1955-06-13

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could have the indulgence of the house to make a brief statement about the bill to amend the Defence Production Act.
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.
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.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 416 (from the Senate), to incorporate Consolidated Pipe Lines Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 453 (from the Senate), to incorporate Baudette and Rainy River Municipal Bridge Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Balcom:: What grants in aid of cancer research and cancer education have been made to each of the provinces of Canada?


Mr. Robertson:: Since the national health grants program was established in 1948 the federal government has made grants to the provinces totalling $12,690,698 for cancer treatment, research, and education, as follows:
Province	Amount
Newfoundland	 $ 277,646
Prince Edward Island	 56,338
Nova Scotia	 508,269
New Brunswick	 667,089
Quebec	 4,664,837
Ontario	 1,781,678
Manitoba	 680,406
Saskatchewan	 1,557,660
Alberta	 1,549,306
British Columbia	 944,597
Northwest Territories	 1,940
Yukon	 932
Total	 $12,690,698
It is not possible at this time to separate the cancer research and cancer education aspects of the provincial cancer programs which are being supported under the above mentioned grants.


DISABILITY PENSIONS-WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE
Mr. Low:: How many ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen are in receipt of disability pensions augmented by a portion of the war veterans allowance?


Mr. Bennett:: Because of the applications in process and the changes in rates resulting from the 1955 amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, it is not presently possible to extract current data from the records cards.
As at March 31, 1955, there were 9,976 recipients of disability pensions under the Pension Act or the legislation of British or allied countries who were also in receipt of war veterans allowance.

Questions


H.M.C. &quot;DOCKYARD&quot;  CIVILIANS EMPLOYED
Samuel Rosborough Balcom: How many civilians, casual and civil service, were employed under administration H.M.C. Dockyard in the Halifax-Dartmouth area as at:	(a) May 1,
1S53; (b) May 1, 1954; (c) May 1, 1955?


Mr. Campney:: Civilian employees under direct administration of H.M.C.
Dockyard,	Halifax	*	
Continuing complement			
May 1,	May 1,	May 1.1953	1954	1955(a) salaried employees subject to Civil	Service Act 	
(b) hourly and monthly	1433	1550	1735rate employees exempt from Civil	Service Act 	1632	1732	1796Casual 	543	580	597Commissionaires 	120	120	1603728	4082	4288
* includes civilians employed at the dockyard, at Dartmouth naval armament depot, at the naval training base H.M.C.S. Stada-cona and at the Bedford naval magazines.


LIGHTSHIP &quot;SAMBRO&quot;
Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What firms tendered for the construction of the Halifax lightship, Sambrol
2.	What prices were submitted?
3.	What firm was awarded the contract?


Mr. Marler:: 1 and 2. Geo. T. Davie & Sons Ltd., Lauzon, Levis, P.Q., $643,004; Canadian Shipbuilding & Engineering Ltd., Collingwood, Ontario, $670,000; Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., Lauzon, Levis, P.Q., $670,000; Canadian Vickers Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $730,777; Marine Industries Ltd., Sorel, P.Q., $927,000; Saint John Dry Dock Co. Ltd., East Saint John, N.B., $1,016,000; Halifax Shipyards Ltd., Halifax, N.S. $1,100,000.
3. Geo. T. Davie & Sons Ltd., Lauzon, Levis, P.Q.



FISHERIES PRICES SUPPORT BOARD


Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What is the total cost of freight, storage, handling and other charges, not including the cost of fish purchased, paid out by the fisheries prices support board in the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and the prairie provinces for the period April 1, 1948, to March 31, 1955, total only?
2.	What is the total amount of deficiency payments paid under the fisheries prices support board act, as from April 1, 1948 to March 31, 1955,

in each of the following provinces: Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, prairie provinces?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	Newfoundland, $37,418.25; Nova Scotia, $20,649.03; New Brunswick, $31,850.29; Quebec, $5,900.42; prairie provinces, $37,381.10.
2.	Newfoundland, $1,256,859.92; Nova Scotia, $5,200.74; New Brunswick, nil; Quebec, $59,285.95; prairie provinces, nil.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY  FEDERAL EXPENDITURES

Mr. Denis:: 1.	What total amount has the federal government paid to each province of Canada, including the province of Quebec, to date, under the Trans-Canada Highway Act?
2.	What further amounts have been agreed on, to date, to be paid to each province, including the province of Quebec, in connection with the trans-Canada highway?
3.	What mileage has been constructed in each province to date, including the province of Quebec?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Amount paid to each province to June
4, 1955:
Newfoundland	$ 5,478,732.60
Prince Edward Island	 1,097,615.10
Nova Scotia	  75,699.97
New Brunswick	 2,553,559.93
Quebec	
Ontario	 20,637,935.54
Manitoba	 5,654,639.69
Saskatchewan	 7,101,824.68
Alberta	 8,402,583.38
British Columbia	 14,509,494.12

2.	Claims from the participating provinces, which comply with the trans-Canada highway agreement, are paid as submitted. Quebec is not a signatory to the agreement.
3.	Mileages completed to April 30, 1955:
Province	Grading	Paving
Newfoundland 		. 177-1	
Prince Edward Island .	. 54-7	461Nova Scotia 	. 95	4-1New Brunswick 	. 58-8	52-2Quebec 	Ontario	. 373-2	314-8Manitoba 	. 177-8	1301Saskatchewan	. 317-1	230-4Alberta	. 196-4	150-9Banff and Yoho parks .	. 130	5-8British Columbia	. 163-4	140-41,4810	1,074-8



FERRY &quot;BLUENOSE&quot;


Mr. Balcom:: 1. What firms tendered for the construction of the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry, Bluenose?

2.	What prices were submitted?
3.	What firm was awarded the contract?


George Carlyle Marler: 1 and 2. J. Samuel White & Company Ltd., Cowes, Isle of Wight, 7 alternative bids ranging from $3,537,000 to $3,774,600 (Tender not acceptable as it did not meet delivery requirements); Davie Shipbuilding & Repairing Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que., $3,926,000; Canadian Vickers Ltd., Montreal, Que., 5 alternative bids ranging from $4,417,770 to $4,461,570; Geo. T. Davie & Sons Ltd., Lauzon, Que., $4,529,256; Marine Industries Ltd., Sorel, Que., $4,978,000; Halifax Shipyards Ltd., Halifax, N.S., 12 alternative bids ranging from $5,374,980 to $5,527,290.
3.	Davie Shipbuilding & Repairing Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the national film board produced a film named "Angotee"?
2.	If so, when was it completed, what was the cost thereof and what use is being made thereof?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	Yes.
2.	"Angotee" was completed on December 8, 1952. The approximate cost was $25,000. The following is a record of the use made of the film "Angotee" since its completion:
In Canada: Canadian non-theatrical distribution (to Dec. 31/54) 4,058 screenings, with an audience of 287,384.
Canadian television distribution (to March 31/55) 1 English spot telecast CBUT Vancouver, 6 English "Window on Canada" (No. 20) telecasts:	CBLT-Toronto; CBOT-Ottawa;
CBMT-Montreal; CBUT-Vancouver; CFPL -London; CKSO-Sudbury.
N.B.-"Angotee" was not distributed in commercial theatres, except for one booking in Toronto, because it" was produced in 16mm which is not the standard commonly used by commercial theatres.
In other countries: United States television (to March 31/55) 6 telecasts: WSPD-Toledo, Ohio; KCMC-Texarkana, Texas; WNBT

New York; KTNT-Tacoma, Washington; WFBM-Indianapolis,	Indiana; KNBH-
Hollywood, California.
Non-commercial distribution: Prints were distributed in the following countries through the Canadian missions: United States-New York; Chicago; Boston; Detroit; Los Angeles; New Orleans; Seattle; Washington.
United Kingdom-London; Liverpool.
Europe-Czechoslovakia; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Portugal; Sweden; Turkey; Greece; Ireland; Italy; Netherlands; Spain; Switzerland.
Order for Return
Asia-India; Indo-China; Japan; Singapore; Indonesia; Israel; Pakistan.
Africa-Belgian Congo.
Union of South Africa-Cape Town; Johannesburg.
Australia-Melbourne; Sydney.
New Zealand-Wellington.
South America

Argentina; Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Cuba; Mexico; Peru; Trinidad; Uruguay; Venezuela.
Award:	First award in the open nontheatrical category, 5th Canadian film awards 1952.



RIEL REBELLION

Mr. Ferguson:: Has the Prime Minister, since speaking a year or so ago at Calgary, Alberta, on the subject, given any direction or order to any department of government to change the expression or term "Riel rebellion" to "Riel uprising", in official documents?


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to answer this question orally. The answer is "no". There is only one incident to which the question refers and it is not accurately described in the question. The question is:
Has the Prime Minister, since speaking a year or so ago at Calgary, Alberta, on the subject, given any direction or order to any department of government to change the expression or term "Riel rebellion" to "Riel uprising", in official documents?
As I said, there was only the one incident. It was not a year ago; it was four years ago. It was not at Calgary, Alberta; it was at Battleford, Saskatchewan. It was not in the course of a public address; it was in the course of a conversation with the supervisor of the fort at Battleford. It was prompted by reports which I had, during my visit to that part of Saskatchewan, of difficulties arising out of the defacing of the inscription on the monument at Batoche; the incident received a lot of publicity at the time. When I got back to Ottawa I found that this publicity had come to the notice of the then minister of resources and development and had been referred by him to the historic sites and monuments board for consideration at their next meeting. So I did nothing more about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Hansell:: 1. Excepting grants for the trans-Canada highway, have any grants been given to the Alberta government for highway construction during the past 20 years?

Inquiries of the Ministry
2.	If so, (a) what particular highways were those grants for; (b) what were the amounts; (c) when were they given?
3.	Was any assistance given for the construction, hard surfacing or any other road work for highway No. 2 from Calgary to Macleod?
4.	If so, was this assistance granted conditionally and upon what conditions?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (for ihe Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act with respect to certain benefits under the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code respecting the operation of the parimutuel system of betting used upon race courses and to provide that a levy shall be made sufficient to ensure uniform and adequate supervision.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he noticed an advertisement in this morning's issue of the Montreal Gazette in which Canadian immigrants and future Canadian citizens are invited to return to Czechoslovakia to face the firing squad? If so, is he planning any protest against the lure so offered, which might well be taken up by some immigrants who are unemployed, who do not have housing, and so forth?
[Mr. Hansell.l


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secrelary of Slafe for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did notice the advertisement-I assume it is an advertisement to which my hon. friend refers- and if I had not he has been good enough to send me a copy of it this morning. I notice that it refers only to Czechoslovakian citizens in Canada and not, of course, to Canadian citizens of Czechoslovak race or former nationality, in which case it would have been improper and inadmissible. Whether the advertisement in its present form would be improper I am not sure, and I am having the matter looked into.


CHANCELLOR ADENAUER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Chancellor Adenauer been invited to come to Canada during his visit to the North American continent in the near future?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, he has not. He is coming to the United States, I understand, to get a degree from Harvard University, and then is spending a very short time in Washington and New York before returning to Germany. In the circumstances he has not been invited to come to Canada, although I am sure we would all be very glad to see Chancellor Adenauer here at any time.


ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Secretary of State for External Affairs when I may expect an answer to my question regarding radioactive precipitation, which has been on the order paper since March 25?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I was looking at some material in connection with the reply to this question this morning, and it should not be too long.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe, Port Arthur (for Mr. St. Laurent) for the

second reading of Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act.
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement concerning a proposal on the government's part with regard to this act and orders made under it. Any comment on that particular proposal I shall leave to others because, without seeing it and examining it closely, I might form an impression that some great concession has been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. At the moment I think it does not go beyond what is already open to the members of this house on any occasion. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last, close to the hour of adjournment, I was dealing with this subject and I pointed out that our opposition to the bill was not factious at all but was based on sound ground, namely that extraordinary powers such as those which are contained in the act-and which are admitted by the minister to be extraordinary-should not be made permanent. I indicated the points of agreement and the points of difference. I showed that in March, just three months ago, we came close to reaching a compromise and that, after debate at the resolution stage, we were left with the impression that the bill would be altered in such a way as to make it acceptable to all parties in this house. Then to our surprise, of course, it was brought in a little while ago without any alteration.
In the course of the debate various members on the other side of the house and elsewhere have said that we in the opposition have made no suggestion with regard to changing the act but that we had just been criticizing it. I would say that they have not been following the debate very closely because several good suggestions have been made; and if any one of those suggestions had been adopted by the government this debate would soon be brought to an end.
For example, the suggestion was made that certain sections in the act be amended in such a way that some of the extraordinary powers would terminate at a specified time. The second suggestion made was that the expiry date be advanced by one to three years. The third suggestion was that the act be split so that the department would be made permanent-something on which there is general agreement-and that the rest of the act would terminate unless periodically renewed by parliament.
I think the best solution to this problem is to make two acts instead of one. I have examined the statutes in order to see how 50433-296J
Defence Production Act the other departments are set up. While I have not made an exhaustive survey, I find that twelve of the other departments are set up by short acts running from two to three pages. The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) is also the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In chapter 78 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, I find that department to be set up by a short act running just over one page. In that short act there are several sections doing just the normal things such as declaring that there shall be a department; appointing a minister; making the Minister of Trade and Commerce a member of the privy council; saying that he has management of the department; giving the governor in council authority to appoint a deputy minister and such other officers, clerks and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the department. Then section 5 deals with the duties of the minister; section 6 puts the Canada Grain Act under his management; and section 7 says that he shall present an annual report to parliament. Why could not that be done with this particular department?
Why could there not be a separate act setting up the Department of Defence Production, making it permanent and giving the minister the opportunity of retaining experienced employees, and then a second act outlining the methods of defence procurement and all the other things that are contained in the present act? Alternatively, if that is not accepted, the present act could be divided into distinct parts. The part dealing with the organization of the department could be made permanent and such other parts as seem fit could be made of short duration. That and the other things I have mentioned have been concrete suggestions advanced by the opposition, and when the opportunity comes in the committee stage it is possible that amendments may be used to indicate that very clearly.
The whole trouble facing us, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a fundamental difference between those of us in Her Majesty's loyal opposition and the minister. The minister set out his point of view last week. He said that we had been suggesting that the traditional methods of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary responsibility were being interfered with, that there was a denial of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law, and he stated that he was only a layman in this field. That struck me as being an astonishing statement. Granted that on the face of it it was very modest and unassuming, but I thought it was peculiar that a senior member of the house, after 20 years

Defence Production Act in parliament and 20 years as a cabinet minister, would say that he was only a layman with regard to the usages and customs of parliament, the duties and responsibilities of members of this chamber, and the responsibility of the cabinet and individual ministers to parliament.
I think it is incumbent upon the senior members of the house to be the foremost to defend the parliamentary system, to exercise moderation with respect to any suggested changes and to restrain newcomers to the house when they appear to be impatient with the parliamentary system. I regret to say that the minister has unfortunately gained the reputation of being rather impatient with the parliamentary system. He has appeared to prefer to do things quickly rather than by the slower methods of parliament. He has gained a great reputation as a cutter of red tape, but he has no red tape to cut in legislation such as this because he has made perfectly sure there are no strings attached whatever.
It is because of his attitude that there appears to be a fundamental difference dividing us on this occasion. Actually he is attempting to reverse the process. Normally ministers come to parliament and ask for extension of their powers or for special powers for special purposes and parliament examines the situation, makes the grant of power and withdraws it when the crisis has subsided. If the legislation is to be continued, as the minister desires, and is made permanent with all the powers contained therein, parliament will be in the position of having to go to the minister and beg him to surrender his powers. In that regard he said the other day that he will decide if and when the act shall be liquidated and not parliament, although in March the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that parliament would decide. I suggest, therefore, that an attempt is being made to reverse the normal processes of parliamentary procedure.
Now, I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has declared himself to be a layman with regard to matters that concern parliament. After 20 years he has not learned, as he implied, very much about the parliamentary system. Certainly, he has not learned to admire it. Although he is very modest and unassuming in that statement, he was far from modest and unassuming when he declared that after 20 years in this parliament, and his long term of service as the minister in charge of the department, he felt, and these are his words as recorded on page 4512 of Hansard for June 7, 1955:
... I think I can claim to have more experience in defence purchasing than any other man now living.

Those are not the words of a layman, nor the words of one who is modest and unassuming. Yet I would suggest that he has become an acknowledged authority in defence purchasing by virtue of the position conferred upon him by successive prime ministers and the authority granted to him by parliament.
There is nothing I am saying in connection with this act which would indicate for one minute that this party is opposed to proceeding rapidly with the defence build-up that is necessary under the circumstances. My own opinion is that we should get on with the job, and get on with it rapidly. The radar warning screens must be completed as rapidly as possible up north or they may be obsolete by the time they are completed. Aeroplanes must continue to come off the assembly line as quickly as possible because they become obsolete so quickly. Guided missiles are required at the earliest possible date. Consequently, I say, get on with the job.
If there is a real emergency within the proper definition of that term I gave to the house the other day, then I say we should be informed and all the steps should be taken that are necessary to meet that emergency, including a general organization of the country so that it can present a united effort in time of peril. It means also the imposition of controls and giving full power to the cabinet, as was done in wartime. Canada will respond as Canada has always responded. But if the minister is not prepared to do that, if the situation is not that serious, then I say to him, let the parliamentary system continue in full force and effect; let the rule of law be honoured in the land. Let the minister be content with the restraints that we are suggesting in point of time regarding the extraordinary powers he desires. Let him be content with some of the inconvenience and the slowness of the parliamentary system. Let him effect a compromise.
During the last 50 years in the modern world we have observed experiments with all the forms of government that mankind has devised in centuries. We have seen absolute monarchies, and we have seen them destroyed. We have seen dictators rise and fall. We have experienced war and revolution. We have observed democracies destroyed from within. We have seen oligarchies set up. There is no known form of government that has not been tried within the last 50 years, and we still think our democratic system and our parliamentary form of government is better than any other method of governing mankind that has been devised. We think it

protects the rights of the individual and provides freedom within the law. It is on that basis, then, that I suggest we should be vigilant to maintain our system, and we are on sound ground when we object to any encroachment on this system of government which has proven its worth over the years. We are quite prepared to admit that it has faults and weaknesses, but what is the alternative? I do not find the alternative, as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Phil-pott) does, in the "great man" theory of government, as he came very close to doing the other day when he attempted, in what I think was fulsome flattery, to indicate to this house that the present Minister of Defence Production was the architect of victory in the last war. So far as Canada is concerned, I thought it was the co-operative effort of millions of Canadians that achieved that victory.
I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I think that the minister is one of the ablest men in Canada. I have respect for his ability and experience. I like men of action; I like men of decision; and the minister has admirable qualities. I respect him for them. I think he should similarly respect us for our position when we say and proclaim that the parliamentary system is being endangered by this act which he wishes to make permanent.
He suggests that he is not fully informed with regard to the parliamentary system as it has been devised, and we think that he is now trying to put shackles and restraints on the very institution that made it possible for him to achieve greatness. It was as a result of this institution and his position here that he achieved a position of commanding importance in this country.
I do not wish to trespass on the time o: the house, but I believe that I have sufficien time left to draw to the attention of hon members one of the best statements that ' know of concerning the necessity for imposing restrictions on those who rule over us The very short extract that I am going tc read is from Alexander Hamilton, who wrote that famous book "The Federalist" at the time that the United States were setting ur their constitution in 1787. The quotation-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is quotation No. 47.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -reads as follows:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed: and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control
Defence Production Act on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
There are no angels in the House of Commons, and precautions are necessary when we are entrusting the government of men to men.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate we are dealing with questions which are obviously of the utmost importance not only to this house but to the whole of Canada. It is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that on matters as important as this there is such confusion evident in the speeches of the members of the official opposition and of the Social Credit group. It appears evident that many of these hon. members are either unwilling or unable to recognize the realities of the situation with which we are confronted.
The subject matter of our discussion is plainly and simply the defence of Canada. The thing that is at stake is the ability of this country to provide the weapons, the materials, the projects and all the panoply of defence requirements that are needed by modern defence services to provide these not only for ourselves but in co-operation with our allies for the necessary defence of this continent, and to provide certain materials of war for our allies on other continents.
No member opposite has suggested that this is not an important task. But, Mr. Speaker, they have made the mistake of attempting to suggest that in trying to provide for the proper discharge of our responsibilities in this regard we are in some way subverting parliament and violating the rule of law.
I say to hon. members opposite, this is a completely mistaken view. They are misled if they believe that what is proposed here constitutes a threat to things that we on this side of the house believe in, support and have at heart just as much as have they or anybody else in this country. The confusion and the inconsistencies that are apparent in the hon. member's speech are almost too numerous to mention, and I shall deal only with several that I think are of particular importance.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who has just taken his seat, gave us a perfect example just before he sat down. It is beyond me how he and other hon. members can in one breath express the greatest confidence in the Minister of Defence Production and refer to his tremendous record of achievement in this country, then in the very next breath attack the same minister and express the greatest concern about his powers, saying that he is an autocrat, that he is moved only by a lust and a desire for power.

Defence Production Act The first description that the hon. members are good enough to give of the minister is correct, and is proved by history. Their second contention is incorrect, and it is disproved by the same history. They cannot have it both ways. The minister has either done an outstanding job for this country in shouldering the very heavy responsibilities that have been placed upon him, or he is, as they suggest, a dangerous autocrat who is trying either to socialize or to centralize this country. Hon. members can juggle these two inconsistent and mutually contradictory statements as much as they like in efforts to bolster up their arguments in this debate, but when one listens to their speeches and reads them it becomes more than obvious that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Phil-pott) was correct the other night when he said that what is going on here is opposition for opposition's sake and that we are in fact seeing a filibuster on that basis.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the real disagreement between those who support this bill and those who oppose it can be reduced to a very small compass, and in fact can be stated in two quite simple questions. The first is: what is the real nature and extent of the powers contained in the Defence Production Act? The second is, are these powers reasonably necessary in the present circumstances? If the answer to the latter question is yes, can we at this time foresee a definite time in the future when these powers will no longer be required?
First of all let us look at the Defence Production Act, particularly in the light of certain charges that have been made with respect to it and the powers which it contains. The first speaker in this debate for the official opposition was the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and he certainly established himself as an all-time long distance champion in this session and perhaps in many others.


An hon. Member:: Tom Longboat.


John Horace Dickey: He was the first to read a number of quotations both relevant and irrelevant, and his colleagues have followed his example so that we have seen them delving further and further into both literature and doggerel in order to take up the time of the house. The hon. member for Eglinton read into the record a number of sections of the Defence Production Act. He read some of them in whole and some in part. I presume that he disapproves of those which he read into the record as examples of improper powers, and that he equally disapproves of all that he read. Presumably he approves of the powers which he did not

read into the record or disapproves of them less than he does of those which he selected. He certainly gave no contrary indication.
The hon. member commenced by reading section 15 of the act and his words in that respect appear on page 4519 of Hansard of June 7. I invite hon. members to read carefully this section, as the hon. member for Eglinton invited them to do. What is this section?
It is a detailed and clearly worded section which sets out in specific terms certain powers for the carrying out of defence procurement. Surely there must be a section of this nature in any defence production act. By this section parliament not only grants powers but clearly sets limitations to those powers. By the very fact that parliament enacts a section of this kind it asserts its authority to grant these powers and to oversee them. What is so unusual and improper about the words from section 15 which the hon. member read into the record? I submit that there is nothing unusual or improper except that the powers are admittedly wide powers; but that is dictated by the importance and the complexity of the task set for the department and for the minister, and for no other reason.
Then the hon. member referred in passing to section 16, and then went on-still at page 4519-to read section 17. I once again invite hon. members to read what the hon. member put on the record, but to read the whole section and not just the sections which he placed on Hansard. Does the hon. member for Eglinton want section 17 of the act eliminated? I doubt very much that he does, and he certainly did not take the responsibility of saying so. By this section we in parliament lay down strict rules governing the manner in which the department and the minister and the government may exercise the powers given them elsewhere in the act. It gives the power to enter into contracts, but only in certain specific ways and always subject to the requirements of the act. If the hon. member for Eglinton and other hon. members are arguing that this section should be removed, it simply means that they want to remove these restrictions on the manner in which the minister and the department can carry out their duties and responsibilities.
The hon. member appeared to be particularly concerned with subsection (e) of this section and he invited hon. members to pay particular attention to that subsection. I invite the hon. member and his colleagues to pay particular attention to some other statutes. If the hon. member will read section 37 of the Public Works Act, chapter 228 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, he will

find there a subsection very similar in terms to subsection (e) of section 17 of the Defence Production Act. It provides that in certain specific circumstances contracts may be entered into and the approval of the governor in council secured later by notice. That is the provision in that act and I have never heard hon. members opposite claim that the Public Works Act gives sweeping or arbitrary or improper powers to the minister or to the government.
The hon. member then went on to quote parts of section 24, parts of section 27, section 28, section 30, section 31 and section 32, and never took the responsibility of indicating whether he objected to the whole of those sections, to part of them or just what specific objection he had. No wonder the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who followed the hon. member in the debate, had reason to remark that after 101 minutes the hon. member had still not made clear his position or the position of his party.
I must say that after listening to the hon. member for Eglinton I got the impression that he started out reading these sections and then after he completed reading them he realized that having heard them read out aloud he did not feel that they went quite so far or were quite as objectionable as apparently he had imagined they were when he had been thinking things over in the quiet of his own office. Then he simply went on to the next section in the hope that he would find something better there. What is quite apparent from a reading of the portions of these sections which the hon. member did not put on the record is that he omitted to read all the provisions of these sections which provided limitations on the powers and authority given under those sections and limiting their use strictly to securing the basic purposes of the legislation.
I should like now to turn to the speech made by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). During that speech we heard all the familiar phrases and slogans to which we have become so accustomed in this house, generalized complaints and protests which sound fine but which when examined are found to have very little relation to the facts. I think it is a great pity that important and fundamental concepts of our constitution and form of government, such as the rule of law, tend in the mouth of the hon. member for Prince Albert to become mere meaningless catch phrases which are applied holus-bolus to any problem that comes up.
The hon. member attacked the Defence Production Act mainly on the ground that it
Defence Production Act violates the rule of law by denying to the subject recourse to the courts in connection with actions taken by the department and the minister under the act. We had a ringing and resounding speech from him on this subject. The only thing wrong with what the hon. member had to say was that there simply was no foundation in fact. I assure every hon. member in this house that there will not be found in the Defence Production Act a word, a phrase or a section that in any way limits or restricts the right of the subject to recourse to the courts if he feels aggrieved or suffers damage by any action taken by the minister, by the governor in council or by the department under this act. There is one exception to what I have said, and that is section 37. Section 37 restricts the personal liability of a controller or an investigator appointed under the act for anything done in good faith and within his powers under the act, but that same section specifically saves and excepts the right of the subject to recourse against the crown if there is any reason for recourse.
The hon. member said in definite terms that this act puts the minister and the government above the courts. That statement is completely without foundation in the act itself. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is true. Section 22, for example, provides a special procedure whereby a person who disagrees with an order made under certain sections of the act can simply give notice in the exchequer court of appeal against the order and immediately there is a stay of all proceedings under that order, and the court assumes jurisdiction and deals with the matter without the necessity of the person aggrieved even commencing an action against the crown. The section gives specifically to the court the jurisdiction to vary or change in any way that it may deem just the order made by the minister.


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


John Horace Dickey: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that that provision applies only to an order made under section 21?


John Horace Dickey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is a special procedure to assist the subject in getting before the exchequer court without the necessity of starting an action and going through the whole rigmarole of an action, but under any other section of the act anybody who is aggrieved has full right to proceed by any of the normal procedures of getting before the court and getting a judgment on his case. This, Mr. Speaker, I submit, is not

Defence Production Act consistent with the contention that there is a denial of the right to appeal to the courts.
Fortunately, I have the courts on my side in this, because there was a very similar section in the munitions and supply act. An appeal was launched against several orders of the minister under that act and was heard by the exchequer court. There were three cases heard all together. One was Mulhol-land v. the Crown, 1952, Exchequer Court Reports, page 233. While I do not wish to follow the example of hon. members opposite in wearying the house with quotations, I should like to place on the record a brief quotation from the judgment of Cameron, J. in that case. He says this:
At first sight the powers conferred on the minister would seem to be somewhat arbitrary, but it is to be noted that section 13	(2) (re-enacted
1945 (Can.), c. 16, s. 11(1)) requires any person entering into a supply contract to keep detailed records and accounts of the cost of carrying out the contract and to make them available to the minister's representative. It may be assumed, therefore, that if the subsection were complied with, an appellant would have no great difficulty in presenting such evidence as would enable the court to properly review the minister's order and direction.
Where is there any suggestion that the court lacks any jurisdiction to properly review the minister's order or direction? Where is there any suggestion that the court felt that there was any denial of the right of the subject to appeal to that court? The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his colleagues are well aware that any attempt by legislation to exclude review by the courts of any action done under a statute must be expressed in explicit and clear language that the courts themselves with reluctance and hesitation find constitutes a clear expression of the will of parliament that such recourse be excluded.
It is understandable that the courts review any section of that kind with the greatest care. The hon. member knows, and all his colleagues know, that to achieve such an end by legislation the language has to be explicit and very carefully drawn. For example, you will have to use words such as this, and I quote as an example the following:
or render the commission, its servants or agents, or any municipal corporation or municipal commission, its or their servants or agents liable in any action at law or other legal proceedings for damages or otherwise.
The hon. member and his colleagues will recognize that there is a clear attempt, and a sweeping attempt, to remove certain matters from the jurisdiction of the courts, and hence a violation of the rule of law. The words are, "render" these people "liable in any action at law or other legal proceedings for damages or otherwise". The hon. members

cannot find any words of this nature in the Defence Production Act. Nor can they find any words that might possibly be interpreted as having the effect or the intention of excluding the jurisdiction of the courts in any way whatsoever, with the sole exception of section 37, to which I have already referred.
The hon. member for Prince Albert and his colleagues, if they are so interested in violations of the rule of law, might well be advised to take advantage of expert advice and opinion on these matters from sources which are very close at hand to them and which I believe they will recognize as worth while. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because the words I quoted as an example of a violation of the rule of law are taken from subsection 5 of section 71 of chapter 281 of the revised statutes of Ontario, the power commission act. These very words were inserted into that act by chapter 79 of the acts of 1947 when the hon. Leader of the Opposition was premier of the province of Ontario, and I understand that he personally introduced this amending bill into the legislature and piloted it through. If the hon. members want an example of a violation of the rule of law, there is a perfect and outstanding one for them to study. The result of all this is that the position of the hon. member for Prince Albert is untenable. He based his whole case on violations of the rule of law, and he is on a completely false premise.
This is largely true of a number of others who have spoken in the debate, such as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) and others. It is admitted that the powers in the Defence Production Act are wide, but it is submitted that they are necessary. They are subject to full and complete review in the courts and they are subject to full and complete review by parliament. Every action authorized by the act must be carried out strictly in accordance with the statute and the rules that parliament itself has laid down in the statute.
I come now to the equally important question of the need, in the present circumstances, for legislation of this kind. I am sure that we all envy the naive confidence of the hon. member for Calgary North and other members of the official opposition who have expressed such great delight and satisfaction with regard to the improvement in the international situation.


Mr. Drew:: Does that include the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson)?


John Horace Dickey: I will deal with that matter in a moment, Mr. Speaker. Their first statements refer to the situation we faced in 1951, the necessity for this act at that time

and what was said at that time. In order to put the record straight, Mr. Speaker, I propose to quote in full, not just in part, the statements that were made at that time by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). The first statement, which has been partially quoted on a number of occasions and which I will quote in its entirety, appears in Hansard of March 2, 1951, at page 836, and is as follows:
It is proposed that the act would expire on July 31, 1956. There is no particular significance to this date, other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature. Bearing in mind the present situation, and the program which has been announced by my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), a period of five years seems a reasonable minimum for the duration of the act.
Then at the committee stage-


Mr. Harkness:: Why is not the minister interrupting and saying that this is the fourteenth time this statement has been read?


John Horace Dickey: It is the second time only that it has been read in its entirety. The hon. member made the mistake of reading the whole thing himself.


Howard Charles Green: I read the whole thing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When I read it the minister was complaining that it was the twelfth time it had been read. He was making that complaint then.


John Horace Dickey: At the committee stage, as reported in Hansard of March 8, 1951, at page 1049, the minister had this to say:
We have a definite three-year program before us. Experience tells me that at least another two years would be required to liquidate that program should it end after the three-year period. The five years is needed. I know my hon. friend likes the forum and likes to debate, but I do not. I find I have other things to do.
Then going further down on that page 1049 we find this:
I do not see why my hon. friend is not prepared to withdraw his amendment, because he and I are on common ground. A great deal of thought was given to the period that should be provided for this department, and it was felt that five years was the shortest passage of time to allow the department to carry out the program that is now envisaged by the government.
What occurred after that, Mr. Speaker? The Korean war at long last came to an end. Our three-year defence program was completed and, because of the exigencies of the situation, was replaced by further programs of a different and, in many ways, more extensive nature. The Korean war came to an end. NATO strength was satisfactorily built up but other difficulties appeared. The situation in Indo-China became extremely difficult. The situation in the Formosa straits became 50433-297
Defence Production Act highly explosive. Canadians generally-if not hon. members of the official opposition-came to realize that we were in for a long pull in defence matters. There has been an improvement in the political situation in the last three or four months. That is absolutely true. But I suggest to hon. members that they think back and realize how quickly and almost unexpectedly that situation has come about and realize how quickly the situation might change once again.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) asked me about the opinion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will put that opinion on the record because he answered a question asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on May 18. As it appears at page 3877 of Hansard his answer is as follows:
Mr. Speaker, there may be a suitable opportunity in the near future to report on the NATO council meeting and other developments of recent weeks, and I would be glad to take advantage of the opportunity if it should arise.
As to the second part of the question, all I would say is that we have ground, as the result of recent developments, for some satisfaction and, indeed, some optimism, but no ground for exultation or no ground for believing that we have yet reached the end of the period of the cold war. My own view is well described by the phrase that has been used by the President and the Secretary of State of the United States, namely that we can be cautiously optimistic as a result of recent developments.
Certainly hon. members opposite have taken the advice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and have become optimistic, but just as certainly have neglected to heed his well-placed word of caution.
As far as Canada's defence effort and her defence program are concerned, the overwhelming development of the last two or three years has been the development of thermonuclear weapons and our realization that the only possible aggressor has the means of delivery of those weapons to this continent. For the first time in our history we are clearly open to the possibility of direct attack not only on Canada itself but on all other parts of this continent.
That fact, Mr. Speaker, raises problems not only for us but for our allies. We must place ourselves and keep ourselves in a position not only to carry out our responsibilities in connection with our own defence but to co-operate to the fullest possible degree with the common defence effort on this continent. That means that we must be in a position to deal with the tremendous problems involved in the construction of warning lines in the far north. I wonder whether hon. members really have any realization of the complexity and the difficulty of those problems? The questions of priority of materials, priority
4694	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act of services and the supply of such things as aviation gasoline and that sort of thing are so difficult and so extensive that a department of government which is called upon to carry out those responsibilities needs the type and nature of powers that are contained in this act.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), with very brave words, talked about our now being in a position to negotiate from strength. I think we are in that happy position. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon.'member and others should not forget that we are in a position to negotiate from strength because of what has been achieved in the last four years not only by ourselves but by our allies, and that you cannot just negotiate from past strength; you have to continue to negotiate from continuing strength. The proposal of hon. members opposite would remove from us the possibility of continuing to negotiate from strength. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) made light, in his contribution to the debate, of the atomic bomb and thermonuclear weapons as a consideration in this matter. He said: Why, if the bomb drops, all the powers the minister has will be of no effect. That is true, but it is one of the shallowest observations I have ever heard in the house. The purpose of the act is not to give powers to the people of Canada, to the minister and to the government to deal with situations that arise after the bomb drops. The purpose of the Department of Defence Production is to try to do, as efficiently and as effectively as it can, the necessary jobs to see that the bomb does not drop. That is the important consideration, and any suggestion by the hon. member that the situation that would arise after the bomb drops has any relevance to this problem is of course completely unfounded.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the official opposition are either firmly or halfheartedly in opposition to every provision of the act which is designed to protect the public treasury and to make effective the operations of the Department of Defence Production in the procurement of the supplies that we need and the construction of defence projects. It seems to me that their arguments establish two basic assumptions on their part. The first is that they assume the present government is going to stay in office for as long as they can see in the future.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You could not be more wrong.


John Horace Dickey: The second assumption is that members of the opposition are not going to be vigilant and use the mechanisms of parliament to oversee the work of the minister and the department. I cannot conclude without


making some further reference to remarks made by a number of members which are so inconsistent in that they compliment the minister and refer to his great achievements and then make direct, personal attacks upon him as lusting for power and working to achieve ends that I know he has not in mind at all.


An hon. Member:: The kiss of Judas.


John Horace Dickey: For instance, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) said in ringing tones: We have confidence in the minister, we will do anything he asks. Well, the minister has, in this debate, stated on his responsibility as a minister that in his opinion based on his experience continuation of the department is required, and that in order for the department to continue the powers that the department has are necessary and essential. If the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton meant what he said in stating that he would do anything the minister asked, there is an immediate test of his sincerity. The minister has asked for continuation of these powers for that particular purpose, and if the hon. member meant what he said he will support the bill. This inconsistency was also exemplified by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who preceded me, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) and many others-tributes to the achievements of the minister followed by five minutes of speech in which they expressed the deepest concern for the future of the country if the minister is permitted to continue to discharge the essential responsibilities that he has been discharging in the past.
The place of the minister in the history of this country and in the history of world war II is safe against any sniping from members opposite. He enjoys the confidence not only of the house but of the country, and it is a confidence that is unalloyed by any base metal of concern as has been expressed by certain members in this debate. We all hope some day that this country and our allies will win through from beneath the very dark and ominous clouds that now overshadow us. When we do win through into the warm sunlight of a stable and lasting peace, the minister will be one of those to whom the people not only of this country but in the lands of our allies and, as a matter of fact, far outside the borders of our allies, will look with gratitude and appreciation for what has been done and what has been achieved.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production in any detail with respect

to the remarks he has made by way of a panegyric of praise of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) and as an apologia therefor. There has been nothing said in this debate that I know of which can be construed as a personal attack upon the minister in any way whatsoever. The parliamentary assistant speaks about confusion and misunderstanding, but I think no one has shown greater confusion in his thinking than he has himself because he started out by saying there was only one issue in this debate, the defence of Canada. That, sir, is not the issue in this debate at all. We have made it abundantly plain from the beginning that the issue in this debate is the defence of parliament, and I noticed that the parliamentary assistant religiously steered away from that issue.
He did spend some time on what he termed the rule of law, and he gave a lecture in law to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) which I am sure that member will very much appreciate because he will recognize the legal background and training of the man who gave him the lecture.


John Horace Dickey: Anything wrong with it?


George Clyde Nowlan: But I am not going to deal particularly with the rule of law. The parliamentary assistant quoted many sections and I am sure he will be answered by those who have the statute in front of them. I do not have it at the moment, but certainly there is no question that the statute does say that the crown can do many many things and that a person who may suffer as a result thereof may not bring an action but has some indirect or incomplete right through some recourse against the crown.


John Horace Dickey: May I ask the hon. member a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely.


John Horace Dickey: Just what section contains those words?


George Clyde Nowlan: I said I have not got the sections in front of me, but the sections are there.


John Horace Dickey: Such sections are not there.


George Clyde Nowlan: Very well. That is a matter for the record.


John Horace Dickey: Put them on the record if they are there.


An hon. Member:: You should stick to immigration.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am saying that a man may have contractual rights against someone and that as the result of the action of the minister he may not bring an action for damages against that person but has to institute some other procedure entirely. I am not going into 50433-297i
Defence Production Act details with respect to the rule of law because there is nothing that would please the hon. member more than if I tried to confuse the matter by quoting a whole lot of sections.
I do not intend to do that. I think all the relevant sections have been put on the record. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has been criticized for having spoken at great length and having put the sections on the record, but after all this is a most important debate. It is a debate to which I think reference will be made by students of constitutional law for many years to come. It is a debate in which the record needed to be clarified, and the hon. member for Eglinton did a first-class job in setting forth the relevant sections at the outset of the debate so that anyone who wished to study them at all would be able to follow them.
In so far as the minister is concerned, there has been, as I said, no attack that I know of made upon him. There have been some suggestions of a desire to short-circuit parliament. Some emphasis has been placed on executive ability. The hon. junior member for Halifax quoted the minister, and I am not attempting to quote the exact words, to the effect that the minister did not like debate; he had other things to do. I believe that summarizes the criticism which could be levelled against the minister. He fails to distinguish between the executive and parliament. As an executive, he has tremendous responsibilities and they have been carried out to a high degree of efficiency. But he also has a responsibility to parliament.
I must say, sir, that sometimes I get rather irritated at people criticizing parliament because there is too much talk. What is parliament for? I am not going to indulge in a philosophical dissertation this morning but I do believe that many people, and certainly the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), confuse the executive as distinguished from parliament, and in that light criticism might be applied to the minister.
We say that the issue in this debate is this matter of parliament itself. I think it is interesting to see how things have changed even in a relatively few years. It is for that reason I think this debate brings the matter into focus, as it were, and that we are facing a fork in the road. Depending upon the result of this debate and the action which follows it, it will be said that the parliamentary system went down the hill into a decline or proceeded along the way we have known it to do in the past. There have been fundamental changes anyway, Mr. Speaker. I am not vouching for the accuracy of this story in all the details, but I believe it can be substantiated.
4696	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
There is a very prominent civil servant in the government employ today, one who is known to many hon. members in this house. As a young man he came to the attention of the minister of a certain department who interviewed him and wanted him to enter the government service. He was interviewed by the then prime minister, who asked him to come into the government service. But parliament was not in session and there had been no parliamentary appropriation made for that particular position the young man was to occupy. The minister and the prime minister told him regretfully that they could not take him into government service because parliament had not voted an appropriation for the salary for that position. However, a junior stenographer had left the service and they said that if the young man would accept an appointment as a junior stenographer he could be carried in that category until parliament met and voted an appropriation for his salary. The young man agreed to come in and later on parliament authorized his appointment.
This illustrates the strictness of parliamentary control within the lifetime of many people who are in this chamber. I am not saying it should be as strict today, with all the tremendous ramifications of government, but certainly we have gone a long way from that within the last few years.
We are asked now to go even further. I summarize it in this way, and say that parliament is asked to delegate tremendous powers to a minister and the minister in turn, under the act, can delegate those powers to a nominee of his who does not sit in this house or whose name may never be known to us. If we ask for the name we may be told it is not in the public interest to divulge the information. These nominees will be exercising functions which, constitutionally and traditionally, have only been exercised by parliament. There is no time limit on it. Once handed over, it is done once and for all. I say in bon mot that if parliament does that it may as well pull the blind, put out the cat and go to bed because there is very little left for it to do.
We are not arguing today about the extent of the powers, although I think those could be questioned and should be questioned in detail in committee. I feel those powers should be restricted in many ways. But the main gravamen of the offence, as I see it, is that parliament itself is delegating these powers and delegating them permanently. It will then be at the whim of the minister, as, if and when they will ever be returned to us.


Now, without going into the sections, Mr. Speaker, as I read them they indicate that if I were employing a contractor to build a house for me and he had the lumber and building materials available the minister could decide that the lumber and brick were necessary for the national defence of Canada. Certainly, no one is saying this of the present minister; we are not talking about personalities, we are talking about powers. He could order that the material be taken and he could order the contractor to go to work for the department. I would be left, as I said earlier, with no remedy against the contractor but with some possible right of recovery from the crown. This applies to me as an individual, and it applies to municipalities. By order of the minister or some unknown nominee of his, people can be ordered, shall we say, from a county home and that building taken over. The same thing happens if a person is working for a province, even under statutory authority. One could go on and on giving simple little illustrations of what these powers mean. We say that, in the first place, they are too wide and in the second place, they should only be delegated for a reasonable time.
Now, if we were in the midst of a great crisis such as sometime might threaten us in this country, or as threatened Britain on the eve of the invasion, then certainly no one would question the delegation of powers. But we are not living in the horse and buggy age. We hope this is not the last session of parliament for a decade. Parliament can be summoned very quickly as we proved not many years ago. We have the war powers act in the background which always comes in automatically in the case of emergency.


Mr. Philpott:: The Leader of the Opposition said none of you fellows believed in that.


George Clyde Nowlan: The Leader of the Opposition will undoubtedly answer for himself. At the moment, I am dealing with this subject as I see it. Despite the protestations of the parliamentary assistant, I say there is not a scintilla of evidence at the moment that we are in any such crisis as requires even the operation of the bill to the extent in which it is drafted, let alone that permanent life be given to it. The hon. member for Halifax referred to the construction of the radar lines of the north, and the necessity for their erection. He cited that as justification for the passage of this bill by parliament. These matters, of course, are on the restricted list. The parliamentary assistant undoubtedly knows far more about them than we do. Possibly they are being proceeded with so

tardily that he is right in saying we shall need this bill some time in the future for their completion.
One would have thought from reading the press, and some of the guarded announcements that have been made, that these lines were fairly well along in the course of construction. This bill does not become operative until after July, 1956, because the present Defence Production Act does not expire until that date. If this bill is necessary for the construction of the radar lines in the north 14 or 15 months from now, then I believe it is a rather weak argument for the enactment of it. The minister says, and of course he was backed up by the parliamentary assistant this morning, that the situation is very bad. We know we are living in a state of tension. No one minimizes the dangers which confront us. Our point is, sir, that at least those tensions, so far as one can see, have not increased during the past few months and that we shall probably be living in a state of tension for many years to come. We should not, therefore, at one fell swoop, pass over all these powers to a minister for years, perhaps for a decade, and perhaps for much longer than that.
I do suggest in all seriousness that there is a lessening of tension. Even the extract which my hon. friend read from the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will bear that out.
I noticed an editorial yesterday-not that editorials are necessarily accepted as any foundation on which public policy should be established-I noticed an editorial in the New York Times of yesterday, the Sunday edition, which carries some weight generally. It speaks about winter passing and spring coming. It said that there was a lessening of tension. If things are so tense that we need to pass this bill at once, I rather question the judgment of a government that would permit or participate, or whatever they may have done, in the retirement of a chief of staff of wide experience and training in this moment of great crisis. It does not seem to be consistent, and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production spoke about consistency. We have of course the argument of fear psychology, which is used everywhere. It is said that the Russians have the bombs, and they may drop them, and therefore we must pass this bill.
There are some people, Mr. Speaker, who profess to be military authorities. Hanson Baldwin, for instance, says that now that the Russians have the bomb it has diminished tension, because you reach the stage where
Defence Production Act neither side would engage in a thermonuclear war. Therefore, at the moment we are back again to warfare with conventional weapons.
I am saying the minister has made no case whatsoever for increased tension which would require the passage of these clauses at this time, and certainly not on a permanent basis. Originally, the bill had a five-year limitation in it. I say no one can argue that today the times are more tense than they were in 1951. I am not going to repeat what others have said about tension at that time, about the experiences of the Korean war, the background of the United Nations' action, the background of the Berlin airlift and all this feeling of tension and crisis which was in the air in those days, the feeling of tension which produced this act. It had a five-year limitation. May I also refer to the tension which produced the emergency powers bill, which called on the government to come back year after year to get it extended.
Are we being unreasonable, Mr. Speaker, when we suggest that the minister should come back to parliament and ask for extensions and justify them from time to time, but not the creation of the department itself, and not all of the standard powers which may be required by the minister, the necessity for which we admit readily and unanimously. With respect to extraordinary powers which go farther than that, and which parliament can accept in times of emergency, we say simply that the minister must justify the continuance of those powers by parliament, and we are asking that he do so from time to time. That was the basis on which we reached a sort of agreement on the resolution stage.
Some of us were here that afternoon and that night, and we remember the huddle that went on. The Prime Minister was here; the Minister of Defence Production was here. I think that the Minister of Finance came in just at that time. Proceedings in the house stopped for two or three minutes while this whispered consultation went on. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was urging a division. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) suggested that we wait until the result of the huddle, and then we got it. There was no guarantee; there was no commitment, except that if we would pass the resolution at that stage the government would give serious consideration to our proposal of a time limit to this legislation. No one believed that if the house leader made a statement such as that in the presence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production it

Defence Production Act could not be carried out by the government, if a recommendation such as that were made.
I do not believe it was a parliamentary trick, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it was done to get us to pass the resolution that night and so they could say: Well, we fooled the opposition; we will go on to the next stage. I think they meant it. Certainly, the Liberal members who heard it thought they meant it, because I remember the comments in the corridors that night, as follows: Well, it is a sensible arrangement; it is a happy compromise. That was the unanimous opinion on all sides of the house, from just as many members supporting the Minister of Defence Production as on the opposition side, and I think 90 per cent of them feel the same way today.
Why the change? The hon. member for Halifax worries about criticism of an individual minister. You know sometimes one wonders whether they are not justified. Is it possible that someone said afterwards: Well, you know, that gives the opposition too much credit, because the papers in Canada came out the next day with editorials and headlines to the effect that the compromise was a satisfactory, a necessary and a proper one, and some of the opposition parties did get a little credit for it. It is possible that someone on the government side resented that and said: Oh, we have to look out; we do not want to give them any credit for it. Is it possible that on second thoughts, in the grey hours of the morning, someone believed that this was going to limit his powers too much, and said: We cannot agree to it; we cannot agree to any change. Is that why the change was made? I should like the Prime Minister, who took part in that huddle that night, to tell us why the government did not carry it out. I am not basing this on the fact that the Prime Minister's name was attached to the resolution. What I am saying is that he participated in that discussion and he owes the house an explanation as to why the government could not accept the suggestion.
The minister referred to the Department of Justice and suggested that the Department of Justice would find it difficult to draft such an amendment. If the Department of Justice would have any difficulty in that respect, and I am sure it would not, there are half a dozen lawyers on this side of the house and a dozen on the other side of the house, including the hon. member for Halifax, any one of whom could produce the necessary amendment in 15 minutes to carry out that suggestion, which was virtually agreed to that night. I do suggest if it had been accepted we would not find ourselves in the position in which we are here today.

All we are asking for, all that we want, is that the minister come to parliament instead of parliament having to go to the minister, with its hat in its hand, saying: Please, Mr. Minister, do you not think the time has come when you should amend or repeal some of these provisions? In other words, we want the minister to be responsible to parliament and not parliament to be responsible to the minister. That is the position in which we find ourselves, that is the position which we are fighting and we shall continue to fight.
The hon. member for Halifax says that we are talking for the sake of talking. Does he think that anyone enjoys standing up and prolonging this debate at this stage of the session? Some of us of necessity have to go home and earn a living. All of us want to get away, and none of us is taking any pleasure out of this. But we are sent here to do a job, and certainly we have some responsibility.
A man who has been around this place a long while, a cynic-I think he is a cynic; at least he is for my money-said to me on Saturday night: "George, don't waste your time talking about principles because that day is past. The people of Canada are not interested in principles any longer." I do not believe that, Mr. Speaker; I hope he is wrong. We, at least, are interested in principle and in trying to conserve the principle of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary government, and that is all we are asking for.
Again, without indulging in personal attacks whatsoever, because I never do that, let me refer to what the minister said when he was asked about repeal or an amendment to this clause. I believe the quotation was changed, but we have it in Hansard at page 4542:
I do not propose to be told now-
I do not know whether the word "now" was put in then or later.
-by any hon. member just when X will liquidate it.
That is not the attitude the minister should take toward parliament when it is dealing with this legislation or amendments to it.
We are told that we have the estimates. The other day the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said that we have the estimates and that is parliamentary control. It is true to some extent that it is parliamentary control. It is true that it does give one a chance to ask questions; it gives one a chance to criticize and debate to a certain extent. But has anyone ever seen any effective check put upon the actions of a minister by a debate on the estimates? The most that you can do is to move a reduction

in the amount. Has that ever been done, or when it has been done has it ever carried in this house?
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has suggested that this proves that we are a democracy because we are debating it now. He asks, "What more do you want?" We know we are a democracy now; no one denies that. We want to be able to debate it five years from now or three years from now, to be able to debate not the principle of whether it has been carried on but the principle of whether it should be extended. That is why I say that this is the only way in which parliament can exercise control, by making it necessary to have these powers reviewed from time to time.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in an effort to justify their position said that this bill is necessary so that the government can control the wicked and rapacious corporations, these tremendous corporations which are in control of affairs. They contend that the only way in which the poor, little, helpless Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) would be able to deal with these horrible creatures would be to have these powers in this bill. I really weep when I hear that. I wept the other day when I saw what happened to the common man when the Ford Motor Company rammed down the throats of the members of the union a participation in the earnings of the corporation. They rammed down their throats what you might say was a guaranteed annual wage. Is it not terrible what this big corporation did? They just took those poor employees and choked them all and gave them a whole lot of things which undoubtedly they did not want to take; just forced them on them. I must say that that argument in justification of this bill was the most logical and sensible one I have heard yet. It is in keeping with other efforts which have been made.
As I said, we get down to one simple principle of whether this is an abdication of parliamentary powers, which I say it is. If so, should it be for an indefinite, uncertain period or should it be for a definite period? That is what we are asking, that that be done. It is all right to talk about the defence of Canada. We are all unanimous in that; we all subscribe to that; we are all ready to do everything possible for that. But what are we defending by doing these things? We are defending a way of life which we have known, which we have developed, which we have inherited. Part of that way of life, at least in so far as I see it, is this principle
Defence Production Act of parliamentary government, the supremacy of parliament, the absolute supremacy of parliament.
Personally I am not interested in the building of radar stations and thermonuclear weapons and all the other bits of pomp and circumstance we hear about if in bringing these things about we have to give up this important principle. I think we can do them both. I think we can maintain our way of life and at the same time be strong, as we all want to be. We know today that the best defence is to be able to strike back if necessary. I believe that we are in that position, and we want to remain so. I am sure that that is the feeling of the members of all parties in this house.
Surely we can reconcile that. Surely we are making a reasonable proposition. The proposition made this morning by the minister offered some concession, but as I heard it I do not think that it goes any further than to give us the right of debate, which we now have on moving a motion to go into supply, which would permit a debate. We can always have a debate on the motion to go into supply, or we can have a debate in supply itself.
We want a definite time limit placed on certain of these powers. We want the minister to have to come before parliament and justify their continuance. If he does not do that, if he fails to do that, or if he does not ask that it be done, then they will automatically expire. This principle has been established in other legislation of this type. I think the minister would enhance his own reputation and would at least show that he has learned something about the supremacy of parliament, which he modestly said he did not understand, if he would agree to such a proposal or to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who spoke earlier this morning. The hon. member suggested three alternatives, any one of which would meet the purpose. They would detract nothing from the powers of the minister, but they would maintain a principle which means a great deal to many of us. Unless it is recognized, it will mean that this debate will have to be carried on much longer than otherwise would be the case.


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to delay the house very long as I expect to finish before one o'clock. I should like to review briefly the arguments which have been placed before the house in an attempt to bring this debate to a close. I do not know that that can be done, but I think it is only right that we

Defence Production Act have the privilege of reviewing some of the things which have been said and in the light of those statements try to come to a conclusion.
As reported on page 836 of Hansard of 1951, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated that these extraordinary powers should not be permanent. Then as reported on page 1961 of Hansard of this year the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) stated likewise. The minister also said in this debate that either we have a Defence Production Act with all of these powers or we have no act at all.
It has been said that one method of dealing with this matter would be to take it up when the reports are brought in or when the estimates are before us. Everyone knows the limitations of discussion at that time.
There is no argument as to whether the Department of Defence Production should have these powers; what is in question is whether they should have them as continuing powers. The red herrings which have been thrown across the path during the course of this debate seem to have been thrown there deliberately to confuse the issue. The issue is simply whether there should be a continuation of the extraordinary powers in the act.
I am sure that all hon. members of this house agree that the powers are needed. Those of us who are opposed to that portion of the bill which deals with section 41 of the act agree with the government that this department should be a permanent department. We agree that the salary of the minister of this department should conform with the salaries of other ministers. We agree that an emergency does exist and we agree also that extraordinary powers are needed. So we need not discuss those matters further.
I think we also agree that the presence of these extraordinary powers will bring results in almost every case without actually taking action. Therefore it is not a question of whether or not the powers are used; it is a question of whether the powers exist and are continuing. If you have a big enough club it is not always necessary to use that club.
I think that submission will take place without actually wielding the weapon. I do not believe that the statement made by the minister today changes our position to any great extent. All we say is that there should be an expiry date in respect to these extraordinary powers that are given in the bill, which would require that the minister come before parliament and place his case before parliament and that it be thoroughly reviewed in the light of existing circumstances.
[Mr. Leboe.l
Members on this side of the house have never said that the powers would not be granted to the minister when they were needed and as the emergency exists. It is only fair that the responsibility for the delay caused by this debate should rest squarely on the minister for insisting that there be a continuation of the powers, because I cannot conceive that this bill could not be brought down without having these powers continued. They could be limited, and the defence production department could still be on a permanent basis. Much has been said in the house about the opposition of many members to this bill, but we would be remiss in our duty if we did not take up the matter with vigilance and determination. The responsibility for the length of this debate rests fairly and squarely on the minister, who should bring down some amendment that will bring about an expiry date as far as the Defence Production Act is concerned relative to these extraordinary powers.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, we are being asked in the bill currently before us to continue in force indefinitely an act which, ruthlessly administered, could result in the completely dictatorial control of the entire Canadian economy. Apparently, judging from some of the arguments from the other side of the house, we are being asked to do this under the guise that an amiable, elderly gentleman is going to be the minister responsible for this act and that we can have complete confidence in him. Let me say at once that, while I think my first description was quite correct-"amiable and elderly"-he is also one of the great Canadians of all time.
When I was thinking of what I might say in connection with this bill, my mind went back to a time when I introduced him to a large gathering last autumn. In order to do justice to him, I read his obituary to that group of people. Famous Canadians have their obituaries written well in advance. I was quite happy to point out to them that the gentleman in question, while his obituary was read, was also present himself. That obituary pointed out one thing in connection with the Minister of Defence Production, Minister of Trade and Commerce and minister of almost everything. He had said to somebody at one point, following an unpleasant experience during wartime, that he felt he was living on borrowed time and that he wished to devote that time to the service of Canada. Those are thoughts that we cannot divorce from our minds when we consider this matter. We at times become a little confused because it is difficult to imagine this

particular minister using these powers to the detriment of our system of free government. But when we discuss the bill before us, we are not discussing it in the light of a particular person or of a particular time and place. We are discussing a measure which specifically will contain as far into the future as we can see a schedule of the most autocratic powers, a schedule of the most allembracing powers known in this country since this parliament came into existence.
I think the observations of the junior member for Halifax this morning became confused within this framework which I have just outlined, because he just could not see how it was possible for us on this side to admit on the one hand that the minister who would, for at least a few months, administer this act could be termed by us a great Canadian, a man who had made tremendous contributions in time of war and in time of peace to this country; and yet that we could also fear the autocratic aspects built into the act and the possibility that this minister or some other minister operating under this act might utilize those autocratic powers to the detriment of our country. The junior member for Halifax became confused in his own mind between opposition to unlimited powers indefinitely extended, which opposition certainly exists in this group, and opposition to arrangements for proper ordering of defence production in the light of circumstances presently existing, which opposition does not exist on this side of the house at this time.
I should like to give one further example of his confused thinking this morning before we break for lunch. I have searched the speech of the hon. member for Victoria-Carle-ton (Mr. Montgomery) back and forth with great care in an attempt to find some justification for the statement made by the hon. member for Halifax this morning, when he claimed that the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton said that we on this side of the house would give the minister anything he wants. From that he went ahead to the conclusion that the minister just wanted this act passed; therefore why did we not give it to him? Any hon. member who made a statement such as that made by the hon. member for Halifax this morning, completely without foundation in the printed record of this house, completely without substantiation, has very little cause to expect that we shall give much credence to his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.
Defence Production Act The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, before luncheon, when I was making my remarks, I made one small error in fact and I think perhaps I should correct it now. I have been informed that my reference to the hon. member for Halifax should have been to the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) and not to the junior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom). I am glad to make that correction. I may have been misled because of the calibre of his remarks rather than anything else but I realize that he has been here longer than has the other hon. gentleman.
I turn again to the argument which I was pursuing when the house rose for lunch. People might wonder why we object so strenuously to having these powers wrested from parliament itself and lodged in a particular minister. I think one of the reasons is contained in a comparatively brief quotation from one of the Speakers in the English house. It was Mr. Speaker Onslow who made this remark. While it was made many years before any of the gentlemen on the treasury benches came into this house, he might well have been thinking of certain of those gentlemen, perhaps even including the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) when he said this:
Ministers seldom love parliament, never bring business there for counsel, but to carry points that must have the authority of the legislature; and in order to carry such points must previously strengthen themselves there by collecting all the force they can get for it.
There in one brief quotation is the substance of at least one argument for not wanting to see this power pass from parliament into the hands of any minister. Ministers do not love parliament. As to many ministers at least, if they can find a way of accomplishing something without coming here to parliament, they must be tempted-and very often yield to the temptation, as we have seen in the past-to follow other devious paths in accomplishing that which they wish to accomplish. Hence we find before us measures such as this Defence Production Act, which not only puts temptation in the way of the minister but practically begs him to by-pass parliament in order to accomplish certain things. I think we are quite right in looking askance at such measures.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, we must wonder about the field which the Defence Production Act covers. To many people in this country defence and defence production will be thought of in terms of guns, aeroplanes, ships and the factories in which to build them.

Defence Production Act That is perhaps the meaning of defence production on the face of it. But in a time when total war has come to mean something which affects every aspect of the community, we must realize that defence production affects every fibre of our community and every fibre of our nation, and that an act dealing with defence production must ultimately simmer down to and work into every aspect of our national life.
Let us think for a moment of some of the things which have come out in connection with defence purchases over a period of the last few years. We have seen the government buying for purposes of the defence operations of Canada such unlikely things as boudoir lamps, silk stockings, cameras, tooth brushes, soap and all these things in addition to those which, when we think about it for a moment, are obvious but which might not occur to us at first glance, such as food, in tremendous quantities and of all kinds. We know that in the United States, for example, one of the accoutrements of any well-equipped battleship is a soda fountain. I would presume that the Canadian soldier, wanting to be as well looked after as is his United States counterpart, would expect to be served ice cream cones. I would therefore imagine that it would be part of the responsibility of the defence production department, in their work-and quite properly so-to see that he receives his ice cream cone. But perhaps we do not realize that under the terms of this act which it is proposed to extend indefinitely the Minister of Defence Production could ultimately end up quite properly in the business of producing ice cream cones for the armed forces, or in the business of producing boudoir lamps, or in the business of producing silk stockings or anything else which it is conceivable that this nation could produce.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget underwear.


William McLean Hamilton: Thank you. As my friend to my immediate right among the government supporters points out, the government might even end up in the business of producing underwear. I do not quite know why he is so deeply interested in that matter, but I can tell him this. If he were in the underwear producing business, especially in the silk underwear business- because, after all, we have the WAC's-and if the government decided that they just did not like the colour of his output, or that they did not like the fit of it or, in fact, if they did not like my hon. friend himself, under the terms of this act they could move in overnight, appoint a controller, throw him out of his business and run the business to suit the government. Mr. Speaker, if there 

is anyone else who has any other field of endeavour that he would like to introduce into the argument at this stage, I should be glad to tell him what might happen to him under the terms of this act.
Again, Mr. Speaker, there has been so much detailed examination of some of the clauses of this bill that we may have lost sight, in plain, simple English, of some of the principal things which it will empower the Minister of Defence Production to do at any time in the future as long as we can foresee. For example, the Minister of Defence Production is in a position to override completely the civil service. For purposes of this department of his he can hire whom he wishes, how he wishes and at the salary he wishes. We might remind ourselves again that he can appoint anyone in this great country of ours to exercise any one of these powers. As I said a few minutes ago, he can buy, acquire and control anything in the country. He can enter into any business operation. He can stockpile any commodity. So far as defence procurement is concerned, I think the simplest thing is to say that his powers are unlimited. He has $100 million made available immediately to do these things.
The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), when he thinks that something is necessary and vital, and according to his judgment alone, can enter into any contract without any responsibility save the responsibility of reporting the contract to the governor in council after it has been entered into. He can abrogate any responsibility for royalties. Long after an agreement is entered into in perfect good faith by a person who believes that the government should keep its word, he can even renegotiate the contract and remove any of its provisions or protections, most specifically the protection regarding price written into the contract.
In order to do all these things he of course must be in a position to force compliance with his desires, and he is in a position so to do. He can appoint a controller to operate any business, even, as my friend said a few minutes ago, a silk underwear business. He can invest public money in any business in the form of loans, but above all-and this is the point I should like to examine for a few minutes-by this measure the governor in council can disregard any statute passed by this house, any statute passed by a provincial legislature anywhere in Canada, and any agreement entered into by anybody. It seems to me that is the most complete negation that we have known in peacetime of everything for which a free democracy stands.

Here is a situation in which parliament, the representatives of the people, a group who speak for the people and have been called to this house by all the citizens of this nation over the age of 21, having made their desires known, having done what they as a group felt and believed was right, can have their decisions completely negatived and disregarded by one man and one man alone. What about the governor in council? Well, what responsibility has the governor in council to this house save to report actions once they have taken place? This house has no knowledge beforehand of what the governor in council proposes. There is no way by which the house can control these actions. The most we can expect as to the governor in council is the right of review, so to speak, and even that is a difficult process.
As I have said, I should like somebody on the government side of the house to stand up and give instances if they can, of other free democratic countries-they can of course find many cases under dictatorships-where the governor in council in peacetime has been given the right indefinitely to overrule, override and disregard the wishes of parliament and the statutes passed by that body. I can understand that a measure such as this would have an appeal to certain people and to a certain type of thinking. It has an appeal of ruthless efficiency to ruthless officials to whom it matters not how they accomplish what they want to accomplish as long as they can accomplish it, who do not care who is trampled under in the process or what we lose. We might well consider that in the battle for freedom being waged by all our free democracies at the present time one of the dangers facing us is that we may lose our freedom in the very process of defending it.
As I understand the situation, that is the basis of the minister's presentation of the bill. He says to us that in order to preserve our freedom in the event of war, in order that we may be able to wage war as efficiently as possible, it is necessary for us to sacrifice rights for which we and those who have gone before us have fought and died for hundreds of years. I do not think there is any great advantage to be gained by sacrificing freedom now in order to defend freedom later. I think there is perhaps a reasonable possibility that there is one case where we can have our cake and eat it too, certainly a case where we can have our freedom now and still be in a position to defend it should the need arise.
When I was thinking about the bill one thing about which I wondered was why the
Defence Production Act masses of the people of Canada had not been more perturbed over the issue, why it was that in the months elapsing between the presentation of the resolution and the presentation of the bill there had not been more public controversy over the issue, and why it was left particularly to this group in the house to fight hard in defence of the freedoms of our country. My mind went back to a book I read not too long ago entitled "1984", which is a rather terrifying picture of the sort of society to which a bill such as the one now before us will lead. In two sentences in that book is found an explanation of why we as a group feel so keenly about this matter and why there is not yet the public protest about it that there should be. I read:
In a way, the world view of the Party-
With a capital "p".
-imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.
I think we have a roughly similar situation here. The amending bill currently before the house is short. The act amended is long. It is a complicated subject, one which the average person, not called here to study and be aware of these things, might quite reasonably not know very much about. But I do feel that as the words of this debate, and they have been many, seep through, as the press, radio and magazines of this country do their job in bringing to the people of Canada the story of what is happening in this House of Commons at this time, the people will come to the almost unanimous conclusion that if this bill passes in its present form their basic liberties to conduct themselves as free men and to carry on their affairs as free men will have been seriously hampered and greatly reduced. They will have been reduced, Mr. Speaker, not for the reasons which are genuinely justifiable but reduced because of some undefinable emergency which the minister has held out as one of the main reasons for the necessity for this measure at this time.
I would not think there is anyone in this house who feels secure and completely happy about international affairs today. But 1 would not think there is anyone in this house either who feels we are in the same perilous position we were in in 1951 when this measure first came into being. Perhaps more than any time, except during an actual war, 1951 did mark a genuine state of emergency, and imminent emergency. I think

Defence Production Act perhaps there is a great difference between an emergency and an imminent emergency, and 1951 marked a time of imminent emergency. It marked a time when, almost from day to day, we did not know what might happen. In 1955, with the measure still having a year to run, we have reached a stage of uneasy peace. I believe that term has been used many times by both the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and other people in other countries who occupy a position similar to his. We have reached a stage where men of good will feel there is a reasonable possibility of securing peace if we continue to travel the paths which we are now following. Where then is the claim of emergency which would cause us to introduce powers such as those contained in this bill?
In our thinking, in our planning and in our attitudes in this house, Mr. Speaker, we have to stick to the basic principles of democracy. Today, all too often I am afraid, the government which is in power and the ministers who occupy the treasury benches come before us feeling that their long tenure of office and their success at the polls qualifies them and makes them right in throwing aside the basic ideas, basic concepts and departing on new, untried and different paths. In many cases they get away with it. However, these measures, these attitudes and actions are written into the history of this nation. We cannot see their effect immediately. None of us can look too far into the future. But when we depart from things which men have held right, proper and good for century after century, we embark upon a course which has tremendous dangers in it.
Now, if there is a necessity for taking these powers, if there is a necessity for taking a chance, let us chance it. But unless that necessity is clear and evident, let us not sacrifice that which we know to be right, that which we know to be proper. As Lord Acton once said in the house in England:
The one thing that saved England from the fate of other countries was not her insular position, nor the independent spirit nor the magnanimity of her people-for we have been proud of the despotism we obeyed under the Tudors, and not ashamed of the tyranny we exercised in our dependencies-but only the consistent, uninventive, stupid fidelity to that political system which originally belonged to all the nations that traversed the ordeal of feudalism.
Perhaps we on this side of the house may be charged with all those unfair adjectives, but we are consistently true to a political system in which we believe. We are not supporters of the throwing aside of the system nor the pandering to the desires of one man, no matter how amiable he may be and no matter what his past record may be.
[Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace) .1
Then again, Mr. Speaker, as we go back along the highway of history to the time of the early Romans we can see that this danger has been evident almost from time immemorial. In the letters of Junius, we find this:
We can never be really in danger till the forms of parliament are made use of to destroy the substance of our civil and political liberties: till parliament itself betrays its trust by contributing to establish new principles of government, and employing the very weapons committed to it by the collective body to stab the constitution.
We stand here, almost at the crossroads of our democratic system of government. In my estimation this parliament is being asked to pass a bill which betrays the trust the people of Canada have reposed in it, to betray this trust by establishing a new principle of government. If this act is continued indefinitely and written into the law of this land without some reservation therein, that will be a new principle of government. This fact was clearly indicated earlier today when the minister himself came into the house and proposed a tawdry, paltry, tiny concession, but at least again it was a new method of dealing with the public business of this country, made necessary by a new concept in government, by a new approach and by the very bill which so many people on the government side have tried to present to us as nothing more or less than the logical outgrowth of an emergency which does not exist.
I, for one, do not want to have any part in stabbing this house in the back, or in stabbing in the back the democratic institutions of this country which have brought us freedom, self-respect and the life we know today. Because I would not have any part in such a stabbing in the back, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against this bill.


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


Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief observations in this debate. I must confess that I have been surprised and not a little shocked at some of the statements that have been made attacking Canadian business and industry. To illustrate, may I quote briefly from Hansard of June 8 at page 4547. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) said this:
Let me point out to members of the Conservative and Social Credit parties that, as has been pointed out before, it was private industry that went on strike in 1939. I would tell the honourable and loquacious member for Dufferin-Simcoe that it was not labour that went out on strike; it was capital that went on strike in 1939, and that was prepared to let Canada go down the drain' if they could not have the terms they wanted from the government and people of this country.

At page 4603 of Hansard of June 9, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) had this to say:
At the beginning of the last war it was made clear that private enterprise companies in Canada had no patriotism with regard to Canada, that they had patriotism only with regard to their own dividends. That fact was made clear in a speech made here this afternoon. It was made clear in a speech made by the minister in 1940, or was it 1941?
I am not surprised at these statements emanating from the party immediately to my left, because one recognizes that is merely a stereotyped approach to questions of this nature.


Mr. Sinclair:: They are true, nevertheless.


Owen C. Trainor: One could debate that at
length, but we shall let it pass.
As I say, I am not surprised at this, but I am surprised and not a little shocked at the fact that the Minister of Defence Production has remained silent in his seat during those unjustified attacks, has remained silent during this spate of slander, because no man in Canada, I submit, is in a better position to judge the contribution of Canadian business and industry to the war effort of this country.
I do not think the minister is particularly noted for lack of gratitude. I suggest to him that if he remains silent in the face of these slanderous and baseless attacks and refuses to give testimony to the contrary it is too high a price to pay for that weasling measure of socialist support that he appears to covet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a rainy day we are
having.


Owen C. Trainor: Hon. members will recall that in an earlier debate the leader of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), vigorously opposed the motion of the opposition to set up a committee to examine into the departments of government, on the basis, mark you, that it was an abdication of the powers of parliament. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is abdication with a vengeance, and still we have the C.C.F. party lending its support. I suggest this merely illustrates the extraordinary propensity of the C.C.F. to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
Several rather frantic efforts have been made by members of the party opposite to seek arguments for the support of this bill, to defend the indefensible. For example, in the debate the other day the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar brought forward the illustration of the coroner's inquest to justify the provisions of this act which allowed persons and organizations to be put under
Defence Production Act an inquisition without benefit of counsel. This is a perfect example of a non sequitur, because the coroner's inquest, as the hon. member should have known-I am sure he did-is the one example in the criminal law of where the right of counsel is denied. There is no counterpart of the coroner's inquest in civil law.
Then, again, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) pointed out that we had laws against robbery and murder, not because we wanted to enforce those laws but merely for protection. He indicated that that was a parallel to this bill; that although we had those powers in this bill it was not because we wanted to enforce them. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is a very illogical argument, because I do not think the hon. member would wish to advocate that we place the administration of the laws against robbery and murder in the hands of any minister of the crown. The administration of those laws is in the hands of the courts.
I am aware that you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled against repetition in this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like the law against murder, he does not want to enforce it.


Owen C. Trainor: As I understand it, the ruling was with respect to argument. I do not think I shall contravene your position in this regard. I propose to urge that the Prime Minister take part in this debate. I give no reasons because I suggest that his own conscience and his notable regard for the fitness of things will demand it.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill No. 256 because I believe it is dynamite. The minister has said that it is a simple bill. Certainly it is a very brief one.
The second part to which we object has only eight little words, and it is in those eight little words that we find the dynamite that could be used against democracy by any man or any government that is given such power. No other democratic country in the world has such an act permanently on its statute books.
In his book "Government and Parliament", Right Hon. Herbert Morrison tells of a similar bill which he was authorized to prepare when the socialists were in power in Britain. Britain's emergency powers defence acts of 1945 were limited to five years, just as our Defence Production Act was. After those five years Great Britain's emergency act could be renewed year by year. Naturally the socialists would prefer such powers to be permanent because that is the first step in state domination. Naturally the socialists want to give such powers to the government because if they ever got into power themselves

Defence Production Act it would then be very easy to nationalize industry. But it is hard to understand why a so-called tree enterprise government would want to show such contempt for .parliament.
We are being asked to grant these extensive powers and in so doing we must rely on the whim of one man, the right hon. minister. He has told us that he does not propose to be told now by any hon. member just when he will or should liquidate the act. He has told us, "Either we have a Defence Production Act with all these powers or we have no act at all." In all these things that the minister keeps telling us, the rights of parliament seem to have been completely bypassed.
We have been told that there is not the slightest suggestion that personal liberties or freedoms will be menaced, but I think that would depend upon what you call personal liberties or freedoms. Through Bill No. 256 a government could achieve a socialist revolution without any consultation or by-your-leave of parliament. That is why this group to my left is so happy with the minister's bill.
That is why the socialist government in Britain back in 1949 authorized Mr. Herbert Morrison to prepare a bill like this, a bill which would empower the government to govern by regulation in peacetime rather than through the orthodox if sometimes cumbersome machinery of parliament. However, before Mr. Morrison had finished drafting his bill another election took place in Great Britain and the socialist majority was reduced to six. In his book "Government and Parliament" Mr. Morrison told what happened to his bill. Referring to the parliament of 1950-51 he said:
We could not proceed with what would probably have been a controversial measure because our majority had been reduced to six. However, the draft bill is in the archives as a basis of consideration by ministers at any time.
As long as there is a free enterprise Conservative government in Great Britain I am sure that that bill will remain in the archives. But not so in Canada. A so-called free enterprise government is asking, or perhaps I should say demanding, that parliament give these sweeping powers to the government. These powers are to be permanent. It seems to me that they eat away at the very foundation of our constitution.
Why is this government asking for such powers at this time? We have not had much explanation. Back in 1951 when the Defence Production Act, with its five-year time limit, was introduced and passed we were at war in Korea. Today we are not at war anywhere. The minister has been suggesting that there is an emergency which necessitates that

these powers be given the government at this time, and for all time to come.
The minister has been scornfully hinting that the opposition does not know what is going on in the world, but what the minister seems to forget is that this all-wise government is not parliament. We in the opposition are also part of our democratic system. If there are things going on in the world that demand such revolutionary powers being placed in the hands of one man the opposition should be told about those things rather than just having them called an emergency.
Strangely enough, while the Minister of Defence Production is hinting at a dire emergency which necessitates that these sweeping powers be given him, his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), is suggesting that there is some improvement in world conditions. In Paris on May 9 he said that the international situation, at least in Europe, was improved, and he has been saying that many times here in Canada. While the Minister of Defence Production is riding roughshod over parliament the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) is saying, and I quote from the foreword of Current Affairs for June 1955 as follows:
We in Canada value the essential freedoms which make up our way of life even more than we value life itself. We are joined with those who think as we do in a colossal effort, through the medium of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to preserve those freedoms, peacefully if we may-by force of arms if we must.
We on this side of the house have a feeling that the minister is not having too tranquil a time in his own backyard over this sweeping bill. There must be quite a few freedom-loving government members who view this bill with alarm. But the right hon. minister will get his bill through. When the Defence Production Act first came before this house in 1951 the leader of the Conservative party had this to say, as reported on page 849 of Hansard of March 2, 1951:
In describing the bill, the minister frankly stated that it contained powers of an extraordinary nature; but, as has been pointed out, there was no explanation as to why those extraordinary powers are required at this time to do the things we all agree should be done, and very quickly. The obvious fact is that the minister sees no reason to explain. The government has a huge majority. The minister decided that this should be done, he obtains the consent of the government, and he knows that the vote will support what is before this house. Consequently the rest of us, and I suppose the members of his party as well, have no need to be told why action of this kind should be taken at this time. Surely in the light of what is before us there can be no other explanation of the fact that powers so wide as these should be required.
The right hon. minister will get his bill through. He will override Her Majesty's

loyal opposition just as he has probably overridden his own colleagues, but not before we in the opposition have voiced our united disapproval. The odds are certainly against us. The government majority is too strong; but
. . . how can man die better Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods?
What does this bill mean to Canadians? It means that the entire economy and manpower of Canada are being placed in the hands of one man, the Minister of Defence Production. The minister has modestly pointed out that he knows more than any other man in the world about defence purchasing, and that I am sure is true. On this side of the house many hon. members have paid tribute to the minister because we also have a high opinion of his experience and ability. But life is not stationary; ministers come and go, and so do governments. I ask the minister, and perhaps I am asking too much of his imagination: what if a socialist government should come into power in this country, which is a pretty wild flight of fantasy, I know. But one has only to witness the approval of the group to my left to realize how the minister is playing into the hands of socialism.
I should like to take a look at section 30, in which the governor in council may designate as an essential material any material or substance, the control, supply and use of which is in his opinion essential to ensure the availability of adequate defence supplies, etc. What does that mean? As a journalist, I looked to see what section 30 could do to our cherished freedom of the press. I think this is a familiar phrase to the minister. What is to stop the minister from tampering with the freedom of the press? It is true that he could not censor the actual copy that goes into a newspaper. He would not wield an editor's blue pencil. But through section 30 he certainly could censor the press very forcibly. If the governor in council wanted to designate newsprint as an essential material, what is to stop him? That could be a potent weapon in censorship of our press.
What is to stop the Minister of Defence Production from interfering with labour contracts? What is to stop him from moving in on any plant, any industry, any property -real or personal-under the guise of a defence project?
As I said at the outset, no other democratic country in the world has given such dictatorial powers to one man or government. I do not see how any hon. member who cherishes freedom can vote for this bill, with its sweeping and permanent powers.
Defence Production Act


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to use a different quotation from that used by my colleague. I am going to say "Never say die". I am not going to believe until the third reading is given that the Canadian people may not even yet wake up to the realities of this situation. After all, they are free; they are not tied to a triumphant executive. They are not tied like the members of this house. They can express themselves if they wish. 1 have not given up the hope that, if we do our duty here as we should, we may even yet make them realize what this is all about. It has nothing to do with defence. We are all in favour of defence. It has to do with the desire for personal power, with the appetite for personal power, which has great dangers for this country. So I say that we carry on the hope that this is not all over yet.
I count myself fortunate in being able to take part in this debate, because I think it is by far the most important debate in which I have ever taken part, far more important than the budget debate, which only concerns money. This concerns things far more important than money. This really concerns the possession of arbitrary power. Do not let us be confused by other things. This is arbitrary power. This is the antithesis of our way of life. This is the antithesis of the rule of law, described by Dicey, when he says that wide arbitrary powers are the absolute antithesis.
I have tried in this house to speak with some moderation, and I hope I do not entirely abandon that this afternoon, but to me it seems that what we are facing here is whether in this dangerous world, in order to prepare to meet the dictators, we have to act like dictators; whether we have to give up the things we care about. That is the issue here. There are men sitting on the front benches opposite who could expound this much better than I can, and I hope that before this is over they may see fit to do so.
I am glad to say that we in the opposition are not absolutely alone. There are signs that other people are beginning to take an interest. There was an editorial in the Globe and Mail on Saturday-


Mr. Speaker:: If the editorial comments upon the debate that is now going on, perhaps the hon. member could defer the consideration of it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear you.


Mr. Speaker:: I am asking the hon. member to conform to a rule which was invoked

Defence Production Act not very long ago by the hon. member for Eglinton. It is citation 265 of Beauchesne's third edition:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that what I am going to read-or if you prefer, I shall summarize it-will not contravene any of those things.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may paraphrase the editorial without directly quoting from it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope my paraphrase will be fair. I shall try to make it as fair as I can. I shall give the reference, and if anyone finds that I have been unfair, they will be able to take me to task. The first point I wish to make is that the Globe and Mail feels about this act, as I do, that it is about 39 sections too long. It might have been one section instead of 40, and it should have just stated that the minister may do anything he likes. That is what it comes down to. The minister calls it a model bill. It is indeed a model bill in this way, that it has everything in it that they had in wartime and since. I would say that the people who drafted it should get very high marks. If any dictators had been present, they would have taken off their hats and said, "We salute you; you have thought of things we never thought of ourselves".
There is another paraphrase from the Globe and Mail I should like to make, because it so entirely agrees with my views and we always like people who agree with us even though it is on the other side of the house. The writer feels that this is a very practical matter, and not academic. That is what I feel too. He feels it has a great deal to do with the liberties of the subject; and that is what I feel too. I should like to hear more said about it by people on the opposite side, who can talk about it much better than I can, but who seem to be strangely silent. Then he says it has to do with the parliamentary system, and that is what I think too. The majority here can pass any act of parliament; they can pass an act that all members of the opposition should wear red ties. I do not know whether it would be unconstitutional; it would be just silly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Blue.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Blue would be better. I have heard suggestions that, because this act


was passed by parliament, therefore there was no attack on the system of parliamentary government. But that goes to the very root of what the legislation is and what it is proposed to do.
The other thing I want to paraphrase is that the writer feels, as I feel, that this is an attempt to make arbitrary power permanent. As far as I know, apart from the War Measures Act, which we all accept, and which is there in case of a supreme emergency, this is the first time that arbitrary power has been made permanent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did you ever read the hydro act?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are not going to get involved in the Ontario hydro act. I have no responsibility for that. I have quite enough to deal with in the person of the Minister of Defence Production. This writer says-and it is exactly what I feel-that the rule of law is being abandoned in favour of arbitrary power. Here again I am trying to use very moderate language. I think this is an affront to a free parliament, to be asked to make this permanent. Four years ago we gave that power very unwillingly. We went a long way. We are not particularly proud of it, but I think there are excuses for what we did. But there are no excuses now. We know the truth now, and if we did it again we would be just a lot of nincompoops.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Speak for yourself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A good description.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As a matter of fact, this bill would not have a chance of passing if parliament were free. I say it is an insult to a free parliament. Would a free parliament pass a statute with a clause in it as described by my hon. friend the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton), under which the executive can exercise this power to override statutes passed by this house? I think actually it is not the minister who can do this alone. I think there was a little note of caution. I believe it actually takes the cabinet to do this, although I guess in matters of defence production the Minister of Defence Production would have a good deal of influence on the cabinet. Nevertheless I think when you come actually to nullify or disregard statutes already passed by this house, it takes the whole cabinet to do it. So we ought to be grateful for that concession.
I ask again whether a free parliament would pass an act with that section in it,

even if there were need for it. I have satisfied myself, and shall hope to satisfy the minister later in the afternoon, that there is no need.
The minister is quoted as using the great words of General Grant and saying that he will fight this out if it takes all summer. General Grant, I think, said "We shall fight it out on this line if it takes all summer".


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind my hon. friend's quoting anybody he wishes. He can quote me if he desires to do so, but I should like him to show me the source of that quotation. I never said that, and my hon. friend knows it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was extremely cautious about that matter, as the minister will have observed. I said I had not seen it in his speech and wondered whether he had said it somewhere else. I can assure him that he has been quoted as saying that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who quoted me? Mr. Macdonnell: I forget for the moment.


George James McIlraith: On the authority of the Globe and Mail?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe it was Cleopatra.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister will just have to forgive me for a moment. Besides, it is not a very insulting thing because, as a matter of fact, I agree with it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My friend might just correct Hansard and say he admits that I did not say it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not insulting the minister. I was saying that he was quoted as having said that he would fight it out all summer. I was interested in that remark, because I had exactly the same idea. I had thought of General Grant's words also and I gave the minister credit-I hope he will not mind my doing so-for having thought of them himself. As a matter of fact I hope the fight will go on until the government plucks up courage to do the right thing in this matter.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the fact that the minister has challenged the statement made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), I should like to quote from page 4591 of Hansard:


Clarence Decatur Howe: I live in Ottawa; I would just as soon stay here all summer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not a very close quotation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would you not like to have a leader like that? That is the kind of leader
Defence Production Act to have, one who can fill in those things which you do not have in your own speech.
I am grateful.
I come back to say that I hope the government is going to do something about this matter. We saw what I believe is supposed to have been a gesture this morning. As for myself, I think it was a rather empty gesture. However, I was interested. It seemed to indicate that they pay some attention to the debate, and that it was not like the debate last week when we advocated looking into the administration of government. Then we were treated with what I understand was to be regarded as contemptuous silence. It is not for us in the opposition to advertise ourselves and say whether or not we are entitled to be treated better. However, I think our constituents are entitled to be treated better than that, and I think the people of Canada are entitled to be treated better than that. However, I must not digress too far.
I should like to interject here what I am sure everyone in this house believes. I believe there are people on the opposite side of the house who feel about this matter just as I do, and I hope that possibly one of them may even express himself to that effect. I hope the government may cease to be led around by the nose by the Minister of Defence Production. No one who reflects on this matter of the substitution of arbitrary power for the rule of law can fail to be unhappy. What we have in this act is naked, unashamed, arbitrary power.
There is a curious irony in this situation. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is spending laborious days trying with all his might to extend the rule of law throughout the world; yet he is going to be asked to vote for a measure which threatens the rule of law here among us. We have the Prime Minister, whom I am going to quote in a moment in addresses to the bar association. I hope that is all right, Mr. Speaker. I want to show what a great defender of the rule of law the Prime Minister has been in years past, and what an eloquent one. Then I am going to ask why he is not here to speak. I am going to challenge him to speak. If it is not disrespectful, I am going to demand that he speak.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Good; that is better.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think we are entitled to hear from him in this matter. I would not regard the Minister of Defence Production as a great expert on the rule of law because I doubt whether he is interested in it. The Prime Minister is a different cup of tea. The Prime Minister ought to be the keeper of the conscience, so to speak, of this house. If we
4710	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act are wrong in what we are saying, he ought to come and tell us why we are wrong. Meanwhile I should like to quote from the Prime Minister. This goes back quite a while. He was addressing the bar association in 1931. He was then a leading lawyer and a distinguished authority on matters of law. He said this:
To none as thoroughly as to the men of our profession has history taught the lesson that constant vigilance is the price of liberty.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister to read that sentence and then to read to himself section 27 of the act, which states:
(1) Where the minister is satisfied that (a) a person who has entered into a defence contract has failed or is likely to fail to perform the contract in a businesslike and efficient manner . . .
I like that language, "has failed or is likely to fail". The minister can take action not merely on what has happened but on what he thinks is likely to happen. Then it is interesting to observe that if he is not satisfied-
. . . the minister may authorize another person [DOT] . . to carry on, until the minister otherwise directs, the whole or any part of the business of that person.
That is an interesting power. I heard an interesting illustration of that power given one day. I have not the details, but the gist of the story was this; it was illustrating the powers in that section. It had to do with a case where some producer was called upon to undertake a certain contract. As the story came to me, this was in the morning about nine o'clock. Apparently he showed some hesitation. I did not gather that it was more than that. But according to the way the story went, he was then reminded that there was a train leaving for his city at twelve o clock and that if he did not make up his mind to do what was wanted, on that twelve o clock train there would be a man with power to take over his plant.
I would imagine that sort of thing has seldom happened. The minister has told us that he uses these powers very little and that he wants them as a stand-by. But that story is interesting. It is an interesting comment on the way in which we live. I never would have believed it was necessary in peacetime or in anything short of a violent emergency to have action of that kind taken. But there it is.
I come to another quotation from the Prime Minister. I only wish he were here to listen to these fine statements which he made in the days of his legal distinction. He was speaking to the bar association, and he had this to say about lawyers in the province of Quebec:
Of course he recognizes that certain conceptions are inexorably established . . . The untrammelled 

freedom of creating contractual relations and so making laws binding on oneself and on all others who have consented thereto . . . The complete liability to repair all injuries wrongfully caused to another .	. Such are some of the cardinal
principles which he and his code have regarded as necessary postulates.
Following that I should like to ask the Prime Minister to look at section 32, which
says:
Every person who . . .
(c) wilfully obstructs a controller in the exercise of any of his functions ... is guilty of an offence.
The Minister of Defence Production referred to that in his speech and pointed out that there is a certain softening, shall I say, of the provision; with respect to a person who has been charged with an offence because he has not exercised due diligence I would refer to subsection 5 of section 32, which reads in part:
. . . in any proceeding against a person who was a director or officer of a corporation when the corporation committed an offence under this act for being a party to and guilty of such offence, the burden of proving his absence of such knowledge or the exercise of such due diligence by him is upon the accused.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the draftsman remembered that the thing had to be weighted against the citizen and in favour of the arbitrary power. I said a moment ago that this was the first time that arbitrary power had been made permanent. I want to refer for a moment to the time the act was passed. I am reading now from the minister's speech of June 7, at page 4510 of Hansard. He said then:
The statement I made in 1951-
That was his statement indicating that it was hoped this would be temporary, which induced us not to oppose it.
-was made in good faith, in the earnest hope that we would now be living in a world in which normal peacetime conditions would prevail. Such is not the case, and it is in the light of present day circumstances that 1 am compelled to recommend the continuation of the Defence Production Act in its present form.
The minister is not going to ask us to believe that in 1951 he had any expectation that we would have emerged into a nice, cosy, peaceful, snug, quiet world in five years. Everyone who knew his onions in 1951 knew there was no hope that we would get away from a tense situation. I am not going to take time to argue how much more or less tense it is now than in 1951. What I am arguing is that an emergency cannot go on forever. Can an emergency go on for 10, 20 or 30 years? When does the abnormal become normal? Are we going to upset our whole way of life and resort to arbitrary

power for a 30 or 40 year emergency? As I say, I think the minister did himself an injustice. He does not usually live in the clouds.
I want to say a word about the rule of law.
It is not just a lot of picayune little rules for this or that. It is really the embodiment of the Christian ethic in practical form. It is the thing we live by, the thing by which our relations with each other are governed, At page 193 of "Law of the Constitution" Dicey says:
We mean when we speak of the rule of law not only that with us no man is above the law but what is a different thing, that here every man ... is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.
As against that consider the unlimited powers given by the act. The rule of law is the greatest practical exposition and achievement of Christianity. It is the real cornerstone of our civilization. We have inherited it and we should cling to it. It is the binder and cement of our civilization.
May I now say a word about the powers, and I shall be very brief. The minister indicated the way the act was brought about. He said it was based on the final edition of the munitions and supply act passed in 1939. Then he said, "We believe it is a model act". As I have already said, it certainly is a model act from the point of view of the aims of those who drew it. There is virtually unlimited power over the economic life of Canada. If the scope of the bill covered just a minor area of our economic life, let us say the building of elevators, we might swallow it; but read the definitions of defence projects, defence supplies, essential materials and all the long list. Read section 11, under which the minister may organize the whole economic life of Canada in so far as it is concerned with defence, and ask yourselves what there is in a modern state preparing for war that is not concerned with defence or cannot be made to look like it. The section gives virtual control over the Canadian economy.
I have referred to section 27 and the threat to take over a plant. I now refer to section 32 where it is an offence even to have a mind of your own or even to suggest you want to have a mind of your own. What the section says is that every person who wilfully obstructs a controller in the exercise of any of his functions under section 27 is guilty of an offence. I suppose a controller is one of those people appointed by the minister, who has the right to appoint anyone with all
Defence Production Act the powers to do things that he himself has. That is in section 5, which reads:
The minister may authorize any person, on his behali and under his control and direction, to do any act or thing or to exercise any power that the minister may do or exercise under this act.


George James McIlraith: That is only where the
person who has entered into the defence contract has failed or is likely to fail to perform the contract.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have covered that. I referred to that before. Make your own speech.


George James McIlraith: You left out part of the quotation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Note the minister's delightful power of being able to anticipate the future. The minister points out that a man can have an appeal to the courts. That is true. After he has suffered injury and been treated in this arbitrary manner he may_ go to the courts. It will take him some time and some money, and he will have high priced counsel fighting against him, part of whose fees, incidentally, he will pay as a taxpayer.
One more excuse the minister gives is that the powers have not been used. I fully accept this explanation of that, of course, and in answer I only wish to quote the remarks of a very great man who had a great deal to do with setting up the rule of law by which we are governed. He said this:
Necessity is the plea lor every infringement of human freedom; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
The minister says he could not carry on without these powers. He has had 40 years of experience and he knows the story. I think too well of the minister to believe that he could not carry on without them. He has not asked us to believe that it is hard to place contracts. Why would it be hard? Is his money not good? Is the government money not good? Are order books so bursting with orders now? Are commodities so scarce now that he is going to have any difficulty? Is there no unemployment? Still he asks us to believe that he could not carry on efficiently without the act.
My belief is that the minister wants these powers in the act just because he wants them. He likes them. He felt lonely when he did not have them for a short time. The powers must be there in his hands. But they can have evil results. When they get on the statute books they have a way of staying there. They may be left there until people we did not anticipate come along and use them for purposes which we would not like.

Defence Production Act
Our socialist friends would be entirely pleased with them if they ever came into power. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will not disagree with me. I am sure he loves these powers. Under them you can punish people; you can get after the wicked people the socialists see behind every bush.
My time is running out, and I am sure the minister wants to hear the rest of what I have to say. If I thought that giving the minister what he wants would not do any harm I would be inclined to go a long way with him, but what is going to happen is that very soon we will have a generation who will not know anything different, to whom this will be the normal way of life. They will read the bill with all these powers, but they will not go back to the debate of 1951 and find out that they were, so to speak, extorted from us by assurances that the world was coming to an end, that the government could not possibly get on without them, that there were material shortages, and so on and so on.
The minister has been working under this act for four years now. He has been very frank in telling us he has had little or no trouble. He has told us how little the powers were used. I was not in the house the other day when the hon. member for Eglinton questioned him, but my understanding is that he said some of these powers had not been needed. I believe there was some question as between the word "needed" and "used". I will use the word "needed".
There is one thing that must have been interesting and perhaps satisfying to the minister, and that is the allies he has on this measure. As I said a moment ago, the socialists love this; it is right down their alley. It is a curious bit of irony that a so-called Liberal government should be producing this reactionary measure.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was drawn by a prominent Tory.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is a secret of course, which we are not allowed to know. Perhaps there are Tories who believe in these principles, but happily they are not on this side now. Of course, as I say, it is right down the socialists' alley. I am going to read again a quotation from Gordon-Walker I read the other day when I was speaking about socialism. I have always felt that the term democratic socialism" was a contradiction in terms. I think Mr. Gordon-Walker, who I see is getting into the limelight again, would bear that out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What could be more contradictory than the term "free enterprise".


An hon. Member:: Or Progressive Conservative.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will answer that another day. At page 405 of "The Conservative Mind" he is quoted as saying:
The new state-
That would be the socialist state.
-will also directly augment authority and social pressure by new powers of punishment and compulsion. So far from withering away, as in theory both the individualist and the total state should, the new state, if it is to bring into being and serve the better society, must create new offences and punish them.
The word "offences" interested me because we have it here in this act. While I do not suppose many people have been prosecuted, the power is always there.
I said when I began that I hoped we would carry on this debate to the very last moment we could, in the hope that we may arouse interest outside.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Don't get discouraged; the bell will not save you for a few minutes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I am doing all right. I just want to be sure that I am not leaving out any of my best points that the minister may want to hear.
Once since I have been here it has happened that the press has interested the people of Canada in a measure, to such an extent that within two weeks the government had to bend the knee. It was a little thing. I believe it had to do with tenders in the Department of Public Works. It was very interesting to see what public opinion could do. That was one time when I felt the opposition had done something that almost entitled it to get into a textbook. When the matter came before the house the opposition complained. The press and the public became interested and within two weeks the government had to go into reverse. I therefore do not abandon hope.
I believe this bill-I do not wish to sound extravagant or exaggerated-may be the parting of the ways as between the permanence of arbitrary powers and the kind of society in which we have lived and which we describe as living under the rule of law. This means that men have their rights which cannot be overridden by the arbitrary powers of others; they are sacred, protected properly by law.
No one can deny that this act bristles with arbitrary powers. They stick out all over.
I am not saying there might not be an argument which would make us say, "Yes, we hate these powers, but nevertheless we must concede them". No such argument has been

made. It seems to me that no argument even approaching it has been made, except that the minister has cited his 40 years of experience as authority for the proposition. At page 4512 of Hansard for June 7 the minister said:
I have had a great deal of experience in buying for governments.
I agree.
I started some 40 years ago as a consulting engineer, and I have been doing some buying for governments ever since. I can tell this house that generally speaking a government order does not receive the same attention as a privately placed order. The reason is that generally speaking the government cannot put on as much pressure as does the private buyer.
I would bet a small sum, Mr. Speaker

I am a cautious man-that the minister can get his orders executed. In my opinion that statement comes perilously close to nonsense. It comes close to nonsense for the minister to ask us to pass a measure which is the embodiment of arbitrary powers, and to have no better special reason to give us than that. We are to take his word because he says the powers are needed. If the minister gave me his word about the construction of an elevator or a tank, that would be all right. However, when it comes to the rule of law we know the minister is not interested. We know the things the minister has said and believes: "If we wanted to get away with it, who would stop us?", and on another occasion, "If we have overstepped our powers, I make no apology for having done so." It is tiresome, to bring up these quotations again but they should be brought out because they are relevant. It is to this man we are asked to give these arbitrary powers. It does not make sense to me.
It is hard to carry on this struggle.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is hard to carry on an argument when there is no argument-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is hard to carry on this struggle because we know there are a lot of people in this house whose minds are closed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -and you promised to go for 40 minutes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am doing pretty well so far. We always hope there may be people on the outside whose minds are not closed. There is the press. We can hope that the press, as on a previous occasion, may catch the public interest. The pulpit should be interested in this. Everyone should be interested in the fight for freedom and the battle against arbitrary powers. What about the universities? What about the professors everywhere? There are one or two of them
Defence Production Act in this house, and I hope to hear from them soon. Why should they not take part in this debate?
Happily there is some sign of a little cracking. We were not extended that phony olive branch that we got this morning because the government were entirely satisfied with the situation. The only reason they did that was because they hoped we might be suckers and take it, thus ending this debate. We have that small satisfaction. If we go on, who knows; perhaps we might get a real concession. Perhaps the people on the other side who agree with me-and I know there are some-will become vocal, not necessarily in the house but perhaps in caucus or in council. I firmly believe that we are right. I do not usually like to be with the minority opinion, but in this case I am content.
Not only do I believe we are right, but I believe there has not been a real exercise of judgment on the part of the public in connection with this matter. I still hope there may be. The press could do it in a week, or they could do it in less than a week as they did before, if we are able to make them believe-


Mr. McCann:: That is the thing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would not expect the good doctor to be very much interested.
^ Mr. McCann: I would be very interested if you could make them believe.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We hope to make them believe. We are not doing this for fun. It is hot weather, and not all of us enjoy the favourable circumstance of living in Ottawa. There are signs that the press are beginning to be interested, and we can only hope that will continue. For that reason, so far as I am concerned, I am ready to continue. We hope we still may convince the people of Canada that this is a serious matter. We hope we may convince them so that if they do not take action now they may take it later; and one day they may come to our assistance and force this government, which has misappropriated the word "Liberal", to live up to the implications of the name they so unworthily bear.
I said it could be done, and so it could, if only we can convince the press that there is no question here of defence. We are all one about that. There is no question here about the minister not being able to get permanent tenure for his civil servants. We are all agreed about that. Do not let us cloud the issue with nonsense of that kind.
We have shown in the past that we are very ready to give substantial powers when they are needed. There is no dispute about

Defence Production Act that. But now we are asked to instal permanently in the legislation of this house a measure which four years ago we refrained from voting against because there was a great emergency, and on the ground that it was to be temporary now to have the government come along with what I call effrontery and ask us, four years later, when the work of the department is settling down and it is pursuing its normal course, to adopt this measure which four years ago was commended to us as temporary and to take off the time limit and to ask that it be made permanent, is just too much. As I say, I hope we shall carry this on to the bitter end.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the opposition to my right have been more or less beating a dead horse in the hope that some of their press barons will take it up and try to stir up support for this issue. I do not intend to support the Liberal government in any way because I think it is equally guilty in this respect.
I could not help but notice the number of times the hon. member for Greenwood spoke of the rule of law in the course of his remarks. He more or less emphasized that as our way of life and the whole basis of this discussion. It is rather incongruous to find hon. members to my right rising in their places time and time again, trying to indicate their interest in protecting the people of this nation. For my part I think they are part and parcel of the kind of program which eventually will not only lead this country into trouble in the struggle for a free world, by taking our resources and using them purely for profit. It seems to me that the hon. member for Greenwood spoke not only for St. James street and Bay street but for Wall street as well.
It is well known that at the beginning of the war, in 1939, the friends of the Conservative party, and indeed the people who were ready to profiteer, showed no readiness to assist in the defence of this country by producing the goods that were needed for that purpose at that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Rowe:: What is the evidence of that?


Edward George McCullough: I can
prove it, Mr. Speaker. I am making my speech. In 1939 the Canadian parliament passed an act having to do with the production of war materials, guaranteeing a 5 per cent profit to the companies that would produce the necessities of war.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That was when the C.C.F. did not want one man to go.


William Earl Rowe: Your party said they did not want to have anything to do with it at all.


Edward George McCullough: We are
very proud of what this party did. We are proud not only of our party's attitude but of the participation of the members of the C.C.F. party in the defence of the country both here and abroad. In 1939 the companies of this country were not prepared to produce for its protection. A few months later, namely on August 26, this parliament was informed that the companies were not doing their share in the production of defence materials.


William Earl Rowe: Name the companies. What companies were these?


Edward George McCullough: Apparently they were many of the friends of the opposition to my right, because parliament was concerned and moved to take the 5 per cent ceiling off the profits of these companies. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in answer to a question by Mr. T. C. Douglas, the then member for Weyburn, said this, and I quote from Hansard:
I can say to my hon. friend that from that day to this the defence purchasing board has done its very best to place contracts on that basis and has used every pressure that could be brought to bear in the form of patriotism and so on, but to date it has not succeeded in placing a single contract on that basis.
We find our hon. friends to the right rising in their places day after day and belabouring the government because it wishes to give the minister power to get the necessary defence materials in the event of an emergency. Unless the hon. member for Greenwood is trying to straddle the fence, he has indicated that we are not in an emergency period. Just a few weeks ago some members of parliament were taken on a flight to Churchill. There we were shown the situation which exists in the northern part of our country. Just a few short months ago the government had to take the responsibility of building an early warning line against invading aircraft. In spite of the fact that they had to go there in the winter and travel over the tundra in snowmobiles and set up their radar stations, before we got back to Ottawa we were informed, whether or not it is true, that this country could be invaded by a new type of guided missile against which we would not be protected by the radar screen in the northern part of our country.
The issue is not whether the Minister of Defence Production should or should not have the right to procure the necessities for defence, but rather one which is more crucial. Before expressing my own point of view, may I say I believe the announcement the minister

made this morning will amply cover the situation. He will place before the house the various contracts which are let, and ten members will be able to rise in their places and demand that the contracts be reviewed by the house within a matter of six months. I think that will give parliament the right to screen and investigate the procurement contracts which come from the minister's department.
This whole problem goes much deeper than that; it is much more basic. I am thinking of the causes of war and the necessity of this parliament giving the minister the powers for which he asks. It is quite true that we all hope for universal and lasting peace. At the same time we realize that we are in for a long period of unsettled times that may project itself far into the distant future.
If I tried to be elected for any one particular reason more than another it was to do what I could to try to erase the causes of modern warfare. Along with the rest of the C.C.F. group I think the only basis on which the democratic nations of the western hemisphere can initiate a program to gradually move toward universal peace is to eliminate the profit motive. I am saying that as long as we have the profit motive, which is supported by hon. members to my right and by the Social Credit group to my left, and indeed by the government itself, we are never going to remove the base cause of war. Today the base cause of war is profit; it was profit in 1914-18, it was profit in 1939 and it is profit today.
Hon. members to my right talk about fear psychology and war psychology, but there are none worse than themselves and the people who support them in causing the fear psychology which grips people throughout the world. Until we can eliminate the possibility of making a profit out of this sort of thing, then I am saying we are not going to find a basis for peace. The negotiators across the conference table at the league of nations were bedevilled by the fact that the press of the world and the warmongers of the world were creating this fear psychology.
May I say to the hon. member who seems to want to interrupt that of course Russia is dangerous to the peace of the world, and will be for a long time. But I say to him that until we hit at the root cause of war in our own country and set up our economy on a peacetime basis we will not be able to defend ourselves against the growing menace of communism. We have not been able to do it in the past five years.
Consider the situation today in Europe and Asia. Even with all our diplomatic measures we have not succeeded. Until we get down
Defence Production Act to the basis of organizing our economy for peacetime, when the production of the workers and the farmers can go into an increased living standard, when we can use our production in order to help less fortunate people in the world and do away with the fundamental basic cause of war, which is the profit motive, we will never have peace.
As I said at the beginning, this is more than a matter of parliamentary procedure. We have the power to investigate any expenditure made by the Minister of Defence Production. We have the right in parliament to look at every expenditure made by the government. We have the right to ask the minister to bring his expenditures before us and his methods of procurement. In the interests of democracy I think it is much better that we have that right and that the minister have the power in these emergent times to say to private enterprise, "We need these items of procurement, we are going to have them at a certain price, and if necessary we will ask you to start producing them."
I know full well that many examples could be cited since 1945 where this government has used patronage or perhaps bad judgment, but in any case we know that under the profit motive considerable extra cost enters into our defence requirements. More and more this government should try to have crown corporations for the production of our defence needs, so we could eliminate the abuses that have occurred in the past.
I could quote excerpts from Hansard of May 6, 1953, page 4878, to show that contracts have been given which seemed rather stupid, rather exorbitant and without any foundation of necessity. From April 1, 1951, to December 31, 1952, the government purchased certain items for the women in the armed services, who at that time numbered 3,447. During that time they purchased 44,440 raincoats at a cost of $924,527, or 12 for each woman in the services. They purchased 96,663 hats at a cost of $186,485 or 27 hats for each woman in the armed services. During the same period for the 100,026 men in the services they purchased 1,340,873 pairs of leather footwear, or 13 pairs for each person. That shows the ridiculousness of it all. There were purchased 1,360,592 summer trousers, or 13 for each man in the services. There were purchased 2,817,633 suits of summer underwear, or 28 for each man in the services.
This simply indicates that if we had the purchasing of our defence requirements under public ownership I feel sure there would be no good reason for these ridiculous contracts being given to private enterprise.

Defence Production Act
Following the line I am trying to develop, I want to say that my early attitude toward the cause of war goes back to the days when I was a young man teaching a Bible class. We made a study of the causes of war, in particular those in connection with the first great war. I remember full well that in that discussion the name of Sir Basil ZaharofE came up. He was represented to have been a Greek private, but during the years 1914-18 he was in position to start selling service rifles to Greece and before the end of the war, during the course of five years, he was a multimillionaire selling battleships to the * opposing nations.
That is the kind of thing we have under private enterprise. He owned many newspapers throughout Europe which helped to build up the fear psychology, the same fear psychology we see being built up now. Certainly it is being built up on the part of private enterprise just the same as it was at that time. The only thing that happened to this Greek private was that he was given the name Sir Basil Zaharoff following the first great war.
Then coming to the second great war, we all know of instances that occurred, and I shall point out just one to carry it through. After the close of the war in 1945 the war tribunals were set up at Nuremberg and it was found that the I. G. Farben company had over 700 affiliated companies in 104 different countries, not less than seven of those associated companies being located in Canada. One can readily see the international cartelization and monopoly of today, and the extension of the profit system throughout the world. As far as I am concerned I do not care if there are brown shirts, black shirts or stuffed shirts; the time has come when people through their democracies have to get up and face people like my hon. friends, who are trying to guarantee to individuals in our economy that they can take the kind of profits they want when we are faced with an emergency in this country.
I think the time has come when we should consider the stewardship of the government in power. While I do not agree with the capitalist system, while I do not agree with the methods used to procure the necessities for defence, I do think we are all agreed that we need defence measures. However, I think we are paying many times over what we need to pay, simply because people like my hon. friends to my right are trying to safeguard the profits of the people who perhaps helped to put them here by means of campaign funds. I feel that we are missing


the boat, and that in the future this country may not be able to provide adequate defence measures.
So I say that unless the people of this country wake up, not to the issue raised by the hon. member for Greenwood but to the real issue of the stewardship of the resources of this country in peacetime and in wartime, we will not be able to bring to the people of the world a lasting peace.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think we have listened to the most mixed up and misled speech delivered for a long time in this house, or probably in any other house. I shall not take up too much of the time of the house, but I would like to indicate what is the attitude of the C.C.F. In this connection I should like to refer to what was said by the present leader of the C.C.F. on September 9, 1939, as follows:
4. Preservation of democracy at home: The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation protests against the encroachments on our civil liberties which the government has already introduced, and insists that democracy at home must be preserved unimpaired during the war.


Edward George McCullough: We all
agree with that.


George Harris Hees: There it is. They want to preserve our civil liberties at home during wartime, but in a period which is not war they want to cast these liberties aside and hand over complete, arbitrary power to the government. That is an example of the consistency of the C.C.F. party and of the hon. member for Moose Mountain in particular.
So the hon. member for Moose Mountain and other misled members may understand the Conservative party's point of view-and I would have thought that by now they would have been able to get it through their heads-our attitude on this matter is that we believe powers of this kind are needed in wartime, are needed in case of emergency.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: You sit down. I shall listen to you later. I say that every member of this party who has risen to speak has said that we believe these powers are needed in emergencies; and when an emergency exists we shall be very glad to have the powers brought before parliament and will be glad to vote them in a democratic way. That, I believe, is the preservation of democratic rights, which your leader so clearly advocated when speaking on September 9, 1939, when a war was in progress.
The important thing in this whole controversy is what has gone on in the last four years to change the minister's mind in his

approach to this whole matter. Four years ago, on March 2, 1951, he said this, as reported on page 836 of Hansard:
It is proposed that the act would expire on July 31, 1956. There is no particular significance to this date other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature.
That was four years ago. At that time these powers were not required on a permanent basis. Today the leaders of countries all across the world tell us that tensions are less than they were even a year ago. World tensions are decreasing; yet today we are asked to make these sweeping powers permanent. What is the answer? The answer is, I believe, that this is simply a pattern which has been followed in the setting up of dictatorships for all time. First you have temporary powers requested to meet a specific emergency. Then a little while later these powers are quietly made permanent. That is the way dictatorships are created.
These powers certainly should be granted in any emergency, but they should not remain in the hands of this or any other government during a time when no emergency exists. I do not believe an emergency exists today. If one does, then bring these powers before parliament and explain the emergency. We shall be glad to grant the powers at any time an emergency exists, but not to grant them to this or any other government on a permanent basis. The granting of these powers on a permanent basis simply concentrates more and more power in the hands of a power-hungry government, or in the hands of any government which happens to be in office.
This kind of measure makes it possible for these powers to be used for other than military purposes. There is no question about that. If these powers, which cover the whole of the economy, are made permanent and become law, which I feel sure the Liberal government is going to do by means of its large majority, then I believe we ought to give this bill a new title. I think it should be called the "thermostat act," because it will enable this or any other government that happens to be in power to automatically apply the heat to any firm that shows a tendency to cool off in its desire to support the government.
That is a very bad thing. That kind of situation simply perpetuates whatever government happens to be in office. It is a tremendous potential power which a government can use if it wishes. To make it possible for any government to use that kind of power over industry is a very dangerous thing.
Defence Production Act
I strongly urge the Prime Minister, as every other member of this party does, to change this bill before it is passed; to take out the arbitrary power which is granted on a permanent basis, so these powers will be granted only in time of an emergency, by vote of parliament. If that were done I can assure you that this party, at any such time as an emergency exists, will be glad to cooperate and grant these powers to the government; -but we object to putting them on a permanent basis.
If the Prime Minister will do this he will be making a very important contribution toward democratic government in this country. I think it would be a fitting gesture for him and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to do this before they retire from active political life and leave this Liberal party of theirs to the chaos and confusion which will occur when the six hopefuls who will shortly be competing for the top spot-


An hon. Member:: Whistling in the dark.


George Harris Hees: -go to work on each other and reduce the efficiency of the government even below what it is today. If these powers are needed in an emergency we will be only too glad to grant them on an emergency basis, instead of putting them on a permanent basis. If an emergency is explained to parliament, we shall be glad to grant the necessary powers to the minister who is in charge of the department at that time. This arbitrary power is not needed on a permanent basis, either by the present minister or any other minister who may happen to be in charge of the defence production department in the future.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how comfortable the right hon. Minister of Defence Production felt during that oration by the hon. member for Moose Mountain. It is certainly a peculiar part of the house from which to expect support for him. I believe he has been set up as the chief government representative of the principles of free enterprise. Yet in this house, except for two or three members of his own party, his sole support comes from those members to my left.
I am wondering at the same time whether perhaps he is not somewhat responsible for that situation. It seems to me that in the welter of propaganda we have heard, in the years even before the war, we have had built up for us a fantasy or a story of the one great man carrying the complete load in connection with this country's war effort. I do not believe he wanted it that way, but certainly as the press of this country ground out the story, and as the government propaganda

Defence Production Act machine was full at work, we appeared to forget the efforts of all the people which went into the struggle between 1939 and 1945.
In doing that I think we have left open the door to those who, like the hon. member for Moose Mountain, take every opportunity to point their finger at the people who in the long run saved this country for democracy. I might say to my friend the hon. member for Moose Mountain that he too would not be in this chamber and free to speak as he did today had it not been for the efforts of the people and the businesses who co-operated without exception in the most serious days this country ever faced.
However, I think I should again go over the reasons given by the minister in support of his argument that this legislation requires to be drafted in the form in which we have it now, and in no other way. The minister has referred to these specific points. First, he said that the work previously involved in purchasing for defence purposes was not nearly as complicated and difficult as it is today. Second, he stressed some features of defence production and referred to the tremendous obligation assumed by Canada for the mid-Canada early warning line. Third, he referred as well to plans under way for the development of a supersonic fighter plane made up of a supersonic airframe and a new supersonic engine. Fourth, though in a relative time of peace, he referred to the difficulty of maintaining our troops in Germany and in Canada. Fifth, combined with these problems which face this department there is no indication, according to the minister, of a reversion to ordinary times as contemplated in 1951, at the time of the original passing of this legislation. Sixth, in addition he suggested that there is ample opportunity to review the work of this department on its estimates, and I believe as well he mentioned the filing of the annual report pursuant to section 34 of the act. Seventh, as a clincher to these arguments he indicated that since 1939 some $17 or $18 billion have been spent by his various departments free from dishonesty, free from maladministration and free from the difficulties that frequently haunt defence purchasing.
Are these then sufficient reasons to prolong without restriction as to time in this department the powers contained in the present act? Frankly, these arguments sound more like those of a senior civil servant than of a minister of the crown. The senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), who appears to be the only official apologist for or defender of the department, has asked us

to be realistic in this situation. I think perhaps the most realistic approach to the situation was made by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) as he related his arguments to the ability of industry in Canada today to handle the requirements of the minister's department. Perhaps I might be permitted to pick up the threads of his argument and relate them directly to the case put forward by the minister and his parliamentary assistant.
First of all, it is true that the work of this department must be more complicated than it was in previous years or in the years before the war; but surely that work is no more complicated and no more exacting than is the work which must be performed by the officers of our large corporations in Canada today. They face the same problems, and they do so without the all-powerful provisions of an act such as this. There should be no particular difficulty in the government playing a strong hand without the benefit of an economic club.
The minister referred to the construction of the mid-Canada early warning line. I would assume that, to a great extent, the requirements for that line would be made up of electronic components and construction materials. I am sure the minister has read the Knox report and has read there of the problems facing the Canadian electronics industry in its fight to preserve full working time and full employment.
Perhaps the minister might refer to his associate the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Reinke) and ask him if he would have any difficulty in placing a contract with the Westinghouse company for items required for that particular job. The only thing I have heard from that company recently was an expression of deep regret that the impact of the requirements of the St. Lawrence seaway would only be of beneficial effect to that company by 1957, and then only in a limited way. Perhaps we might ask the same question of hon. members from the Toronto area, or perhaps of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser). Is the electronics industry in Canada in a position to refuse, under any circumstances, to keep its workmen at their jobs?
I am sure also that we could refer to the various building material companies and find the same answer, and in connection with the supersonic fighting planes. Why are powers of this kind necessary to produce supersonic planes? I would think the minister is almost the sole customer of two of the largest plane manufacturers in this country. If he does not place the orders, they do not

work. Is there any necessity to have compulsion to develop a new plane, when those people are waiting and asking for the opportunity to produce in Canada those things which we need for national defence?
Then we have the argument with regard to maintaining troops in Canada and in Germany. I assume that among the chief requirements are supplies of clothing and of food. Perhaps the minister might refer to his associates, the hon. members for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) and Waterloo South (Mr. White), and ask them if any compulsion is necessary to obtain co-operation from the textile manufacturers and the producers of foodstuffs in those areas. I assume as well we can talk about the necessity for producing ships. I could refer to my colleague the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson), and ask him if there is any room in the shipyards in his riding to produce the necessary ships for our navy at this time.
No; when we become specific and enumerate the items one by one, there appears no place where we can fit in the necessity for compulsion so far as industry in Canada today is concerned. Then we talk about a reversion to ordinary times. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we are not whistling in the dark. I wonder if these are not the ordinary times which we will face for the next 20 to 25 years, and if we do not have to have a new type of thinking, a new approach. When we talk about an emergency I think we have to divide it into two parts, an emergency from without and an emergency caused by economic conditions within our own country which prevent us from arming ourselves to meet the outside emergency.
There are no economic conditions in Canada today which place a disability on the minister's department to an extent which prevents the department from adequately preparing this country for defence. In reality every bit of evidence points to the fact that industry today first of all desires and in most cases requires-and I refer to shipbuilding and aircraft production-orders from the government to maintain full employment. How can we justify compulsion under circumstances of that kind?
If conditions are as I have indicated, then where can the minister find support for his argument that a continuation of these powers is necessary at this time? In the legal profession we like to be able to refer to precedent. Sometimes it may be a little embarrassing. I almost think perhaps the parliamentary assistant may wish he had not referred to precedent when he thinks about being on the immigration committee of the 50433-298i
Defence Production Act bar association. But generally speaking we look to precedent for support for our arguments.
If I may take a few minutes I should like to trace down through the years from 1939 the various powers that have been possessed by the minister in the various and numerous departments for which he has been responsible from time to time. The beginning of the history of these powers can be traced back to the department of munitions and supply act, statutes of Canada, 1939, chapter 3, which was assented to on September 13, 1939. This act was proclaimed on the 9th of April, 1940, and the wide powers contained therein were restricted to a period of three years. Section 16, subsection 1 of that act reads as follows:
Subject to the following provisions of this section, the foregoing provisions of this act shall continue in force for a period of three years beginning with the date of the passing of this act, and shall then expire . . .
That was 1939, and there was a restriction of powers at that time to three years. Then under an act to amend the department of munitions and supply act, statutes of Canada, 1940, chapter 31, the powers were again restricted to a period of three years under section 17, subsection 1, which reads:
Subject to the following provisions of this section, the foregoing provisions of this act shall continue in force for a period of three years beginning with the date of the passing of this act, and shall then expire . . .
That was 1940.


William Earl Rowe: Right in the midst of the war.


John Borden Hamilton: Then under an act to amend the department of munitions and supply act, statutes of Canada, 1943-44, chapter 8, the restriction contained under section 17 of the act of 1940 was deleted by section 9, subsection 1. This of course was still in one of the most difficult times this country ever faced, and is the only place I have found a record of freedom from a time limit on this type of power.
In the statutes of Canada, 1944-45, chapter 18, there are certain wide powers dealing with the department of reconstruction. Those powers were restricted under section 2(g), which reads as follows:
(g) "period of reconstruction" means the period beginning on April 1st, 1944, until the end of the session of parliament commencing in the fourth year following the cessation of hostilities between Canada and the German Reich and the empire of Japan.
In the statutes of Canada, 1945, chapter 16, the department of reconstruction and supply was created, and under section 6 the minister was given all the powers formerly vested in him as minister of munitions and supply and1 minister of reconstruction. I can only take-

Defence Production Act from that reference that the restriction in the original act dealing with reconstruction continued in the new act. By section 11 of the Department of Resources and Development Act, chapter 18, statutes of Canada, 1949, the department of reconstruction and supply came to an end. Section 11 reads:
The department of mines and resources act, the geology and mines act, the department of reconstruction act, 1944, and sections 1 to 8 of the department of reconstruction and supply act, 1945, are repealed.
That ended the powers contained in that act, although it left unaffected valid contracts which were entered into before the expiration of the act.
In the statutes of 1950, chapter 33, we find an act respecting defence supplies and projects. Section 9 (1) of this act repealed the department of munitions and supply act, which was chapter 3 of the statutes of 1939, second session. At this time we had no act containing powers on an indefinite basis.
In the statutes of 1950-51, chapter 6, we find an act respecting materials and services essential for the purposes of defence and national security. This act was to be administered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Section 10 of that act provided for its expiry on July 31, 1952. The section reads:
This act shall expire on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.
Here is the history since 1939 of dealings in provisions of this type, provisions which concentrate power in the hands of one man and contain serious restrictions on appeals to the courts and on the freedom of individuals. These are the precedents to which we must refer today. So far as I can determine they are the only ones, and it was only in the midst of the most devastating war in the history of this country that wide powers of this type were handed over without restriction as to time.
The senior member for Halifax indicated that we had used double talk in connection with this problem. I say there is no double talk. The recognition of someone as a great man is no indication that powers such as these should be granted to anyone under any circumstances short of the worst type of emergency that could face us. The senior member for Halifax has stated that we are opposing for the sake of opposition. When I listened to the minister read his statement in this house today I wondered whether, in all fairness, we could be accused of opposition for the sake of opposition.
I do not know whether this is some type of concession or some type of subterfuge. I do know this, that without the efforts of

Her Majesty's loyal opposition this statement would not have been made today. As I read it, I think it may even be a departure from the ordinary rules of this house. I am not sure that it has ever been done before. I am sure of one thing; it is an indication that the opposition still fills a very vital need in our parliamentary institutions.


George James McIlraith: Sometimes they do not fill it very well, though.


William Earl Rowe: He does it better than you ever did.


Mr. Pickersgill:: He has never had a chance.


George Alexander Drew: You are quite right; he never has.


John Borden Hamilton: There is one further item. I knew I was leaving myself open, but I am not the last speaker so it does not matter. I sometimes wonder if we will ever know what type of administration we have had here during the last 15 years.


Mr. Goode:: You will not have an opportunity of finding out, either


John Borden Hamilton: Give us time; we will get there. This administration might be labelled the "don't quote me" department. When we talk about the billions that have been spent, when we try to find out what may have happened-there is responsibility to assist this opposition in the fight it makes-* business will tell you plenty of stories but the last remark is always, "don't quote me." I am wondering whether or not that remark is tied up with the powers that are contained in this act. I wonder whether they are reluctant to discuss questions of their contracts with this government, questions of administration, questions of the type of treatment, because they are afraid there may not be any more contracts of this kind.


William Earl Rowe: They will be more afraid than ever now.


John Borden Hamilton: So I say that what may or may not be the true efficiency of this department under the provisions contained in this legislation may never be known. I do say, however, that no whip is required to produce patriotism in business or in the people who take part in it in this country.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Earlier this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) made a very apt quotation from Macaulay's "Horatius at the Bridge" which caused some merriment in the house. Nevertheless the quotation was very apt. At this moment I should like to give

another quotation from the classics, only a little farther in the past, namely from Aesop's Fables, which I think again illustrates the point in this bill that is before us.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the old story in Aesop's Fables about the toad who was the doctor and who practised medicine amongst the other animals of the jungle in Aesop's kingdom. Eventually one very ancient frog came up to the doctor and said, "Doctor, we are very glad to see you practising medicine in our kingdom, and you have been doing well on occasion and not so well on other occasions. We all think it would be a very good idea if you would cure your own warts first."
In Canada we have felt very proud of, and perhaps a little smug about, our tradition of parliamentary government. We look with a somewhat jaundiced eye on other countries that are not so fortunate as ourselves. We hold up our hands in holy horror, so to speak, at such iron curtain countries as Russia, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Rumania and so on. We even look at Spain askance at times, and at some of the Far Eastern countries who do not enjoy the democratic rights that we have. The idea that Canada has such a very fine system of parliamentary government is expounded at various international gatherings such as the United Nations. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has held up Canada as an example of a fine parliamentary government. The Prime Minister, who took a trip around the world, was also described as the head of a state which had possibly the finest parliamentary government with the exception of the mother of parliaments herself.
We in Canada sometimes look with a slight, snide sneer at our great next door neighbour. We say our system is really much better than theirs, and that is fine. I think that is correct. But I cannot help feeling that if this bill passes we shall be taking a step backward. In other words we shall be retrogressing in the system of parliamentary government we have built up after such long struggles from the time of Magna Carta right down to the present.
Some speakers have said that the people of Canada no longer care about principles, that they are just interested in what the government produces. I do not think that is so. I am not cynical in that regard; I feel the people do care.
With regard to this bill, many of my colleagues have pointed out the various objections to it. The hon. member for York West pointed out a number of things in the bill that he found objectionable. The only thing
Defence Production Act I personally find objectionable is the matter of having no time limit on the emergency powers. The objections on this ground have been well set out by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, but there are a few more points that I should like to deal with in the next few moments.
We are all agreed that there is a state of considerable emergency in the world, that certain powers to act quickly are necessary, and that the Minister of Defence Production must have those powers. There has been no suggestion by any hon. member on this side of the house that the Minister of Defence Production is not a very capable man. We are all agreed on that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does that remark not come within the rule against endless repetition?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It is quite possible that it may be repetition, but I never for a moment thought the Minister of Defence Production would object to it.


James Sinclair: He is a very modest man.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You can even have too much of a good thing.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am astounded to hear that remark come from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that you can have too much of a good thing, when I was referring to the Minister of Defence Production.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was referring to the hon. member's speech.


James Sinclair: He is wrong there; it is not a good thing.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Now that that matter is
cleared up I shall continue.


John Horace Dickey: Take some time, anyway.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sorry, I did not quite hear the remarks from the other side of the house.
To return to my own remarks, the Minister of Defence Production, through experience gained in and after the war, has certainly shown himself to be very capable indeed. However, even the Minister of Defence Production may not be with us forever. None of us likes to contemplate that fact; nevertheless people sometimes become ill and have to retire. If no time limit is placed on this act it is quite possible that somebody less capable than the present minister may occupy his position, and it would be difficult to call him to account before parliament.


Mr. Noseworihy:: A Conservative government, for instance.

Defence Production Act


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No, Mr. Speaker; I was thinking more specifically of the possibility of a socialist government.
It has been pointed out by some hon. members that it is not true that the Minister of Defence Production does not have to account to parliament under this act; that the estimates of that department come up for discussion and these matters can be discussed then, or on the amendment of an hon. member to the motion to go into supply. At that time the opposition can bring up the matter. That is quite true, but it looks to me like trying to enter by the back door, in other words trying to do something indirectly that you cannot do directly.
It is a very great mistake to bring this thin edge of the wedge into the edifice of our parliamentary government. It is a bad principle and a step in the wrong direction. Once a principle is established there will be a further whittling away in the future.
The only thing the opposition has asked in this bill is that a time limit be put on it. Whether they wish to make the time limit 1958, 1957, 1956 or even 1959 is immaterial. A time limit should be placed on it. There is a possibility that the present cold war may cease and become-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Careful.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you. The cold war may in fact cease to exist before too many years. In fact we are hopeful, and there are signs that at the moment an improvement is taking place and the act may not be so necessary. None of us has a crystal ball with which we can foresee the future. In the past some hon. members may have had one, but at the present time nobody has. Things may greatly improve in the world. Because of that I can see no reason why a time limit cannot be placed in this bill. If it is necessary to renew it at the end of that time I am sure hon. members will be glad to extend the powers. No reason has been given as to why there should not be a time limit placed on this bill.
This afternoon the senior hon. member for Halifax made some remarks. I listened to them very carefully. The only conclusion I could come to was that he misunderstood the arguments of the opposition, or he was hauling a hogshead of red herrings from the east coast into this house.
Before this matter comes to a vote I should like to hear some further reason given by some members of the government as to why no time limit can be placed on this bill. As has already been said, the principle itself is wrong. We have struggled for years to build up parliament as we know it today.

Our ancestors struggled for hundreds of years before us. If we pass this bill we shall be taking a step in the opposite direction. If it were possible to bring people like William Ewart Gladstone and George Brown to this country to expound the principles of Liberalism of the last century, I should like to know what they would say about the content of this bill.


Mr. Croll:: So would I.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I say again that the principle of this bill is wrong. One reason might very well be that the suggestion of placing a time limit on the bill has been made by the opposition, which would automatically disqualify it. We have seen other evidence of that already during this session. We had a bill introduced by the hon. member for Prince Albert in connection with the pollution of interprovincial rivers. It was the most logical bill, but it was voted against by hon. members on the government side, apparently simply because it was introduced by a prominent member of the opposition. We have seen other evidence during this session of the negation of our parliamentary system.
Numerous questions have been asked about the Canadian National Railways, particularly about a hotel, but information has been denied the house on the ground that it was not in the public interest. We have heard of a well known article which has been written about creeping republicanism in the country, but I think this is a sample of creeping antirepublicanism.
In concluding my remarks I should like to say again that the whole principle of this bill is wrong, and before it is voted on I should like to hear an explanation from some member of the government-


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister preferably.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: -the right hon. Prime Minister or any other minister, as to why no time limit has been placed in this bill.


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, just as I started to speak I heard a remark, "small talk"; but it may develop into big talk. I was rather astounded at the statement by the Minister of Defence Production that he was irritated by the repetition of statements as to his ability and outstanding qualities. I would not doubt that for a moment, because he gets it continually from his own side. In fact other ministers get the same sort of repetitious statements as to how outstanding they are. Of course, as we have said on many occasions, I do not imagine they do not mean it. When you examine the amount of literature and propaganda that goes

out from the government side of the house, repeating time after time just how good the government are, and what wonders they have performed, I do not doubt for a moment that they do get fed up with some of their own malarkey, and they just cannot take more of it when it comes from this side of the house. Probably they do have a certain feeling of embarrassment at times over this continual repetition of their abilities.
The followers of the government have said they do not hear very many good speeches from this side of the house. Probably if some of the government followers were given an opportunity to say something we might hear a few good speeches. I do not doubt for a moment that there is hidden talent over there, and we would like to hear it. However, hon. gentlemen are generally silent when issues like this confront the country, and we hear very little from them.
When this bill was introduced it was said to be a simple bill. Sure it is simple; we all admit that. I suppose they thought they were talking to a lot of simpletons and they were going to get by with it, but now they find they are not.


An hon. Member:: Now we know.


Robert Hardy Small: The hon. member should be a good judge of that because he is among them so often. The first section of the bill is to correct an error made in not providing for a salary increase for the Minister of Defence Production. After listening to the fulsome adulation poured on the ministers by some of the government flunkeys I did not think these paragons of political virtue could possibly make an error, but once in a while they do come down to earth. I suppose they are human, and they have to make mistakes just to let others know that they belong to this world.
The second section is the result of experience gained through spending $17 or $18 billion that purged the department of dishonesty, maladministration and the difficulties that attend defence purchasing. The government amended the munitions and supply act of 1939 where experience indicated it was necessary. In effect they say that this is to be the bill of bills, drawing its pattern from all previous defence purchasing, without flaw or blemish. It certainly is a wonderful bill. This bill was introduced notwithstanding that the last bill was supposed to be the bill of bills to accomplish the same purpose and to be abandoned in 1956, but now they have found that it was not the bill of bills, and they have to introduce something else that is going to take its place. The Lord knows what it will be when we again get around to exam-
Defence Production Act ining this bill, if we can get them to set a date. Probably good fortune may attend us and the country may get rid of this government. We will then have a government that will restore the supremacy of parliament.
The minister has had the experience of spending $18 billion and this bill is drawn up to a pattern. It is too bad they did not have this experience a year or so ago in the defence department. Probably they could have avoided horses on the payroll, gilded pianos and floating dance floors. Oh, well, with the experience of the minister in spending $18 billion, what is a million? I suppose it can be said, "What is a million when it comes to defence purchasing?"


An hon. Member:: Or road construction.


Robert Hardy Small: You have had the experience and should know. They believe this to be a modest bill. It is very modest for sure. You know, they often try to hide their light under a bushel, but sometimes it burns the bushel on them and exposes them. They even go so far as to say that every country has the equivalent of our Defence Production Act. They contend that the acts in vogue in the United States and the United Kingdom have more power than this one. I have not read either the United States or the United Kingdom act, but without hesitation I say that statement will not stand up under examination. It is inaccurate. While this is termed a simple bill, it is without doubt an obnoxious one in that it is more harmful in what it does not say, and becomes iniquitous by deletion.
We would be guilty of a failure to meet our responsibilities as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition if we did not ferret out any dishonesty or evidence of dictatorship or autocratic power or arrogant conduct by the crown's officers, and reveal to the house and the people of Canada the manner in which the prerogatives of parliament are being filched. This is not a question of the minister's prestige, ability and all-round proven worth or political rectitude, as some hon. members have attempted to establish, but one of restoring and retaining parliament's right to determine, and preventing any derogation of its power.
We have had ample proof in their recent actions to make the country suspicious of the government's intentions, when they surreptitiously endeavoured to discard the word "royal" from its time-honoured use in dispatch of the royal mail, and the subtle juggling and attachment of the word "royal" to the national anthem by the Prime Minister. Then there is the effective way they have

Defence Production Act eliminated the use of the word "dominion" and brazenly announced that they would continue to do so, how, when, or where they desired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, can the hon. gentleman relate these inaccurate irrelevancies to the subject matter of this bill?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They are other instances of arbitrary power.


William Earl Rowe: Not very inaccurate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Completely false.


Robert Hardy Small: Recently they have introduced the use of the word "federal" in place of "dominion" in their process of attrition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman's line of argument if I can help it, but I do think he is getting a little away from the bill. The danger we always run into has been already pointed out. We are very likely to find ourselves heatedly debating the merits of the word "royal" or the word "dominion", or the merits of something other than the Defence Production Act. It is common knowledge that a member very often has to make comparisons with something other than the subject of the bill in order to emphasize his argument, but I am going to ask the hon. member for Danforth to come back as speedily as possible to the Defence Production Act.


Robert Hardy Small: Some say these matters are irrelevant. I think they are very relevant. I am pointing out what was done by this government in regard to taking away the supremacy of this parliament. I use these examples of how they have done it without even coming to the house. They say they are inaccurate; I deny that. They are accomplished facts. They have removed the word "royal" from the mails.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is absolutely false.


Robert Hardy Small: You put it back on again, and you did it in a hurry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is absolutely false.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: believe the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the hon. member for Danforth are just demonstrating, if I may say so, the soundness of the remarks I made a few moments ago, that we are going to be debating the merits and demerits of the use of the word "royal". I am afraid it is my duty to insist that we debate the merits or demerits of the Defence Production Act.
[Mr. Small.!


Robert Hardy Small: I conform to your ruling, but I did not ask for the interjection of these remarks. If the minister sits down until I am through, he will have his opportunity to say something, but he does not want to do that.
I am not going to allow that to distract me from the point I am trying to make, that this government has assumed powers on which they have not consulted the house. They have never brought these matters to the house for discussion in any shape or form. Irrespective of the interruptions, I am going to adhere to the point that they have assumed power they are not entitled to. They have taken powers in other ways than by coming to the house. I have drawn it to their attention, and evidently it is not going down very well. Have you any more questions you want to ask?


An hon. Member:: Can you find the place?


Robert Hardy Small: I can find it readily enough for you. Apart from making the supremacy of parliament an absurdity, it is evident now that anything that connotes loyalty to the crown, empire and commonwealth, and especially to Great Britain, is to be taken by this government as denoting subservience to the crown and therefore is to be played down, if not to be avoided outright, notwithstanding that had there not been such an entity as the United Kingdom, you would not be here today trying to weaken those bonds that have preserved our liberty and freedom of action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Rubbish!


Robert Hardy Small: The hon. member evidently must be a good judge of rubbish. This government has always advocated that our sovereignty must be preserved, that there shall be no abridgement of our autonomy, and that anything that savoured of an invasion of our sovereignty or autonomy must be strenuously resisted. Under this pretext, when Pier Britannic Majesty's government asked permission to train her airmen here, because of our greater facilities in this expansive dominion, she was denied that privilege which meant so much to her, saying it would infringe upon our autonomy.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down. You need a rest.


Robert Hardy Small: You evidently need a rest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Address the Speaker.


Robert Hardy Small: Did you hear any cries or yelps from this arrogant aggregation that we call our government when the armed forces of

another country, the United States, were given access to our great dominion to train their combatants, and to place them in actual combat areas? What became of our great sovereignty and autonomy of 1938 that was not to be infringed upon? Where is it now? How they can change their attitude and colours when it suits their purpose. Then you say, why not accept our word? Everything will be all right. Well, with a record like yours, and the ability to change your colour faster than any chameleon, do you expect us to be as silent as spectators at a Druids' council, the same as the inarticulate government followers who seem to be suffering from mental and physical dumbness?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it not a rule of this house that a member must address the Chair? Do all these remarks apply to Your Honour?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: confess to having had some slight difficulty in following the hon. member, and I was not too sure whether he was reading a quotation, in which case of course it would be in order, or making a speech. I am sure that now the point has been drawn to his attention he will direct his remarks to the Chair and to the bill under discussion.


Robert Hardy Small: I was reading some of the remarks in Hansard and trying to tie them in with remarks I wished to make relevant to the subject. I think I have accomplished enough to show that the government of this country are not particularly interested in the supremacy of this parliament. They have submitted to us that this is a very simple bill and that on its face there is no harm attached to it. Well, down through the years the same argument has been advanced by those seeking to take unto themselves authority to which they were not entitled. They say "the people are not capable of governing themselves, and therefore we must govern". When a government assumes powers to which it is not entitled there is always danger lurking. Yet in all the history of the country they have never been denied power at the time they wanted it. They can get it almost inside of a week if it is apparent that the danger is there. But this government wants to plan two or three years ahead for a danger that may not present itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Hardy Small: Oh, yes. It is the same old story. There is the plea that they must have power. They tell the people of the country, "You do as you are told and we will look after you; no harm will befall you". That is 50433-299
Defence Production Act the oriental philosophy introduced in this house if we are gullible enough to swallow it. As the opposition, we do not intend to swallow it. We intend to let the people of this dominion know that an attempt is being made to filch from them some of their rights and powers. Therefore, irrespective of how innocuous the government makes this bill appear, it still has that element of danger in it, that robs the people of the supremacy of this parliament.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, as it may be necessary at this time for me to talk a little longer than I usually do, I feel that I should perhaps apologize for being lengthy. I have always tried to follow the practice of being as brief as possible in my remarks. In fact one of my colleagues unflatteringly said that my speeches are short, sharp and shapeless. I do not know whether I should say that my speech now will be lengthy, light and loquacious. However, I want to preface my remarks with that comment.
Some person has unflatteringly termed this debate a filibuster. I could not help thinking back and wondering about the use of that word, which has had a good deal of prominence in the United States of America in the last few years. I do not know what the word "filibuster" means, because I did not have a chance to look it up, having had to prepare my brief notes hurriedly. Incidentally, may I say that debates of this sort give a person a chance to deliver the remarks he may make a little bit more from the heart and with more feeling than would be likely if he prepared his speech in guarded words.
In thinking of this term "filibuster" and the use of this word, one is reminded of the various filibusters that have taken place in the Senate of the United States. I recall reading of the senator in the United States who, in an attempt to filibuster some piece of legislation, read "Gone With the Wind" to the house. This filibuster gives one an idea of how this method can be used effectively to call public attention-as has been said- to these seemingly high-handed measures that are being proposed and which the government is attempting to put through the house in the closing days of the session, when we have important committee work and other duties to attend to.
In mentioning the United States, I was reminded of a recent honorary degree given by the University of New Brunswick to Senator Margaret Chase Smith, that distinguished woman senator from the state of Maine which borders Canada. Hon. Margaret

Defence Production Act Chase Smith was given the honour of delivering the encaenial address. At that time she delivered an oration that I know will be remembered by many in Fredericton. It was not my privilege to hear her, but I have read some of the remarks she made.
I should like to trace for a minute or two some of the pertinent issues she brought out with regard to the difficulty being experienced in the United States today, in the post-war world, to ensure that freedom of speech has been maintained. We are all familiar with the rise of McCarthyism within the last few years, and the pro-communist feeling that spread out in this great land to the south of us. In telling of this alarming condition that had been built up as a product of the war, Margaret Chase Smith referred to the American people-and I suppose she was thinking to some extent of those who were sitting in government-as mental mutes. Mr. Speaker, I say very seriously that I would not want to be considered a mental mute when an issue as important as this is before the house.
After referring to this difficulty that had cropped up in the United States and using the term "mental mutes", Margaret Chase Smith went on to say that fear and blind emotion had hit her fellow people, and that no more was independent thought available in the legislature and on the street where these issues should be originally considered. In completing her encaenial address she said she was quite pleased to report that they were able to combat that situation.
As we know, the rise of McCarthyism seems to have been stemmed for the time being, and in the United States there is a new feeling; under their new president, that great war leader Dwight Eisenhower, once more there seems to be the freedom of thought and the general freedom we all fought so hard to maintain in these last two great wars.
In regard to this piece of legislation which has the controversial section and which asks for extraordinary powers, I feel there are two important issues at stake, and it is rather difficult to separate them one from the other. I have loosely termed these two criticisms as bureaucracy and socialism. As you will note right off the bat, as the phrase goes, they are almost interchangeable. I will not attempt to separate my thoughts with respect to each, but I should like to deal first with this matter of bureaucracy, which has been covered more ably than I can do by the more brilliant lawyers of this party who appreciate the rule of law and what it means.
When the hon. member for Prince Albert makes his impassioned pleas in behalf of a bill of rights and the rule of law, I have


noticed how he is scorned and gibed at by those on the opposite side of the house. Even the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has once or twice referred to those strong pleas as the shades of the star chamber. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, star chamber or not, I think we all realize or should realize 

those of the legal profession perhaps more than the rest of us-the great principles that are involved in this rule of law, in this delegated legislation, and this term I have used when I refer to bureaucracy.
In coming down here late this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I happened to pick up a list of the members of the House of Commons. In running through it quickly I was wondering just how many of the lawyers on the opposite side of the house-those who should appreciate to the fullest extent the principles that are involved in this legislation-had taken this matter into consideration. I was wondering how much thought they have given to it, and the extraordinary powers that are sought. First of all I come to New Brunswick and the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy), a young lawyer starting out in his profession. I wonder how much consideration he has given to this legislation. I go down the list and in the province of Ontario I see the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth). I believe he is a lawyer. I wonder what he feels about this legislation.


Mr. Hollingworth:: I agree wholeheartedly.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then why do you not get up in the house, make a speech and defend yourself?


Allan Henry Hollingworth: Nobody else has a chance to say anything. You are talking all the time.


Thomas Miller Bell: You will have plenty of chance. You will be here until July 15.


Mr. Lesage:: It is all right for those who have been salmon fishing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: think perhaps we had better "get back to the Defence Production Act and address our remarks to the Chair.


Thomas Miller Bell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have lost my place in reading the names of the lawyers who I feel should be especially concerned about this matter. I believe they should be challenged to put their own thoughts on the record. If I am not mistaken the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is a lawyer. I think he has a master of law degree. Why has he not said something about this legislation? How about the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith)? He is a lawyer.


George James McIlraith: You can have the answer right now if you want it. The answer is that he is not like the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, and has not taken the whole day salmon fishing.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then there is the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton). He is in a law partnership in Montreal and always has definite thoughts. He has been our representative at New York, and must have run into the conflicts of other peoples of the world when they had to deal with these principles, these fundamental rights.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why not read the parliamentary guide?


Thomas Miller Bell: Then there is the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), one of the greatest fighters we have in the house for the rights of the people and other related subjects. We have not heard a word from him. Perhaps he will be around this week as this debate continues.


George James McIlraith: He was here all afternoon while you were out of the house.


Thomas Miller Bell: To come to the end of these references to other members, I think finally of one of our most distinguished jurists, a man who was head of the Canadian Bar Association, a man who definitely has thoughts on this subject, a man who has always been highly regarded. I refer of course to the Prime Minister. We have not heard from him. I wonder what the lawyers of the country are thinking about this man who has been some sort of idol of their profession. What are his thoughts on this fundamental right that is being done away with? Naturally I wondered what the lawyers thought about the issue of the rule of law, this delegated legislation, this piece of bureaucracy, and accordingly I went to the journals of the Canadian Bar Association.


George James McIlraith: The good lawyers think the Tories are making a terrible mess of the matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: In going back over the last few years-


William Earl Rowe: That shows the kind of lawyer you are.


Thomas Miller Bell: -I see that this subject has been dealt with in some way in practically every issue of the Canadian Bar Review. I know it is not necessary to read at length, but in order to give the house an example of what I mean I refer to volume 29 of the Canadian Bar Review for 1951. Just at random I picked out a very good article, which I had heard 50433-299i
Defence Production Act mentioned before, entitled "Judges, Politics and the Law", by W. Friedmann. The section of the article that is obviously pertinent here is entitled, "Functions of Government and the Administration of the Law". Of course the article refers particularly to politics and the law rather than to the actual judges themselves. In the article Mr. Friedmann mentions the transformation of the social pattern that has come about in the post-war world when it is necessary to have some sort of semi-mobilization of our forces even after passing through an emergency which was such a trial to the whole of western society. He goes on to say at page 823:
Such a transformation of society cannot but have a profound-though still largely unnoticed-effect on legal concepts and relations.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the point I am trying to make. I suggest that in the post-war world there has been a transformation of our society profound in its effect, but which as yet has not been too greatly felt and has gone unnoticed. Our lawyers, those watchdogs of our rights and the principles of common law, should feel that there is a responsibility and onus upon them to consider these matters, speak up and have their say. That is one article which was commended to me, and it is of fairly recent date. I did not search for articles, Mr. Speaker, but in every issue of the Canadian Bar Review there is comment on the gradual growth of administrative law, and reference to the cases and various decisions.
I turn now to another article found in volume 30, 1952, which deals very extensively with the question of inherent executive power and the steel seizure case, a landmark in American constitutional law. The reference of course is to the situation that arose when, on April 8, 1952, President Truman found it necessary to invoke certain powers and take over the steel industry.
There is one other article in the same volume that has come to my attention. It is found on page 791 and is entitled, "The War Power of the Dominion". The article begins with the British North America Act and traces the development of the various powers that have arisen. It points out that the only particular reference to war in any way in the British North America Act is of course, as we know, in section 92, which gives the residual power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada. Of course at that time the legislators did not envisage modern warfare and its related problems. The article deals with the cases, going back to our early history, and the conclusion is reached that there is an inherent danger, a danger that is not fully appreciated by all concerned.

Defence Production Act
The hon. member for Eglinton referred briefly in his remarks to a book which is very widely read nowadays, entitled "The Passing of Parliament" by Professor G. W. Keeton. Professor Keeton deals with the passing of parliament and the growth of delegated legislation in a most commendable way. He refers to the dangers I have mentioned and to the fact that there are two main criticisms today of our modern parliaments.
These criticisms are just as valid in England, where the opposition is almost equal in numbers to the government party. It is true that this balance has been upset to some extent in recent days. I think it was on May 26 that we received the good news. The issue in Great Britain is still the same, even when the opposition is nearly equal in numbers to that of the government. It is just as dangerous as in Canada where the opposition is, I think we can modestly say, effective even though its numbers are few. It is for that reason we have considerable difficulty in focusing the attention of the country on this issue. It is for that reason we have to strain various methods in order to prove the principle of the supremacy of parliament, and bring out these issues. It is the duty of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to do that job.
This article to which I have referred is entitled "The Passing of Parliament," and I cannot help but think back to the various articles in the newspapers that seem to have been given a bit of prominence in the last year or two. I am not going to read this next article, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say it is a very good one. It is written by Frank Flaherty and it is entitled "Public Discussion called Press Freedom Safeguard". Mr. Flaherty in this commendable article of recent date discusses the bill of rights and the great fight that has been waged by the hon. member for Prince Albert in that respect. He refers to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and others who have spoken in this regard. He mentions the preservation of freedoms of all kinds.
He refers to the freedom of the press. We all know that the freedom of the press can only be implemented to its fullest extent when these issues are brought out in the only effective way that can be done, by such discussions as these in parliament when hon. members do not read these prepared speeches. We are all guilty of that to some extent, but we feel that perhaps hon. members opposite are a little guiltier. This is an opportunity that comes up every now and then. It gives hon. members a chance


to speak without too much preparation, to give their own thoughts and feelings about conditions in this world today.
In connection with this same subject, I might say that if Canada's only desire was to wage war efficiently we could solve many of our problems for a time. At such a time even a democracy completely abandons much of the freedom upon which it ordinarily sets such store:	All is subordinated to military
necessity, but the chickens come home to roost at last as democracies and dictatorships alike learned after the last war. This is a lesson we have learned to our sorrow. All I hope to state here is that a democracy, soundly based upon free opinion and the judgment of responsible people, in the long-run weathers the storm better than those governments which are least responsible to public opinion.
I have dealt as effectively as possible with the first step I mentioned, and which I placed under the heading of bureaucracy. If I may just review what I said in that regard, I traced the rule of law and mentioned the passing of parliament; all that sort of thing. There was one other article which commended itself to me most highly, and I should like to give credit in that regard. It referred to this same issue, and with this I shall leave it, Mr. Speaker. It referred to "The Passing of Parliament" by Keeton, and appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 3, 1954. It was written by James McCook, who has more than an ordinary interest in these various issues that come up and the principles that are behind our form of government.
Mr. McCook went on to ask whether parliament had been supplanted, and he suggested that government by the people is the least perfect. He referred to the controls that had been built up in England by this delegated legislation, and he likened it somewhat to the similar legislation which is showing itself in a very ugly way in this fair dominion of ours. Let me paraphrase him, Mr. Speaker. He said the fact that parliament should impose its will on an individual is nothing new, but the tendency is for parliament to give arbitrary powers to boards and to by-pass the courts where the citizen has been accustomed to seek justice. In most departments of government today no minister could possibly keep track of all that is happening. He has to depend more and more on the civil service, which in consequence has great power. Then the article continues:
He says that if a member says a word about the civil service the minister of the department concerned immediately declares, "I am responsible; attack me".
How strange it is that the responsible ministers who have placed this legislation

on the statute books do not come forth and say "I am responsible; attack me". Why do they not stand up, along with the other hon. members of the legal profession and say what is in their minds?
I have dealt as effectively as possible, and as briefly as I could, Mr. Speaker, with this very important first issue, that of bureaucracy. I should like to turn for a few minutes to the growth of socialism.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Before the hon. member starts that section of his address, I think it is my duty to point out to him that I interrupted a member earlier in this debate and refused to assume responsibility for permitting a debate on the Defence Production Act to become a debate on the abstract merits or demerits of socialism. I am not calling the hon. member to order in any way. I am just saying that perhaps it would be fair to him if I were to say at this stage that we would expect him to connect his remarks directly to the bill concerned.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate your remarks very much, and I realize fully that an out and out discussion of socialism would not be in order. I simply meant to imply, and I shall leave it at that, that these autocratic powers and their connection with socialism is my second point. I feel the fact that the newspapers have taken this up and have said that socialism is the real issue in this debate-


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a socialist, may I point out that it is six o'clock?


Thomas Miller Bell: May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: If I may have a few moments, I should like to announce the business of the house for the rest of the week so hon. members may be guided accordingly. On Friday the Minister of Fisheries announced that we would continue with this debate, and take after it the international river improvements bill and the Municipal Grants Act. This, of course, will be the order of business tonight should this debate conclude.
Tomorrow we shall take third reading of the unemployment insurance bill first, then proceed with whatever may not have been disposed of tonight in connection with the international river improvements bill and the municipal grants bill. Then we shall take the two C.N.R. financing bills, and sometime before Wednesday afternoon the resolution stage of the prairie farm assistance bill. I understand there may not be very much debate on that resolution. I would hope there would not be, and for this reason. The
Defence Production Act Minister of Agriculture will be here on Friday, and I should like to take second reading of the bill at that time. Beginning Thursday morning we shall take the estimates of the Department of National Defence, and we shall continue with those estimates and with the estimates of fisheries and of the Secretary of State throughout Thursday and Friday, with the exception of the period that will be taken on Friday with respect to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, just so there will be no misunderstanding, since this debate will not finish tonight, do I understand then that we shall start tomorrow with the third reading of the unemployment insurance bill?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, and then the international river improvements bill and the Municipal Grants Act.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe, Port Arthur (for Mr. St. Laurent) for the second reading of Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, dealing with this matter before supper I had referred to two matters which I felt were quite dangerous in this arbitrary and extraordinary measure that is before us. First of all I referred to the bureaucracy which I felt was inherent in it. I mentioned the rule of law as a related subject. I referred to Senator Margaret Chase Smith of the United States, who had shown concern over similar matters. I mentioned that in an address in New Brunswick she said that after the war they had become quite alarmed because of McCarthy-ism and other issues of the day, and due to the fact that the people had become mental mutes, as she put it. She mentioned that there had been some difficulty, but that today things seemed to be in better shape with a strong government.
Second, I referred to the socialism which I felt was a danger in this and Mr. Speaker quite rightly said I should be restrictive in my remarks in that regard. I intend to be so, but I feel that I must try to distinguish this
4730	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Defence Production Act socialism from the bureaucracy I first mentioned. I said at six o'clock that there was cause for worry in the socialism, not in any great broad sense but in the sense that autocratic powers were there. There was an insidious smell, if I may use that word, of a planned economy.
Very briefly I should like to mention what I mean. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the fact that all the cliches have been trotted out during this debate. I am wondering if this is not a pretty good time for those cliches to be brought out.
I do feel that this is quite important. As . said when I referred to the problem of bureaucracy, I feel that those who should be concerned with the principles of law involved here are not showing interest to the extent of indicating their feelings in this matter.
I grant that they may be interested, that in the corridors they are showing tremendous interest, but after all the house is the place where that interest should be shown and where they should indicate what are their feelings. It may be that they have some plausible and reasonable explanation for this.
The socialism which I mentioned, and as to which I am restricted in my reference, is hard to picture in this legislation. In England socialism is dying; we see evidence of that in the denationalization of the steel industry. We know that in Canada socialism has not been able to get very far. In the United States a strong republican government is in power and the welfare state, or statism as they call it there, is on the decline. In Australia there are no gains, and in France, Belgium and Holland socialism is on the wane.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was kind enough to say when he commenced that he would follow the advice tendered by the deputy chairman of committees who was acting as Speaker earlier in the day. I think perhaps he is getting away from the suggestion made to him not to discuss the abstract problem of socialism versus bureaucracy, or both working together hand in hand.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate Your Honour's comment in this regard, and perhaps I can leave it at that. My suggestion is that in this legislation there is so-called creeping socialism, which must be apparent to all concerned. I suggest that lawyers on the other side of the house should have picked it out immediately, but evidently they have not. I suggest that in this legislation there is the means of maintaining a socialist welfare system, of dislocating capitalism and at the same time furthering the ends of that party.

The issues are drawn; it is one of the most clear-cut positions that could possibly be maintained. It is amazing, the inconsistency shown by that party. It was slow to take its part, rightly or wrongly, in the war in 1939; it had reservations about West Germany, and yet here where extraordinary powers are being given to one man the socialists want to climb aboard and support the proposal. I suggest that they are doing this because they see here something that can be used to further their own ends.
Our position is definite and clear in connection with the powers that may be hidden in various pieces of legislation. We have suggested that a body similar to the Hoover commission be set up. There was an investigation in Great Britain into cabinet power, and we feel that something should be done here. It is interesting to note that once such power is obtained by a government in various small ways they never wish to give it up. I would refer more specifically to the identity cards which were instituted during the war in the allied countries. They were necessary for registration purposes, but they have been continued in some form in those places. There is an example of the danger I see. Once power is given it is never taken away.
I was interested in reading in the papers today reference to the granting of a guaranteed annual wage in the United States. General Motors were not as concerned about this plan as was Ford, because they knew that the cost of the guaranteed annual wage could be added to their war contracts. I suggest that perhaps that is another reason for it.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I shall simply restate my position and say that in my opinion the arbitrary powers asked for in this legislation show two very worrisome dangers. They deal with our fundamental principles of government. I have placed them under two headings. Perhaps they are a little hard to distinguish. I mentioned the bureaucracy that is present. I referred to the derogation of the rule of law. I called on the reputable lawyers in this house. I stated what the younger lawyers of my own age thought of it, though they may be immature. I ended up with the former president of the Canadian Bar Association, an eminent jurist whom we respect and whose thoughts I am sure we will be interested in hearing on how these matters may affect future generations.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to tie in my thoughts as far as socialism is concerned. It has been suggested that this is the issue. I realize that our discussion is

restricted, but I should just like to say that when Sir Stafford Cripps came into the government in England-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not going to quote or even paraphrase, Mr. Speaker, I am just using this to illustrate. Sir Stafford wrote an essay entitled "Can Socialism come by Constitutional Methods?'' In it he said that his first step would be to place on the books a bill wide enough in its terms that all that would be immediately necessary could be done by ministerial orders, and these orders must be incapable of challenge in the courts or in any way except in the house. Even that last restriction has not been applied here.


Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker-


John Horace Dickey: All the salmon fishermen are entertaining us tonight.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals in a hurry to my immediate left need hurry no longer, because the government has caught up with them and is apparently going to pass them, if this bill carries in its present form. The socialists will then be carried on the Liberal bandwagon. That is the situation we face tonight if the bill we have before us passes in its present form. Indeed when we try to analyse the issue-


An hon. Member:: You are not serious.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Indeed I am. We have some quotations in which the socialist party may be interested, from their own remarks of four years ago. Before we come to that, it may be desirable to state in as simple terms as possible the issue we have before us. That is, that all parties in the house today are prepared to see the Department of Defence Production placed upon a permanent basis in order that the minister may have the necessary legislative authority for the recruitment of officials and the making of plans for the procurement of defence requirements. The official opposition are not prepared to see the act continued without any limitation upon the arbitrary controls placed in the hands of the minister and the governor in council.
We are stating here no new proposition. I see that the Prime Minister is in sudden unity with the Minister of Defence Production in the house. I remind the Prime Minister that four years ago, when the Defence Production Act was introduced on his motion, as this extending bill was introduced on his motion, a limitation was written into the duration of the act. That has had two effects, namely that the authority of the department itself would expire on July 31, 1956, unless otherwise extended; and, more important,
Defence Production Act that the sweeping, arbitrary powers given the governor in council and the minister would also expire on that date.
At that time the Prime Minister felt that was a proper limit to write into the bill. We have heard no word whatsoever, since this present motion was introduced, as to why it is no longer proper to write in a time limit on those arbitrary powers. The house, I know, awaits with interest-indeed, I might almost say with anxiety-an explanation from the Prime Minister as to why in 1955 it should not be necessary or desirable to have the same limitation.
Of course, the Prime Minister has been in office for four years longer now than when the bill was first introduced. So perhaps he, along with the rest of his colleagues, has fallen under the magic spell of the Minister of Defence Production. This seems to indicate that so far as those on the other side are concerned, at any rate, arbitrary powers are their own justification; and that whereas four years ago the house was entitled to an explanation as to their necessity and as to a time limit in the bill so the house might have an opportunity to review the exercise of those powers, in 1955, four years later, no such safeguards or parliamentary jurisdiction or supremacy are necessary.
Of course we should also bear in mind that we are discussing this measure tonight under the circumstance that some three months ago, when the resolution was first introduced, the Prime Minister himself indicated that the government would be prepared to consider what was after all a reasonable request, namely that they should try to write into the act some time limit with regard to the duration of these arbitrary powers. During the four days this debate has been in progress-today and Thursday, Wednesday and Tuesday of last week-we have had no explanation from the right hon. gentleman as to why he came to the decision that it would not be possible to write such a limitation into the act.
Why is it that what was a reasonable suggestion in March of this year we should now be asked to regard as an unreasonable suggestion? Why is it that tonight all my hon. friends of the socialist party are clamouring as loudly as my hon. friends of the Liberal party to have the question voted on and to get it through? They say we should have the vote; we do not need the arguments. What reason is there that now, in June, the house should be denied an explanation? Why is it that what was reasonable three months ago is no longer reasonable? The only conclusion one can draw is that the Minister of Defence Production has once again had

Defence Production Act his undisputed way with the cabinet. What are we left to conclude are the reasons of the government as to why this measure should carry without a time limit on the exercise of these arbitrary powers?
There have been remarkably few speakers on the government side. There has been the Minister of Defence Production himself, to whose speech I shall have occasion to make reference later, and there has been his parliamentary assistant, the senior member for Halifax. I say this with regret, but it appears to me that to such straits are the government reduced that the best argument they can make in favour of the bill is a complete distortion of the statements of hon. members on this side.
I have been informed of the arguments used by the hon. senior member for Halifax this morning. I must say that he read into the statements of members on this side of the house, such as that of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery), that which just is not there. Of course, as I say, the hon. member may be hard put to it to find an argument, but I should hope that he can find something better than the complete distortion of what is said by those on this side of the house.
He accused the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton of having said-and I think his words were "having said in ringing tones"- that we will do anything the Minister of Defence Production asks. If I recall correctly what the hon. gentleman said, he repeated the statement; he repeated that the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton said that we on this side of the house would do anything the minister asked.
All I can say is that I have had the opportunity of reading in detail the speech of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, and I have asked my colleagues to read it. Between us we have read it some three or four times. Nowhere in that speech, and nowhere in the statements of anyone on this side of the house, is there such an absurd, inconsistent, meaningless and ridiculous statement that we have made such an abdication of our responsibilities as members of parliament that we will do anything the minister asks.
What we did say was this, and we say it again. We are prepared to support the proposal to place the Department of Defence Production on a permanent basis so long as the need for that department can be justified; but we are not prepared to consent to the continuation, without limit, of wartime powers-indeed, powers that go far beyond some of those that were taken in wartime- in time of peace to the complete denial of the

principle of the supremacy of parliament, the principle of responsible government and the principle of the rule of law.
In the course of this debate we have heard one statement and a number of irrelevant interruptions from the Minister of Defence Production. I should have said that we have heard two statements from the Minister of Defence Production in which he was or attempted to be somewhat placatory and to reassure us on this side of the house; these statements were to the effect that the minister did not mean to take away from parliament any rights that belonged to it, but that all he was asking for were powers that he would exercise only in the national interest.
The fact remains, however, that the minister asks for arbitrary powers for an unlimited period of time. The minister is there in his place. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is in his place beside him. If I am incorrect in my statement that what is asked for here is the continuation of arbitrary powers for an unlimited period of time, I should be glad to be corrected. In the absence of any correction I take it that my statement represents the facts with which this house is confronted.
I should like to refer the house-and I hope the words may be read by a wider audience than this house, Mr. Speaker, or even yourself-to statements which I find contained in a pamphlet entitled "The Rule of Law". The pamphlet is headed "A Study by the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society". It is published on the authority of the Conservative political centre in the United Kingdom. I make reference to the auspices under which this pamphlet is published because, as I shall have occasion to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house later, if there is one thing that characterizes those of conservative mind throughout the world- here in Canada, as in the United Kingdom and in all the other commonwealth countries -and differentiates them so completely from those who now follow what they call Liberal tenets or socialist tenets, it is our dedication to the principles of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law.
In the foreword to this pamphlet I find words that might well commend themselves to and I think should command the attention -though I doubt whether they will-of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production. Those- words are as follows:
Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal and there is no man but is bound to resist it to the best of his power, whenever it shall show its face in the world. It is a crime to bear it when it can be rationally shaken off . . . Law and arbitrary power are in dreadful enmity.

These are the words of a great Conservative, and they are as true today as they were when they were uttered. As I say, they are the words of a great Conservative; I refer to Edmund Burke.
What are we faced with here? We are faced with a demand or ultimatum to parliament that we continue in the hands of the governor in council and of the Minister of Defence Production arbitrary power for an unlimited time, the necessity for which and the duration of which there has been no shadow of justification shown. So we rest our case on the principle enunciated by Burke, namely that it is a crime to bear such arbitrary power when it can be rationally shaken off-as it can be now-and that law and arbitrary power are in dreadful enmity.
Then just in case you, Mr. Speaker, or my colleagues in this house or the people of the country should wonder whether I am not overstating the case when I say the Minister of Defence Production has laid down an ultimatum not only to us in the house but to his colleagues in the cabinet, I refer you to words which he used when the act, the continuation of which is now sought, was being discussed in this house on March 8, 1951. Then as you will recall for four or five days we discussed the various proposals of that bill in committee. Admitting as we do now the necessity for a defence production act, but seeking on every occasion to bring about a realistic limitation of these arbitrary powers, we suggested amendments to a number of sections which would have the effect of preserving the rights of the Canadian people and the rights of this parliament.
I was redding the debate again tonight, and I found what I thought I recollected. As reported at page 1040 of Hansard of 1951,
I find the following words. After a specific suggestion had been made by the official opposition for an amendment to one of the clauses, the minister agreed at first that the section might stand for further consideration. After that the minister got the bit in his teeth, and when he was asked by the deputy chairman "Shall section 36 stand?" he was reinforced by his colleague, that other keeper of the King's conscience, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) who said as follows:
I think we might pass section 36, and then if an amendment is brought in it will relate to the matter of crown liability in any event.


Howard Charles Green: There are two other sections standing now, and I do not think it would hurt to allow this one to stand.
Then we have these classical words uttered by the Minister of Defence Production:
Mr Howe: We are going to take those sections and pass them. This is the third or fourth day we have been on this bill. We have spent enough time. We have been very patient.
Defence Production Act There is the attitude of the minister-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Don't point your finger at me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is the attitude of the minister: "We are going to take those sections and pass them; we have spent enough time". The minister now comes before us in the guise of one who seeks to maintain the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. In his speech last Tuesday the minister denied that this is the abrogation of the rule of law.
I should like to read further from this Conservative and Unionist pamphlet to which I have already referred. The minister says that, after all, we are asked to pass here in parliament a law that will vest him and the government with these arbitrary powers, and that we may be certain they will only exercise them in the best interests of the people of Canada. He says that we need have no worry about entrusting arbitrary powers into the hands of this great and good government. After having made an exhaustive study of this whole question, this is what this pamphlet has to say about those who would thus unthinkingly entrust into the hands of the executive such arbitrary powers over the lives and fortunes of the people: They say this:
We have learnt again the lesson of history- that those who are not ready-
I refer particularly to my socialist friends and my friends across the house who are shouting and clamouring to have the question put and the bill passed. They do not want to have any more discussion. They do not want to investigate what is going on. They do not want to examine the possibilities and the logical outcome of the course they are asking us to take tonight, and I commend these words to them:
We have learnt again the lesson of history- that those who are not ready to lay out today the small change of vigilance must pay out tomorrow the great ransom of slavery.


Mr. Herridge:: There is a great difference between vigilance and verbosity.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend says there is a great difference between vigilance and verbosity. He is quite right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are getting too much of the latter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But I suggest to him he has demonstrated neither the one nor the other, and by his silence has indicated that he is prepared to let liberty pass without even the effort of uttering a word to defend it, just as so many on the other side appear prepared to do.
4734	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act Four years ago, when the bill to bring into being the defence production department was before the house, we objected to the broad and sweeping powers that were given to the minister, to the governor in council, to the controllers and investigators who could be appointed by the minister and who were not even to be held responsible in courts of law for their acts, provided they were done after they had been appointed. The minister objected. He said, "We cannot leave these things to the courts of law". Why, heavens above, he said, the courts of law take time to consider the rights of the citizen and whether or not the rights of the citizen have been trammelled and trampled upon. He said "We are not prepared to allow that time. Leave it to us, the government, and we will ensure that the liberties and rights of citizens are protected".
The Conservative party in the United Kingdom, having surveyed these and similar arguments, came to this conclusion:
This is not the first time in our history that problems of law and liberty have arisen. In the 17th century, too. claims were put forward that the executive could be trusted to act to the best advantage of the country as a whole; that the sec. tional interests represented in parliament should be kept to their proper sphere, which was discussion rather than interference with the exercise of prerogative powers; that the rigidity of courts of law, with their emphasis on individual rights, hindered efficient administration; that executive processes should be justiciable, if at all, by tribunals more flexible, less bound by precedent, more cognizant of administrative needs than the traditional courts.
Then they go on to say:
Freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of discussion, the principle that no one should be compelled to pay fines or taxes or to suffer loss of property except in accordance with an act of parliament interpreted in independent courts of law-
All these principles are denied by the minister, denied by the legislation we have before us tonight.
these great bulwarks of our civil liberty were firmly established.
It is therefore a denial of the constitution when these great bulwarks of liberty are set aside, as they would be under this bill. Then too, Mr. Speaker, we had the Minister of Defence Production denying in the house last Tuesday that to pass this bill, and thus to continue for an indefinite term the arbitrary powers with which he and the government are vested, would be an abrogation of parliamentary supremacy. Once again, in case it should be hard to believe, as indeed I find it hard to believe in the light of some of the provisions of the act which are to be continued for an indefinite period, I should like to read what the minister said as reported 

at page 4510 of Hansard for Tuesday, June 7. At that time the minister said:
At the resolution stage the Leader of the Opposition implied that in asking for the continuation of the Defence Production Act the government is getting away from the traditional methods of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary responsibility, and that there is a denial of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. I must admit that I am only a layman in this field-
That reminds me a little of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) who says he is only a poor, uneducated man, but he is not uneducated in the exercise of arbitrary power. The Minister of Defence Production continued:
X must admit that I am only a layman in this field, but it seems to me that this is not the case. Under our present parliamentary procedures the house has an opportunity to review the responsibilities and functions of each department at least once a year, when the estimates are being considered. Traditionally this is the way in which legislation can be examined critically, the way in which it can be determined whether or not it meets the needs and conditions of the times.
The minister was suggesting to us that by a review of his departmental estimates when they came before us we could achieve the result we desire. We do not know when that may be. Perhaps he will follow the lead of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), who when he was minister of citizenship and immigration found there were certain controversial matters in his department and held off his estimates deliberately until the day scheduled for the closing of the session. The governor general had been summoned to come and close parliament, but the minister said, "You will have an opportunity for a full and adequate discussion of everything my department does."
I find no indication that the Minister of Defence Production has shown any interest in having his estimates brought on early in this session. That is the cold comfort with which this house is to be left as a compensation for passing this legislation, with its continuation for an unlimited term of these sweeping and arbitrary powers. I point out also that in the department there are but seven items covering $26 million; just seven items in the minister's whole department, of which one is statutory so parliament will never have an opportunity to debate it.
I ask you, sir, could anything be more ridiculous, could anything be more indicative of the effrontery, the buffoonery with which parliament is confronted, than to be asked to take that as a guarantee we will have the opportunity to make a thorough review of the exercise of these arbitrary powers? That is the effrontery with which parliament is confronted in the words of the

minister. I have heard those words echoed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. party, a gentleman whom I normally find to be somewhat impressed with the importance of maintaining the supremacy of parliament. But no, he has fallen victim to the trap. He says it is all right to pass these bills containing arbitrary powers because we can review the operation of the acts on the parliamentary estimates.
All my hon. friends of the socialist party have fallen victim to the same line of reasoning and are clamouring and banging their desks to get the bill through, knowing perfectly well that in the examination of the estimates there is afforded to the house a very imperfect and slight opportunity for a real review of what goes on behind the closed doors of the governor in council, the cabinet, and the exercise of ministerial discretion and passage of ministerial decrees. To talk about reviewing these things done in secret in the committee of supply is but a travesty of the democratic process.
I have here again the words of the pamphlet to which I have referred, "Rule of Law", a study carried out by a committee comprising a large number of members of parliament in the United Kingdom, members who had had experience both in opposition and in government at the time the pamphlet was written. Dealing with the question of the adequacy of the committee of supply to review the exercise of such arbitrary powers exercised in secret, they say:
Whatever the theoretical validity of this argument, those of us who are members of parliament have no hesitation in saying that it bears little relation to reality.
Parliament has neither the time nor the knowledge to supervise the minister and call him to account for his administrative decisions. Take the case where the minister appoints an inspector to hold a public inquiry and to report to him.
Let me paraphrase that for a moment. I say, take the case where the minister appoints a controller to take over a business and be responsible to him alone. The authors of the pamphlet then continue:
The report is not made public, nor does any outsider know what facts or arguments may be put forward to the minister after the inquiry has closed. Furthermore, the minister often fails to state, or state with sufficient fulness-
How often have we been confronted with that situation here in committee of supply?
-on what facts or reasons his ultimate decision is based. Where, then, is the material on which parliament can exercise control to prevent injustice? Even where a miscarriage comes to light, it is generally too late for redress.
Then they refer to a number of cases in the United Kingdom. I point out to you, sir,
Defence Production Act that in our own special committee on estimates there were about 10 votes when that committee asked for information or the production of documents or called for witnesses. What about the cases in which we in this house have voted for the production of information which has been refused to us under the new doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister, that parliament is entitled only to the information which he and the majority he commands decide it is good for parliament to have? Those are the circumstances under which we are asked to hand over these arbitrary powers to a minister. The Prime Minister laughs and I do not blame him, because he has succeeded in hoodwinking his own followers. He knows he can laugh safely because, after all, they have the votes over there and they have no need for argument.
The pamphlet continues:
But even the pretence-
The Prime Minister may be interested in these words because they show the extent of the alliance between him and his government and the socialists.
-that parliamentary control can play any part as a safeguard has been virtually abandoned. Lord Silkin, a former socialist minister of town and country planning, has spoken on this problem from his wide experience of administration.
Then they quote Lord Silkin's words.
These are administrative decisions, and one does not want these matters-and, as I have indicated, there are thousands of them-to come into the arena of politics. It would lead to the asking of many questions, to questions in the house and to debates in the house on individual decisions, and it would considerably tie the hands of the minister. After all, parliamentary democracy would become impossible if every single administrative act of a minister were to become a subject ot debate, of delay and of controversy. One recognizes that parliament has every right to deal with policy, and no one wishes to stifle discussions on policy, but on the detailed day-to-day implementation of policy it can really become very burdensome and the machine could be entirely clogged if every single decision were subject to the possibility of public debate in this house or another place.
That is the end of the quotation from Lord Silkin, a socialist minister of town and country planning. The authors of the pamphlet continue:
These words are no more than a realistic appraisal of the facts of political and administrative life. They make it perfectly clear, if further testimony were needed, that parliamentary control provides no effective safeguard to the citizen aggrieved by official injustice.
Well, sir, that is the situation which confronts us tonight. The government is asking parliament to approve this bill which continues without limitation the arbitrary powers including the power of administrative decision, the power to regulate the economy, to dispossess a citizen of his property by secret

Defence Production Act order in council without recourse to the courts of law. Parliament is asked to set the stamp of its approval upon the principle enunciated by Lord Silkin, with the inevitable results stated in this pamphlet that the citizen aggrieved by official injustice would have no effective recourse whatsoever. I say to you, sir, that we of the Conservative party, holding true as we do to the principle of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law, will have no part in such legislation.
As I said earlier, it is interesting to see how the words of the Prime Minister, enunciated on an earlier occasion, have come home to roost. I recall that when he was appealing to the people of Canada for support in an election he said to those who might otherwise have voted for the socialists, "Do not vote for them; vote for us because they are only Liberals at heart. They just want to introduce the socialist state a little sooner than we will introduce it". Here we have the complete circuit, and the Prime Minister's words are brought home in a real, forceful manner. Here we have the Prime Minister introducing a bill but, for some reason which I am unable to understand, not having the respect for parliament to speak to the motion which introduces this dictatorial step; and he has the complete support of my friends of the socialist party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You just got back to town, did you?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I just got back to town, but I have read all the debates. I might just have come in where I went out four years ago, when my socialist friends were again supporting a bill to give dictatorial powers to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. At that time the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) made a speech, and I wonder whether or not he is any closer to the Senate than he was a few years ago. Only the Prime Minister can give the answer.
At that time both the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a proposition to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In considering the affinity between the Liberals, as represented by the government opposite, and the socialists, it would be well to remind ourselves of this proposal. I refer to the reaction to the proposal made by the Minister of Defence Production as reported at page 918 of Hansard for March 5, 1951. Referring to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the minister said:
a business proposal and coming from a socialist member we certainly have heard no more about it. He went on to say:
He and the member for Winnipeg North Centre are going to build and pay for a plant in Winnipeg, and I am to give them special depreciation to write it off over a period. The hon. member will recall that you cannot take special depreciation except for cash paid on the line.


George James McIlraith: Go ahead, read the next sentence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Very well, I shall read the rest of it. I did not realize my hon. friends wanted me to take any longer.


George James McIlraith: Your colleagues didn't
realize that when they were quoting, they were being followed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I admit I was wrong in my forecast of what would be happening over the succeeding years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not sure that the Prime Minister made any forecast. If he was wrong in his forecast, was he wrong in principle in attempting to forecast the length of the period within which parliamentary supremacy would be denied and the rule of law would be overturned and absolute power would be given to the governor in council and the minister? Is the Prime Minister saying he was wrong in principle, or wrong in the time limit?


William Earl Rowe: Wrong both ways, I guess.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Make your speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hear some snarls from across the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think I shall leave it that way. If the Prime Minister was wrong-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Order. Your time has expired; sit down.
Defence Production Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: -in principle-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -it amounts to the same thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. If the house desires to give the hon. member unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Earl Rowe: Get this through and we will not need parliament at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
the house ready for the question?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I paused in the hope that we might hear from the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would end the debate.


George Alexander Drew: I had hoped the Prime Minister would indicate that he was going to speak. In spite of the fact that there have been occasions when the Secretary of State has had a good deal to do with the activities of the Prime Minister, I feel sure this is not one of them.


Jean Lesage: The Secretary of State is not here.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker; I forgot the Canadian baby is with us tonight; to give him his correct name, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The Prime Minister placed in his name the original motion which introduced this bill in 1951. On that occasion he saw fit to explain to the house why he regarded a measure of this kind as being necessary after the years of war had passed. The Prime Minister made it quite clear that there was some reluctance about introducing an arbitrary measure of this nature. When the bill was introduced following the resolution to which I have referred, the statement was made on behalf of the government that this act had been given a definite time limit for a particular reason. I referred to that fact when this subject was under discussion earlier this session.
Three months ago when the resolution came before the house stating that it was expedient that this bill be introduced, it was pointed out to the Prime Minister that there had been a statement on behalf of the government that the time limit was no accident but was established for a particular reason. The reason was this:
There is no particular significance to this date, other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature.

Defence Production Act
The Prime Minister agreed by nodding his assent, as recorded in Hansard, because I spoke of it when we were discussing this and said it represented a statement on behalf of the government. It could not be otherwise under our system of government in Canada. The Prime Minister knows this measure was introduced with the assurance to all hon. members that there were powers that should not be of a continuing nature. My remarks, therefore, should have particular meaning to hon. members on the other side because it is they who have been indicating their disapproval of the extended discussion which has been taking place.
What are those powers which should not be continued? Let the Prime Minister tell us. We know the Minister of Defence Production does not understand the legal aspects of this bill; he has told us so. But the Prime Minister, as Prime Minister and as a lawyer, does know. He knows that the statement made in this house by the Minister of Defence Production is not in accordance with the facts. That imposes an obligation on him, both as Prime Minister and as a legal member of the government, to correct the misstatement which has been made. That is one reason the acquiescence of the Liberals and the maudlin laughter of the socialists require some clarification, and from the Prime Minister himself.
The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that the statement by the Minister of Defence Production that the powers in this act are less than the powers in the act in the United Kingdom and in the act in the United States is not only not correct but is remote from the facts, and so far remote that no parliamentary word can be used to describe the statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Go on, go on.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, you will hear plenty before ten o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: These pauses are not effective.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have his gracious permission.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, I even have the special permission of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there is one reason why it is going to take me a little longer than usual to deal with these problems tonight. It is that the measure before us is one which should receive the attention of people outside of this house, particularly of the newspapers, which have the opportunity to give it attention under our freedom of speech which is


still intact, thank God. They should devote more attention to what will be the impact of this bill.
It was pointed out this afternoon, and pointed out correctly, that the newspapers should have a special reason for being interested in this measure. Under this bill, no matter what the present intentions of this government may be, the activities of newspapers could be so seriously curtailed that freedom of speech could become merely a theoretical right. Do not let any complacent hon. members opposite, who have shown their impatience during the last few days, suggest for one moment that this could not be done. If they will read back over the reports of this department they will find that already there has been under this act an order dealing with newsprint. It is true that that order was not in the nature of curtailment that could be easily imposed on another occasion, but the fact that the supply of newsprint could be dealt with under this act is proved by what has already been done by the minister who now seeks these continuing powers.
Then again let us remember that the newspapers of this country have most properly been devoting some attention from time to time to the need for vigilance on the part of the opposition. After all, we are constantly reminded of the place of the members of the press under our parliamentary system. They are the fourth estate; they are part of our parliamentary system, and naturally we pay great attention to those newspapers which with their freedom of speech are able to discuss public affairs and present opinions from an objective point of view. We welcome the recommendation that the opposition should be vigilant.
I hope it will not be regarded as exceeding our interest in public affairs if we urge that the newspapers also be vigilant. I mention this tonight because I hope that before next week, when the debate is resumed, the newspapers will have examined carefully the legislation now before the house and will have considered what the effect of legislation of this kind can be, not only upon the rights of parliament but upon the rights of free speech and of a free press here in Canada.
Not only is it parliament and the press that are required to be vigilant; the public should be vigilant. After all, in this house we represent all the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Will the hon. member kindly state what he has to state in audible words?


Mr. Byrne:: We are paid to listen to you; the public is not.


George Alexander Drew: That is the first intelligent remark that has come from the other side during this debate. What should be remembered is that it is the public who are paying the hon. member to represent them, and he should do it. He should get up in his place and speak in this debate as a Liberal, with some recognition of the traditions of his party. I can tell him that this is the first time I have had the slightest idea that he knew what he was paid for.


William Earl Rowe: If that is it he is overpaid.


George Alexander Drew: On the basis of his performance so far the hon. member is grossly overpaid. Nevertheless it is encouraging, even at this stage of the debate, to see that there is increasing interest on the part of the hon. members opposite. Who knows but that after this intelligible comment-and it is the first intelligible comment for some time from the other side-when we resume this debate next week we may hear some remarks actually directed to the bill itself.


An hon. Member:: By you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be a change.


William Earl Rowe: Even the minister of immigration might say something.


George Alexander Drew: I do hope the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) does not have to leave us to go to Russia before this debate is over, as undoubtedly then he would be able to tell some of his Russian friends that the methods here could be very similar to what they have in Russia if these powers are actually exercised.


William Earl Rowe: He should tell them that all he did in the debate was to heckle.


George Alexander Drew: He could explain to them that it is not necessary for a member to rise in his place to speak, because the minister has been speaking all through this debate without having the courtesy at any time to rise to his feet and express his opinion in a proper way.


James Sinclair: Can they do that in Russia?


George Alexander Drew: I do hope that when the minister gets to Russia he shows more interest in their system than he has shown in ours in these last few days we have been debating this bill. Since this debate has started he has contributed nothing except noise. It has not even been intelligible noise on most occasions. It is also gratifying to find the Prime Minister showing some interest in this debate because-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not promise that it will last forever.
Defence Production Act


George Alexander Drew: No. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he does not promise it will last forever, for the reason that the Prime Minister, like the Minister of Defence Production, does not like debate in this house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are many debates in this house that I do not like.


George Alexander Drew: That is right, and this is one of them.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, this is one of them.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister has shown that he does not like it by staying out practically all the time this debate has been under way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Two hours a week by Mr. Drew.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I think the whole house recognizes the unwritten rule that objection is not taken to certain interjections from the floor. I think perhaps the time has come when the Chair should also indicate to the house that too much advantage can be taken even of that particular rule. I think it would also be fair to say at this time that there has been provocation from both sides of the chamber, but I would now ask the house to permit the Leader of the Opposition to continue his address.


George Alexander Drew: May I assure Your Honour that the noise does not disturb me, because it is a most gratifying sign that for the first time hon. members are paying some attention to the discussion. It would be a healthy thing if some hon. member on the opposite side would get up in this house and indicate that he still recalls what parliament means, and still recalls that it will be the vote of those opposite which will determine whether or not this bill goes into force.


An hon. Member:: The majority.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, the majority, representative of a minority of the voters who sent them here. One thing, Mr. Speaker; I am prepared to take just as long as hon. members opposite want.


An hon. Member:: Don't stop now.


George Alexander Drew: The termination of my remarks will be determined by the opportunity they afford for orderly debate. Mr. Speaker, we see the Minister of Defence Production leaving, as he does so regularly during the course of this debate. We are fortunate in having the Prime Minister here-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is not fair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Defence Production Act


George Alexander Drew: What a lovely sight it is to see the socialists on both sides of the house applauding at the same time.


An hon. Member:: The next coalition government of Canada.


George Alexander Drew: No wonder there is such applause from the socialists for this socialist measure that has been placed before this house.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker, I believe-


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member who is seeking to interrupt does believe in a kind of dictatorship, which was well laid down by a very distinguished member of the socialist party. For that reason perhaps I had better recall what is the real socialist doctrine, and why the socialists find this legislation an accommodating act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is very simple. The Leader of the Opposition said we ought to debate this measure. Surely that rule applies to both sides of the house. The Leader of the Opposition so far has not addressed himself to the bill at all.


William Earl Rowe: It is a socialist measure. He has talked about socialism. You have contributed nothing but applause.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by this interruption by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was a point of order.


George Alexander Drew: It is appropriate and very proper, in view of the statements that have been made by the socialists-that is, the declared socialists-as to what pleases them so much about this act. Sir Stafford Cripps made it perfectly clear that there was a course that would be followed by socialists, and these are his words. Surely no one amongst the socialists on either side can complain if I quote his exact words. This is in a book called "Problems of a Socialist Government", published by Victor Gollancz Limited of London.


An hon. Member:: What year?


George Alexander Drew: Nineteen hundred and thirty-three. The socialists laugh. If they have abandoned these doctrines, let them say so. I propose to place on record what he said:
The government's first step will be to call parliament together at the earliest moment and place before it an emergency powers bill to be passed through all its stages on the first day. This bill will be wide enough in its terms to allow all that will be immediately necessary to be done by ministerial orders. These orders must be incapable of challenge in the courts or in any way except in the House of Commons.


This bill must be ready in draft beforehand, together with the main orders that will be made immediately upon its becoming law. It is probable that the passage of this bill will raise in its most acute form the constitutional crisis.
Mr. Speaker, that is a clear statement of exactly what we have before us now. This bill, when it was originally introduced, was badly drawn. Naturally it was badly drawn, because the Minister of Defence Production said he was responsible for drafting it. Today he said a Tory drafted it. This is the first time in this house he has declared himself a Tory, in my hearing. Nevertheless he did state that at the request of the Prime Minister he had supervised the drafting of this bill. Therefore we need not be surprised at the disregard of the rule of law which is evident in most of the sections. Of course the very appropriate chapter has already been referred to, "Can Socialism Come by Constitutional Methods?"


An hon. Member:: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: You disagree with Sir Stafford Cripps, because Sir Stafford Cripps said it could not. He said you had to circumvent the constitution by an emergency measure, and that is exactly what this measure does. There is, of course, a tremendous difference in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what the Tories were doing in this country in 1933.


George Alexander Drew: I shall deal presently with some remarks that have been made in this debate by the socialists.


Mr. Pouliot:: And in 1917.


William Earl Rowe: They never did anything like this.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, if the members will just be patient for a moment-


Jean-François Pouliot: When you smile you are at your best.


George Alexander Drew: I find it difficult not to smile every time I look at the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this concept of the arbitrary powers was clearly stated by the Right Hon. Clement Attlee, who was here not long ago. This is what he had to say:
There must be a five year plan drive put into the work. This can only be done by associating the party in the actual work at every stage. Thus I conceive the district commissioner as something more than a public servant. He is the local energizer and interpreter of the will of the government. He is not impartial. He is a socialist, and therefore in touch with the socialists in the region, who are his colleagues in his campaign. It may be said that this is rather like the Russian plan of commissars and communist party members.

I am not afraid of the comparison! We have to take the strong points of the Russian system and apply them to this country.
Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be well for the Minister of Fisheries to have that with him when he goes to Russia shortly, so he will be able to see that the socialists have a certain sympathy for the methods that are in force there. Of course there is this encouraging fact, that when the socialists have some responsibility-and that would be such a mellowing thing for the socialists here, if they ever had responsibility-they will find that it produces a great change. An hon. member says, "What about the Tories?" I would remind hon. members opposite, who are still saturated with the Liberal mythology, that there have been only two parties in this country that have had the responsibility of government, the Conservative party and the Liberal party, and they have shared that responsibility for just about the same length of time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not in the twentieth
century.


George Alexander Drew: Whatever it is that is irritating the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing is irritating me except the hon. member's speech.


George Alexander Drew: It looks like the seven year itch. We were told this afternoon that a right hon. member of the socialist party in Britain was called upon to draft legislation in Britain along lines that were laid down. Right Hon. Herbert Morrison was called upon to draft the legislation. He points out in his book, "Government and Parliament", that it was not necessary for them to do this because when they came into power in 1945 they inherited the emergency acts which were in force both here and there, and in other countries with similar responsibilities. But he points out that he was asked to draft a revision of the act.
If hon. members will look at what Mr. Morrison says they will find how responsibility modified their position. Mr. Morrison was careful to point out that in drafting the bill they sought to define the terms under which orders in council could be passed. That goes much further than the bill now before us. It is quite obvious that neither Herbert Morrison nor the socialists in Britain would have gone as far as this government goes in trying to make the present act part of the permanent legislation of this country. Oh, no; after some measure of responsibility they had actually come to see the necessity for certain restraints.
13. 1955	4741
Defence Production Act The Prime Minister introduced this bill in the first place; that is, in 1951. He explained why it was being introduced. The members of this house should be told today by the Prime Minister why this government want these powers, which we were told in 1951 should not be carried on in the form in which they were then placed before us. Why the change? We have not had one word which gives any satisfactory explanation. When this measure was before the house three months ago we urged the government to recall what they said in 1951, to recall the discussion that had taken place at that time and to redraft the bill.
As to those hon. members who have been making the fatuous speeches that some have made about our being opposed to the defence production department, may I remind them that we pointed out three months ago that we wanted the defence production department made permanent. We also pointed out that we wanted the powers re-examined and that, in so far as the powers were properly defined and could be shown to be necessary, we would support them. At that time we had reason to believe that this proposal would be considered. In fact we were told that it would be considered. We now find this bill brought before us without any attempt made to modify it in any way. It was only today, after debate had taken place, that an attempt was made to suggest that some concession was being made.
This morning, at the opening of the house, the minister responsible for this department stated that when this bill is in committee an amendment will be proposed which will have the effect of calling upon the government to table all orders in council and all directions made by the minister under the powers conferred by this act. He then went further and stated that upon the petition of ten members presented within seven days ot the tabling of the order or direction, there would be a debate at a convenient time within four days.
Mr. Speaker, that proposal does not help in any way. It does not limit the powers, nor does it give any effective opportunity to deal with the exercise of those powers. We have seen what this government will do. We have seen power added on power. We have seen a new form of guillotine introduced by this government. Whenever there is before the house some resolution they do not like they wait for one speaker, then a member of the government rises and moves the adjournment of the debate and that is the end of it. All this proposal means is that someone would have the doubtful satisfaction of rising, making a statement with
4742	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act regard to the order or direction, and then having the guillotine applied and the discussion put away in the appropriate place tor anything that has been guillotined. This proposal is ineffective. It does not in any way deal with the fundamental problems before us.
There is no issue whatever with regard to the continuance of the Department of Defence Production, but there is a fundamental issue with regard to the introduction of an act that would confer these wide and uncontrolled powers. I point out to the Prime Minister that the Minister of Defence Production, who sits next to him and who is regarded as his righthand man, told this house that the measure now before us is more restrictive than is the measure in the United Kingdom or the measure in the United States, which provides for the same general powers. The Prime Minister knows that the statement made by the Minister of Defence Production is not correct. The Prime Minister has a duty to this house to correct one of his ministers who, obviously through ignorance of the effect of the other statutes, has misinformed the members of this house.
I point out to hon. members opposite that they are being asked to support this measure on that statement. In so important a discussion as this, with so important a consideration,
I trust they are paying attention to what the minister says and that they have noticed his statement to the effect that this is a more restrictive act.
It is nothing of the kind. The act in the United Kingdom similar to this one is the ministry of supply act, 1939, as amended by the supplies and services act, which was passed in 1945 and which has had certain minor amendments since then. That act is known as the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945. It is an act of ten sections which confers powers to deal with supplies and services. It contains few of the broad, unlimited powers contained in our act. There is no similarity whatever.
I do not believe that an act such as ours would be supported by the socialists in Westminster, after the educational period they had in government. I do not believe for one moment that they would now support it. Mr. Herbert Morrison made it clear that he has changed his mind about irresponsible legislation of this nature. The act is on the statute books in the United Kingdom. I believe the Prime Minister should tell the members of this house, and particularly hon. members opposite, just what is the effect of the supplies and services act in Britain.
Then let us look at the act in the United States, which has well over 600 sections and


which sets forth in the most exact detail the powers that are conferred upon the government. No other powers can be exercised. There are no loose powers such as those that are conferred in this act; there are no loose powers broadly cast around in this way. We have been given no reason why we should at this stage write into the law of this country, without any time limit and without any improvement in the definition of the powers, an act which the government itself stated contained powers which should not be continuing ones. What stronger argument could we have than the statement of the government itself that these powers should not be continuing ones?
There is also a question of good faith which the Prime Minister should not disregard. Hon. members opposite should be the first to point out that fact. They supported this act with the assurance that in it were powers that should not and presumably would not be continuing powers. What explanation have we for the disregard of the assurance upon which this act was brought forward?
Let it also be remembered that we accepted this assurance, as well as hon. members opposite. We pointed out the dangers of this act, but we made it clear that because it was limited as to time and also because of the emergency which had suddenly come upon us we were not going to vote against the act, though we made it quite clear that we thought it was badly drawn and contained powers that should not be in legislation in any democratic country.
We come now to this bill. The Prime Minister indicated there would be consideration, but the legislation was placed before us without change and without real explanation. Then certain statements were made which indicated that, strangely enough, we felt the government should abide by its earlier statements. Then listen to these words of the minister responsible for the act, the Minister of Defence Production, as found at page 4511 of Hansard:
Either you have a defence production act with these powers, and all these powers, or you have no act at all.
If there is anyone who has threatened the survival of the Department of Defence Production, Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of Defence Production, because he has said it is all or nothing. In these days when theme songs are popular, would it not be gratifying to have the minister open his initial remarks each day with that song from "Oklahoma", "With Me it is All or Nothin' ". It would be an appropriate theme song.


John Horace Dickey: With you it is nothing.


George Alexander Drew: That is the attitude of the government. Here is the act; yours not to reason why. As far as the Liberals are concerned it is a case of yours but to do and die, at some appropriate point. By all means in the intervening stages do not challenge the authority of the government by stating principles that have so clearly applied to legislation of this kind.
Then we have that modest statement of the Minister of Defence Production: "I do not propose to be told now by any hon. member just when I will liquidate it." Remember, that does not just mean the members opposite. He did not say: "I will not be told by any member opposite." That means you and you and you, every one of you on the other side, including the Prime Minister. He will not even be told by the Prime Minister what he will do and what he will not do. No, he is the boss. He is going to say when this act will be dealt with.


An hon. Member:: He is the boss.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, as one hon. member opposite says, he is the boss. They recognize the boss in this house, and that is the trouble with members opposite. It would really be a great thing for the parliamentary system if they would go back over the assurances that were given them. It would be a very healthy thing if someone on the other side would get up and say, "I do not intend to be told by any minister in this house that I cannot say what I think should be said in the course of the consideration of this or any other act." It applies to you with much more force than it applies to anyone on this side, because if the legislation goes through it will be you, the members opposite, who have accepted the statement that the minister is not going to be told by anyone what will be done with legislation in this house.
There is a reason, of course, why the legislation commends itself to the declared socialists. I want to deal with some of the statements that have been made that should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), with justification, holds the esteem of the members of the house.


An hon. Member:: Watch out.


George Alexander Drew: It is unfortunate that he should have become the mouthpiece for the kind of socialist claptrap that we have heard from some of the other members. When he was speaking the other day I knew, with the interruptions that were taking place, that there was little use in attempting to interject an orderly comment on what he said. But I want to remind hon. members of the house
Defence Production Act of the kind of thing that has been going on and that went on today when the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) made his remarks. Incidentally, I do not include the hon. member for Moose Mountain in the earlier remarks I made about the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I do say that, so far as the hon. member for Cape Breton South is concerned, I am sure it was inadvertent but I hope he will take the occasion to correct it because when he was speaking in the house the other day he referred to Right Hon. Arthur Meighen-he nods assent-and said this with respect to him, as found at page 4576 of Hansard:
His attitude to the war was-and this statement was made publicly in the Senate-that I and some of my associates are riding on our oars; if there are not profits to be made out of war there is nothing to fight for.
The hon. member knows that Right Hon. Arthur Meighen never made that statement at any time.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is always fair and wants to be accurate, but as far as the quotation he has just put on the record is concerned, I never mentioned the name of Arthur Meighen at that point.


George Alexander Drew: At that point.


Clarence Gillis: Right now you are putting words in my mouth that I did not use.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, these words
applied to Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and the fact that they applied to him was clearly indicated because I challenged the hon. member to place on record the Hansard reference to what he had said, and as recorded at page 4579 he put it on record. It was handed to him by one of the other members, and he made it clear that they were the words of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. These are the words of the hon. member for Cape Breton South at page 4579:
These are the words of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen
Then he read from Senate Hansard a passage in support of what he had said earlier when I raised the question. He knows perfectly well that the earlier statement referred to Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and to no one else, in the light of his subsequent reading of the quotation from Senate Hansard.


Mr. Winch:: Read Senate Hansard.


George Alexander Drew: I am merely pointing that out.
4744	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act Mr. Gillis: I want to make it quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely incorrect when he states that in my first reference I mentioned the name of Meighen at all. All the Conservatives jumped to conclusions as to whom I was talking about. Later on I put the actual quotation on the record.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker, this interjection is unworthy of the hon. member, because before and not after this is what he said-


Clarence Gillis: I am keeping the record straight.


George Alexander Drew: I am keeping the record straight. The hon. member said, as found at page 4576:
I am not unmindful of the fact either that during the process of fighting the war one very prominent gentleman who sat in the Senate and was at one time a leader of the Conservative party, made the statement . . .
There was only one man to whom that could apply. That was Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and the hon. member knows it. He made that statement, but shortly afterward he quoted the words of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen which did not say that at all.


Clarence Gillis: Because you asked for it.


George Alexander Drew: Certainly.


Clarence Gillis: If Meighen's name went on the record you were responsible.


George Alexander Drew: This is unworthy of the hon. member and I regret that instead of apologizing for his error he should seek to evade responsibility for the statement he made.


Clarence Gillis: There was no error.


Jean-François Pouliot: Poor Meighen was crucified by everybody.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was prime minister of this country and was leader of the Senate. Some of the members opposite who are making these interjections-


An hon. Member:: We are not.


George Alexander Drew: -should remember that our system demands some respect for the position of prime minister, no matter who the individual may be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, hon. members shout, "hear, hear". Their idea of respect-


John Horace Dickey: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: The senior member for Halifax interjects, and I shall have something to say about him later. When the senior member for Halifax interjects in this way he knows quite well that I have never at any time made any comment about the Prime Minister of


Canada, as Prime Minister or in his personal capacity, which is not in keeping with the proper wording of debates. I have never suggested any such rotten implication as is contained in the words that were put on record here the other day in regard to a former prime minister of Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: It is on the Senate record.


George Alexander Drew: I am not going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member who has just risen correct his statement because I would not expect him to keep the record straight.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you challenging the record of the Senate?


George Alexander Drew: It is already on the record of the Senate, and those words show that there was no justification for the words used by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I hope that at the appropriate time the hon. member for Cape Breton South will correct the improper impression he has left.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition's blood pressure is going up a bit.


George Alexander Drew: Not a bit.


Clarence Gillis: I am taking this opportunity to tell the house that the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely incorrect in the statement he just made. The Senate Hansard bears out, in the context in which I used it, the absolute accuracy of the quotation put on the record of the Senate by the right hon. gentleman. When I quoted it I had no intention of reflecting on any particular person. I avoided using his name until such time as the Leader of the Opposition asked for the actual quotation.


George Alexander Drew: I am once again going to make it quite clear, Mr, Speaker, that the hon. member stated-


Clarence Gillis: You are getting more tangled up.


George Alexander Drew: I am not getting tangled up. I regard the hon. member as unworthy of the reputation he has maintained in this house-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is about the fourth or fifth time the Leader of the Opposition has referred to my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South, saying that he has done things that are unworthy of him or unworthy of his reputation in this house. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that those precise words are not in the book of rules within quotation marks as being out of order, but there are suggestions very close to it, to the effect that you cannot refer to members as doing things unworthy of their position in this house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I only want to put on the record-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Apple whaite):: Order, please. I think before this interchange goes any further it might be advisable to point out that the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition that referred to the hon. member for Cape Breton South were that certain things were unworthy of him. Usually, I think, when we use that expression we imply a worthiness at the same time that we imply the unworthiness. I do not think a point of order can be based on that.
Might I volunteer this expression of opinion. I did not hear the original speech by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, therefore I am not saying there should be no reply to it. But may I remind the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Cape Breton South that what they are debating now is only incidental to the second reading of the Defence Production Act. If they could each get their final statements on the record, then the Leader of the Opposition could proceed to a consideration of the act.


George Alexander Drew: I am simply going to place on record what the hon. member did say, as recorded at page 4576 of Hansard for June 9, 1955:
His attitude to the war was-and this statement was made publicly in the Senate-that I and some of my associates are riding on our oars.
That is what he said. I would hope that at the appropriate time he would make an adequate correction, in the light of what he himself placed on the record.
I also want to refer to the kind of statements that have been made by the hon. member for Moose Mountain. He sought to create an impression of lack of loyalty on the part of members of this party. It is not often necessary or not often that the occasion arises, Mr. Speaker, to point this out. I only ask the hon. member for Moose Mountain-I do not know what his war service was-to look over the members on this side and on the opposite side of the house to see what service they had, as well as some of the people within his own party. Then I would remind him that it is hardly appropriate that he should question the desire of any member of the Conservative party or of any other party to play his full part in winning the last war when that war was under way.
This is worthy of mention because we have had in this house, grafted on to our discussion, Bevanism in its naked ugliness; that is what we have been hearing in this house from those people who are trying to raise in Canada the kind of class consciousness that Bevan tries to raise in England. This is
Defence Production Act something that has no place in Canada at all. I simply say I would have hoped that before now either the minister who has been supporting this bill or someone else on the other side would have dissociated themselves from some of the arguments that have been made in support of the bill. If hon. members opposite will read over many of the arguments made in support of this bill they will find that they are arguments that this bill is one that can end profits, that can end the capitalist system. Well, if that is what they want let them say so. But let them not remain silent in the face of the several arguments that have been made that this is the effect of the measure we have before us.
Read the Hansard record of the past few days and see the arguments that have been made as to why we should support this bill. That, Mr. Speaker, is the reason socialism is an issue, because we have been told by several of the members to our left that this bill will carry forward their desire to destroy the capitalist system.


Harold Edward Winch: Eyewash.


Mr. Hodgson:: Sit down.


Harold Edward Winch: Who said it?


George Alexander Drew: In so far as this measure is concerned, there is an obvious procedure to deal with this situation. If the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence Production or any other minister has felt that this debate has not been entirely in keeping with their desires, may I suggest that there is one way in which they could easily terminate it and still have every authority that is needed. In the first place, this act does not need to be passed at this session. It does not expire until long after the next session of parliament will meet. Why is it even before us now? There has been no explanation of that. Will the Prime Minister tell us why this act has to be passed now, and why the Minister of Defence Production says that with him it is all or nothing? We could deal with this at the next session. In the meantime the Prime Minister could examine this act and consider the situation at that time. Today the minister made this gesture. Well, why not go further?
After all, there are words which apply so directly. The minister may not like some of the statements made from this side but I think, like everybody else, he has some regard for the parliamentary statements of Sir Winston Churchill. May I quote words of Sir Winston Churchill, delivered in the House of Commons in London on May 25, 1938, which have a peculiarly appropriate ring in regard to this measure. We are making practical suggestions. I know the minister

Defence Production Act does not like to take suggestions from the opposition. These are the words of Sir Winston Churchill:
Why does my right hon. friend resist this plan so obdurately? It is true that I have pressed it upon him for two years or more, but that is not in itself a sufficient reason. Has he ever heard of Saint Anthony the Hermit? Saint Anthony the Hermit was much condemned by the fathers of the church because he refused to do right when the devil told him to. My right hon. friend should free himself from this irrational inhibition for we are only at the beginning of our anxieties.
We are only at the beginning of our anxieties, Mr. Speaker. If the situation is as terrible as the Minister of Defence Production says, then why decide now, when parliament will be sitting long before a year from now, and in the light of conditions as they then are it will be possible for the government to bring forward powers that would be appropriate. Let us repeat; even if it were from the devil himself the minister, and particularly the Prime Minister in whose name the motion stands, should be prepared to take suggestions. They should rid themselves of this inhibition, because they are going to hear a lot more about this if they do not, and it would save so much debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are not confusing yourself with Sir Winston, are you? You are two different people.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite different.


George Alexander Drew: I am not confusing myself with Sir Winston, nor am I confusing the minister with any of the responsible ministers at Westminster, because I do not believe there is a minister of that government, or a minister of the former Labour government, who would come before this house and without some show of shame try to get powers through such as are contained here. I do not believe there is any minister who has the least understanding of responsible government who would say to parliament, "I am not going to listen to any member. This act is going through when I say so; with me it is all or nothing." No, I am not comparing myself nor am I comparing the minister with any person, minister or otherwise, who claims to have knowledge of what the rule of law and the responsibility of parliament really means.
I do repeat that the Prime Minister is the one person who must accept full responsibility. The Prime Minister is the one person who, as the head of the government, must ultimately decide whether these wide powers in the hands of the minister are to be put into effect without even an order in council.
We are told that horrible things might happen if this act is not passed, forgetting


entirely that the act could be passed next year. What horrible things would happen if this act did not pass? The department would remain; the act would remain as it is until July 31 of next year. After all, we have made our position clear. Why does the government not introduce a bill to set up the Department of Defence Production? That is covered by sections 3 and 4 of the act. Let them set up the Department of Defence Production, and they could let the rest of this act go.
I have heard hon. members opposite, including the misinformed senior member for Halifax, tell us they would not be able to supply defence requirements. What utter nonsense! The hon. member has forgotten that there is another act on the statute books at the present time, an act which is in a state of suspense. It is an act respecting defence supplies and projects, known as the Defence Supplies Act. That act is in force. It is similar to the act in the United Kingdom. It gives every power this government needs to acquire the things that are necessary. It is still on the statute books. Section 9 reads:
This act shall have no force or effect while the Defence Production Act remains in force except in so far as it is necessary to give effect to anything done under this act before the first day of April, 1951.
If there are further legitimate powers in keeping with the powers already on the statute books under the Defence Supplies Act, then let reasonable requests be made for these amendments; but my remarks are directed particularly to hon. members opposite. Read this act that appears in the statute books just after the Defence Production Act. See how wide the powers are, the powers of the minister, the powers to obtain defence supplies, the powers to do all the things that can be done under the act in the United Kingdom. Have the Department of Defence Production; have these defined powers, and then carry on in keeping with our tradition, but do not let us have these wide powers such as we have here at the present time.
The Minister of Defence Production said the other day, in an interjection in the debate but not in his actual speech, that the crisis is greater than ever before.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said no such thing. I said greater than in 1951. If you are going to quote, quote accurately.


George Alexander Drew: I am quoting accurately. The Minister of Defence Production said: "What of the hydrogen bomb?" What of the hydrogen bomb? He knows when the hydrogen bomb was exploded at Bikini. The hydrogen bomb had been exploded at Bikini before the Prime Minister explained why they were

allowing the emergency powers act to drop last year. This is what the Prime Minister said on April 29, as reported at page 4229 of Hansard:
We felt It was a grave decision to make because there is still a pretty explosive situation existing in the world. I hope the situation will not require the exercise of any but normal powers by the governor in council. But should it develop that there would have to be, in the interests of the safety of the nation, powers exercised that are not normally conferred upon the governor in council by existing legislation, we would have to resort to the War Measures Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, what I said was that in 1951 communist countries did not have the atomic bomb.


George Alexander Drew: No, the hydrogen bomb.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hydrogen bomb. My hon. friend can rave all over the lot as much as he likes. That is what I said. If he can find anything else I would appreciate it if he would quote it.


William Earl Rowe: That would not change the
principle very much.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: I shall quote the exact words of the minister. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) said, as reported at page 4591 of Hansard:
Is the emergency greater now than it was in 1951?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It certainly is.
Defence Production Act
Then the debate went on, and the hon. member for Port Arthur said:
The communist countries did not have hydrogen bombs in 1951.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a minute; if you are going to quote, quote accurately. It is found at page 4591 of Hansard.


George Alexander Drew: That is correct.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question was:
Is the emergency greater now than it was in 1951?


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly what I said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 


Clarence Decatur Howe: It certainly is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, the minister is the first one to say that, and this is the first occasion on which I have heard him say the emergency is greater now than it was in 1951.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The communist
countries did not have hydrogen bombs in 1951.


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly what I said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exactly what you said, nothing.


George Alexander Drew: The minister said a great deal more. I can quote what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I move the adjournment of the debate, for the benefit of the minister who does not remember what he said.
On motion of Mr. Drew the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 14, 1955