or not some change ought to be made. He must realize that; and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has brought it in regularly and has required that it be brought in regularly.
Why could that same principle not be applied to the Defence Production Act? The Prime Minister has said on several occasions, and has just now repeated, that there are certain powers in this act which should not be made continuing or permanent powers. We agree with him on that. But at the same time he is anxious to provide the minister with the very best machinery with which to provide for the adequate defence of this country. We agree with him on that 100 per cent. We want him to have an act and we want him to have sufficient powers in these very troubled times. We realize they are dangerous times, and we want the defence production minister to be equipped in every way to provide the fullest measure of defence for the people of Canada.
At the same time, as I explained when I spoke on the motion for second reading, we are only the temporary custodians of the sovereignty of the people of Canada. They have handed over or delegated it to us to use as we see best in the interests of Canada. They do not expect us to give these powers permanently to anybody, ministers or the government or anyone else. They expect us to retain and maintain the supremacy of parliament. That is the principle for which we stand now.
We can fill that requirement quite easily, I think, by dividing the present bill into two parts. Let us set up the first part of it, which declares that there shall be a permanent Department of Defence Production. Let us include in that first part all the administrative details and some of the powers. Some of these powers are not invidious, at least to us. In certain other parts of the bill there are invidious powers which I think should be separated. I am going to suggest that part II of the bill include sections 23, 24, 25, 27 and 31 of the present act. These are the most invidious. These are the ones about which apprehension exists in the minds of the people of Canada. These are the ones we would place in the second part of the bill, and then a clause could be inserted providing that part II of the bill should come before parliament every five years.

Defence Production Act
If that is done, we will give it every support. There is nothing wrong with that principle. It is much more positive than the proposals that have already been made. I think it would be reassuring to the people of the country if it were done that way, because then the bill itself would provide that every five years that part of the act should come up for review and study. If at that time parliament feels there is something which should not be there, one of these powers that is too extensive, then parliament would have the right to discuss the matter without having to depend upon the possibility of majority support for a motion by a private member. It would be possible for the members of this house to remove those invidious powers and still have the main part of the bill continue.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Will the hon. member just permit me to explain? I did not intend to suggest that the motion for a special day would be made by a private member. I undertook that the motion would be made by the head of the government on government responsibility. Of course, that does not mean it would necessarily carry, but it does mean that if it did not carry another government would take over.


Solon Earl Low: I think that improves the suggestion to some degree in my own mind, but I still feel that this other proposal would be better. Let me say why. In the first place, the Minister of Defence Production is most anxious about the continuing nature of the department. He wants to see that it is made permanent so he can attract to his department and keep there the best brains procurable in the country. With that I sympathize.
He wants also to be clothed with sufficient power to be able to carry forward the work he is expected to do. With that we also sympathize. The proposal I have made would give him those powers, but at the same time separate from the powers that we are prepared to grant him on a permanent basis those that may be of an invidious nature, those that may be the cause of apprehension in the minds of the people generally, and those that we have no right whatever to hand over permanently.
It seems to me that by this method we would be able to settle the matter now, rather than wait for three, four, or five years, as the case may be, upon the head of the government to bring in some proposal such as the Prime Minister has suggested. I say that the proposal I have made is better. I hope the Minister of Defence Production and the Prime Minister will give it very careful

consideration. If they do they will certainly not have any further opposition from this group. We will go along with it, and we will do everything we can to get this business cleared away.
This debate which has gone on, it seems to me almost interminably, is a ridiculous debate. It indicates stubbornness on both sides and a failure to try to come to some sort of compromise that would be in the interests of the country. The newspapers and the people across the country are talking about it now as being unreasonable. They are referring to it as a deadlock between two stubborn parties. As the hon. member for Acadia said this morning, surely we are reasonable people here. Surely we can look facts in the face and try to reach a solution that will be in the interests of the people of Canada.
It is for that reason I am making this proposal. I hope the Minister of Defence Production and the Prime Minister will indicate they are prepared to accept this suggestion of dividing the act into two parts, and making part II contain the invidious powers subject to review by this parliament every five years. If that were done, I predict that the opposition would melt away and we would get along with our business.


Mr. J. W. Monleilh (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister a few moments ago made reference to a debate in 1950 out of which some compromise apparently was reached. That was very nice; but certainly I cannot agree with his suggested compromise at the moment.
I think we might go back, first of all, to the compromise suggested by the Minister of Defence Production on June 13, when he said:
After consulting the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as to the best way to ensure effective parliamentary control over the administration of the act, I wish to announce that when the bill is in committee I will propose the addition of a third section to provide that orders made under the Defence Production Act, either by the governor in council or by the minister shall, in addition to the normal publication in the Canada Gazette, be laid upon the table of both houses of parliament at the earliest possible moment after they are made and that a notice of motion signed by ten members praying for the repeal or amendment of any such order if given within seven days of the tabling of the order in either house shall be debated at the first convenient opportunity within the next four sitting days.
Then the minister concluded:
The government has been able to think of no more effective way of ensuring prompt parliamentary control of the exercise of the powers under this act and we hope this proposal will commend itself to all sections of the house.
In my opinion this proposal does not overcome the fact that the powers are still

there, and can be acted upon forever. Once an order is issued-it might be ten or twenty years from now-the damage has been done. The damage is done before it comes to the house. That proposal is not enough.
If the Minister of Defence Production intimated that that was as far as they would go, the Prime Minister just a few moments ago offered something which in his opinion goes a step further. I must take issue with him. His offer still does not trust parliament. He intimated that the tools were required, and hoped we could see our way clear to agree with the suggestion, so we might terminate this session in a more satisfactory manner. It was intimated that the powers might not be permanent. They are; once they are there, they are permanent. No matter what kind of stand is taken on this suggestion, the thought is there that something might be done. It is on the statute books, and personally I am afraid I cannot agree with it.
The hon. member for Peace River said we must maintain the supremacy of parliament. 1 agree with that entirely. He also said, however, that thus far this debate has been ridiculous, showing stubbornness on both sides. I cannot see how arguments in favour of and fighting for the supremacy of parliament could appear ridiculous in the eyes of anyone. I think the hon. member's statement was ridiculous in that regard.
A week ago today I had the good fortune to visit the Stratford Shakespearean festival, and I think it would be a very good idea if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production were to go there and view the production of "Julius Caesar", which is now being played. In that play, as I am sure many hon. members know-a play which was written around the year 1600 by William Shakespeare-some things were said that I should like now to quote. I think they are apropos of certain sentiments expressed in this debate, particularly by the Minister of Defence Production.
As a background for what I shall say, I should like to outline what happened in that play. I do so because I think the minister's speech of last Tuesday indicated that he is thinking ambitiously, and we see such ambitions in the play written so long ago. I believe some lessons might be learned by making references to this play.
I would point out first that Pompey, Cassius and Julius Caesar formed the first triumvirate which grasped supreme power over all Rome. They divided the Roman territory into three parts, Julius Caesar having been given the northern part. In nine years he conquered all Gaul, and three times invaded and marched into Germany.
50433-356J
Defence Production Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member might take it for granted that other hon. members are familiar with this play, and should devote himself to the principle of the bill.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would be very happy to do that, though I doubt very much if many of the members are as familiar with the play as I am-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, I did have the opportunity of witnessing it last Monday night. That, by the way, was a prelude to the play. I think it is important to hon. members, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) included, that I give a brief outline so the quotations I am about to make will have some meaning. Caesar was undoubtedly-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. If the quotations have any relevancy to the debate, I am sure that will be apparent in them, so that it would be unnecessary to lay any background for them.


John Horace Dickey: They are not relevant.


Jay Waldo Monteith: All right; we will get on to the quotations.


William Earl Rowe: The similarity is between the minister and Caesar.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The first quotation is a passage of conversation between Cassius and Brutus, which shows the development of Caesar's ambition. I would like to read that now. There are flourishes and shouts in the background-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And there is a background across the corridor here. The quotation is:
Brutus:	What means this shouting? I do fear
the people choose Caesar for their king.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Having heard the quotation, I still fail to see how it has any relevancy to this debate. The hon. member will realize that we are discussing second reading of the bill, and an amendment moved by one of his colleagues. I think the debate has proceeded far enough to enable us to adhere strictly to the principle of the bill.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I think this is very relevant, because it shows the results of that kind of thinking. I am not intimating that what happened to Caesar should happen to the Minister of Defence Production, but I do think it shows what ambition can do. That is my purpose.


An hon. Member:: Why not get a little more up to date?

Defence Production Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: All these things must have a beginning, and if they get up to date they become more dangerous. There is one more quotation I should like to give.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think there is anything wrong with this one. I do not propose to give the whole works, but there are some relevant parts I should like to quote. I should like to read these words by Brutus.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This was after the assassination of-


An hon. Member:: Caesar.


Jay Waldo Monteith: After that assassination-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The rest of us went to school.


Jay Waldo Monteith: -of Caesar-this shows how much he loved Rome. He did love Caesar too, but he realized that Caesar had grown too big for his shoes and he was anxious for him not to have too much power.


An hon. Member:: There goes Caesar.


An hon. Member:: Cleopatra.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I was ruled out of order and as a consequence I cannot give every quotation, but I do think there are one or two that are important. Here is one:
The abuse of greatness is, when it disjoins remorse from power.
I think that is very appropriate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will have noticed that I was careful not to interrupt him until he had drawn the attention of the house to a remarkable event which is happening in his riding. I hope he will extend similar co-operation to me and refrain from these readings from Shakespeare. I fail to see any relevancy of his readings to this debate. I assure him that I have some knowledge of the play to which he is referring, and I do not think any other quotation would have any greater relevancy than those he has read already. Therefore I ask him to adhere to the principle of the bill.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just a minute-


An hon. Member:: Put down that book.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to remark on what the minister said last Tuesday, June 28. An amendment was moved before the minister spoke, to this effect:
That Bill No. 256, an act to amend the Defence Production Act, be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred
[Mr. Monteith.j
to the standing committee on banking and commerce with instructions that they have power to examine and report upon the advisability of
(a)	placing the Department of Defence Production on a permanent basis and conferring on the department such powers as ought to be of a continuing nature; and
(b)	conferring for a period of one year, or until extended by parliament, such additional powers as may be strictly necessary in the light of the existing world conditions.
I think that amendment meets all the requirements that could be advanced from the government benches. Why could not the committee on banking and commerce be of assistance in this matter? The Prime Minister has suggested that there seems to be a difference of opinion which he would like to see resolved. This is one way of resolving that difference of opinion. I have noticed in the committees I have attended that the discussion is somewhat more informal, and that usually a satisfactory solution is reached. There is a meeting of minds, there is a real attempt made to actually come to a sound conclusion. A year ago this committee dealt with the Bank Act and held something like 58 or 60 meetings. They also dealt with the housing bill, and I feel they did a good job. I had the good fortune to sit on that committee. I did not contribute a great deal last year, as I was a freshman member, but I did notice that hon. members from all sides tried to reach common ground in the committee.
If this bill were referred to that committee I believe it would come up with some conclusion which might be acceptable to the government and even to the opposition. I think it would be much better to deal with this matter in that way rather than try to shove it down our throats and say, "Here it is; the powers are there forever."
As far as this first concession is concerned, I do not think there is much to it. An order might be passed immediately following prorogation and the house would not meet for another four or five months. The order would have been issued, and what good would it do to bring it up after the action had been taken?
The second concession certainly does not give parliament supremacy. This is presumed to be a concession of some kind, but I feel that the bill should be referred to the banking and commerce committee for consideration, and I am sure it would receive sincere consideration. Speaking on June 28 the minister is reported on page 5378 of Hansard as follows:
Canada's defence industry and I have worked together for the 16 years I have been responsible for the procurement of defence supplies. I have been in difficulties during that time but I have never had the slightest trouble in getting industry as a whole to come to my help in a united effort

to work out a solution. Standing here today I am very proud of the fact that in those sixteen years I have never undertaken to produce any munitions of war which I have not been able to produce and produce within a reasonable period of time.
That is quite a boast. As the hon. member tor Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) mentioned a few moments ago, in the early part of the war it seemed very difficult to achieve the procurement of munitions and supplies, and that sort of thing, but what is our situation now? In 1951, when this legislation was enacted, we were actually at war in Korea. Today I do not think there is danger of war; at any rate, there is not the danger now there was at that time. At that time we were in an actual war, but there is not even a cold war now to anything like the same degree.
As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, if this bill were passed we would be giving the minister complete power forever, or whoever might be in his place. I cannot agree with that. I do believe that the one solution, unless the bill is withdrawn and reintroduced in another form, is to refer it to the banking and commerce committee, as suggested in the amendment.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, this bill, to which we have taken quite prolonged objection, is one that was presented by the minister some time ago. In his remarks on the second reading of the bill on June 7, he proceeded in an almost lighthearted way to pass it off as a thing that would be acceptable to the house, and no doubt would proceed through the house with a minimum of debate. At that time he said, as reported at page 4500 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill containing only two sections. The first section provides that the salary of the minister shall be $15,000 per annum. At the present time, the salary of the minister is $10,000 per annum, but unfortunately the present minister does not draw that salary; for the moment the salary is not paid. However, occasion might demand at any time that a separate minister of defence production might be appointed-
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that this remark has been quoted before in this house. Many of us are under the impression that the statement could be taken in many ways. For one thing, as is well known, the minister holds two portfolios, trade and commerce and defence production, for one of which he says he receives no salary. What does he mean when he says that occasion might demand at any time that a separate minister of defence production be appointed? Is he perchance tiring of his amateur status in the Department of Defence Production, and does he perhaps want to load it onto one of his confreres.
If that is so, Mr. Speaker, is he trying to make the job more attractive by holding out
Defence Production Act the offer, with no time limit on the enormous powers in the act at the present time? Perhaps not. If not, then surely he must be planning to delegate some of these powers to someone else. We might well ask ourselves, to whom? To one other person? Is that person sitting in the house at the present time as an elected member, or does the minister have his eye on someone outside the house who might be available for these duties if he can be assured of continuing powers?
Power is an insidious thing, Mr. Speaker, as has been said on many occasions. It is this aspect of the problem, the continuation of those powers without restriction and without time limit, that causes us in this group the most concern.
Again on June 28, at page 5377 of Hansard, the minister referred to his association with industry, and he said this:
As far as I know it is quite happy to work under them indefinitely.
He was referring to industry and these powers. He continued:
Of all the companies that have been heard since this debate started, I have heard not one single complaint from the people affected, namely, the people who are actually doing the defence production work in this country.
Subsequently the hon. member for Eglinton commented on this statement of the minister, and said at page 5383 of Hansard:
Would you expect complaint from those who are doing business with the government, from those who are enjoying contracts at the hands of the Minister of Defence Production? Now, that was certainly a little too much to foist upon the credulity of even the hon. members sitting opposite.
The hon. member for Eglinton was quite right. I should like to say that if the minister has not heard some of the grumblings it is probably because he has been well insulated against them. To say that industry is quite happy is assuming a great deal. It is the height of folly to say that because no complaints have been received, everyone is happy. It is this kind of power that makes people afraid to speak their minds.
In the very next paragraph the minister went on to admit that there are many legitimate objections to the bill, but he said they had been drowned in a torrent of exaggeration. His remarks were these:
What has happened? We have seen many legitimate objections to the bill drowned in a torrent of exaggeration, and the corpses of the arguments are now floating around in a vast ocean of words.
I am certainly glad the minister got them out to sea, because if they had been on land they would not smell very good at this time. The minister has admitted there are objections, but in the very next sentence he says he knows of no arguments against the bill.
5650	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act I do not know how the minister can say in one breath that there are many legitimate objections, and in the next that they have not been pointed out adequately by the opposition.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure my hon. friend would not want to misquote me. The word I used was "any". The word "many" is a printer's error. I have checked back with Hansard. Hansard reported it as "any", but by the time it got into print it was "many'. I explained that this morning, but I am afraid my hon. friend did not hear me.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I accept the minister's explanation. I have no doubt that is precisely what he said. These things do happen; but I do not understand how he gets the rest of the sentence: "We have seen any-". I see what he means now. I am sure even the minister would forgive me if I said I thought it read better the first time with the misprint.


John Horace Dickey: You are just coming up for the third time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I can still read if I have my glasses. The point is, there are objections to this bill, and they have been pointed out by the members of this party on many occasions throughout the course of this debate. It is odd that the minister should make the claim that no one has complained, and link it up with those persons from whom he has heard while the debate has been in progress. It does lead one to wonder whether he has had some complaints, but probably not since this debate started. I might add that if industry fears to voice its protest to the government, it is small wonder, as has been explained by the hon. member for Eglinton.
One of the main arguments used by the Minister of Defence Production was that the government must be free to supervise and to expropriate. The implication in those remarks certainly left the impression that industry could not be trusted to carry on its part of a defence program. I remember an incident back in the early days of the second world war, coming as I do from an industrial city and one which is also extremely conscious of military matters. I recall the concern that was felt over the lack of armaments, and I remember that at that time the government was of the opinion that Canadian industry could not produce tanks.
I am sure the minister remembers as well as I do the fact that one of those companies in Hamilton, in an effort to prove that industry could produce tanks in Canada, actually made one, and that it rolled around the streets of Hamilton. It probably was not


the type that eventually got onto the battlefield; nevertheless it was a mute demonstration of the power and ingenuity of industry when it could produce an armoured vehicle for which it had not been tooled up in advance.
I therefore question some of the minister's statements, some of which sound very emphatic indeed. I quote him once more as reported at page 5377 of Hansard of June 28. He sought to explain away the provisions of this act by saying that after all there is nothing new about the Defence Production Act. His words were these:
It has been in force now for 16 years in this country, with the exception of a little less than a year after the munitions and supply act was repealed by this government, and I may say repealed by this government with no prompting from the Conservative party. It was repealed because it was felt that that particular act was no longer needed.
I pause there, Mr. Speaker, to remark on the different situation today. I intend to speak, in a later part of my remarks, about the statement made by the Prime Minister today; but I am amused to note that the minister claimed that this act was repealed with no prompting from the Conservative party whereas the Prime Minister is now intimating that this act which is now before us can be repealed, or at least that the government would listen to the pleadings of the Conservative party for its repeal, some three years hence. Then the minister went on to say:
Hon. members may say that the Defence Production Act is not the munitions and supply act. However, there is nothing in the Defence Production Act that was not in the munitions and supply act, although the powers granted the department in the munitions and supply act were much more extensive than those in the act now under discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to comprehend how the minister can, in all seriousness, compare the conditions under which we are now working with those under which we worked in those days. In the years 1939 to 1945 we were engaged in the European conflict and later in the Asiatic one too. In 1950 we were engaged in the conflict in Korea. Powers which were asked for at that time were asked for on a temporary basis to meet an emergency which, I might say, was clearly before us. We did not need to have it drawn up for us; we needed no blueprints. We could see the need for powers of that nature. But today, in 1955, we are asked to remove from the act the clause which places a limit on those powers. Not only are we asked to do this in 1955, but we are asked to do it a full year in advance of the date on which the act would normally expire.

I have spoken about the industrialists, Mr. Speaker, and assuredly they have their problems. But it is not only industrial management which has cause to be concerned over the powers in this act. The industrial workers also have reason to be anxious. In wartime we understand that steps must be taken so that everyone literally is in the front line. Hence the workers of this country accepted the fact that their contracts were ignored or cancelled. They accepted the fact that their wages were frozen and that men were frozen in their jobs.
Even many years later this has resulted in curious situations. I met one not so long ago. A worker in an industrial plant in Hamilton went to the armouries in Hamilton to enlist. He was told that he was too old. However, he was told, "If you really want to do a wartime job, you had better go down to this other plant because they need guards and you will be, in effect, on military service if you go there and work". He did that, and he was there for about five years. In the course of the time he was there the plant for which he had worked originally rather urgently required his services and he was asked to go back. But no; he could not be released from the work in which he was engaged. He was told that he was frozen in that job.
After the war was over he eventually went back to the plant in which he had been originally engaged, and now on retirement he finds that his work was not so essential after all. He finds that the period of time he spent in what he thought was war work prevents him from qualifying for pension under the plan of the company for which he originally worked. He compares his situation with that of other workers he knows who were sent to distant parts of Canada to do war work and who, by reason of that work, were given consideration in the pension plans of the companies with which they were originally employed.
These situations are multiplied across the country, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the case I have just described is the only one by any manner of means. But there is this man who was motivated only by a desire to serve his country, who finds on retirement that he has been penalized. I think that man would do what he did all over again, even knowing that was going to happen to him, because he wanted to serve in the front line, as other members of his family and his friends were serving. But these are things we have to consider when we start to give unlimited powers for an unlimited time, without thought to whether they will be required or whether they may be misused.
4, 1955	5651
Defence Production Act
It is all very well to say that industrialists have not complained. It is all very well to belittle the danger and to adopt the attitude, when certain circumstances are described, of saying, "Oh, yes, but we would not do that; we do not intend to invade that field". How do we know?


An hon. Member:: I cannot stand it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You are excused, then. Perhaps the government would not use the legislation in that way; nevertheless the powers are there, and the next incumbent of the office may have no scruples about using them. If the government does not propose to use these powers, then why ask for them? If they are deemed to be necessary, then place a time limit on them so they can be reviewed periodically. What is so important about this year in particular that the time limit should be removed before we reach the expiry date now set out in the act? As I mentioned before, why bring it up now? We are going to have another session of parliament before this act expires.


William Earl Rowe: They might dispense with parliament.


John Horace Dickey: You are an expert on that sort of thing.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: What is so urgent that we need to have this matter brought up at this time? Incidentally, all the experts are not on one side of the house, despite the fact there has been a great deal of bragging going on. I was interested enough to look up the Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on governments and their classification, and I found a very interesting explanation which I should like to read to the house. It has this to say:
Perhaps the classification of most universal significance is that which is determined by the key aspect of the pattern of control: whether power is concentrated or divided. All more stable power is based in organization and the control of organization. Without common objectives there can be neither organization nor power. Power, therefore, always presupposes several human beings who are joined together in pursuing a common objective.
As I read that a vision of the cabinet appeared before my eyes. Then it goes on to quote a phrase from Aristotle's "Politics":
All human associations are established for some purpose.
Then the article continues:
That would seem to preclude a genuine division of power. Yet actually objectives that are common may be so because (1) they are spontaneously shared; (2) because they are mutually supplementary; or (3) though conflicting, they are outweighed by other considerations. If organization results in the third case, it is because those who want it get the others to co-operate by constraining or coercing them, and thus making them prefer the avoidance of the threatened penalty to whatever induced them to object.

Defence Production Act
That raised a few questions in my mind. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, the question came to me, is the cabinet solidly behind this bill? Is it solidly in accord with the demand for unlimited power?


John Horace Dickey: Repetition.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If so, let it say so, each and every member. My friend says "repetition".


John Horace Dickey: There is a rule against repetition.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is no rule against repetition in human society. That is how we teach our children. That is how we even train animals. I make no apology for repeating anything that has been said in this house before-


John Horace Dickey: No apology for violating the rules of parliament.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -if I think it is pertinent to the debate.


John Horace Dickey: You have disrespect for parliament.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member who delights in heckling has no trouble at all in throwing his comments into the debate at any time it pleases him to do so, and it seems to me I have heard him make the same remarks over and over again.


John Horace Dickey: I have respect for parliament and for the rules of parliament.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you stand up when you speak?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is over with I shall continue. If the cabinet is solidly behind the bill, let the members stand up and say so.


Walter Edward Harris: We will when we vote.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Let us have a chance to stand up.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You will get plenty of chance. What is the matter with you? Glued to your seat? If the members of the cabinet are not solidly behind the bill, then let us hear what are the other considerations which are spoken of in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. If their objectives are conflicting, what are the other considerations which outweigh this conflict? After all, the responsibility for this act is not that of the Minister of Defence Production alone. This bill was introduced in the house by the Prime Minister, a natural enough procedure and one which is indicative of the usual cabinet solidarity. Every minister of the government is, accordingly, responsible for the bill, and I expected they would stand behind it.

I went on from there, Mr. Speaker, and looking further at the Encyclopaedia Britannica I found the description of a political party. Part of the explanation there given reads as follows:
The essential condition for the existence of political parties is freedom to form organizations that strive for power by electoral methods. Under other circumstances groups of citizens may influence the government, or they may form part of the coalition of interests supporting it; but without freedom of competition for power by electoral methods, political parties, in the strict sense of the term, cannot exist.
We are all here, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that method. We are all here because we have competed with others for the right to represent groups of citizens in this house. We are here to exercise the rights which have thus been given us as members of this house. We are here to protect the rights of all people in this nation, whether they are powerful or whether they are weak. We are here also to protect the constitution of the country and to ensure to posterity the rights for which we are merely trustees. It is not ours to give them away or dispose of them. It is ours to hand them on to all those who come after us, after having used them, in their original state.
This fear of the loss of freedom is not a new thing. For generations parliamentarians have fought any tendency to deprive parliament and, through it, the people of the nation, of any of their hard-won liberties and privileges. Many are the recorded words of public figures of other times as they fought against proposals of the day. Perhaps none was more outspoken than Edward Blake, prominent figure of the last century, one who knew the responsibilities of government as well as those of opposition. In a speech he made in the House of Commons on November 3, 1873, he had this to say:
Sir, the most dangerous doctrine to which parliament can assent is the doctrine that it should part with some portion of its ancient liberties, immunities and privileges. We ought to be most jealous with reference to each one of these. We ought to see, not merely that there does not exist some present obvious danger from the abandonment but also that there exists no possibility of future danger from their abandonment, and even if we cannot see at the moment any such danger, we must find some preponderating cause for our action before we give up one of those safeguards which have been handed down to us and which it is our duty to transmit unimpaired to posterity.
Then again, speaking at London, Ontario, in 1872, he had this to say:
Let us agree that no object can justify our parting with the least of the securities of liberty. Let us agree that there is, as all history teaches, danger, the greatest danger, in an evil precedent. I never saw a bad act of parliament passed but that it was urged, and often successfully, as a precedent for a very much worse act next session.

Such is the inevitable result. Give the precedent, and it is always stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. A cloud no bigger than a man's hand in the morning may become by night a deluge sweeping away the very landmarks of freedom.
Those are not my words, Mr. Speaker. Those are the words of Edward Blake, spoken nearly 100 years ago. I should like to quote an excerpt from one more of his speeches given at Bowmanville, when he said:
Executive power it is which has at all times been the great foe of liberty. The name under which this power is exercised is wholly immaterial. Whether it be king, president or cabinet which wields the executive power, the constant tendency of those possessed of such power is to invade the domain of the other branches of the government and to enlarge their own jurisdiction. In the great struggle which subsisted for so many years in England out of which the liberties we now hold were gradually evolved, this was the main principle. This last was graven on the hearts of the British people and we must never for an instant forget it. I warn you to beware lest the length of time since that struggle ended should make you heedless of the prize which it secured. By gradual stages, little by little, the liberties of a people may be invaded, and results accomplished by degrees which, had they been proposed as one operation, would have been rejected as monstrous. It is then the duty of every representative of the people narrowly to watch any proposal which may tend to give larger authority to the executive than it has according to the well established principles of the constitution.
And that, Mr. Speaker, is precisely what we are doing, watching and trying in the time which is available to us to plead with this government to place upon its own legislation sufficient safeguards, sufficient limitations, that even should this government or those persons who are now in authority no longer be in this house, this country would not have powers flying fast and loose which could indeed wreck a nation that is now emerging as a major power.
We are concerned with freedom, Mr. Speaker. I hope the house will forgive me if I lapse for a moment into personal matters. It happens that I come from a family which has twice fled from persecution. Once it fled for religious freedom, and once it fled because of patriotic fervour. Those two occasions were something around 100 years apart. In the first place they fled from France at the time of the revocation of the edict of Nantes, and after finding sanctuary in Holland they eventually came to Vermont under the auspices of the good Queen Anne. There they stayed and there they were British subjects, so when the time came in 1776 that their allegiance to the British crown was challenged they fled once more to Canada.
There are many members in this house, I know, who are descended from the United Empire Loyalists. There are probably members also whose forefathers joined the refugee train from France. Today those conditions do 50433-357
Defence Production Act not exist. We have all grown up together, and we have grown to respect freedom and what it means to us. But I do wonder, Mr. Speaker, if as Blake says we have come so far from those days that we have forgotten that things can happen.
There are few public speakers who have not, at some time or other, made use of the famous words of John Philpot Curran, who in 1790 in a speech on the right of election of the lord mayor of Dublin had this to say:
The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt.
After all, Mr. Speaker, freedom does not fall suddenly. It is a great structure which is weakened only by repeated, small but successful attacks upon its foundations. When that foundation is finally sufficiently weakened, the structure falls of itself. It is the duty of those who speak for the Canadian people, by reason of having been elected to parliament, to recognize those attacks on the basic structure of freedom and circumvent them if at all possible.
The question boils down, Mr. Speaker, to this. Are we to have parliamentary control over the departments of government, or are we to invest those departments with such powers that they need never again acknowledge the jurisdiction of parliament? If the latter is true, then we might just as well pack up and go home and leave a small group of dictators and assistant dictators here to do as they will. We do not intend to do that, because we do not believe this is a time for lip service only to the cause of freedom.
I mentioned before the remarks made by the Prime Minister. Earlier the Minister of Defence Production had issued a small but nonetheless challenging threat to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). If I took his words down correctly, he said that this will be quoted often two years hence. Well, I have no objection to being quoted at any time, and I am sure no other member of this party has. I think we are quite willing to depend upon the good sense of the people of Canada to interpret correctly the remarks we make. Threats certainly will not deter us at this time.
The Prime Minister has sought to leave the impression today that there are no threats. But many irresponsible statements have been made in the house in the course of this debate. There have been threats both veiled and naked. The Prime Minister also made reference to a concession which might be available to the official opposition or to any opposition party three years hence. Who can say who will be here three years hence?

Defence Production Act If the Prime Minister is serious about reconsideration in three years, then why not put it in the bill? If he means that, then let us have it down in black and white.
I give the Prime Minister credit for great sincerity, and this prompts me to make some comment upon a report I saw in the Globe and Mail of last Saturday on the occasion of a Dominion day dinner held in Masaryk memorial hall in Toronto, at which Dr. Alice Masaryk was speaker. As hon. members know, Dr. Masaryk is the daughter of the founder of the Czechoslovak republic, Dr. Thomas Masaryk. In her remarks she is quoted as saying that her father had stressed the primary responsibility of each individual.
Mr. Speaker, we in the House of Commons have not only that primary responsibility, but over and above our responsibility as individuals we have that of representing many thousands of people who send us here to speak and act for them. However, in this respect-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Apple whaite):: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my duty to advise her that her time has expired.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I have just a minute?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: With the consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, on that occasion the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter) told the audience that the Prime Minister had asked him to say that he prayed for Czechoslovakia's freedom. The article goes on in this way:
"He is convinced that this will happen and may, sooner than many believe," Mr. Hunter said. "He feels it will not be long before Czechs are free again."
Well, it seems fantastic to me that the Prime Minister should be so deeply concerned about the freedom of this admirable midEuropean nation, and at the same time sponsor legislation in his own country which is the negation of freedom. I suggest to him and to all hon. members in the house that a prayer for Canada might be appropriate also -a prayer, Mr. Speaker, for wisdom to resist unseemly and unnecessary demands for power, whether those demands be made in all innocence or whether they be the calculated campaignings of the power-hungry.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I propose to say a few words about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal, and in the course of my remarks also to deal briefly with the speech this afternoon by the Prime Minister.
IMrs. Fairclough.]
In the first place let me analyse the amendment moved on June 28. It is to the effect that the subject matter of this bill should be referred to the committee on banking and commerce for a report on the advisability of making two changes in the bill. The first of these would be as to the advisability of making the Department of Defence Production a permanent department, and giving it whatever powers the committee recommends should be of a continuing nature. The committee would also consider, second, the advisability of giving additional powers-that is, over and above those which should be of a continuing nature, and which are strictly necessary because of world conditions-but giving those powers, as the amendment says, for a period of one year, or until extended by parliament.
Obviously there is no need for the legislation this year, except to increase the salary of the Minister of Defence Production. I suggest it cannot be contradicted that this provision for an increase in the minister's salary is needed only if between now and 1956 there is to be a new minister of defence production, or if in the meantime the present minister should see fit to drop his position as Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I have been puzzled throughout this debate over how the Minister of Defence Production could place such great emphasis on the importance of his department and of its having all these terrifically wide powers, when at the same time he is administering two departments, which means that he is giving only half or less than half his time to the Department of Defence Production. Yet he tells us now that this department is of such great importance. One would think if the Department of Defence Production meant so much to the minister that he would drop his portfolio as head of the Department of Trade and Commerce and would concentrate on defence production. If he thinks that because the Russians now have the H-bomb the Department of Defence Production is of more importance, then let him drop his second portfolio. The Department of Trade and Commerce is also extremely important. The minister has not been notoriously successful in his conduct of that department, and perhaps now would be a good time for him to be like other men and content himself with the responsibilities of one department, not two.
In any event, no one is opposing the salary increase to the minister. As has been pointed out time and again, no one is opposing the making of the Department of Defence Production a permanent department of government. But surely there should be a careful study

of the powers of that department by a committee. I believe the standing committee on banking and commerce is the proper one to carry on such a study, but it might be that a special committee should be appointed for this purpose. That could be done at the next session of parliament. There would be no harm caused by the delay because the present Defence Production Act continues in existence until July 31, 1956. It has been generally admitted, even by the minister himself, that while some of these powers should be made permanent, some should not. I know the minister hates being reminded of statements he made in 1951 concerning the fact that there were these two kinds of powers contained in the Defence Production Act. However, I shall read them to him again. I am going to read them now. On March 2, 1951, as reported on page 836 of Hansard, the minister said:
There is no particular significance to this date-
He was referring to the expiry date of the act which was July 31, 1956.
-other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature.
In that same speech I find a further statement by the minister which we seem to have overlooked in the previous debates on the bill now before us. At page 839 of Hansard of that same day the minister is reported as having said:
Some of these powers are ones that are appropriate at any time, whether in peace, in war, or in the present state of international tension. By and large, these are the powers that are now contained in the Defence Supplies Act-
I propose to refer to that act a little further on in my speech.
-which, hon. members will notice, is only being suspended during the life of the present proposed act.
That is the fact; the Defence Supplies Act was suspended by the Defence Production Act. Here we have the minister making a clear-cut explanation that there were powers in this act which should not be continuing, when he said:
Other powers are of an extraordinary nature but fitted to the extraordinary circumstances of today.
When the minister was speaking on the resolution which preceded this bill on March 11 he said, as reported on page 1967 of Hansard:
I quite agree that all the powers set out in the act should not be continuing powers;
The minister himself has made it quite clear that some of these powers should not be of a continuing nature, but during the whole course of this debate he has declined or failed to indicate which powers should 50433-357J
Defence Production Act be continuing and which should not. The minister now wants them all made permanent, without any division between continuing and non-continuing powers. It is the duty of parliament to face this problem of deciding what powers should be continuing and what powers should not. It is the duty of parliament to insist that a thorough study be made of these particular powers, a study which can be made only by a committee in the manner recommended by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal.
That amendment suggests, as I have pointed out, that the powers which should not be continuing should be conferred for one year only, or until extended by parliament. This has been the practice in Canada since 1939, when war broke out. The War Measures Act was proclaimed on the outbreak of war and when parliament met here a few days later the department of munitions and supply act was put on the statute books, giving the minister in charge of that department full wartime powers with regard to war supplies. It is true it was not acted upon until the following spring, as I believe the work was carried on in the meantime by what was known as the war supplies board. But we had the War Measures Act in effect at that time, and then this munitions and supply act was passed to look after the production of materials.
It is interesting to trace the course of these emergency controls. After all they were emergency controls, and they have been regarded as such right down through the intervening 16 years. The War Measures Act was put back into cold storage as soon as fighting stopped, and a bill was brought in which was a modification of the War Measures Act known as the national emergency transitional powers act. That act was replaced in 1947 by an act called the continuation of transitional powers act, 1947. Again this act had a time limit, and the government had to come back to parliament to have its powers continued. There was none of this business of the Prime Minister getting up and in a soothing voice suggesting that if any private member wanted to bring in a bill or make a motion the government would allow it to be debated. There was none of that hocus-pocus; it was written right into the statute that it would extend only to a certain time and the government would have to come back to parliament to get an extension.
What about the giving of powers to produce the supplies of war? I pointed out that the department of munitions and supply act was passed in 1939. We were right in the middle of war, but that act contained a limitation that it expire in 1943. It is true that in 1943

Defence Production Act the section containing the expiry date was repealed, but all the way through it was clearly understood by hon. members on all sides of the house from the Prime Minister of the day right down to the youngest backbencher that that was purely and simply a war measure.
I have before me Hansard for 1944 which covered a period before the fighting had ended, as a matter of fact when it was at its heaviest. At that time the government brought in a bill to set up a department known as the department of reconstruction over which the present Minister of Defence Production was to preside. He was to be No. 1 boss with power over all the other cabinet ministers in so far as reconstruction was concerned. The department of reconstruction was set up with a time limit of four or five years from the termination of hostilities. That was done because that act contained wide and unusual powers.
Here is what Mr. Mackenzie King had to say in 1944 about the department of munitions and supply act. I am quoting this because in his speech the other day the Minister of Defence Production insinuated that he had had the powers of the department of munitions and supply act ever since 1940. It is true that those powers may have been on the statute books, but they were very dead except in connection with dealing with past transactions. Mr. King is reported on page 3983 of Hansard of June 20, 1944, as saying:
For example, the department of munitions and supply was set up to carry on an important phase of war work. When the war ends that department will fade out; but, with the preparation for peace and for developing the national economy to further the pursuits of peace, it will be necessary to have some one department that will be specially charged with that all-important work. The department of reconstruction will have that particular duty.
Then in 1945 the name of that department was changed to the department of reconstruction and supply. The bill expressly placed all the powers of the department of munitions and supply under the department of reconstruction and supply. I have here a statement made by the present minister as reported at page 2435 of Hansard of November 22, 1945:
In the speech from the throne it was announced that the government planned to introduce a bill for the consideration of the house for the purpose of merging the department of munitions and supply and the department of reconstruction into a single department of reconstruction and supply.
It is worthy of notice that the time limit fixed for the department of reconstruction continued in effect for the department of reconstruction and supply. Following that, power to obtain war supplies was taken by the Department of Trade and Commerce. The

Prime Minister explained that on February 23, 1951, at page 613 of Hansard when he said:
After the close of hostilities with Germany and Japan, the powers connected with defence supply were transferred to the minister of reconstruction and supply and were carried out in co-ordination with the demobilization that was proceeding at that time. Then, still maintaining the principle of non-military procurement of the requirements of the armed services, these functions were transferred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the responsibility for procurement rested with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, while the nucleus of a production organization was maintained through Canadian arsenals.
The department of munitions and supply was in fact dismantled in 1947. The minister himself said on June 28, at page 5377 of Hansard:
The department of munitions and supply was dismantled in 1947 and 1948 and the act became
inoperative.
In 1949 the department of reconstruction and supply was done away with. It was replaced by the department of resources and development. In 1950 the present Minister of Defence Production introduced a bill known as the Defence Supplies Act. He pointed out that it was to be the normal law for procuring defence supplies in Canada. Mind you, it contained very wide powers; it had no time limit, the explanation given being that of course it was considered as a peacetime bill. The minister was pressed quite hard during the debates; in the course of his replies he pointed that this Defence Supplies Act was a peacetime bill but that they had some war legislation all drafted to bring into effect in case there was an emergency. I quote from page 3475 of Hansard of June 12, 1950, where the minister said:
Emergency conditions would call for new legislation and for an approach to this and other questions in keeping with emergency conditions. As part of our general planning we have draft legislation in readiness for an emergency.
At page 3480 we find the following:


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a peacetime bill.
Again on page 3490:
A purchasing bill suitable for wartime-
I repeat those words:
-suitable for wartime-
Because that is the present defence production bill.
-is in hand and that bill would be placed before parliament at that session. I am sure that parliament would enact that more drastic bill into legislation. But I repeat that what is before parliament now is a bill to govern peacetime purchases.
Later in that same year the minister brought in the wartime bill. It was known as the essential materials (defence) act and was passed in September of 1950, which of

course was after the aggression in Korea. That bill is now one-half of the defence production bill. Hon. members will notice, if they care to check, that the powers contained in that essential materials (defence) act were picked up and carried forward into the defence production department bill which was passed the following year.
It is very significant that the essential materials (defence) act contained an expiry date. There again there was no case of an undertaking by the Prime Minister to appease his senior minister; nothing like that. It was written right into the act that the act should expire on a certain day. It said that this act shall expire on the 31st day of July, 1952, and so on.
In the following year, 1951, the defence production department act was passed. As I say, it picked up the powers in the essential materials (defence) act; it also picked up all the powers that had been in the munitions and supply act; and it, too, had a time limit. We have heard many times that the time limit was a period of five years, expiring on the 31st day of July of next year. It suspended the Defence Supplies Act, so that act which is now regarded as our normal peacetime legislation for procuring defence supplies is merely in a state of suspension.
Obviously the Defence Production Act contained these two emergency sets of powers, one from the munitions and supply act and one from the essential materials (defence) act. The Defence Production Act was wartime legislation. I am not going to read this afternoon the questions and answers that came up in 1951, in the course of which the Prime Minister admitted to me that they had put into the Defence Production Act everything they could think of by way of power that would be required in wartime.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nonsense; absolute nonsense.


Howard Charles Green: I guess I shall have to have to repeat my statement. I have it right here. The minister has a very funny memory. At page 908 of Hansard of March 5, 1951, we find the following:


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.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 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.
Defence Production Act


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: X 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.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out to my hon. friend that if he will read the munitions and supply act he will find powers there far beyond anything in the Defence Production Act. It is all right to read what was said, but when he puts his own interpretation on it, it is exactly along the line of his always gross, wild exaggeration.


Howard Charles Green: I am putting on it the interpretation of the Prime Minister of this country, and he said-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read the Prime Minister's words and don't substitute your own.


Howard Charles Green: I read his words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He said "perhaps".


Clarence Decatur Howe: The king of exaggeration.


Howard Charles Green: The king of exaggeration?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the king of exaggeration.


Howard Charles Green: I have not displaced the minister in that position yet, I hope. Now this minister, with the connivance of the Prime Minister and the other members of the government, is trying to make permanent those powers which the Prime Minister stated in 1951 were full wartime powers. Here is a step which has never yet been taken in Canada, even by this dictatorial government, with regard to emergency powers. This minister is now going further than he himself has ever dared to go before.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was done in 1943 What are you talking about? It was done in 1943 when the Defence Production Act was made permanent.


Howard Charles Green: I read what Mr. King said
about it in 1944.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did you read what parliament said about it?


Howard Charles Green: I have read the whole thing and I repeat-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You read the part that suits your argument.

Defence Production Act


Howard Charles Green: I repeat that the Minister of Defence Production is now endeavouring to get these wartime powers on the statute books of this country on a permanent basis, something that even he has never dared to do previously.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was done in 1943.


Howard Charles Green: This time limit was written in-


Clarence Decatur Howe: If your assertion would constitute the law of the land you would go far in this country; but unfortunately it does not.


Howard Charles Green: The minister need not bother with all his smears and insinuations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have to bother with this bill.


Howard Charles Green: Time limits were put in this legislation so that parliament could review the exercise of this power. Parliament did not turn over wartime control to this government for all time, such as the minister is asking in his present legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Unfortunately
they did.


William Earl Rowe: Not for all time; they did not do that.


Howard Charles Green: Our stand is not taken to protect any defence contractors, nor was a time limit written into the bill in order to protect defence contractors.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Whom are you protecting?


Howard Charles Green: It was written in to protect parliament-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Hah!


Howard Charles Green: -and the rights of the Canadian people. This minister knows nothing about parliament or the rights of the Canadian people, and cares nothing about them. He sneered the other day. After praising the defence industry of this country he went on to liken them to merchants of death, dealing with the book written by the Leader of the Opposition concerning European defence manufacturers before the second world war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: European, nuts; it was American manufacturers.


Howard Charles Green: What is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He was not referring to European manufacturers. He was referring to American manufacturers.


Howard Charles Green: Here we have a minister-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let him apologize for himself.


William Earl Rowe: Someone will need to apologize for you if you keep on.


Howard Charles Green: Speaking about imputations and irresponsible statements, I would point out that at page 5380 of Hansard we find this:
Therefore all the agitation we have had here is designed solely for the purpose of protecting defence contractors.
Then at page 5381:
Why are we meeting with all these efforts to protect defence contractors?
Then at page 5382:
If hon. members think that a greater purpose is served by protecting the defence manufacturers who are not asking for protection, then that is their business.
There is not a word in the minister's speech about the rights of parliament or of protecting them, because he does not understand such things.
Then what about the attitude of the minister? He said if the department was to be permanent all these powers must be made permanent. He went on to refer to the new supersonic plane and guided missiles. In his earlier speech he talked about the Russians having the H-bomb. May I say that they are going to have the H-bomb for a long time. If that is the test, then we are going to have these wartime powers on a permanent basis for a long time. The same may be said with regard to supersonic planes and guided missiles. Other and more terrible weapons will be invented all the time. There will always be new weapons of war. Then the minister talks about the mid-Canada warning line that is now being built. It is to be constructed in a great hurry, and it will be finished a long time before any expiry date set in this act would be reached. All these things are no excuse whatever for taking power away from parliament.
One needs only to refer to the minister's own departmental report in order to see that the officials of his department are perfectly satisfied with the progress that is being made with the defence production efforts of the country. In the report of Canadian Arsenals Limited we find this statement:
1954-55 was a successful year. Even should defence procurement expenditures continue their moderate decline, the company's outlook for next year is encouraging as there is a substantial backlog of orders. It is regarded as sound policy to stretch out these orders-thereby keeping our production lines in operation over a longer period and maintaining trained manpower, technical knowledge, and facilities in an effective state.
Completion of several substantial orders will necessitate reduction in personnel hired specifically for the fulfilment of these contracts.

In his speech on June 28 the minister showed clearly how he does business, and that is by making threats to industry. The Prime Minister said very naively, "Oh, you will have tabled all the orders that are issued by the minister". May I say that you cannot table a threat. Furthermore, you cannot define what goes into a threat. The minister should be issuing orders in these cases and not making threats. Neither parliament nor anybody else has any opportunity to check on these threats that are made. As reported at page 5378 of Hansard the minister said:
That right is not being used formally at the moment, but it is being used informally.
Then he referred to the defence industry now being well disciplined. Then in reporting the type of conversation he has with some of these defence industries, as reported at page 5380 of Hansard he said:
"Sorry; either you operate the plant in the way we believe will produce results or there are other ways of having it operated, for we have too much at stake here to let you decide that you do not need any help."
Is this the sort of thing that is to be permanent in Canada? The minister is now defying parliament. The other day he said that the government insists that this legislation go through. He said the government might have considered a time limit if that matter had been brought forward earlier. May I say that it was suggested by the hon. member for Peace River and myself in March when the resolution first came up for discussion. Hence that argument made by the minister is completely fallacious.
Today we have the Prime Minister coming in and saying they will not write any time limit into the bill as they did with these other bills giving emergency powers. Oh, no; they will not do that. They are going to give this minister his tools. He needs certain tools. He needs these powers to threaten people. The government say, "We are going to give him these powers; we are afraid to stand up to him; we are a spineless lot; we are afraid of this Minister of Defence Production."
Canada in effect has one-man rule with a vengeance. That is one thing this debate has proved clearly. The Prime Minister says, "Oh, just pipe down, keep still and let this bill go through. Then if at any time any private member on the opposition side of the house wants to question the bill, we will provide for a debate on that particular question and let him bring forward any proposals he has for modification".
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is an obvious sham designed for one purpose, to save the face of the Minister of Defence Production.
Defence Production Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. If the hon. member intended to state that a statement made on the floor of the house by the Prime Minister, or by any other member for that matter, was a deliberate sham, I have no alternative but to ask him to withdraw the expression.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I could withdraw the word "deliberate".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has no desire to overstep what parliament regards as the commonly accepted rules of debate in this house. Feeling is high, and we make allowances for that, but an accusation against any member that his statement is a sham is exactly the same as an accusation brought against the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that he was saying something which he did not believe. It is in that sense that I must insist that the hon. member withdraw the remark, if that was his intention.


Howard Charles Green: Very well, I shall withdraw it and put it in this more constructive way;
I mean I will make my point in this more constructive way. We believe, or we would not be here fighting this bill as we are, that these bills containing emergency powers should have a time limit. We believe that the responsibility should rest with the government and not with any private member, and that there should be a time limit placed on such bills so that if the government wishes to continue these drastic powers when the time limit expires it will have to come back and convince parliament. Let the government bring in an amending bill which will extend the powers for a further period. That would be the proper democratic procedure to follow. It means an open debate; it means that the press can report the arguments; it means the Canadian people have some way of knowing whether their rights are being infringed upon by emergency legislation of this type.
That is what has been done in every other case, and there is no reason at all why, at this particular time, a change should be made and parliament should be asked to give up its control and turn over responsibility for challenging these powers to a private member. No government in Canada should be put in a position where it has powers which it admits should not be of a permanent nature, yet has them written into the statute law of this country.
This is a departure from the British procedure as it is followed in all parts of the commonwealth. It would not have been
5660	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act undertaken if it had not been for the personality of the present Minister of Defence Production. No other minister in the government would have asked for such an amendment, and no other minister would have got it from the Prime Minister and the other cabinet ministers. In this particular case they are apparently prepared to sit back and let the Minister of Defence Production defy parliament, defy the people of Canada, and take whatever powers he sees fit to assume. As the Prime Minister said, the minister regards these powers as his tools and therefore they are going to let him have them regardless of the rights of parliament, regardless of the rights of the people.
That simply is not good enough in Canada in the year 1955 and has not been good enough at any time, even during the two world wars. Nothing of this kind was attempted even during the two world wars, so why should Canadians have to submit to tyranny of this kind at the present time?


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, there is an old story to the effect that when Columbus started out for America he did not know where he was going, he did not know how to get there and when he arrived he did not know where he was. As I have listened to this extended discussion, I have come to the conclusion that this story might well be related to the Liberal administration.
1 listened very carefully this afternoon to the remarks of the Prime Minister because I think we have all been hoping for some suitable compromise of the dilemma in which parliament finds itself. Unfortunately no suitable solution or compromise was forthcoming. The Prime Minister rather ridiculed the point made by opposition speakers in this debate that there is a fundamental issue at stake here. That fundamental issue is the gradual erosion of parliamentary powers that has been going on in this house as well as in other democratic bodies throughout the world. He more or less implied that the argument is academic, but I am sure there is sufficient evidence from many sources to demonstrate that there is a real difficulty facing us with respect to the preservation of our parliamentary democratic system.
It is because of this fact that the opposition is putting up the fight it is at the present time. There is some point at which a stand must be taken with respect to the gradual process of erosion, and I feel that on this particular aspect of the indefinite perpetuation of the Department of Defence Production's exceptional powers we have very excellent ground upon which to make a fundamental stand.


The debate is not entirely useless. It is serving many desirable purposes. For example, it is demonstrating quite clearly that politicians cannot be trusted too long in power. It is a rather dangerous thing when elected representatives of the people become so inflated with the sense of their own importance that they feel they are indestructible, un-defeatable and unbeatable. That was the inference I took from the Prime Minister's remarks this afternoon when he said that after another election is called and another parliament is brought together, without a doubt all the members sitting to the right of Mr. Speaker at the present time will be returned as they have been during the past 20 years.
That indicates a degree of confidence that is rather remarkable for politicians who at best have a very weak guarantee of security of tenure, and who should be under the direction of the public rather than the public being under the direction of the politicians, as has been the case to a growing extent during recent years.
Politicians cannot be trusted too long in power because of the very nature of human personality. If a human being is given too much power for too long he will quite definitely become lop-sided in his personality. He will become what is called a paranoid type, suffering from delusions of grandeur. That is inevitable, because human nature is not a fixed quantity; and if we rise to exalted levels above our fellow humans for any extended period of time it is inevitable that we will become overinflated with a sense of our own importance. The pages of history are dotted with the records of the careers of men who started out with high ideals and visionary purposes, but who as a result of the continued extensions of power became hardened and egotistical. The only solution is a change of administration from time to time. I think this debate has demonstrated that situation in no uncertain terms.
There is another encouraging reaction, too, as I see it, and that is the reaction of the public. Down through the history of parliamentary democracy the public has had a very important influence in determining what takes place by way of a legislative program in parliamentary institutions. More recently, the contact between parliamentary groups and public opinion has become more remote. That is inevitable with the increasing complexity of government today. I think the viewpoint is getting across to the public today that something significant and something basic is at stake in this issue that we have before the house. Politicians dare not ignore public opinion. They can manipulate it; they can

seduce it; they can bamboozle it, but in the long run they cannot ignore it. I think that as a result of this extended debate the real purpose behind the discussion is getting through to the public of Canada.
There is the very interesting reaction of the Canadian press, too. I wish to congratulate the members of the press gallery on the very quick manner in which they have picked out the basic issue at stake and have done their best to interpret the situation amidst the confusion and red herring appeals of the government to the people of Canada. Actually, in the condition in which our Canadian parliament finds itself today with a divided opposition, with a numerically weak opposition, the free press of Canada is the only force that stands between the people of Canada and absolutism. As I have read the editorial comments on this case that have appeared in recent weeks, 1 think the press have done an excellent job in grasping the basic issue at stake.
The history of modern political society is, in large measure, the history of ordinary, private citizens attempting to maintain control over government. I feel that this is an excellent issue upon which to make a stand at this time. I only hope that the press will not back down on the matter. The minister concerned has tremendous influence in the country, and no doubt there is the possibility that government influence generally, through the modern public relations technique, could be used to minimize the protest that is being aroused. I trust sincerely that the press of Canada will continue to interpret this issue to the public, because if the public is aroused, as it will be aroused if it knows the extent to which parliamentary powers are being delegated by this bill, then the situation is in safe hands.
I only wish that industry could protest more forcibly at this time, because as I read the Defence Production Act it is this group that is most involved in the perpetuation of the excessive powers that are contained therein.
As I read the terms of the act, the government has moved so far toward the socialist state that the balance of power between state-controlled industry and private industry has been disturbed. The state has the whip hand in these matters, and in this case the minister has the whip hand. Of course that is a very unhealthy condition for the preservation of democracy. It is this delicate balance between private and public industry that has established a sound business and industrial climate down through the years in the country south of the border as well as in our own Dominion of Canada.
Defence Production Act
The inference has been drawn in this discussion that there is some desire to protect big business in all the protest that has been raised. Back in the thirties that issue might have been justifiable, because we were faced with private monopolies of some proportions during those days. In fact I think the slogan was used that it was 50 big shots who controlled Canada.
I do not believe we are under any misapprehension as to who is controlling Canada at the present time. The cabinet has the controlling power. They have the big stick, and unfortunately those who are most concerned cannot protest as they should at this time because they would be placed in jeopardy in the struggle for orders, markets and the other things that are necessary for a profitable and worth-while business activity.
Now, coming down to the most important aspect of this debate, I am astounded that the house has brought itself into this position. My first reaction, when I began to think seriously about the implications of perpetuating indefinitely the excessive powers under the act, was one of astonishment and incredulity. The act does not expire until 1956. The fact that we have arrived at a position late in the session where we find that we are debating backward and forward across this chamber when there is no immediate urgency is beyond common sense to comprehend. Yet the opposition must continue to struggle because if it comes to a vote the result is inevitable, and the trend discernible in our parliamentary system will become a matter of statutory and legislative definition.
As I have read the various contributions of the minister and the few government spokesmen who have taken part, the picture tends to become somewhat clearer. I believe the government and the minister are somewhat out of touch with the realities of the moment. The minister, for example, in a pronouncement on the trade and general business activity of this country, is very optimistic and says things were never better, in spite of the problems faced by the grain producers at the present time. Recent statistical evidence reveals that for the first time western Canada has become displaced by the United States as the bread basket of the world. Notwithstanding the optimism on trade, there is extreme pessimism in connection with the international situation, and particularly in reference to the defence situation.
Admittedly we have been living in very perilous times since the war. I was quite impressed by the new note that appeared in the white paper on defence just a week or

Defence Production Act so ago, when, for the first time, the government were willing to admit that the prospects for thermonuclear warfare were very ominous indeed. That is not new, because I remember shortly after the war listening to discussions by those who were supposed to have the information, in which they said that it would be one world or none. As early as 1945 we were aware that we were moving into a very difficult time so far as international relationships were concerned. In Canada, however, it has taken 10 years for the government to begin to appreciate the extremities of the difficulties with which we are confronted and the minister has become very pessimistic about these matters.
Another aspect of the problem that concerns me is this. As I read through the minister's speech, delivered the other day, I thought the whole keynote of the speech was a certain suspicion of private industry. In fact it seemed a rather strong indictment of Canadian industry. The impression I got from the speech was that industry cannot be trusted, except under the long supervisory arm of the government. I suggest this would indicate that the minister has succumbed to the dominant dogma of our age, that chaos, disorder and crisis can only be resolved by increasing state control. That is the only conclusion I can draw from the remarks of the minister in the house a few days ago. For example, he makes a statement to the effect that without these overwhelming powers it is highly improbable that we will be able to meet the challenge of thermonuclear warfare in this year 1955.
Then there is another aspect of the minister's reasoning which I think is somewhat specious, so far as industry is concerned. As reported at page 5377 of Hansard for June 28, 1955, the minister indicated that there is nothing very new about the Defence Production Act, and said:
It has been in force now for 16 years in this country, with the exception of a little less than a year after the munitions and supply act was repealed by this government, and I may say repealed by this government with no prompting from the Conservative party. It was repealed because it was felt that that particular act was no longer needed.
That has no reference to the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment. True enough, absolute delegated powers were given to the government as far back as world war I in order to meet the emergency of actual wartime conditions. That same delegation of power was given again in world war II, and at the time of the Korean crisis. To claim that we need a similar absolute delegation of power today is, I submit, specious reasoning of the worst kind. We must remember that

the situation today is quite different. We must also remember that wartime conditions almost destroyed our civilization and our way of life. Certainly wartime emergencies played havoc with the preservation of the delicate balances necessary to the preservation of democracy.
Someone has said that war is the devil's playground, in that all basic institutions are weakened under the emergency crisis of war. Certainly it is true that the institutions of politics and government suffer blows from which they can scarcely recover in the postwar period.
I would like to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not six
o'clock; carry on.


Mr. Lennard:: It is six o'clock.


William Earl Rowe: Thirty seconds more.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Then I shall proceed to introduce a new topic-or perhaps it would be better if I were to enlarge upon the situation confronting industry at the moment.


John Horace Dickey: Which one of the prepared speeches are you on now?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The industrial situation today is quite different from what it was during world war I and world war II. This is agreed to by the minister, or at least by the government, because we have advanced sufficiently in our defence program to make it possible to reduce defence expenditures this year to the extent of some $100 million. I suggest that indicates that the government must be coming along in a rather remarkable way toward achieving the desirable goal of the preparation of our industry, generally, to meet any possible threat which might be offered to the sovereignty of this nation.
I think it is now six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is after six.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was pointing out the difference between the circumstances prevailing on other occasions when it was necessary to resort to the over-all powers now relegated to the Defence Production Act, and I was pointing out particularly that the minister's reference to the fact that these powers had been in operation during world

war II and during the Korean emergency had no connection at all with present circumstances. There is a fundamental difference at the present time.
I should like now to move on to another specific criticism of the operation of the Defence Production Act, particularly in the years since the Korean crisis. One of the first debates I listened to in the house, on February 23, 1951, had to do with special powers under the Defence Production Act with a five-year limitation on time. On that date, as reported on page 613 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
The greatly increased defence program not only calls for greater purchases, but, what is more important, requires some direction of the production program in such fields as production, aircraft, shipbuilding, vehicles, armament and ammunition.
The present high level of demand for practically all major commodities has already made it necessary for the government to take a certain measure of direction and control or allocation of such an essential material as steel, for instance.
From this it will be seen that the government had sufficient power in its hands under the act-and a reading of the act indicates this to be so-to direct just where and how the huge expenditures of money for defence production purposes were to be made. This being so I think it is a reasonable criticism to say there has been one major oversight in the expenditure of these tremendous sums.
At the time of that debate, which is recorded on page 614 of Hansard for February 23,	1951, the hon. member for
Vancouver-Quadra asked what was to be the policy regarding the dispersal of the necessary defence production industry. There was no reply to that inquiry, but since then we have had the record of the actual operations of the department. Unfortunately that record does not present too happy a position in relation to the decentralization of the most important aspects of our defence production program, namely the aircraft industry.
There are two principal factories operating in this important area of defence production, and these factories become increasingly important with the development of the thermonuclear war threat. These two factories are located close to the two metropolitan areas of Montreal and Toronto. Whatever made the government, which was responsible for directing and controlling and developing and producing strategic air power, locate these industries in such a vulnerable position is past understanding. Today our aircraft potential could be wiped out in a very short period of time by two strategically placed hydrogen bombs. I think the government is
Defence Production Act aware of that threat, as is indicated by the alarm expressed in the white paper on defence which was tabled recently in the house.
I was not fully aware of the extent of the control exercised by the minister over such industries as the A. V. Roe company until the minister spoke just the other day. It was my privilege to visit the A. V. Roe factory a few weeks ago as a member of a parliamentary party, and I found most impressive activity going on. From 16,000 to 18,000 Canadians have been trained on the job and are doing a most creditable task in turning out the all-Canadian CF-100 jet fighter as well as the all-Canadian Orenda engine. It was a revelation to me to see what the minister said on that occasion, as reported on page 5379 of Hansard of June 28:
In the case of the Orenda engine and the CF-100 aircraft we had paid A. V. Roe company $122 million before the first finished aircraft was delivered.
I suppose that included the $8 to $9 million which was expended on the jet liner project which never came to any successful conclusion. Further on the minister made reference to the fact that there had been managerial difficulties at the factories, and he went on to say:
Consequently we took steps to strengthen the management. We called the president and managing director of the company to Canada and said, "Look here, this is not good enough. Your local management must be strengthened". He asked "where can we obtain qualified men? We started off by suggesting the co-ordinator of defence production from our own department, and he today is president of the company and a very efficient president.
Then he added this final significant sentence, which is rather strange in view of the intimation as to the irresponsibility of private industry that is implied in legislation necessitating an indefinite continuation of these emergency powers:
I may say that industry co-operated to the full, and, as I said before, I have never known Canadian industry to see the Department of Defence Production in a jam without being willing to do whatever was needed to make their contribution to solving the dilemma.
It becomes apparent that the authority responsible for this unfortunate concentration of our strategic aircraft production potential in our two largest and most vulnerable areas is this government. I should like to make that specific criticism at this time. If we ever hope to have a defence industry capable of producing the necessary air power during the difficult times, the times of dislocation that would result if war ever came to these shores again, the only solution, judging from the note of alarm raised by the defence

Defence Production Act department, is to decentralize it, to maintain the over-all operation in the various component parts.
So much for the minister, Mr. Speaker; I just want to save a few minutes for a word or two to the supporters of the government. The chief role they have played in the debate so far is that of human comptometers. They have been counting time, measuring the length of opposition speeches and generally serving in the capacity of human timekeepers. Perhaps that it why it has been possible to allow the clocks to become somewhat desynchronized during the past two weeks.
They have been waiting for the vote. Unfortunately, in a state of mind like this no amount of oratory on the part of the opposition could have any possible influence. There is complete cabinet control. But I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that lack of time is not the important thing in this debate. A good many hon. members have recollections of serving considerable time in the defence of our parliamentary system, our way of life, freedom-all the terms that are used in describing the democratic process-on the battlefields of world war I and world war II. Then time was no factor whatsoever. We were up against a military challenge to our institutions, to our civilization, to our way of life and we did not count the cost.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that spiritual erosion of our institutions is just as dangerous as a direct military assault. That is the note on which I began my remarks tonight, and I close on the same note. In considering a matter as important as this, we must always keep in mind that since world war I democracy has been on the defensive. Woodrow Wilson, who I suppose was a liberal in his thinking, summed up world war I in these terms. He said it was a war that had been fought to make the world safe for democracy. Unfortunately, just when he was uttering these words democracy went on the defensive and we had the experiences in Italy, in Germany and in Russia, with reverberations in all parts of the western world. I think Lord Grey had a better summation of the results of world war I when he said, "The lights are going out all over Europe".
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we, this parliament, the elected representatives of the people, allow this legislation, the Defence Production Act, necessary because of the continuing emergency, to be placed on the statute books with all the exceptional powers it contains, we shall be very derelict in our duty indeed.
Unfortunately in this materialistic age the forces necessary to preserve our democratic

way of life are very often neglected by even those in parliamentary circles. The quest for freedom, the desire for freedom, is essentially a spiritual quality. In this day and age of crass materialism we tend to sacrifice infinite goals for the rapture of achieving immediate finite goals.
If private industry is derelict in its duty and in its responsibilities, as implied in this act, I would suggest that no amount of regulation and control will solve the problem. The urge for freedom is the force that will decide the survival of the free nations in the long run. I would suggest very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that private members in this house should consider their actions very carefully before going all the way with the Minister of Defence Production.
There is a motto inscribed over the eastern entrance to the parliament buildings which reads:	"Where there is no vision, the
people perish." There must be enough vision -I hope there is enough vision-left among hon. members of this parliament to see exactly where we are heading in this measure. If an emergency situation arises in which it is necessary to have access to all these emergency powers contained in the act, all that is necessary on the part of the government is to invoke the War Measures Act by order in council-that is, if there is a limitation set on this measure.
We must under all circumstances keep powers precisely defined. In a parliamentary democratic institution we must avoid the acquisition of arbitrary powers; we must not make the abnormal normal. Surely we have enough faith in the cause for which we are struggling, the cause of freedom and liberty and democracy, to hope that a happier state of affairs is around the corner when we can do away with some of these emergency powers. In the meantime let us not make them indefinite; let us not put our parliamentary system in chains, because once that is done history teaches that it is very difficult to recover the ground lost.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the remarks of the Prime Minister this afternoon my first thought was that I would have to change the content of a number of remarks I was going to make this evening. However, after due reflection I decided that they would require no alteration at ail. Because of the rather indirect method the Prime Minister is using to try to satisfy the Minister of Defence Production and the official opposition, there is one thing I find too difficult to understand. No one in the house, I am sure, would question the personal undertaking of the Prime Minister. Unfortunately there is no assurance that I can see

that the Prune Minister will he here three years from now. I do not understand how the Prime Minister can bind his successor in office if his party is in power, and much less his successor in office if some other party should be in power at that time.


John Horace Dickey: You have given up, then.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I hear the senior member for Halifax, the leader of the junior goon squadron over there.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, during the next few minutes it is my intention to try to show hon. members that Bill No. 256 is a bad bill; that it should not be passed as it stands at the moment, and that it should be passed to the standing committee on banking and commerce for further consideration. I am going to try to show that measures such as this have eventually destroyed democratic governments in nearly every country of the world where in the past forms of democratic government have existed.
You know, Mr. Speaker, you learn a great deal from history. Times may change; people may wear different clothing and live in different kinds of houses, but the things that motivate them remain the same from one generation to the other and from one century to the other. They are motivated by the same desires, the same emotions. I say you can learn a lot from history. I am quite sure that certain ministers on the government side, such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) are cognizant of that fact.
The danger from this bill is not only in the fact that excessive powers are placed not in the hands of the executive, that is the cabinet, but in one man for an indefinite period of time and-most important of all- when no declared emergency exists. In the past legislation such as this has at least had the good grace to refer to a declared emergency, but this bill does not do so. This is just one step further in the long march away from parliamentary government which, Mr. Speaker, I submit has been started by the political party that at present holds office in this country. There are plenty of examples of orders in council; the increase in the powers of the executive, the taking away of the powers of the provinces and so on.
I often wonder just exactly what Liberals in the days of George Brown, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Gladstone in England would think of some of this legislation. As far as I can see, when legislation like this is placed before the house I would almost say that there is as much resemblance between the Liberal party of those days and the Liberal
Defence Production Act party of the present day as there is between the people's democracy in Russia and democracy in the west.
I am also greatly surprised that the party to my left, namely the socialist party, has not objected to some of the features of this bill but rather apparently intend to support it. I have heard a great many speeches by members of that party in the house, and also outside of it by members of the party who do not belong to this house, with respect to parliamentary freedoms and the right in parliament to express yourself. Yet nothing has been said in this house about this bill.
I think that is strange, because under this bill it is quite possible to abrogate labour contracts and deny the right to strike. I have always been under the impression that the party to my left has been, or at least has posed as being, the champions of trade unions. However, before this debate is over it may be that some of them will make some reply in that respect.
I am going to use specific examples from history to illustrate the dangers of granting unlimited powers for an indefinite period of time to one man, and to show how actions such as this have eliminated democratic or republican forms of government in the past. To indicate this to hon. members I am going to refer to brief passages in various books by great authorities on history and political science. Perhaps my words will not persuade hon. members, particularly those on the other side of the house, of the dangers in this bill, but it may be that the opinions of famous authorities on the subject may help to do so.
First of all let us refer to democracies in the Greek city states. This was the first time in civilization when democracy as such was recognized in what might be called a formal civilized community. I refer to the well known city state of Athens but there were numerous other city states such as Megara, Thebes and so on that had much the same set-up. I should like to refer-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can't you get back to the garden of Eden?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That might do fairly well also.


John Horace Dickey: The original democracy.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I refer to page 91 of "The Political Institutions of the Ancient Greeks" by Basil Hammond, professor of history at Cambridge University. This shows why the Athenians gave up their democracy, passing all the ultimate powers of the state over to one man who, to quote, "could be trusted". This particular passage is, in my opinion,
5666	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act directly relevant to this bill which is before us. I quote now from the book by Basil Hammond:
The part of Alcibiades in the revolution consisted only in giving it a start by raising false expectations of a Persian alliance. His agents went to Athens, and there Pisander, who took the leading part among them, addressing the assembly of the citizens, urged that the only hope of salvation for Athens lay in an alliance with Persia, and declared that that alliance would be made if they would invite Alcibiades to return, abolish their democracy, which was not to the liking of the king of Persia, and set up in its stead an oligarchy which the king could trust. The assembly was grieved at the prospect of losing its democratic constitution, but under the stress of circumstances gave some kind of provisional approval of the proposed change.
There we have an example of the way in which the democratic government of the Greek city states gave up their forms of democracy because of an unusual state of emergency or presumed emergency. In this regard I should also like to refer to a passage in a book called "The Ancient City" by Fustel de Coulanges, one of the great authorities on French political science. I have a few brief references here, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Coulanges indicates how Greek democracies, when they ceased to have respect for the individual and individual rights-as does this emergency powers bill-were changed into a despotism. I quote from page 458:
The Greeks could see how easily a republican government, when it did not profess a great respect for individual rights, was changed into a despotism.
+ + aucients had conferred such powers upon the state that the day when a tyrant took this omnipotence in hand, men no longer had any security against him, and he was legally the master of their lives and fortunes.
So much for the ancient Greek democracies. Let us now refer to the Roman republic in this regard. I wish to refer to several passages in the book entitled "The History of Government". I might suggest that if certain hon. members are a little rusty on their history, they might possibly read up on it in this book entitled "The History of Government" by Sir Charles Petrie of Oxford University. I should like to refer first of all to page 29. This paragraph well illustrates the ultimate danger of passing dictatorial powers over to one man in the face of a real or imagined emergency. I quote from page 29 as follows:
The expansion of the Roman dominions was, indeed, the chief factor in bringing the republic to an end, for the other reasons, economic and social, for the establishment of the empire were but the consequences of this expansion. Extended territorial responsibilities presented problems that the government by the senate could not solve, and so oligarchy gave place to autocracy. As so great an authority as the late Sir John Seeley said: What made the people give supreme power to Marius, and continue it to him for five years? First, the failure of the aristocratic government in 

the war with Jugurtha; afterwards, the imminent danger of the empire from the Cimbri and Teutones. What made them give extraordinary powers to Pompey, and afterwards extend and increase them? First, the alarming spread of piracy in the Mediterranean, stopping trade and threatening the capital with famine; next the necessity of exerting unusual power to crush Mithridates. What made them give extraordinary powers to Caesar? Rumours of an intended emigration of the Helvetii, raising apprehensions of a danger similar to that which Italy had experienced from the Cimbric invasion. Nothing can be more certain than the connection of cause and effect in these cases. The history of the introduction of imperialism is briefly this: government at Rome was so little centralized that the empire was unable to grapple with any really formidable enemy that assailed it either from without or within. To save themselves from destruction the Romans were compelled,-
And this, Mr. Speaker, is the important and cogent part.
-or thought themselves compelled, to resort frequently to the obvious expedient of a dictator. The more frequently they did this, the more did the republican government fall into disuse and contempt, the more did men's minds and habits adapt themselves to a military regime.
And so on. Further on in the same paragraph-I do not wish to take up the time of the house by reading unnecessary and irrelevant passages-we find this:
What wonder that in the end it supplanted the older constitution, when its advantages were so unmistakable, and the one thing it took away, liberty, was that which the populace of Rome and of Italy had never either understood or valued?
Further on in Sir Charles Petrie's book, at page 232, there is another paragraph to which I wish to refer and this is again illustrative.
I quote from page 230:
The Roman dictator held office for six months, and almost without exception his modem imitators have laid stress upon the essentially temporary nature of their functions, but all of them have been compelled by circumstances to continue in office longer than they had originally intended.


Mr. Ellis:: Why don't you read the Ottawa telephone directory?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to make another reference in this regard. The situation in Rome has been portrayed very well, I think, in the great iplay "Julius Caesar".


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Hon. members have started to yell "order", but I am not going to quote anything from the play.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Some hon. member says "why not". I think possibly I can summarize the content of the play in one or two sentences. The great value of the play, as in all of Shakespeare's great plays, is the complete timelessness of the situations portrayed. The situation portrayed in "Julius Caesar" was in

Roman days, but it could just as well have been in modern days or even before Roman times. The play shows that when democracy becomes so weak a dictatorship is inevitable, despite the violent, last minute, well-meaning efforts of someone like Brutus or the not so well-meaning efforts of someone like Cassius, even the assassination of an individual makes no difference because it leads to a dictatorship in any event. The removal of one individual makes no difference. I would recommend to hon. members of the government party and the socialist party that they attend the Stratford festival and get a few lessons in politics.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us the story of the hare and the tortoise.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: At page 232 of Sir Charles Petrie's book, written in 1929, he discusses the future of the democratic governments of the world. He points out that under certain conditions emergency powers may be necessary, but the only hope of retaining democracy is to put a time limit on them. I quote:
It may even be that the constitutions of tomorrow, like that of Rome of yore, will contain special provision for the creation of a dictatorship in times of emergency, carefully limiting the period during which it is to last.
I think that indicates very well what were the thoughts and opinions as to the future of such a great authority on history as Sir Charles Petrie, with respect to this type of power. During the middle ages, to go a little further on and satisfy my friends to the left, who are interested in the garden of Eden, somewhat similar situations took place in the republics of Florence and Venice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely the garden of Eden was before Julius Caesar.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You don't know whether you are coming or going.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which way does your party travel?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It seems I have touched a sore point with my friends to the left. To repeat, somewhat similar situations took place in the republics of Florence and Venice. In both these cases, due to a temporary emergency or imagined emergency and expediency, the republican form of government-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Did they have democratic forms of government?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It interests me that the hon. member should be so voluble in his interruptions, because I always understood he was a teacher of history. I find that difficult to understand in view of the remarks being made.
Defence Production Act


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member whether these republics to which he was referring had democratic forms of government.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I shall continue with my remarks. In both these cases, due to a temporary emergency or imagined emergency and expediency, the republican form of government-this will answer my hon. friend- gave way to autocracies. Venice gave way to the council of ten and Florence to the autocratic rule for several hundred years by the de Medicis, starting with Cossimo de Medici.
What I shall now say may make some hon. members happier. Let us consider moving forward in history to a situation which will be much more familiar and a country which we generally regard as the father of our parliamentary institutions, namely England.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Mother" is the usual term.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: You will recall the difficulties during the time of the famous "long parliament" from 1640 to 1660, which was whittled down in 1649 by the expulsion of the royalists and the Presbyterians and was subtitled the rump parliament until its final dissolution in 1660. I might say that the reference to the Presbyterians of that time is not a reference in any way to the Presbyterians of the present time.
The rump parliament, which had virtually expelled all opposition to Oliver Cromwell, the new dictator who had replaced Charles I, still would not acquiesce completely in the new lord protector's desires. Cromwell, who as all hon. members know had started with the good intention of destroying the autocratic monarchy and setting up a democratic form of government by the people-and there is no question that he was a most able and capable administrator-found himself or at least thought he found himself in the position of having to use great arbitrary powers to carry out his plan. In order to carry out his new regime, Cromwell wanted complete separation of the executive from the legislative powers. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I refer to Spearman-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member can accuse me of not being patient if I tell him that for the last 17 minutes the hon. member has put on the record very few words of his own. Most of them were quotations. The hon. member may quote to support a point, but he must express his own views.


An hon. Member:: He has none.


Mr. Speaker:: If during the 40 minutes to which he is entitled the hon. member reads
5668	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act quotations for 38 minutes and puts his own words on the record for two minutes, he is violating the rule.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I quite agree with what Your Honour says, but I respectfully submit that I was attempting to point out to hon. members the inherent dangers of the powers in this act, powers that might very well eventually destroy our democratic way of life.


Mr. Speaker:: May I very respectfully tell the hon. gentleman that if I were in his place and had been so obviously out of order for the last 20 minutes I would not argue the remark made by the Speaker.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have only listened for ten minutes, and I submit that in that ten minutes the hon. member has been entirely in order because the quotations have been directed to explaining the point of view that he has clearly expressed. I also submit that if he was out of order there should have been some comment about it earlier than at this moment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Everyone is out of order except you.


George Alexander Drew: Listen to what came out of Time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to labour the point, except to say that I think throughout this debate I for one have been very patient. I do not think I should have these remarks thrown at me at this moment after I have been listening intently to the hon. member, without disturbing him in any way, for the last 20 minutes. Having made remarks which I think were very proper and polite, I think the hon. members should be satisfied with the sort of treatment they have been receiving at my hands.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to your rulings, which I know are not debatable, I have been listening carefully for the full time the hon. member has been speaking, and I made notes in anticipation of this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Earl Rowe: I must say that at the outset the hon. member said this bill was a reflection on the supremacy of parliament and individual rights. He mentioned the Greek democracy giving up its democratic rights and placing confidence in one man. He referred to the despotism that took place after individual rights had been ignored. I followed the hon. member very carefully. He mentioned the ultimate dangers of placing such powers in


the hands of one man. He mentioned all the things we have been talking about throughout this debate.
I submit that as far as history is concerned you have to go away back almost into ancient history to find a situation similar to the one confronting us. Therefore I think it is quite in order to go back into history, because a man has to go back a long way to find a situation where the rights of parliament were threatened as they are being threatened here.
I have been here a long time and I have followed the hon. member carefully, because I have observed that while some of our speakers have been out of order, these hecklers are never in order. The hon. member has, I believe, carefully, cleverly and eloquently demonstrated what has happened in the past in other great democracies. I submit, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to you-and your rulings are usually very fair- that I think the leeway you have given has been highly justified. I think if the hon. member is as careful in the balance of his speech as he has been so far, he will not be out of order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I call your attention to the fact the hon. member has already spoken in this debate.


William Earl Rowe: You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that I was speaking on the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) to continue his speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member continues I should like to say a word on the point of order. I do so because so far the only remarks that have been made have been critical of Your Honour's intervention. I should like to say that I think Your Honour's intervention was moderate; if anything it should have been stronger.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I shall conclude my remarks as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker, and I will not make any further quotations from books but will try to paraphrase them. When I was interrupted I was referring to the rump parliament which, as hon. members will recall, was originally part of the long parliament. It was whittled down by the expulsion of the royalists and the Presbyterians who were opposed to Cromwell. Nevertheless, even after this Cromwell was still having quite a bit of difficulty with the rump parliament which originally was composed of his supporters.
I should like to refer to a passage in a book, though I shall not read it. I refer to a scene which should be in the minds of all hon. members, as it is one of the most famous scenes in English history. The book to

56S9
which I refer is "The Crisis of English Liberty" by Sir John Marriott. The reference is at page 306, but as Your Honour suggested I shall not read the quotation. What took place was that Cromwell who, as I say, had every good intention at the beginning, found he could not govern with parliament. He had been accustomed to autocratic powers, and parliament hampered him.
I hope this scene will never be enacted in this parliament, and I do not suppose it will. He marched into parliament one day with his army, and when Mr. Speaker was about to put the question to the house Cromwell pointed to the mace on the table and said, "Take away that bauble". Then when the Speaker objected he said, "Fetch him down".
That was an extreme case, but it was an actual occurrence in English history. People say it cannot happen here. I remind hon. members that members of the Czechoslovakian parliament said after the war, "It cannot happen here", and they left. Some of the other members of parliament said they would see their necks wrung, and it was not very long before they did.
I have some other references, Mr. Speaker, from Mrs. Spearman who was one of the recognized authorities on political science. As I say, I shall not read these quotations but will merely give hon. members the reference to the pages. Some hon. members on the other side who are so interested, or appear to be, can read them if they wish to do so. First of all, at page 169 the author points to the tendencies of modern democratic states to overflow the rule of law, which is exactly what the bill before the house is attempting to do. The book also points out how far this tendency to get away from the rule of law is removed from nineteenth century liberalism which, according to my understanding, was always the principle upon which the party opposite was based.
Then on page 174 of this book the author points out how in modern democratic states the concentration of power in the executive is continuing to destroy the democratic system. I am very sorry that I do not have the opportunity of referring to this particular passage in detail, because it sets out the matter very cogently, probably better than I can in my own words.
I should like to close my remarks by expressing the hope that hon. members on the government side and even those in the socialist party, if they cannot be awakened to the dangers to our parliamentary government in this bill by the arguments of hon. members in the Conservative party, might perhaps pay attention to some of the authors to whom I have referred. This debate is a debate on the
Defence Production Act fundamental principle of the supremacy of parliament. If parliamentary government as we know it is to survive at all, this bill must not pass.
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker-


George James McIlraith: Another written speech.
Mr. Pallet!: Someone on the other side
has stated, "Another written speech." I felt there was little hope in speaking to the front benches on the other side, so I hoped I could direct my remarks to the back benches. Having that in mind I felt I should have something in my hands that was akin to their thinking. In my hand I have blank sheets of paper, and I rose with those sheets of paper in my hand.
The amendment before the house reads as follows:
That Bill No. 256, an act to amend the Defence Production Act, be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce-
I note that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) has just interjected again. I know of other associations in which it is said that people who call out when they are sitting down do so because they feel they have more brains in their seat than on their feet. I do not know if that applies here.
-with instructions that they have power to examine and report upon the advisability of
(a)	placing the Department of Defence Production on a permanent basis and conferring on the department such powers as ought to be of a continuing nature; and
(b)	conferring for a period of one year, or until extended by parliament, such additional powers as may be strictly necessary in the light of existing world conditions.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment introduced by the hon. member for Royal is indicative of his very clear thinking on this matter, and indicative of the clear thinking of members on this side of the house. After all, the committees of this house are constituted with a majority of government members, so the government position on that committee could not in any way be altered from what it is in the house at the moment. If the terms of reference were sufficiently broad the committee could call as witnesses people involved in defence production, examine them, and have an informal discussion about the matter. With a lititle giving on both sides perhaps a very successful solution of the problem could be worked out.
The point in that connection is that there is no rigid control of the members in a committee as there is in the house. We do not know exactly what is the position of all

Defence Production Act government members on this particular matter, and it might be ascertained by such a reference to the banking and commerce committee. When members are speaking off the cuff in a committee they are more prone to stress their views from the heart than when they are called upon to speak during a formal debate. There may be speeches off the cuff that would not be in accordance with speeches that have not been delivered in the house. And when I say that I am referring to speeches that have not been delivered by hon. members supporting the government.
One might pose the question at this time, why the silent Liberals? It seems to me, as a very new member, that a matter of such importance as that involved in this debate would receive considerable vocal support from the government side of the house, and that it would not be left to the responsibility of one minister and two or three assistants to get up and say why the bill should be passed.
Surely the people of Canada are entitled to a full explanation; surely they are entitled to more explanation from their own members than they are receiving now. Perhaps there is more to this little struggle for power, that we have been hearing about, than is admitted. I wonder if backbenchers and others are not saying, "We will keep one foot on the ship and one on the dock. If the minister succeeds in putting this through we will say, 'Oh, we knew he was going to do it all the time, so we did not have to make speeches.' " And if he is unsuccessful in putting it through, I wonder if they will say, "Well, we knew that he could not put it through, and we could not speak in support of it." Because they are afraid if they make the wrong guess they may not get some of the plums they would like to get.
The question I pose is, why the silent Liberals? The Minister of Defence Production, referring to some of the reasons why he needed the great powers contained in this act said, as reported at page 5379 of Hansard for June 28:
I can tell you that in carrying out that same A. V. Roe development contract there were anxious moments. After we had got involved for $30 or $40 million it was quite obvious that the management of that day was not likely to produce what we required. The top management of A. V. Roe was resident in England. The man on the job just did not have the experience necessary to carry out the work, and that became obvious to all concerned.
Consequently we took steps to strengthen the management. We called the president and managing director of the company to Canada and said. "Look here, this is not good enough. Your local

management must be strengthened". He asked "Where can we obtain qualified men?" We started off by suggesting the co-ordinator of defence production from our own department, and he today is president of the company and a very efficient president. We intervened with General Motors and persuaded them to lend us their No. 2 man from the Allison engine works. He came to Canada and worked for two years on the development work. Other qualified men were obtained from industry. I may say that industry cooperated to the full, and as I said before, I have never known Canadian industry to see the Department of Defence Production in a jam without being willing to do whatever was needed to make their contribution to solving the dilemma . . . The present top man of the Orenda engine works is a man we supplied from the Department of Defence Production to take over that work. He was our director of electronics in the department. But the purpose of the act is to make sure that when we find a situation of that kind, where great sums of the taxpayers' money is at stake, we can direct the strength of the Canadian industry into the problem, and save the government's expenditure and produce the munitions which the department of defence is requiring at that time. That is the story of $122 million of public money invested in development work with the Avro company, and the Avro company today is in my opinion the equal in management strength, design strength and production strength of any aircraft facility on this continent.
Those remarks by the minister are very interesting. Was it not the glamour that attracted young Canadians to the aircraft industry? Did it not hold particular attraction to them from that standpoint? They went out and qualified themselves as aeronautical engineers, and spent hours over their drafting boards. Back-breaking hours of Canadian labour went into these aircraft. But the credit is not theirs; the credit is that of one minister. And, having taken the credit for it, there is another little nigger in the woodpile. When questions are asked about the lay-off of 3,000 men at the A. V. Roe plant, the answer is, "That is private enterprise; we have nothing to do with that."
I suggest that the answers by the government in connection with these matters should be at least consistent. Either they should accept responsibility when responsibility is theirs, or they should give credit to private enterprise when credit should be given. But the government uses the company to further its own ends, depending upon the situation at any given moment. I think a situation of that kind should be called to the attention of the Canadian people, because it shows inconsistency and the small amount of reliability that can be expected when great powers are in the hands of one man. We get contradictory answers, depending upon which answer suits the government best at the time it is given.
Under our government we recognize the value of a system of checks and balances. We have this at the municipal level. There is

no more responsible body of men and women in this country than those who govern at the municipal level. They are in immediate touch with the voters throughout the country. The municipal officers do not have great bodies of secretaries or receptionists one must pass before he can reach the inner offices. They are in day to day contact with and are immediately responsible to the wishes and individual demands of the taxpayers.
Yet at the same time the acts which create these municipal bodies say that, while being immediately responsible to the people, they have only limited powers and can only go so far. The provincial legislatures, established under the British North America Act, while holding broad powers in some fields find that the residual powers are vested in the dominion. Governments set up certain administrative tribunals, and these in turn are checked by the courts. The courts have always jealously protected the freedom of the individual. Administrative tribunals have always been kept under close surveillance by the courts when matters have been referred from one to the other. The courts have acted as a check. And the fathers of confederation said, when setting up the supreme parliament of Canada, that this house would have a form of check placed upon it, and that this check would be in the form of the Senate.
Yet despite all this we have one minister who for the time being says these great powers should be vested in him. We have a government which says that for the time being these powers should be vested in one minister, without any check or balance being placed upon him, not even the check of the cabinet. The discretion is solely in the one minister.
How foreign this is to the whole concept of our system. How foreign this is to the very fundamentals of government in any democratic country. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is a comic strip known as Li'l Abner, in which one of the characters is General Bull-moose. His slogan is that what is good for General Bullmoose is good for everybody. It is just possible that the analogy may apply. The analogy may also apply to the situation in the United States when there was a great struggle for power in connection with a great company, Montgomery-Ward. They backed up the old man until they got him re-elected, and then they threw him out. That analogy may apply here. In the face of difficulty from the outside they stand firm, but they do not honestly believe they are right, so when the time comes they will make the necessary move; they will promote him upstairs. I wonder if there is an analogy.
Defence Production Act
I also wonder what would happen under this act if some member of the cabinet, the Prime Minister included, learned through his own channels that a particular contractor was not performing a contract as it should be performed but the Minister of Defence Production for the time being did not agree that he was not performing the contract as it should be performed. What is the remedy? Does the government have the power to take over? Does this house have the power to take over? Suppose the contract involved aircraft, and it was found it was not being properly performed. I cannot see that happening with the A. Y. Roe company, which is in Peel county, but it might happen with some other company.
What would happen if the minister did not agree that the contract was not being properly handled? Would the interests with which he was dealing from day to day be approached by the cabinet, or would those interests hide behind the protection of the Minister of Defence Production? Is it any wonder that we have not heard or received too many briefs from the large interests, because they may say, "We know this man; we work with him." They may say, "This individual will give us protection; he will prevent us from being interfered with by the cabinet; he will prevent us from being interfered with by the government; he will prevent us from being interfered with by parliament; we have the one man." The interests may say, "We have him in our pocket." or he may say, "I have the interests in my pocket." But whatever the saying is, is that not a consideration?
Can we as a house of parliament responsible to the electors of this country allow one man, whoever he may be at the time, to act for us in such a way that as far as every big war contractor in the country is concerned he can be their emissary as well as ours? He can be acting in two capacities. As we know, under the law of agency that just cannot exist; you can act for only one person. Yet we would be denied absolutely the power of overriding a single minister. Speaking of single ministers, I observe that the front benches are completely empty except for the minister in question.


George James McIlraith: What about the row of
benches immediately to the left of your leader?


John Cameron Pallett: The second row is empty as well.


An hon. Member:: It does not say much for your speech.


John Cameron Pallett: Before the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon certain comparisons had

Defence Production Act been made, but after he spoke I was not just sure what he said. I think that is a fair statement. Someone has said this bill was his child, that it was in his name and as it was in his name he should stand up and speak in support of it. I wonder if perhaps the little child has not grown up to be somewhat obnoxious and a little bit unsavoury, and he has decided to desert it and put it on the steps of the nearest orphanage.
I did hope that when the Prime Minister spoke he would go back to what was said on the resolution stage of this bill, at which time he conferred with the Minister of Defence Production and the house leader and, as I recall, gave a rather tentative acknowledgment to the effect that consideration would be given to a time element in this bill. How simple it would have been and how well it would have been understood by all members of this house and by the country as a whole if he had risen in his place this afternoon and said, "We will make the Department of Defence Production permanent; we will make certain powers permanent, but as to those powers that we seek to put in the hands of the minister that are not in the best interests of the country for all time, which the opposition groups so vehemently oppose, we will say that they shall terminate at the end of one year, two years or three years." Then the debate would have been over.
But instead the Prime Minister suggested an undertaking. This house is not a burial place. This is a technical term, not too general but we are not undertakers and are not in the burial business. We are legislators. I suggest that undertakings of that kind are not properly presentable to the house whose duty it is to review and pass legislation, not to deal with undertakings.
Sometimes we on this side of the house feel a little like David, who went out after Goliath, whenever we oppose a government bill. After all, we are few in number and the government are many in number for the time being. I only hope that we are able, no matter how long this debate is prolonged, to awaken the Canadian people to the issues involved. I recall that not so long ago a little David in Ontario went out against a great Goliath and was quite successful. I suggest to the Ontario members of this house that they take that situation a little seriously, because the lines were drawn there. They drew the lines, and David was rather successful. I cannot see better lines for David to draw in an election than those provided by this act. I think David might be just as successful the second time against Goliath.


An hon. Member:: How about resale price maintenance?
Mr. Pallet!: What is the fundamental issue? Some people have said that the fundamental issue is the supremacy of the rule of law, the supremacy of parliament, the supremacy of the people, whether this is to be a democracy or an autocracy. These descriptions are very apt, but I think in addition there is another issue that has arisen and I am calling it laziness on the part of Liberals in this house who wish to foist their responsibilities over on one man; who are shirking their responsibilities which they undertook to assume when they were elected. They should give voice in this house on behalf of their constituents. We have heard so few of them in this debate.


An hon. Member:: Let us have a vote.
Mr. Pallet!: You cannot be quoted on a vote.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.


John Cameron Pallett: You cannot be quoted on a vote. You say, "Let us vote." You know that is just one of those things where you stand in line and go along with the boys. Put something on the record so we can quote it back to you.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why should we help you?


John Cameron Pallett: You only have to get up and speak for five minutes, two minutes or one minute. Let your voice ring forth in this chamber and say why you are voting for it.


An hon. Member:: They don't dare.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member for Wellington South is quite vociferous when he is sitting down, but he has not too much to say when he is standing up. There are a lot of lawyers in this house.


Miss   Aiiken@: Seventy-seven.


John Cameron Pallett: I am told there are 77. They come from coast to coast. If this legislation is made permanent it will assure them all good fees for quite a few years in the future.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: What is your profession?


John Cameron Pallett: I am a lawyer and farmer's son and I am also opposing this bill, as every lawyer should. I say that to the hon. member for Essex West, who is also a lawyer and who has just interjected. The reason they are doing it, Mr. Speaker, I suggest is that while the big interests, who may be working hand in glove with the Minister of Defence Production, may go along with him

because of the great benefits they are receiving from the contracts, they are a little different from the one-, two- or three-man shops in this country who are also engaged in the manufacture of parts and goods for war production.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, there is in this act a good constitutional question that some lawyers are quite prepared to take on and fight through the courts. As an illustration I might read section 91(7) of the British North America Act.
Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
There is a little unusual drafting there. Why the two "ands" in the one sentence? I think the lawyers who read the Defence Production Act in conjunction with this section of the British North America Act will read it with glee, because they will see great fees ahead for them.
Since I am speaking of lawyers, Mr. Speaker, why does the minister think the government needs this power to deal with contractors? Have they not good lawyers in the department who can draw up contracts? We hear that they have people in the department who can go out and take over plants all over the country and run them. Have they not lawyers who can draw up contracts with these individual interests to protect the government?
I wonder how many contracts would have to be drawn and signed. Do private companies have legal talent so superior that they are able to be protected more than the government is able to be protected by its legal talent? Surely to goodness every provision in this act-the assurance of production, the ability to take over particular plants-can be ensured by contract with these particular plants if the government wants it. If the companies are getting benefits, they must give something for those benefits. They could give it under contract without taking away the rights of the individuals in this country.
In his support of this bill-I suppose you might call it support-the minister said at page 5378 of Hansard:
Other provisions of the act affect property, but there is no provision in the Defence Production Act that affects the freedom of any person. When people rant about the freedom of the individual, I defy anyone to show me one section in the act which affects the freedom of the individual.
On page 5380 the minister said:
The act does not affect persons.
I have read the act, Mr. Speaker, and in addition to the section referred' to by the hon. member for Broadview this morning I refer this house to section 27, which reads:
(1)	Where the minister is satisfied that
(a) a person who has entered into a defence
Defence Production Act contract has failed or is likely to fail to perform the contract in a businesslike and efficient manner,
(b)	a person who has entered into a defence contract has failed to keep proper and detailed accounts and records of the cost of the work performed under the contract, or
(c)	a person to whom a direction has been given under section 23, or who is required pursuant to a regulation to give priority in the carrying on of his business to the production of or dealing in defence supplies, or construction of defence projects has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction or regulation or the minister is satisfied that he will so fail or is likely so to fail
the minister may authorize another person (in this act called a "controller") to carry on, until the minister otherwise directs, the whole or any part of the business of that person.
(2)	Where a controller has been appointed to carry on a business or a part thereof, he shall be deemed to be the agent of the owner thereof for the purpose of carrying on the business or that part thereof, except that the owner shall not have any right to control the business or that part thereof and the controller may, subject to any instructions of the minister, do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of carrying on the business or that part thereof.
I refer you to section 32 (1), Mr. Speaker, which reads:
Every person who
(d)	fails to comply with a direction given by a controller under section 27 ... is guilty of an offence.
Then section 32 (2) reads:
Every person guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars . . .
(3)	Every person guilty of an offence under this act, other than an offence mentioned in subsection (2) is liable upon summary conviction or conviction upon indictment to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or to both fine and imprisonment.
The controller takes over the plant and he decides to double production. He tells the workmen of the plant to run up and down stairs instead of walking, and he gets the appropriate answer. The person giving him the answer is subject to a fine of $5,000 or two years' imprisonment. Does the minister still say this act does not affect persons? It affects them at every level, the workman as much as the manufacturer. Any act which is designed to take over the whole plant, because part of it is on defence production; any act which says the controller is the agent of the owner-an agent means that he can give the same orders as the owner would give-affects every workman. Instead of being able to quit the job, as workmen now have the right to do all over the country-the workmen have the right to talk back to the boss-the workman cannot talk to the controller. He will go to jail for two years or pay a fine of $5,000 if he does. Yet

Defence Production Act the minister has the effrontery to say in this house that individuals are not affected by this act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should modify the expression he just used, namely that the minister has the effrontery to state so and so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should modify that expression.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, if the word is not proper I would be the first to agree that I should not use it; but certainly I was quite astonished to hear that the man who drew up the act, and has been using it for some years, would come to the conclusion, which I think is an improper conclusion, that a person is not affected by the act.
Acts such as this which are supported by the socialist party lead one only to the conclusion that since they are fostered and introduced by the government, that government must have within its ranks more socialists than it is prepared to admit. I personally can name quite a number, there are more such members than the people here think. The time will probably come when I shall name them.
This act and the willingness of the government members to support it may well be an indication of the socialists gaining control of the government, not so much the active control but rather the control whereby they stifle the speaking of others who, in their hearts, would like to speak and vote against it but who, because of this socialist infiltration into the government ranks, do not support the principles for which true Liberals are supposed to stand.
If the government members vote for and support this bill I say to them that they acknowledge by their vote that they agree with the principles of socialism and that they are socialists. If they are not, let them get on their feet and answer me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, before coming to the detailed criticism that I had intended to make of the bill and of some of the things said by the Minister of Defence Production, I think it would be appropriate to comment on the intervention of the Prime Minister this afternoon and the suggestion he made during the course of his speech.
Today was the second time that the Prime Minister has intervened in this debate on second reading. The first intervention was an indirect one. Today's intervention was, of course, a direct one. The first intervention 
was when the Minister of Defence Production told us on Monday, June 13-and I am here using his words as they are found at page 4683 of Hansard-that:
After consulting the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as to the best way to ensure effective parliamentary control over the administration of the act, I wish to announce that when the bill is in committee 1 will propose the addition of a third section to provide that orders made under the Defence Production Act. either by the governor in council or by the minister, shall, in addition to the normal publication in the Canada Gazette, be laid upon the table of both houses of parliament at the earliest possible moment after they are made, and that a notice of motion signed by ten members praying for the repeal or amendment of such order if given within seven days of the tabling of the order in either house shall be debated at the first convenient opportunity within the next four sitting days.
As I say, that was the first, or indirect, intervention in the debate by the Prime Minister. I take the liberty of saying that on both occasions, then and today, when the Prime Minister intervened the effect was to establish quite clearly that in the mind of the right hon. gentleman this is not a good bill, that he is uneasy and that he recognizes that there is not only some merit but in fact great logic and validity in the criticisms made against it by the opposition. Because each of his interventions has been an attempt to sugar the pill, an attempt to moderate to a small extent the way in which this bill would deprive parliament of its rights. '
On June 13 the Minister of Defence Production went on to say this:
The government has been able to think of no more effective way of ensuring prompt parliamentary control of the exercise of the powers under this act and we hope this proposal will commend itself to all sections of the house.
In so far as that proposal would give parliament some right to review orders in council and ministerial orders made under a bill which should never have been passed in the first place, of course I assume that it will be acceptable to the house; but it does not in any sense go to the root of the objection or overcome the unsound nature of the bill itself, which consists in the fact that it takes away from parliament and vests in the minister permanently, without limitation, the right to control every facet of the Canadian economy, without any reference to the House of Commons.
Then today the Prime Minister made a further attempt to sugar the pill. As I say, it was an attempt which shows clearly that he recognizes that this is not a good bill. As best I could I took down his words this afternoon, and the first thing I noticed about them was that he made an inaccurate comparison

between what is proposed by the Prime Minister today and what was done in 1950.
As I heard the Prime Minister he said something like this: "I want to say something that may make it a little more concrete and a little more precise, as was possible in 1950 when we were dealing with the Emergency Powers Act of that time and when the hon. member for Eglinton, the hon. member for Kamloops, the Minister of Justice and I put our heads together to draft the things that we would put into those regulations, about which the hon. member for Eglinton said he was perfectly satisfied and the bill went through."
Of course, Mr. Speaker, in 1950 the proposals that were made and written into the Emergency Powers Act did not give to any member of the house the right to introduce a bill to repeal the act. The difference is, first, that the proposal and the discussion there concerned only orders in council which might be made under that act. Second, there was written into the act-and it was written right into the bill-a statutory provision which said in effect that if any member gave notice within a certain length of time of a resolution or motion desiring the repeal of an order made under the act, then that motion or resolution would be brought forward and discussed in parliament.
That provision, Mr. Speaker, as you will realize, is vastly different from the mere assurance which the Prime Minister now gives that if a private member introduces a bill he or his government will undertake to see that the bill is expedited and that time is made available for discussion on government days. There is no statutory provision here. It is not proposed by the Prime Minister today to make that assurance statutory. He could not do so. As I say, there is a vast difference; and to that extent it was an inaccurate comparison which the Prime Minister made today between what he now proposes and what happened in 1950.
The Prime Minister is perfectly well aware oi the fact that the Emergency Powers Act, in addition to the right of members-which was written into the statute-to bring forward resolutions to repeal orders, contained statutory time limits on the duration of the act itself at all times.
To deal with what the Prime Minister actually said today-and it is so different from what happened in 1950-I took down his words again as best I was able and they went something like this: "We are prepared to say that parliament can consider it any time it wishes"-and I think by that he meant we could consider the Defence Production Act as
Defence Production Act it would be amended by this bill- "after three years, and we will proceed in such manner as will make time available on government days to give full and expeditious consideration to any private bill put forward by any member of parliament asking for amendments to the Defence Production Act."


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to interrupt him. Of course the hon. member agrees with me that no statutory provision is necessary to enable a private member to bring forward a public bill to amend the act. That is something he has without any concession by the government or any provision being necessary in any statute. It was only with the paragraph in the bill that I was attempting to deal in the statement I made this afternoon.


William Earl Rowe: We had that right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I quite appreciate what the Prime Minister has said. If I did not make it clear I am glad the Prime Minister has done so. But the point that is important there, sir, is that the Prime Minister was giving an undertaking to facilitate debate on the bill- not the introduction, because that does not require facilitating-but the debate only, once the bill is introduced.
I say to the Prime Minister with respect- and I know he knows this because as a matter of fact he referred to it a short while later in his own speech-that he cannot commit parliament in that way. He cannot even commit any succeeding administration. We accept the Prime Minister's assurance for himself and the administration he now heads. We accept it of course without res-servation, considering the source from which it comes. But the Prime Minister knows that that assurance is of no value to parliament because of the well established principle that one parliament cannot commit another and one administration cannot even commit a succeeding administration.
With respect to treaties or arrangements entered into under the authority of statutes, although it is not absolutely agreed still I think the best opinion is that one administration is bound by the actions of the preceding administration. But there is no such thing here. This commitment the Prime Minister is making is not based on a statute or treaty or anything comparable.


William Earl Rowe: Just a gesture.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a personal assurance only, and as such it expires with the removal from office of the person who gave it. The Prime Minister might meet with an accident, though we hope he will not. He might decide to retire. Any number of things might happen,

Defence Production Act quite apart from an election that would remove the right hon. gentleman from this house. As far as an election is concerned, let us say that the worst might happen-no, not the worst, but the second worst-and that would be that the Prime Minister would be succeeded by an administration formed from his own party, but perhaps with a different prime minister and different other ministers. Even that administration would not be bound by this assurance. Or let us say that the worst happens; that is that this administration is succeeded by an administration headed by my hon. friends to the immediate left, of the C.C.F. party.


William Earl Rowe: That will never happen.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I agree that will never happen, but the hon. gentlemen are doing their best to assure that it will happen. The Prime Minister said on one occasion that the C.C.F. and kindred socialists were but Liberals in a hurry, and judging by the burst of speed the Prime Minister is now showing along that line it is theoretically possible at least that a C.C.F. government might be elected. They would not be committed or bound by the undertaking given by the Prime Minister.
Of course if the best happens, as we all confidently hope and expect, and a Conservative administration under the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is elected-


An hon. Member:: Be serious.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -the assurance would be of no consequence in any event because immediately the act would be substantially amended along the lines we are suggesting today.
But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister asks us to accept the bill on the basis of the assurance he now gives, and I say to him with respect that for the purpose for which he has suggested it to us it is of no value whatsoever.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did not mention the Social Crediters. Are they going to be with you?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am only dealing with those things which are in contemplation in the reasonable future.


Victor Quelch: You are slipping badly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest with respect that the Prime Minister, as I have said before, is not in this sense a good House of Commons man, or he would not in the first place take the attitude he has taken with respect to the bill and leave it until this late date to intervene directly. Second, he would not have
(Mr. Fulton.]

made the suggestion he makes which is of no value as such to parliament.
I am glad the Prime Minister intervened today, though I do not think his intervention was effective in the sense it was intended to be. Otherwise I think the Prime Minister would have been exposed to most serious criticism-and I think he is still exposed to very real criticism-for not having spoken on the bill, not just because the bill stands in his name, but because he is the head of the government and this is a bill affecting the structure and the organization of government. As such it is, I submit, the Prime Minister's responsibility to parliament and particularly to the House of Commons to say why his proposal that the Defence Production Act now be made permanent should be supported; because it is a matter vitally affecting the government of which he is the head, a government, let me remind him, which is responsible to the House of Commons.
Before this debate is concluded I hope we will have a statement from the Prime Minister on the merits of the bill; why it is proposed, why it is essential or desirable that the powers contained in the Defence Production Act should now be made permanent, without time limit.
As to the bill itself, it looks simple on the face of it. It is a short bill of about ten lines, with only two sections. The first section, as hon. members know, provides that the salary of the minister shall be $15,000. But it is in the second section that we find the joker. I do not know whether or not the Minister of Defence Production plays cards. I understand he goes fishing and perhaps while there, if not here, he plays cards.


John Horace Dickey: He gets some fish when he goes fishing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Probably he knows what a joker is. The joker is a card the presence of which will entirely alter the value of a hand without that fact being apparent to those who survey the hand from the outside. In fact I think this is a little more than a joker. I think this is a wild card. The effect of that wild card or joker is, of course, to transform completely the nature of the act which this bill would amend and, I submit, to transform completely, without its being immediately apparent, the whole nature of the Canadian commercial and political economy by placing emergency, wartime powers in the hands of a minister on a permanent basis instead of on a temporary and limited basis.
In the course of this debate the Minister of Defence Production has sometimes tried, it seems, to frighten the house by threats as to the serious international situation. Sometimes he has tried to joke his way through

and to cajole and persuade the house, and sometimes he has tried sweet reasonableness. But I suggest to you, sir, that if you analyse the minister's arguments as to why his powers should be made permanent, they completely fall to the ground.
What does he tell us? He told us on Tuesday of last week, first of all, that in 1951 when the act was introduced he was quite content to have the powers on a temporary basis, but he says that in the meantime he has entered into certain commitments which he cannot be certain will expire within five years and, in fact, may not even expire until after 1960, and therefore he needs an extension of these powers.
We have said throughout, "If you need an extension, while we do not like these powers we are prepared to talk it over with you and to grant you a reasonable but limited extension." The minister rejects that and says that no time limit is any use to him. He requires them to be made permanent-all or nothing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: From Oklahoma!


Edmund Davie Fulton: When we argue about these things as a matter of abstract principle, it is sometimes difficult to bring them down to earth so that the man on the street will understand, and so that we ourselves will understand exactly what is happening. So I am going to use an illustration which I hope will make it clear.
The lawyers in this house, and I think probably most of those who are not lawyers, are familiar with what we call a power of attorney. Normally, every Canadian is a free agent. He is a free citizen. He has the right to conduct his own affairs, to conduct his own business if he is a proprietor, or his own profession; to cash his own pay cheque if he works for wages; to operate his own bank account, and in every way have sole charge of the conduct of his own affairs. This freedom can only be taken away from him, without his consent, by some form of dictation or compulsion.
But it happens quite frequently, and may happen to any one of us, that an emergency arises; sickness or accident overtakes us. We recognize that for the time being we are not fully able to carry on our own affairs in our own best interests. So we approach a friend and ask him if he will, for the duration of the emergency, take over control of our affairs and administer them in our interests. Or perhaps the friend comes to us with the suggestion. This is arranged on a voluntary basis. No one is very happy about the arrangement, but it is arrived at on a voluntary basis and is the best arrangement that 50433-358
Defence Production Act can be made under the circumstances. In legal terms, the person who is overtaken by the emergency may execute a power of attorney in favour of his friend.
Then suppose, as is the case here, the time comes when the period fixed in the agreement during which the friend will exercise these powers is about to expire. The person who has given the authority says, "The time limit is about to expire and I should like to resume control of my own affairs." The agent says, "Oh, no, I do not think you are well enough yet to look after your own affairs." I suggest that right away the person concerned-perhaps I should make it clear right away that the person in this illustration is in exactly the same position as parliament is vis-a-vis the Minister of Defence Production-would get suspicious. He would say, "I gave you this authority for a limited period; why may I not have it back?" The friend would say, "I have entered into certain commitments, and I am not in a position to discharge those commitments for you until another two or three years beyond the end of the term." The person might say, "I am not very happy about it, but I will extend your authority for a reasonable period; but it must expire at the end of the time of that commitment." The agent replies, "No, I require these powers to be extended permanently and I will not consider any further time limit on the authority you have given me; I have to have complete, exclusive and unlimited control over all your affairs."
Now, sir, if any individual Canadian citizen ever found himself in that position, where a person to whom he had entrusted temporary authority demanded its continuation without limitation and without any reason being given as to why no limitation should be imposed, that Canadian would express an opinion of the man who demanded the continuation which I am not permitted to express in this House of Commons. I believe that expression would be justified by the circumstances; and that is exactly the situation which this parliament is in with relation to the Minister of Defence Production.


John Horace Dickey: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


John Horace Dickey: Has the hon. member ever drawn a power of attorney that was not terminable at any time at the election of the person who executed the power of attorney, without any time limit?
5G78

Defence Production Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course not, Mr. Speaker; no one has ever drawn such a power of attorney. No one in his right mind would give an attorney powers which could not be terminated. But the Minister of Defence Production is in the position right now, in so far as parliament is concerned, of asking for that kind of power. Parliament gave the minister authority which expires on July 31, 1956; and now the minister, aided and abetted by his parliamentary assistant who does not realize the application of his own argument, says "I refuse not only to surrender your power of attorney-"


John Horace Dickey: You do not realize the application of your own illustration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -but he demands a continuation of that authority without a time limit. In other words he is asking parliament to do what the hon. member for Halifax agrees no person should ever do, and that is sign a blank cheque.


John Horace Dickey: The authority will terminate whenever parliament says it shall terminate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what the bill says. We have made a suggestion as to how this matter could be resolved in the interests of parliament and the country. This suggestion is contained in the amendment moved on Tuesday, June 28, by the hon. member for Royal, which states that the bill be not now read a second time, but that it be referred-


John Horace Dickey: Repetition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -to the standing committee on banking and commerce. The committee should be given instructions to examine and report upon the advisability of-
(a)	placing the Department of Defence Production on a permanent basis and conferring on the department such powers as ought to be of a continuing nature; and
(b)	conferring for a period of one year, or until extended by parliament, such additional powers as may be strictly necessary in the light of the existing world conditions.
The suggestion is sensible. It is the only sensible way in which to approach this bill. This suggestion was echoed almost completely in all its implications by the hon. member for Peace River in the very sensible-if I may take the liberty of calling it that-speech he made this afternoon. When the hon. member for Peace River was speaking I sensed that there was a certain amount of receptivity on the government benches to his proposal. I point out that his proposal proceeds along exactly the same line as the proposal contained in our amendment, with the exception that, knowing the disinclination of the government to accept suggestions from the opposition, we suggest the bill be referred to

a committee for impartial consideration, and the committee could report back. Otherwise the two proposals proceed on all fours.
We say to the government: Do that. Take this Defence Production Act, withdraw the present bill and divide your act saying which powers you think are desirable and proper to have on a permanent basis, and which powers you think should only be given on a temporary basis and subject to review. Bring in such a bill and, subject to discussion and modification of detail, we will be inclined to go along with you. I hope the government will accept our suggestion and act along those lines.
In the discussion of the bill during the course of this debate some statements have been made by the minister to which I think attention should be drawn. I do this for the purpose of pointing out to the minister that he is displaying an unrealistic approach to this matter which can only have the effect of bringing about an impasse. If this thing is going through in its present form, it will be purely as a result of a stubborn and determined effort by the government majority to impose their will, and not as the result of a real attempt to assess the merits and demerits of this proposal. On Tuesday, June 28, the Minister of Defence Production made a statement in the course of his prepared speech-


Clarence Decatur Howe: To what does my hon. friend refer as a "prepared speech"? I did not have a note.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not say the minister read it, but I assumed that he prepared it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I did not.


George Alexander Drew: It certainly sounded like it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now that we have that admission, I must say we sometimes wonder whether anybody took the trouble to prepare the bill and to realize its consequences. Accepting the minister's correction, I will say simply that in the course of his speech on Tuesday, he made a statement the only and inevitable consequence of which would be to lead the house and the country to the wrong conclusion. I refer to a passage in the minister's speech, where at page 5378 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
It has been said that the supplies and services act of the United Kingdom is less drastic than the act we are now discussing. I think anyone who is familiar with both acts will say that the powers in the supplies and services act are more drastic than anything contained in the act now under discussion. The defence production act of the United States is much more comprehensive and grants powers which we feel are not required in this country.

With respect to the first part of the argument, I say the minister's statement is entirely erroneous. I say that the supplies and services act of the United Kingdom is not more drastic than our Defence Production Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You speak as an expert?


Edmund Davie Fulton: And with respect to the defence production act of the United States, while it is true that it does go further in some respects-that is to say, it goes into fields into which our Defence Production Act does not go-it is not more drastic. Indeed it is less drastic in the sense that the defence production act of the United States is a carefully and completely drafted piece of legislation in which the powers are circumscribed and set out with detail and exactitude. Furthermore, the exercise of those powers is carefully confined within limits which incorporate a principle entirely absent from our Defence Production Act which we are now asked to make permanent. And further, in connection with both those acts-both the United Kingdom and the United States act-they have definite time limits written into them, and there has never been any attempt to take the time limit out. I have studied these acts and while, particularly, the United States act is difficult to follow-I am quite prepared to admit that it is difficult to digest, in its bulk-yet I make those statements without hesitation and without reservation.
Let me say that we feel that the way they did it in the United Kingdom and in the United States is the proper basis upon which to proceed. That is to say, if powers are to be given-emergency powers-and if they are necessary, then they should be granted, but a time limit should be written into the bill. And that time limit should not be taken out by the government without good and adequate reason being given.
Now, so far as the supplies and services act of the United Kingdom is concerned, I have said it does not go as far as our Defence Production Act. It contains a provision in section 4 which states that every order in council is to be tabled as soon as may be after it is made. It states that it is to be tabled in both houses of parliament. That is right in their act. It does not require an amendment such as the Minister of Defence Production introduced after consultation with the Prime Minister. It has been in their act since it was first enacted, in 1945. And every order in council when tabled may be annulled by resolution of either house within 40 days. It is not a mere seven days, but a resolution in either house within 40 days.
4, 1955	5679
Defence Production Act
It is true that in section 6 of their supplies and services act there is an extension of the application of the powers of the minister of supply under the ministry of supply act, 1939. That is the only place where there is an extension. But the ministry of supply act of 1939 contained two very interesting and important sections. Section 6 of the ministry of supply act, 1939, provides in subsection 2:
The draft of any order in council proposed to be made under this part of this act shall not be submitted to His Majesty unless it has been approved by resolutions passed by each house of parliament.
In other words before they can make an order in council over there, under part I of their ministry of supply act, they have to have specific approval of the House of Commons to do so, before they can submit it to the king. There is no such limitation in our Defence Production Act.
Section 14 of the ministry of supply act of the United Kingdom provides:
Subject to the following provisions of this section, the foregoing provisions of this part of this act shall continue in force for a period of three years beginning with the date of the passing of this act, and shall then expire-
-provided that it may be continued by an address adopted by each house of parliament. That is the ministry of supply act, passed in the United Kingdom in July of 1939, when real world war was threatening, and was to begin within a month or so. That is the act which is extended by the supplies and services act of the United Kingdom.
But the supplies and services act of the United Kingdom itself contains a provision in section 8 which states:
Subject as hereinafter provided this act shall continue in force for the period of five years after the passing thereof and shall then expire-
-unless the two houses of parliament pray His Majesty for an order in council continuing it for a further period.
That act was passed on December 10, 1945, and was known as the supplies and services (transitional powers) act, 1945, at a time after the Labour government had come into power in Great Britain. Even the socialist government in the United Kingdom recognized they should not have permanent powers of this kind. On the contrary, they put in a five-year limitation, subject to extension from year to year. And I would point out to the house that that provision is still in their act.
I have in my hand a copy of the parliamentary debates at Westminster for November 15, 1954, which contains the report of a

Defence Production Act debate where the secretary of state for the home department moved:
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-five.
That was on November 15, 1954. That is the act in the United Kingdom; and I certainly hope the minister will not suggest that over there the defence effort is not on a scale even greater than ours. The threat to that little island from a thermonuclear bomb is incomparably greater than it would be here; the destruction would be incomparably greater than it would be from such a bomb in Canada. Yet that country, with its respect
for democracy, for the rule of law and the supremacy of parliament, finds it quite possible to do all that is necessary to obtain defence supplies and essential materials, and still keep in their act a provision that it will expire on a certain date unless renewed from year to year by parliament.
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Tomorrow we shall continue with this debate and, as was announced for today, if it is completed we shall take up the motion to go into committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 5, 1955