1955-06-09

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday, at the opening of the house, I raised the question of the statements that had been given to the press just before the house met. Naturally, I had not had a chance to read those as they were just handed to me as I came in before I raised the question about those announcements being made outside the house. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) replied, and in the closing part of his remarks he said this:
. . . we will consider whether a change should be made in the matter of reporting to the house, before the public is informed, the usual permutations that take place in the civil service, even when it has become apparent that, either through speculation or otherwise, there has already been publicity in the press about the probability of their being made.
I realize that just as I had only received the press reports when I came in so also the Prime Minister only had this subject raised when I made my comments in the house. For that reason I can quite understand that there may not have been a consideration of all the aspects of these announcements that he would have an opportunity to give since that time. I do point out however, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestion that these announcements simply represented the ordinary permutations is inconsistent with the facts and it is on that basis of privilege that I raise this at the moment.
General Guy Simonds was appointed chief of staff on February 1, 1951. On the very day that he was appointed and the announcement was made, General Charles Foulkes was appointed chairman of the Canadian chiefs of staff. He moved up from the position of chief of the general staff. I have nothing but admiration to express for General Foulkes. If, however, these were merely the ordinary permutations in the movement of officials, then at this time


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, unless members on the other side no longer even want to know matters of important business coming before the house, then I suggest they restrain their comments and not try to interfere with suggestions that we get the information to which we are definitely entitled.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order; I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew)-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were directed to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the Minister of Finance was rising on a point of order.


Walter Edward Harris: One always permits the beginning of a question of privilege until one hears what it is. As I understand the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, he is attempting to launch into a debate as to the past practice, about which some reference was made. That is a matter of opinion and a matter of debate; it is not a matter of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not attempting to launch into a debate. I am stating what the facts are. And I hope that when the Prime Minister rises he will deal with the fact which he now has had an opportunity to examine, and that he will explain to the house why the best qualified staff officer has been released from the service.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: Let the iron curtain fall.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but a point of order has been raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) after which the Leader of the Opposition was allowed to explain. That is why I let him present his explanation in relation to the point of order. But I noticed that he was carrying on an argument from his own position with respect to a question of privilege which he raised yesterday. I do not know whether at this moment the Leader of the Opposition has terminated his remarks. If he has not, then I shall have to tell him that I have Hansard of yesterday before me and I notice that he raised a question of privilege stating as his question that an announcement which had been presented to the press should have been made to the house prior to its delivery to the

National Defence-Appointments press. To him the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) replied, as to that particular aspect of the matter.
Then today the Leader of the Opposition seems to argue with respect to the reply that was given yesterday by the Prime Minister. It seems to me that there will be an opportunity to discuss the propriety or the impropriety of delivering news to the press prior to its being given to the house when, let us say, the estimates of the Department of National Defence are before the house, at which time the Leader of the Opposition will have full opportunity to go into the significance, as he sees it, of these various permutations which were announced.
In the mind of the Leader of the Opposition these permutations were not ordinary ones. On the other hand, the Prime Minister has indicated they were just the ordinary permutations which from time to time are announced through the usual channels, and which frequently are given to the press.
I think the point the Minister of Finance has made is well taken, and that what the Leader of the Opposition has risen to do is a question for argument and debate. Indeed, I think even yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was close to not raising a proper question of privilege. Therefore I think we ought to leave the matter at that for the time being. Presenting reports-


George Alexander Drew: No; I trust, Mr. Speaker, you will not deny me the opportunity to point out that I am not dealing with the question of the delivery of information to the press; and I made that clear. I am dealing with a statement made to this house by the Prime Minister of Canada, a statement that manifestly, on the basis of the facts, is not accurate. I am hoping the Prime Minister will accept that statement.


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I must protest against this attitude of the hon. gentleman which is so reminiscent of what took place in the first period after his entry into this house. The hon. gentleman has a good many privileges, but he has not the privilege of determining the manner in which public business will be dealt with, unless it be on grounds that are serious in themselves.
We were told repeatedly after the hon. gentleman came here that the manner in which this house was conducting its business was entirely wrong. I have ascertained that the manner in which this announcement was made is that which has been followed since the very first days of this parliament.


George Alexander Drew: It was not followed the day before.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There have been several occasions when important appointments to the public service have been made while parliament was in session, and none of the hon. member's predecessors, as leader of the opposition, or none of my predecessors as prime minister, has felt that it was a discourtesy to the house to hand releases to the press without making any statement about them in parliament. I have ascertained that since I became Prime Minister there were four or five occasions when deputy ministers were appointed and the announcements were made in the manner that had been practised from the very first days of our parliamentary institutions, without any comment whatsoever that it was a discourtesy to the house, and it certainly never was intended by any of those who occupied either the office that my hon. friend occupies or the office that I occupy that there be any discourtesy to the members of the House of Commons.
Now, as to the appointments made in the army, they are the primary responsibility of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Camp-neyl, and we all share with him that responsibility. If any discussion is to be made about the manner in which he exercises his responsibility as Minister of National Defence there will be an appropriate time for making it; but it certainly is not a violation of the privileges of the members of this house to announce what has been done in the manner in which these announcements have always been made.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would point out that quite contrary to what the Prime Minister has said, it was only the day before that the Minister of National Defence chose to come into this house to announce a change in regard to another officer. If it was proper to do that, it was certainly proper to do it when the most highly skilled army officer that this country has produced was being relieved of his service in the Canadian army.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Jutras.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I am tabling the report, both in the English and in the French languages, concerning an alleged combine into the manufacture, sale and distribution of beer in Canada.



QUESTION


Mr. Barneli:: 1.	Were any unmanufactured spruce logs exported from British Columbia in the years 1953 and 1954?
2.	If so, what are the names of the firms which exported these logs?
3.	What was the quantity of logs exported by each of the exporting firms in the respective years?


Mr. Dickey:: 1. Export of spruce logs through customs ports in the province of British Columbia were as follows:
Year 1953	 389 M ft.
Year 1954	 63 M ft.
2 and 3. Names of firms and quantity exported by each firm are not recorded.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) asked me if a date had been fixed for the meeting that is to be held to consider the information obtained about unemployment relief. I told him that I was having a meeting with the committee of the cabinet and officials to go over the information. We had that meeting, following which I telegraphed the ten provincial premiers suggesting Monday, June 20, and if necessary Tuesday, June 21, for that meeting with them or their representatives.



SOCIAL SECURITY

[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO ADVERTISEMENT IN OTTAWA "journal"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of National Health and Welfare has had time to look at the two-page spread in yesterday's daily papers where the following appears:
Welfare . . . Premier Frost's initiative at Ottawa secured old age pensions for all at 70 and for needy senior citizens at 65.
Would the minister care to comment on the accuracy of that statement?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that any hon. member sitting in any part of this house would want to raise that question. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) indicated to me that he intended to ask the same question. I may say that about a week ago I made 50433-288
Inquiries of the Ministry a statement and took public issue with the very contention to which my hon. friend is referring, but in another context.
As everyone knows, including the premier of Ontario, the fact is that the old age security program providing for a means-test-free pension was the product of a parliamentary committee of this house, which was followed by a recommendation made to the house by the present government, as the result of which the people of Canada through federal action now have a non-means-test old age security provision. The fact is that at the conference when this matter was discussed the premier of Ontario, undoubtedly acting with the best intentions, took issue with the scheme in its entirety as presented by myself at that time as Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question? In view of the increase in the cost of living and the decrease in purchasing power of the dollar since the $40 pension was brought in is the government considering increasing this amount?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government is continually giving these matters attention and I hope that my hon. friend, who has influence with certain provincial governments in certain parts of Canada, will see that they give the same consideration to this that other provinces have.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if, in the light of the statement by the premier of Ontario reported in today's press concerning the carrying on of the international trade fair, the minister's officials will be instructed to enter into early discussions with the province so that continuity may be assured after this year's fair?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press report, but I am told that the premier of Ontario made a statement that the province would carry on the fair. I made a statement yesterday in the house that, if the province decided to do that, we would be glad to turn over all the equipment and to give all the technical advice that this government has at its disposal. The moment we are approached in the matter by the province, we will give immediate attention to all matters necessary to give the fair continuity.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Roland Michener (Si. Paul's): Would Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assislanl
the right hon. minister enlarge his statement lo the Poslmaster General): It must be a case to include the carrying on of the trade fair of mental telepathy, because only this morn-by the city of Toronto or other agencies which ing I was asking the officials if the return might be interested in taking up from the was ready, and they assured me it would be beginnings which have been made? As I early next week, understood his statement, it was limited to
the withdrawal of federal financial support.	DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the government is withdrawing sponsorship of the international trade fair for reasons that we believe are sound. I said yesterday that we would be glad to turn everything over to the province of Ontario, but I think I should not expand that offer until I get requests. Since we are withdrawing from the fair, we will consider any request made by a capable and bona fide public body that wishes to carry on the fair.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he be prepared to make some comment on Chancellor Adenauer's acceptance of an invitation to go to Moscow, and does he consider the acceptance of that invitation as somewhat difficult to understand in view of the recent admission of West Germany into NATO?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I knew that the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany had been invited to Moscow. I did not know that he had yet accepted the invitation. I understood this morning that it was still under consideration. But whether he accepted or not, I am quite sure that Chancellor Adenauer will be able to take care of the interests of his country and himself, if and when he goes to Moscow.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General? Can my hon. friend tell me when I might expect the tabling of a return ordered by the house quite some time ago, on January 24, 1955, involving correspondence with a certain self-appointed director of patronage in the province of New Brunswick?



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 8, 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.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had commenced last evening to deal with this matter, and at the time I was concluding I had asked consideration by the Prime Minister to his participation in this debate; for he himself introduced this resolution in March and as yet has not given the views of the government, in particular with regard to the constitutionality of this measure and also to the degree to which it interferes with the rights of the individual and denies him under several sections recourse to the courts. I mention the question of constitutionality for this reason. In the act as it is now constituted there is nothing to indicate in any way on the part of parliament that an emergency exists, nor is there any declaration of emergency in that act. Immediately someone might say: This is the act that was passed in 1951; if the act has been operative since then, is not that the answer to the question that I propound? I submit, however, that that is not the case, for in 1951 the Emergency Powers Act was part and parcel of the law of this country. Under that act there was a declaration of emergency which in effect, under the authorities, grants the right to the federal parliament to invade provincial rights and provincial subjects of jurisdiction under the British North America Act.
I think it is particularly pertinent to recall to the Prime Minister his words in 1945 when dealing with the introduction of the first of the emergency acts. As reported at page 2451 of Hansard of that year he pointed out:
I think that only a declaration of this parliament will be sufficiently impressive upon the Canadian people to be accepted as to whether or not there exists a condition which gives to some of the things normally within provincial jurisdiction aspects which require that they be dealt with in another sphere in the national interest.
In the course of his remarks on that occasion he dealt particularly in detail with the Fort Frances pulp and paper company case. At that time he set out his conclusions with
[Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).)

regard to the whole question of federal emergency legislation having the right to invade provincial jurisdiction and provincial fields of legislation and, incidentally, at the same time mentioned that legislation such as this should be limited. At that time the original act was limited to a period of one year.
I mention this matter because the present legislation has no longer, to bolster it up, the declaration under the Emergency Powers Act to the effect that parliament has declared that an emergency exists. Without that declaration, are the courts to conclude-contrary to what they have decided in the past-that the legislation now before parliament will be within the constitutional jurisdiction of parliament? I ask the Prime Minister whether he has given consideration to that fact, for certainly the situation has changed greatly within the last year since the emergency powers legislation was permitted to lapse.
Commencing on that note, may I say that I think we in the house as well as the people of Canada generally have the right to hear the Prime Minister on this question and to ascertain from him his views on this important matter, and in particular whether or not consideration has been given to the fact that the emergency powers legislation is no longer in effect in this country. I am not going to attack the act which we are asked to extend indefinitely, or the carte blanche on powers which parliament is being asked to extend indefinitely, by simply attacking the whole act. However, I am going to mention two or three sections in this act that constitute, in my opinion, an encyclopedia of powers that any glutton for power would envy the possession of. In some sections it places the minister above the courts, and in other sections the governor in council. It denies any challenge from the court and by the courts. Indeed, it can be summed up in much shorter form by stating that I, the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), have absolute power except within the limitations contained in two or three sections. This is not the production of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), it is the handiwork of the Minister of Defence Production himself. In 1951 that minister used these words: "I have supervised the drafting of this bill." In other words, every power conceivable and inconceivable that would make a minister almost all powerful has been incorporated in this act.
Originally, parliament was going to have the opportunity in a matter of three years to review the powers. The minister's stand now is: we need this act; it must be continued for an indefinite time in the future. The Prime Minister said the two reasons 50433-288*
Defence Production Act for needing it for a non-terminable date were the fact that conditions today are still difficult internationally and that the officials of this department wanted to be assured of the permanence of the department. I thought the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) covered that question yesterday when he stated, upon being challenged by the minister as to how that could be achieved, we could have the department made permanent but the powers reviewable at an appropriate expiry date of one, two, or three years as the case might be. View that act in all the amplitude of its powers and tell me not that similar powers are vested in the government of Great Britain. I have the latest act, 1951, here and they did not find it necessary to pass legislation giving the minister powers unchallengeable in the courts in certain sections of the act and in other sections of the act placing the government above the control of the courts of the land.
I know this subject will interest the Prime Minister, because as a former president of the Canadian Bar Association he spoke on more than one occasion, as I recall, of the power of the rule of law and the need for its preservation and maintenance. I ask the Prime Minister now: Do you have to circumvent the rule of law in order to achieve power under this legislation? Nothing of the kind! Have the powers, but in order to assure that no individual shall be discriminated against and denied equality before the law, to assure that the individual shall not be a puppet in the hands of the minister, give to the individual who is able to establish that he has been discriminated against a right of review by the courts of the land. Surely, we have not arrived at a state of mind in this country when parliament is asked to abdicate the rights of the courts for an indefinite time in the future in order to satisfy the desire for power of any minister or of any government.
Review this legislation; review it in detail and dispassionately. There is an immense number of possibilities within this legislation. There are invasions of provincial rights and jurisdictions, and those rights and jurisdictions are, in several cases, placed above the law. Let me refer to one or two sections. The only sections to which I shall refer are those to which the argument applies. In some sections there is a provision for the protection of the rights of the individual, but qualified or diminished to a great extent. In others, there is none.
Let us take section 28 as an example. Section 28 reads as follows:
The governor in council may, by order, direct that a person shall not be bound by any obligation, restriction or limitation imposed on that person by
4564	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act or under any statute, order, rule, regulation, bylaw, or contract with respect to such matters as may be specified in the order affecting the entry into or performance of a defence contract by that person or the carrying out of an order made by the minister under this act.
I ask the Prime Minister to let the house in on the secret as to how power can be given to the governor in council to interfere with a contract made within a province.
Where is that power? Where is the declaration of emergency that ordinarily is used as a subterfuge or means in order to invade the constitution of this country? There is not one reference to it in this act. I ask him this. Does he, as an outstanding constitutional lawyer, suggest that if in the province of Ontario a contract has been made as between A and B for the delivery of certain goods or substances, which afterwards are declared by the Minister of Defence Production to be needed for defence, parliament can by a simple statement like that delegate to the governor in council the right to say, "You are bound under your contract but we release you from that contract." Do not tell me we have arrived at that position in this country where a government, absolute in power, can interfere and make a plaything of the constitution and its rights.
Will the Prime Minister say that if under the statute of a province certain rights are determined for an individual, this parliament could, without a declaration of emergency, under that section say to the individual, "While under the provincial statute you are required to do a certain thing and undertake a certain obligation, the governor in council releases you from that obligation." If we have, then the constitution, in the hands of this government, indeed has become the bauble of the Minister of Defence Production and the government itself. Supposing a bylaw of a city is passed whereby certain rights are secured by an individual in the province of Quebec. Can the governor in council, by order, direct that a person to whom liability attaches under that bylaw is no longer subject to the law because the Minister of Defence Production does not consider he should be? I ask the Prime Minister to consider that.
I look at section 31 and ask the Prime Minister: Without a declaration of emergency and without the assistance of the emergency powers act, does he say-if he does parliament will listen with the greatest of interest-that the powers contained therein can be exercised? These are amongst the powers:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he deems necessary
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

Defence Production Act Surely there is no reason whatever, with danger facing the country today,-and this is the year in which we are reducing defence expenditures-to deny to the individual the right to be represented by counsel.
I just cannot understand section 19. Imagine taking away the rights of the individual, despoiling him of his rights, and then denying him a right of action. Let me read section 19. I am sure the Prime Minister did not draft this, or even give an assist to the drafting:
No person is entitled to damages, compensation or other allowance for loss of profit, direct or indirect, arising out of the rescission or termination of a defence contract at any time before it is fully performed . . .
You have the right to say to the individual, you shall perform this contract. He gets ready to perform it. Suppose it is building work on the D.E.W. line. He has to buy the necessary supplies and then the government comes along and says: well, the contract is rescinded. You have incurred a great deal of expense, but you shall have no right of action whatsoever. There was no need for that type of tyrannical inclusion in a statute in order to assure the preservation of our security.
These are some of the sections of the statute to which I am asking the Prime Minister to give consideration, to ameliorate them. You will have all the powers you need but you will not have absolute power if you ameliorate those sections that deny the individual the rights to which he is entitled, or to invade the constitution by a subterranean method such as this.
I have referred to section 28 and section 31. These are the major sections to which I take objection. I ask the Prime Minister why the inclusion of arbitrary powers such as these? The answer given is: we do not use them. What have you them for-a club, a threat, intimidation? Do you want the sword of Damocles to hang over everybody? Oh, we do not use these powers! Why have these inexcusable powers? In two particulars they are beyond anything that was used in time of war. Why do we need them today?
Then there is the other question, and I am not covering any of the ground that my hon. friends who preceded me have covered. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) outlined the general picture in an outstanding address. All I am doing is pinpointing two or three sections. I am asking the Prime Minister why? What has changed since 1945?
I say to the Prime Minister, through you, sir, that in 1941 he made a statement to the effect that these great powers should not be exercised for any great length of time. He said there should be periods, not exceeding


one year, when parliament should review the situation. That is what they did in Britain. In 1951 my hon. friends agreed to a period of three years.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Five years.


John George Diefenbaker: Five years; the correction is proper. Why the unlimited power today? What is the reason? Certainly we should not be overborne by the desires of potential bureaucrats who are fearful that at the end of five years the department is going to end. Make the department permanent, but make provision for the grant of extraordinary powers contingent on early review by parliament, and give consideration to the removal of these items to which I have made reference that I am sure the Prime Minister in his heart of hearts cannot justify.
Where is the rule of law? Have we placed the rule of law in the refrigerator of security? Is it put away? There is no need for that. Individuals have rights. Parliament has rights: the provinces have rights. I say to the Prime Minister. Do not answer me in the way I have heard the answer given in the last two days. We won in 1949 and we won in 1953; look at our majority. That is no answer to the interference with the rights of the individual with contractual obligations. With respect to constitutional power, read Burke. What did he say? What were his words? The tyranny of the majority is a multiple tyranny. No better answer can be given today than that. It is no excuse that you have a big majority. You need powers. We shall give those powers to the minister. Set up his department as a permanent one; but for the life of me I can see no justification to strangle the rights of the individual, to deny him counsel, to deny him the right of appeal to the courts, to place the governor in council in certain particulars above the law of the land.
I say no more, sir, but I do ask the Prime Minister to give consideration to this matter. As far as the Minister of Defence Production is concerned, he wants power. As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, in the grant of that power I suggest to the leader of this government that he see to it that provincial jurisdiction is not interfered with, that contractual obligations are not destroyed at the whim of the government, or of somebody to whom the minister sublets the power. And the power to fix prices as between A and B dealing with these commodities is something that should not be interfered with during days of peace.


Mr. Elmore Philpoll (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with growing bewilderment and some concern to the

strange merry-go-round of talk that I have heard from the opposition benches in the past couple of days. I remember that some of the Conservative speakers were flattering enough to quote something that I had written on the need for the repeal of the emergency powers act. After hearing some of the unmitigated nonsense uttered in the past couple of days by some of the Conservative speakers in connection with this Defence Production Act, I am not so sure that I should be flattered to be quoted by them. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) concluded by saying that the Minister of Defence Production and Minister of Trade and Commerce was lusting for power. I say that that is absolute nonsense and everyone in this chamber, including the hon. member for Prince Albert, knows it is absolute nonsense.
Then my good friend and fellow-Vancou-verite, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), went on at some length to say that the minister is lusting and thirsting for power, that the minister is attempting to set up a tyranny. I do not believe that there is a single person in this house, and I for one do not believe that there is a single person in the whole Dominion of Canada, who believes any such thing.
Then I heard the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) stoop to great depths last night when he compared the request of the Minister of Defence Production for the tools to enable him to carry on his job effectively with the request of Adolf Hitler for the granting of complete totalitarian powers in Germany. I say that that is not only an insult to one of the world's greatest statesmen that this country ever produced, it is an insult to the intelligence of every hon. member of this house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there have not
been many interjections, but the hon. member has made several comments which should not pass unchallenged. Your Honour will find if you read the rule book that to say a statement by an hon. member is an insult to the house is not within the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. On the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), if the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) stated that the remarks made were insulting to the house I am sure he will be glad to withdraw them.


Elmore Philpott: I shall be glad to withdraw them and say that the statements made by the hon. member for Queens were most unfortunate and I think were the most regrettable I have ever heard in all my life, and
Defence Production Act I am getting along in years; in fact I am as old as the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How unkind can you get?


Elmore Philpott: When I hear unjustified
statements such as we have heard in this house in the past two days, statements which were completely unjustified and ungrateful when referring to one of the world's greatest business statesmen that this or any other country ever produced, I may perhaps be forgiven a personal reference which makes me realize that I am getting along in years. I happened to have the honour of assisting in the entry into this house of the very distinguished gentleman who sits on the front benches. I made speeches for him all over northern Ontario during the election of 1935. The only thing I have against him is that I had a very good joke which I used in I think nine of the ten speeches I made on behalf of the present Minister of Defence Production, but on the tenth night he spoke before me and swiped my best joke and left me with nothing.


An hon. Member:: The biggest joke was the result.


Elmore Philpott: The results speak for themselves. When an hon. member gets up in this house and likens the request of the Minister of Defence Production, for legislation to enable him to carry on his job, to the request of Adolf Hitler for the concession of complete totalitarian powers in Germany, that, stated in the mildest and most parliamentary terms, is hitting so far below the belt that it should not be condoned by any hon. member in this house.
If there is one Canadian more than any other who is still in this house who did so much to overcome the menace of that same Adolf Hitler and to enable this Canada of ours to attain the place she has in the company of nations, it is the unassuming and modest gentleman who sits on the front benches of this House of Commons.
Unfortunately the hon. member for Duffe-rin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) is not in the house today because I wanted to set him correct on a quotation he made. I set him correct on one he made yesterday when he was here and I should like to correct another one of his quotations. He misquoted Lord Acton. He quoted Lord Acton as having said that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe or any other hon. member will look up the book of quotations he will find that the correct quotation is:
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Defence Production Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: A distinction without a difference.


Elmore Philpott: We have had enough misquotations. If the remarks of the Minister of Defence Production or of Lord Acton or even of Cleopatra, referred to by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), are going to be quoted, let us have the quotations correct.
It seems to me that there are a few questions which have to be asked about this particular bill. The first is whether there is a world emergency. One day we hear the hon. gentlemen on the Conservative benches opposite shouting to high heaven that our armed forces are not good enough, that we should have a bigger army, a bigger navy, a bigger air force and a bigger everything else to meet the urgent communist menace, and then in the next breath saying that there is no emergency at all, that we do not need any Defence Production Act, that everything is sweet and lovely, that we should all relax and go to sleep for 20 years like Rip Van Winkle; when that happens we do not know whether the Conservatives are coming or going or continuing to go around in circles.
There is a world emergency and it is perhaps the most serious emergency there has ever been in the history of the world. While the political picture in Europe is tending to get better, the very fact that it has got better means that there will be a greater emergency across the northern boundaries of Canada. I do not think that any defence production minister in any country of the world has a more difficult and intricate job to do than our own Minister of Defence Production here in Canada. Let us give him the tools to do the job and do it right.
I submit that whatever else hon. gentlemen may want to say about the Minister of Defence Production it must be admitted that he has the experience that is needed to do this job. He knows how to do a job when he takes on a job as a result of 20 years' experience. He says that he needs these tools to do the job so I say we should give him the tools to carry on that job.
This brings me to another contradictory point. I am frankly amazed at some of my hon. friends who sit on the Conservative benches. Not only do they blow hot and cold as to the world emergency, not only do they say one day that we need a bigger air force and so on and then the next day say that we need no Defence Production Act at all, I believe they even-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. gentleman what member in this house has said that there was no need for the Defence Production Act?


Elmore Philpott: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. member for Eglinton because in his 110-minute speech-


Stanley Howard Knowles: 101 minutes.


Elmore Philpott: -he said so much that meant so little that I came to the conclusion his speech was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The Minister of Defence Production says he needs these tools to do the job. I say, let us give him the tools and let him finish the job. To get back to the point, my hon. friend is blowing hot and cold. In one breath we are told by the usually intelligent member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that the Minister of Defence Production is thirsting and lusting for power. Then we are told by some other member sitting on the same side of the house that it will be a sorry day for Canada when the present Minister of Defence Production has to give up his job.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) says that it will be such a sorry day for Canada that we will have to have two men to do the job that is now being done by one man, the Minister of Defence Production. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) must be needed in Toronto today, because he is away; but he has said that before very long Mr. Howe will have to step down, and when Mr. Howe steps down, they say, there will be some hope for the good old Tories at long last. I might say, what a vain hope! But we will let that pass.
Today we have to answer some very simple questions. Is there a world emergency? Of course there is a world emergency. Is Canada vitally concerned in the world emergency? Of course, Canada is vitally concerned in the world emergency. Do we need a ministry of defence production? Of course, we need a ministry of defence production. Do we need to make that department stable? How else can you have an efficient department? How else can you have people work for you willingly unless you make it stable?
Then I come to the final piece de resistance of my hon. friends, the illogical members of the main opposition, who say, "Let us forget all about this Defence Production Act and wipe it off the statute books; after all, if anything very bad happens, let us invoke the War Measures Act." I have heard that from four different sources.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman if he is suggesting that some member in this house has said that the War Measures Act should be invoked? No member in this debate has said the War Measures

Act should be invoked. On the contrary, the hope was expressed that the conditions would never arise under which the War Measures Act could be invoked.


Elmore Philpott: If my hon. friend had listened more and said less in the debate during the last two days, he would have noticed that on at least four different occasions members of the opposition have said that if we abolish the Defence Production Act, in case of need the War Measures Act-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, there must be some limit to the continued inaccuracies of the member for Vancouver South. No hon. member has stated or implied what he has just stated, and he knows it. He knows perfectly well that what has been said is that, if the circumstances of a condition of war arise, the War Measures Act is on the statute books. He knows perfectly well that the hon. members on this side have stated that they want the defence production department to be made permanent, but they do not want it to be made permanent with unlimited powers.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope you will note that the Leader of the Opposition has now spoken in this debate.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If so, how can the hon. member for Vancouver South speak again?


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, if I have misunderstood what I certainly took to be the plain meaning of the several statements of the opposition, all I can say is that it proves the words from the Holy Book of Wisdom, which says "In a multitude of words there is want of wisdom". Certainly that was my reading of what several members of the opposition said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You were not even in the house to listen.


Elmore Philpott: They say that if we abolish the Defence Production Act we can put our sole reliance on the War Measures Act, that we could invoke the War Measures Act if and when some particular necessity arises to give the government some emergency powers. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that by invoking the War Measures Act before there is a condition of actual war in the world we would ourselves have contributed most terribly and disastrously perhaps to the very world crisis which we are endeavouring to avert.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the hon. member is not permitted to
Defence Production Act leave an inference on the record which is wholly inconsistent with the facts. He should know, if he does not know, that the War Measures Act can be invoked only in the event of war or apprehended war, and he should not seek to leave on the record of this house an impression which he knows, or should know, is completely unrelated to the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They cannot take it.


Elmore Philpott: I can thoroughly agree with my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, that it would be a most disastrous and fallacious thing for this house to abolish the Defence Production Act and leave ourselves totally dependent on the War Measures Act, which we could not invoke unless there was an actual war, without gravely aggravating the present world crisis. I have tried to listen very carefully to the words of the hon. members of the opposition. Of course, I admit that at times I am confused by the two wings of the opposition. There are two wings to our Conservative opposition over here. There are the Conservatives with whiskers still and the Conservatives to my extreme right with their whiskers shaved off but under certain circumstances their whiskers would grow again very quickly.


Mr. Harkness:: That remark shows how little you appreciate the situation.


Elmore Philpott: We do not often get assistance from the two wings of the Conservative party in this house. The only concrete suggestion I have heard from the members of the official Conservative opposition in this house is that there should be a cut-off date in this Defence Production Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, in the powers.


Elmore Philpott: I for one have listened for two whole days, waiting for some member of the official Conservative opposition either to move an amendment or to make a concrete suggestion so that we would have something to go on in this house, but all they do is complain and continue to go around in circles.


Mr. Roland Michener (Si. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, the few interventions in this debate by members of the government and by members of other opposition groups have not done very much to clarify the issue which is involved here.


An hon. Member:: The confusion is created by the official opposition.


Daniel Roland Michener: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seemed to leave the impression that the issue was the length of time which had been taken by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) in

Defence Production Act his very clear and able posing of the issue which is before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One hundred and one minutes without telling us where he stood.


Daniel Roland Michener: That seemed to be the issue in the member's mind, the length of time in which the hon. member for Eglinton clearly raised the issue as it is seen by members of this party. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott), who has just spoken, very cleverly has avoided the issue which has been raised by most of the opposition speakers. He has failed to discuss the powers which are carried forward in this bill, other than to call them tools. That is a very glib and easy way of disposing of the issue. By using a pat phrase, "give the minister the tools" he has, as he thinks, disposed of the issue. But the bill we have before us is Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act. The bill itself is quite simple in its terms. May I refer to the substance of the bill. One part of it deals with the minister's salary- which is not an issue-and the other part extends the Defence Production Act.
It may be repetitious but it seems to be necessary to repeat that the matter of extension of the Department of Defence Production is not an issue. If that were the entire content of the bill-or that plus the salary- there would be no issue before the house. The issue is not either of those matters. We agree on them. I agree with the argument put forward by the minister that there is a necessity for the Department of Defence Production or some such department. I agree that it must have a lifetime ahead of it and not be subject to termination if it is to be staffed with people of the competence required in such an important undertaking, and that therefore it is not satisfactory from the departmental point of view to be labouring under a deadline. I agree that such a department and its co-operation with industry in this country with a view to remaining on a defence footing is an essential and desirable objective, and it is something upon which I suggest all parties in this house would agree.
As has been clearly stated, the disagreement arises with respect to the powers which the government appears to have considered to be necessary to carry on the Department of Defence Production and for it to do its business. In other words, the issue before the house is the issue of the perpetuation of emergency powers, not only of the minister but of the governor in council, which powers are in fact emergency powers but are not defined as such and are not based on any declaration of emergency, as has been pointed out this morning.


We have had in this country 15 years of experience of emergency powers. That is plenty of time in which to form an opinion of the necessity for and the circumstances in which those powers are necessary; how they operate; and what their effect is on the economy, the people of the country, the constitution, business and industry, and private rights and liberties. All of these things have been the subject of observation as the result of the exercise for 15 years-[DOT] since 1940 or 1939-of emergency powers.
The authority for the exercise of those powers still exists, as has been well pointed out, in the War Measures Act; and those powers can be invoked again, if necessary. They have existed under the War Measures Act, under the emergency powers act, under various acts of parliament such as the ones creating the department of munitions and supply, defence supplies and others which were passed in the circumstances of a conflict which was an all-out contest between the western democratic countries and powers organized on totalitarian lines. I believe that every Canadian agreed with and endorsed the organization of Canada in a centralized or what one might properly call a totalitarian organization which was necessary in the circumstances to combat a similar mobilization of the entire resources of the nations with whom we were fighting. That centralization and concentration of emergency power continued, Mr. Speaker, after the war was over. It has been the subject of strong and, at times, acrimonious debate in this house, as to whether the necessity continues for those powers.
Well might the subject give rise to such debate because the powers which were exercised by the federal authority went far beyond its normal constitutional powers and it looked as though Canada were taking a shape and substance which was by no means normal for a democratic society. In other words, it looked as though it was assuming the permanent character and organization of a wartime economy. It was proper that that trend should be questioned because, as I say, the powers which were exercised by the federal authority went deep into the lives of the Canadian people, and went far beyond any authority which had been exercised by federal power prior to that date.
Examples will readily occur to the mind. The federal government acquired authority over rental which is purely a matter of provincial control. We all remember that the rent control regulations reached into the farthest villages of Canada and dealt with matters which are not the subject of federal legislation in normal times. The same thing

happened with regard to private property, which was dealt with in great particularity.
1 recall an instance in which a farmer up in northern Ontario was unable, without authority from Ottawa, to kill a pig he had on his farm for his own use. That authority was required under control orders of that time dealing with the use of livestock. We all remember that if a suit of clothes was to be made, the federal government prescribed how many pockets it should have and whether or not there would be a cuff on the trousers. We had the most minute control and regulation of affairs centralized in Ottawa.
It was naturally the desire of all Canadians to enjoy, in their personal affairs and in their property affairs, as much personal freedom as was consistent with the public interest and to be relieved of that great mass of regulations and controls. It was the desire of the municipalities and of the provinces to be restored to their normal authority under the constitution. Hence, when the fighting ceased, pressure was brought to bear to remove these extraordinary and emergency powers; and they have been removed, bit by bit. I suggest that we have before us today the last of the emergency powers of substantial proportions. As the minister has said, the emergency powers act itself was liquidated two years ago. In those circumstances I suggest that the government is under the onus of making a strong case before it asks parliament to continue these emergency powers. As I have said, this is the last of the emergency powers. These powers are due to expire on July 31 of next year. If they are to be continued, we should have some justification for their continuance. We are not asked to continue them for another period, even; we are asked to continue these powers indefinitely. It is therefore a perpetuation of what began in an emergency and should be limited to an emergency.
The question is whether there is today an emergency of such a nature as justifies the continuance of the powers for a period of time. There may be justification for a temporary continuance of these powers but the case has not been put to us in that way. We are asked to give a perpetual life to these emergency powers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the principal objection and one of the main reasons why the government is under an onus to make a very clear case is that these powers interfere very deeply with the normal freedom of a citizen to deal with his property. The minister has indicated, rightly I believe, that there is no attempt to deal with Canadian citizens directly. In other words, there is no power to imprison or to order the person directly,
Defence Production Act but there are a great many indirect powers which affect personal rights, mainly the personal rights of property which have been enjoyed and which are the bulwark of this Canadian society. In my opinion you cannot continue to have a free society unless the people have economic independence and freedom which is not in any way dependent on the government. We have had, and we have submitted to, a condition of economic dependence for these few years which, if it were continued, would soon lead directly into some form of state socialism or state authority of a kind which is not consistent with free enterprise such as this country has enjoyed and should continue to enjoy in the future.
There are really very important issues involved, although they perhaps do not appear on the surface. It has been pointed out that this kind of control does commend itself to those who give a greater role to the state in peacetime, the socialists, who would organize affairs more completely through the state and who are prepared to nationalize a good part of industry. They do not seem to be concerned when authority of this kind is given to the state. This is because their political theories and views run in that direction. My whole belief is of a contrary nature. I believe that economic independence is essential to any kind of personal freedom in any democratic country. If everyone is dependent on the state there can be no survival of individual liberty.
What is the justification that has been put forward by the minister for these powers? I think it is stated perhaps as concisely as anywhere at page 4512 of Hansard for June 2, 1955.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Is the
hon. member talking about the economic independence of the unemployed?


Daniel Roland Michener: I shall deal with my friend's interjection in due course, but I prefer not to be interrupted at this stage. The minister says this:
I can tell this house that generally speaking a government order does not receive the same attention as a privately placed order.
In my opinion this is a most astonishing assertion, and one that in my experience I have never found to be true.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How much experience have you had?


Daniel Roland Michener: I have had quite a bit. I have lived my whole lifetime in this country, and I do not think the minister can make the same assertion.
The reason is that generally speaking the government cannot put on as much pressure as does the private buyer. That has been my experience.
4572	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act and that was my experience in buying for our defence procurement during the years when I had no act to support me.
The minister puts that forward as a reason for the need for these powers. What does he want to buy that he cannot procure? I have been looking at the Defence Production Act to see what kind of things are mentioned there. We all know in a general way what kind of things are essential to defence. Although we do not know the details of modern weapons, we do know in a general way what is needed and what prospects there are of procuring them on a normal basis of purchase without having to advance upon the supplier with the payment in one hand and a big stick in the other. Really that is the proposition the minister puts forward, that he and his department cannot obtain the supplies they need on the basis of free trade in the open market. He must have a club with which he can belt the supplier if he is not prepared to deal.
Now, what is it the government needs to obtain through this department? There are a great many elements that enter into defence, m iact defence could cover everything that is the subject of commerce. If one considers the definition in the act in its broadest terms, one finds it covers articles of all kinds. In these days perhaps even cosmetics would be covered as a necessary part of defence supplies because we now have women in the armed services. However, the main items are such things as ships. Under this government our shipping has gotten into such a condition that many ships are fleeing Canadian registry. We have a very small merchant marine left. There is no inducement to the ship owner to build for profit in this country, so the shipyards are only too ready to supply the' government with such ships as may be needed. In my opinion there is no case made out for any problem in securing such ships as are required for defence.
Then, we come to the next item, motor vehicies. I do not think the minister suggests that the Department of Defence Production cannot be supplied with all the motor vehicles the industry is capable of making. The industry is only too ready and willing to supply such vehicles. Aircraft are in a different category because for the most part the aircraft industry seems to be dependent on government orders. There is no possibility of a sufficient volume of private sales to maintain an independent aircraft industry. Surely, however, there is no need to do more than has been done in the normal process of subsidization and other processes which have been used with such great corporations as Avro. Incidentally, this morning I saw an announcement that Avro was purchasing all


the stock of Canadian Car. We shall have, therefore, one great concern that will comprise the main source of aircraft and engine supplies for the Department of Defence Production. It does not strike one, at least from the outside, and the minister has not given any convincing proof from the inside, that there is any real necessity for more than the normal processes of commerce to secure this kind of equipment.
I believe the same remarks apply to electronics in this country. They are an important element, but there are a great many manufacturers who would be only too ready to make a profit on a government contract. There is no need to do more than offer them contracts to get the materials that are needed. In so far as textiles are concerned, we all know that the textile manufacturers, like the shipbuilders, are in such a condition today they would welcome substantial contracts to keep them in employment. There is no need to hold a stick over the head of any textile manufacturer in this country today to get him to accept an order. The same is true in connection with the production of metals. The mines of the country are all operating as freely as they can. Even the uranium supply, which is beginning to flow out of our Canadian mines, apparently is not much needed in Canada at the moment. It can be secured if it is needed; but as I understand it, a government agency is purchasing most if not all of the uranium for American account.
As I say, there is no problem in connection with getting metals, even uranium. And certainly the same applies to food, so far as it enters into defence. We have surpluses which have been a problem to the minister in his other capacities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the
hon. member a question? If there is no problem, then why have the Department of Defence Production?


Daniel Roland Michener: 
government has no freedom to express himself, and it is not limited to defence. The minister's authority has extended throughout the realm of trade and commerce, which involves imports. At one time it was necessary to have export licences which involved exports which were under control. It involves a great deal of the commerce of the country. The fact that the same person is the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Defence Production does not help the situation at all at this time. In addition to that, the same minister has the responsibility for the western farmers almost completely in his hands. There is hardly a farmer in western Canada who does not have all his products taken by this government and sold for him and the returns paid to him, and all under the direction of this same minister. Therefore, I say, much as one will give credit to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Defence Production and the minister of munitions and supply and the head of many other agencies, corporations and instruments of government, much as one will credit him with the accomplishments that have taken place, it becomes necessary to consider the cumulative effect of these authorities on the country and on the state of mind of the businessmen of the country.
I am rather astonished that those who call themselves Liberals and claim a liberal view of our economy and of our personal relations with government have submitted and are willing to submit to so much centralization of authority, even though it may have been exercised so well. The practice is not justification for the principle which is being followed by this kind of legislation.
Will you call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: May I point out at this moment that if the hon. gentleman wishes me to call it one o'clock it will then be my duty to tell him that his time has expired.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1955-56

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1956, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


[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.
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here for the past couple of days and listened with great attention and some profit to the debate on the motion for the second reading of this bill. The thing that struck me most forcibly was that there was no issue as far as most of the official opposition speakers were concerned, and in my judgment a controversy must have an issue. They were not prepared to say that we should not have legislation of this type; they were registering complaints rather than raising an issue or making concrete proposals to offset the legislation before the house.
I always like to listen to the last speaker for the official opposition because you get the impression that at least he means what he says. He was very earnest in his presentation and he did clearly point up the issue that he had in his mind. In my judgment that issue was that the house should determine the rights of private property as against the security of the state. This was the ground put forth by the hon. member and in my judgment that is the issue before the house.
The first question we will have to ask ourselves is whether it is necessary to have this type of legislation. With his long experience in this field I am sure that the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) would not come before this house to ask for thi? kind of bill unless he had a good reason for so doing. In my judgment all this talk about dictatorship and the loss of democracy is denied by the very discussion that has taken place on this subject. The minister has come before the house and given hon. members representing all the people of Canada an opportunity to discuss the advisability of granting to him the modified amount of authority over the economy of Canada which he is asking for in this bill. That is all it amounts to.
In my opinion this type of legislation is made necessary because big business begets big government. When you examine the economic processes outside of this house you find that during the past 20 years the practice has been to take a dozen or score of small companies that have been functioning as separate units and amalgamate them
Defence Production Act under a charter from the government. Nobody has objected from that source to that type of thing. By getting a charter which gives them practically unlimited powers in certain economic fields they can water their stock, squeeze out the small shareholders and in effect control the destinies of the communities in which they operate. That in turn forces the government which is responsible to the people to develop the same type of organization in order to be able to meet those who manage the economy of the country on the outside on common terms in the event of an emergency.
To suggest that we should not have this kind of law or that the minister should not be given this type of authority in an emergency is to argue against the very basis of law itself. We have laws against bank burglars, not because we want to enforce them but because we know there are people in our society who will commit that type of crime if they think they can get away with it. We impose the penalty of capital punishment in the case of murder, not because our lawmakers want to enforce that law and hang people but because it might act as a deterrent. It is a notification to all those who might violate the laws of society that there are penalties which will be imposed when such crimes are committed.
We establish procedure for the reading of the riot act under our Criminal Code, not to promote riots or because we want to enforce that law but as a penalty in the event of something like that happening. That is the principle which runs through all our law, and there is no difference in this case.
Is there a reason why this should be done? Is it, as has been suggested by the official opposition, that the minister is merely looking for power? Is there any reason why he should do this? What precedents exist arising out of his own experience that tell the minister that he has to have this kind of thing? We have precedents but I do not intend to go over them at this time.
I sat in this house from 1940 during the years of the war and I saw where this government had to place a controller in one of our national steel companies because they were not playing ball in the emergency. I saw them put a controller in the Montreal tramways in order that transportation in that particular city might not be scuttled and defence industries tied up as a result. Another example is that mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the profits limitation act. While the house was not in session the minister was forced to repeal by order in

Defence Production Act council a statute of this country in order that materials which were necessary to war and which were controlled by certain people could be brought into production at a time when the very life	of	the	nation was	atstake and the future	of	the	world hung	in
the balance. I think that example alone is sufficient to justify the minister in asking for this authority.
If the minister is	to	be	responsible	hemust have authority.	If	we	place the Minister of Defence Production in the position where he must face the circumstances which he is trying to prevent or avoid by this bill, if we give him that responsibility, then we must go along with him and give him the necessary authority. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
In my judgment this bill is designed, to prevent sabotage. I am amused when I hear my hon. friends the Conservatives say these powers are not necessary in peacetime. Is this peacetime? When you look at your national defence estimates, right now you will find we are going to give the Department of National Defence $1,769,680,500. Then there is another $5 million in round figures fixed by statute. That certainly does not sound like peace, does it? Then again, if we were sure that there was no danger of war, there would be no need of the defence production department over which the minister presides. There is another $23 million in round figures being voted for this particular department here.
To suggest that the minister is asking for wartime powers in peacetime, in my judgment, is just not being realistic. We believe that these powers are necessary. Why should they be limited? The argument is made that the minister will be in a dictatorial position, that once he gets those powers he can exercise them and no one has any control over him. That is nonsense. This minister has to come to this house once every year with his estimates and account for his department. During that period we can examine that department from top to bottom. Where is the necessity for limitation? There is no more need to limit this department's functions than there is those of any other department of government.
The crux of the problem here is this. We believe in responsible controls. We believe the people of this country who are elected to represent the different ridings across Canada in this house have the right to control and regulate as suggested by this bill in the circumstances for which the bill is designed. What my hon. friends are quarrelling about is that they do not want that power here. They believe that power should remain on
[Mr. Gillis.l
the outside with the large corporations. As I said before, as these corporations grow and amalgamate and seize more power over the economic processes of this country, that in turn forces us in this house to accept the responsibility of setting up machinery so that we can at least talk to these people on even terms.
While we believe in responsible controls, my hon. friends the Conservatives believe in irresponsible controls, the right to manage the country on the outside without any reference to the elected representatives of this country. I am sure I would much rather be able to talk to the minister in this house on things that will happen under the terms of this bill to different corporations that I know across this country than I would to try to get in touch with someone in Mount Royal in Montreal over whom I have no control and with whom I have no contact at all.
That is the difference; irresponsible control on the outside, and responsible control on the inside. The question of price controls in this picture is the same question that existed in the profits limitation act; it is the same question that existed when a controller had to be placed in the steel plant in Hamilton. They were not concerned about the emergency of war. They were still thinking in terms of making money.
With regard to this suggestion that contracts can be broken, I say any contract should be broken that interferes with the security of this country.


An hon. Member:: Including a labour contract?


Clarence Gillis: Exactly; any contract that
interferes with the security of this country should be set to one side during the emergency. There is no doubt about that. There is not one labour man in this country who would disagree with that. 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-


Mr. Sinclair:: Two times.


George Alexander Drew: "Twice" is better grammar.


Clarence Gillis: 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 no profits to be made out of war there is nothing to fight for. That is not the position taken by the labour men.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the socialist ally of the government makes any more irregular statements of that kind, he should

give the quotation or the source from which he makes that statement. I would recall to his memory, if he has forgotten, that the man about whom he is speaking had two gallant sons in uniform during the war and that he has no reason to be ashamed of his participation in the war.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to look up that reference, he has a bigger research department than I have and he can put it on the record when he has his chance to speak in the debate.


An hon. Member:: Where did you find it? Give us that page now.


An hon. Member:: You would not find that in the Senate Hansard.


Clarence Gillis: I am making the statement, and it stands until you disprove it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not worthy of you.


Clarence Gillis: The funny thing about my hon. friends the Tories is that I did not mention any names but apparently every one of them knew who it was.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Every one knew that you had not given a correct statement.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, let us keep the debate on an orderly level. The hon. member knows perfectly well that there is only one former leader of this party to whom these remarks could apply, and he is making remarks without any justification and without being prepared to have the courtesy to offer a quotation from some known record.


James Sinclair: There are so many former leaders it is hard to distinguish them.


Clarence Gillis: As I have sat here for the best part of the last two days, I have listened to some crazy statements, but at least I had the courtesy to sit and listen patiently, recognizing the fact that those who were making them had a right to the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When they quoted they gave the sources, and quoted them accurately.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member for Eglinton, who talked for a long time, certainly read the Defence Production Act in its entirety three times.


George Alexander Drew: Obviously he did not read it often enough.


Clarence Gillis: If the quotations had been taken out of his speech, he would not have made any speech at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did it for your benefit.


Clarence Gillis: When I get up here to speak I at least try to express my own opinion-
Defence Production Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: And your own paraphrase of other people's.


Clarence Gillis: -after having listened to what was said in the house over a long period of time. However, I am merely pointing out the need for this legislation. If the minister has had the experience that many members of the house have had, of having to deal with people who place their own interests and the business of making money above the interests of the country, even in the emergency that existed from 1939 to 1945, then there is just as much justification for placing that legislation on the statute books as there is for writing laws against bank robbers or potential murderers or, as I said before, riot acts and the rest of them. It is not that we want to go out and enforce these laws, but they are there as a deterrent. This law is designed to prevent those who control the economic processes of this country, particularly the materials that are essential to war, from bartering the interests of the nation in order to make profits for themselves. The only people who are afraid of laws are those who are potential lawbreakers.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Clarence Gillis: That has always been my approach to any particular law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let those whom the cap fits wear it.


George Alexander Drew: That is what Hitler said.


Clarence Gillis: Once a democratic law-as this one is-is passed and we know it and it is advertised, if you are a good citizen you will obey that law. I think the fastest way in which to get repeal of a bad law is to enforce it often enough. If this law is bad and it were to be exercised by the minister in the manner suggested by the opposition, I think at the next session of the house it would be repealed. But these powers are not something that is new. I think the powers contained in this particular bill are already contained in the British North America Act.
I do not want to get into the field of arguing law. I believe that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is considered to be a good lawyer. I believe there are others on the other side of the house. At the present time, under the British North America Act the government has the power to declare any work in Canada to be a work in the interests of Canada, if they so desire, and to bring it under the management of the federal government or at least within the scope of federal laws. What is there in this bill that changes that particular picture? As to the matter of conscription, somebody says they never suggest doing that. It is

Defence Production Act enough to have a law, if they want to enforce it, under which they can requisition the life of every man and woman in this country in an emergency such as that. All they have to do is to invoke the old militia act. They do not do it. It has never been done. But that law is there if it is necessary to use it. The principle contained in this emergency bill is exactly the same as that principle. There is not any difference in it.
I do not think it is serving a particularly good purpose in this country to carry on the kind of debate that we have had carried on, particularly by some of the members who point the finger across the floor of the house and say that the government are seeking dictatorial powers and then stand up and try to kid the people of Canada that this is the kind of action that Hitler took. I do not want to get into that story and I know the Leader of the Opposition does not want to get into it. Anyone who knows the history of the failure of the league of nations and the parties and principles that were responsible for the scuttling of it-it did not fail; it was scuttled-will easily recognize the difference between the members in this house and the people of Canada generally with regard to what was taking place in Europe at that time. It certainly was not the socialists or the liberal-minded people in Europe who pulled the structure of democracy from under Europe and handed it over to a mad dictator such as Hitler. Do not forget this. One of the reasons that I am concerned about getting control over those who manage the economic processes of this country is this. I was closely associated with that league of nations. I followed it all the way through as well as the rise of Hitler to power. I am convinced that the people who had the largest share in tearing down Europe and nearly destroying the world were those who were more concerned about profits for themselves and the sale of their materials, whether for war or otherwise, and not any particular individuals who had any ideas of democracy. When I hear the arguments that have been advanced here to retain outside control as opposed to control by the government in certain fields in emergencies-powers such as are asked for in this bill-I am brought to a realization of where some people would go if they had the opportunity to do so.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made it quite clear that, as far as we are concerned, we are prepared to support this bill. We see no reason to limit it. We can review this bill and the actions of this department and of the minister year by year when his estimates are before the house.


Mr. Trainor:: How long is he going to give you?


Clarence Gillis: As long as you want to take. As to the suggestion by some of the opposition members that all of these terrible things are going to happen because of the exercise of that power, may I assure them that if they come before this house at the next session after this bill has been in operation for a year or two years and can then point out an instance where any of the things which they suspect are' going to happen have actually happened, this group will be standing alongside of them in asking for repeal of the bill. But at this time we do not anticipate anything like that.
We feel that the kind of world in which we are living today is an uncertain one and that, with the defence expenditures we have today, a department with some powers must be in existence. If you abolish the defence production department, what have you left? You have a couple of billion dollars which go to national defence. Who spends it? The brass hats on the outside spend it to suit themselves. They are not accountable to parliament. In this way we have some control over defence expenditures. I have suggested on a good many occasions that we should have set up a permanent defence committee to examine all of these things all of the time while we are in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves and are obliged to make these huge defence expenditures. But failing that, some control is exercisable over that matter through this department. I do not think the minister is the kind of person whom we cannot trust. Over the years I think he has proven that we can trust him. I believe that if he left the department next week he could be replaced. None of us is indispensable, although there are many people who think they are. I believe the minister has built up a department and has set up the machinery necessary for its functioning. He has officials who know the ramifications of this department thoroughly. Another minister, without a great deal of difficulty, could take his place and manage the machinery that he has set up.
My capable whip has just done a little bit of research. He is fast at it. In order to save the Leader of the Opposition and his overworked staff the necessity of looking up this quotation, I am now going to put it on the record. The Leader of the Opposition asked for it. The date is December 6, 1940, and it is from Senate Hansard, page 57. It is about half way down the page, I may say, so the Leader of the Opposition will not have too much trouble in finding it. I quote-


Stanley Howard Knowles: "And until I indicate otherwise, I shall be quoting."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Who said it?


Clarence Gillis: These are the words of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen:
I have no sympathy with those who would tax profits at 100 per cent. People will not work for nothing. Human nature is the same in war-time as in peace, and instead of helping the war effort you are defeating it by stripping people of the stimulus to toil and run their business right. Leave the incentive, so that the greater the toil and the greater the success, the greater will be the reward. You have to do that. You do not do it under this bill. I do not exaggerate at all when I say I have had business men by the dozen tell me that they are leaning on their oars: they have nothing to work for. They say: "We might just as well take it a little more easily now, for we are only working for taxes anyway." You will get that result in any case if you take away all incentive to work.


George Alexander Drew: I take it that the hon. member would tax profits 100 per cent.


Clarence Gillis: End of quotation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has asked me if I would tax profits 100 per cent. At the moment we are not talking about an excess profits tax. We are talking now about the desirability of giving the Minister of Defence Production the necessary authority in an emergency to deal with people who place profits for themselves above the national interest. As an indication of the need for a bill of this kind, I quoted a person who had long business experience and long experience as a parliamentarian. He expressed the opinion that, in so far as he was concerned, if there were not profits the businessman was going to lean on his oars regardless of the national interest.
With regard to the taxing of profits 100 per cent, 1 do not believe anyone ever suggested that. We did suggest that there should not be any profit in war. We did suggest that in case of war normal profits were all that could be expected, and that anything in excess of what was fixed at that time as normal profits should be taxed 100 per cent. In other words, we do not believe in blood money. I would ask my hon. friends who talk about this contract proposition to consider what happens when there is a war. Thousands of patriotic people place the interests of the nation even higher than their own lives. They leave their businesses, their farms and their jobs and take a contract with the country through the national defence department to go to foreign shores and offer their lives. What happens to their contract when they come back? Can they establish their own businesses? Are they sure of their jobs? No; they do not think of themselves. They are not thinking of contracts, they are
Defence Production Act thinking of the safety of the nation and they are willing to offer their lives for it. I believe anyone who is a responsible citizen of this [DOT]country would take that attitude, rather than the attitude that was taken in the quotation I have just given.
I would not mind that kind of thing coming from the ordinary industrial tycoon whose only interest was making money and manipulating the stock market, a man to whom money is a god. But when you get it from people who have taken the active part in public life that the particular person referred to has, then it makes one wonder and it should make one very careful of the people to whom the reins of government are handed, as to the motive for which they want to operate the economic processes of the country.
I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. When you talk about freedom and dictatorship, economic freedom is the greatest freedom we can have. That is what we in this group are struggling to achieve. It is the struggle to establish economic freedom that puts me in this group today. Very early in my life I realized that he who controls my job controls me. There is not any economic freedom in the large companies that exist across this country today. There may be 20 or 30 subsidiaries in one corporation, and they are the lords of all they survey. If a subsidiary of theirs in any particular area is not earning the kind of profits they think it should, what do they do about it? Do they consult the public? Do they consult governments as to what they should do? No, they do not. They say, close it down; close that plant or mine or factory, whatever it is. They do not take into consideration the millions and millions of dollars of investment that people generally have in these towns and cities that are built up around particular industries. This particular plant does not make enough money, so we throw it into the discard. Is that dictatorship in the economic field? It surely is. How much freedom have the millions of people who work as wage earners in those industries? The powers the minister requests in this bill are merely powers that are granted by those who are opposing this bill to every executive of every major corporation in this country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nonsense.


Clarence Gillis: They wield them indiscriminately. You can go from Vancouver to Cape Breton, and the Leader of the Opposition knows this as well as I do, and you will find ghost towns, lumber ghost towns, mining ghost towns and ghost towns resulting from other industries that were built up and wiped
4580	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act out overnight. There is no social responsibility at all. The human factor does not enter into it. When you ask them what is going to happen to these people who are being thrown into the discard they say, that is not our responsibility; we are operating this industry for a profit. Let the churches or the government look after them.
Well, in my judgment this is one time when the government is making an attempt at least to get the necessary authority to talk to the kind of person who has that kind of mind. I am not going to try to compete with the marathon speeches that were made to my right. I think I have said enough at least to indicate-I have said one thing that the official opposition has not said as yet, how we are going to vote on this bill-that the members of this group are going to vote for this bill as a step in the right direction.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: At the outset, I should like to say a word about the suggestion made a few moments ago in regard to the alleged socialist allies of the government on this matter. I would just say that it seems to me the quickest way to turn the country over to socialism or perhaps communism is to indicate that you would enforce the law in regard to the little man most rigidly and let the larger corporations take advantage of a time of crisis to make large profits which they would not be forced to disgorge. I cannot think of anything that would make people lose faith in our free enterprise system more quickly than an attitude that you would not endeavour to control the larger corporations who had business with the government but you would rigidly enforce the law against the so-called little man.
I would say that the government, in taking the attitude that in times like these, when they are spending fairly close to $2 billion of the taxpayers' money, it wishes to ensure that neither is the money misappropriated nor is advantage taken of the situation to make exorbitant profits, is taking an attitude which is more likely to result in the continued faith of the people in our present system and less likely to cause them to turn them towards socialism.
A few propositions that seem to me very clear have arisen in this debate. One is that the need for a Defence Production Act is not seriously contested under present circumstances. I think members as a whole realize that we are in a period when, along with our allies, we have to spend large sums of money to provide for our defence, and that it is only by doing so that we can hope to have peace, and hope ultimately to get through this period without war taking place.


Another is that it has been found from experience that the best way to spend the vast sums of money which have to be spent and the best way to control our preparations for defence is through a Department of Defence Production headed by a capable minister. And so it seems to me that all members in the house would grant the necessity of continuing this act. No one will say that we can count definitely on when this present period of tension will come to an end. So it seems to me there is no reason for saying that we should not extend the powers indefinitely, as provided in the bill.
In introducing the measure the minister said that if we are going to have a Defence Production Act we should have one that is completely effective. I do not think anyone in the house would say otherwise. What is the use of having a statute setting up a department unless that department is given the power to do a good job, the power to do the job experience has shown can and should be done? I do not think anyone would say that the minister, who has said that the powers in the act are those which experience has shown are absolutely necessary to do the job, has not had the experience which would warrant his giving an opinion in the matter. He has been in charge of this work for almost 16 years. I do not suppose there is anyone in the democratic world who has had as long an experience, or the admitted success in organizing his country for war, as the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) has had.
I do not think anyone on the opposition side of the house would maintain seriously that the minister does not know what he is talking about when he says that this power is necessary, from his experience. I do not think one of them would wish to match his opinion in this field against that of the minister. When the minister says that, I wonder if in their hearts hon. members opposing him really believe that at this stage of the minister's career he is asking for the passage of this measure so that he might have more power? Do they not rather believe in their hearts that he asks for these powers in the act because he wishes to give the nation the benefit of his long experience in the service of our country; that he is asking for them because he really believes them necessary? I fancy most members in the opposition believe that when the minister makes these statements he is speaking his honest opinion.
I am sure one of the reasons the country generally believes that the minister is speaking honestly and should be listened to is

that during the time he was in charge of this work the country spent between $17 and $18 billion; and Canadians are proud that with that tremendous expenditure of money, not only was no question raised or allegation made concerning any misappropriation of funds, but there was a definite appreciation that large sums of money that would have been considered an undue profit were recovered by the country. This has meant that the burden upon the people paying the taxes was reduced to that extent. The record of the minister and of the government in administering that $17 or $18 billion, and seeing to it that the taxpayer was protected, is one of which Canadians have a right to be proud.
My understanding of the main objection by the official opposition to the bill is that, by continuing in effect the powers set out in the existing statute, we will be getting away from parliamentary control and the rule of law. Dealing first with parliamentary control, it is my understanding that the official opposition following the war insisted that the emergency powers act should be brought to an end because they said, the government should not have the power to pass laws by order in council giving itself further authority. They said that if the government required certain powers, then it should secure those powers by legislation passed by parliament. They said that under those circumstances they would know what powers the government had, and it could be called to account at each session of parliament. They urged that this would be true responsible government.
This is what the official opposition have been asking for during the last six or seven years. Now that the government is laying down in legislation, section by section^ exactly the powers to be given to the minister to carry out his work, they find fault. I wonder if the country will not have grave doubts about the present opposition to this bill, when they see that when the government is doing the very thing the opposition has claimed should be done they now find fault with those very actions.
Those sections giving power to the minister must be administered, and the government is answerable to parliament each year as to the manner of that administration. This, as it has been pointed out, is responsible government. But, in addition to that, the courts are there. If in any way the government does not administer the law in accordance with the act, the courts are there to protect the citizen.
This brings me to the argument about the rule of law. Particular reference was made
Defence Production Act to this by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He made special reference to the question of price fixing, as it is provided for in section 31 of the act. My understanding of that section is that the question of price fixing has to do with essential defence material, supplies and defence projects. There seemed to be a suggestion that a government which is spending well over 40 per cent of its entire income in preparing to defend itself would have no right to protect itself if a group of people got together in an endeavour to profit unduly from a situation where such a large amount of money had to be spent. That very situation would not only undermine faith in our system of government, and its adequate powers to handle the problems confronting the country today, but it would destroy faith in the system of free enterprise under which we operate. It would also weaken the effort we are able to make to defend ourselves.
The hon. member for Prince Albert is a lawyer with a distinguished record, and I would have thought he would have been the first to admit that the first and paramount power given to the central government in Canada, when Canada was established as a nation, was the right to defend itself and to take all the necessary steps to that end. I had no doubt in my mind that the fathers of confederation had not overlooked that when they drew up the British North America Act. I was certain that provision appeared in section 91, which gives the overriding jurisdiction to the dominion parliament in various national matters.
Section 91, which without doubt prevails over any provincial power given in section 92

and sometimes it seems to me we overlook the sweeping powers given by this section-says:
It shall be lawful for the queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,-
Then we come to heading No. 7, which reads as follows:
Militia, military and naval service, and defence.
Section 91 concludes by saying:
And any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.

Defence Production Act
In other words, when this parliament is legislating under the head of defence it has overriding powers regardless of such matters as property and civil rights in the provinces. The decision as to whether legislation passed under this head was intra vires of course would be a matter for the courts. Any suggestion that the constitution is being violated by this legislation and that the courts are being superseded is of course fantastic. For example, if the government takes any action in this regard by stating that certain prices shall be charged for certain essential defence materials, and the courts saw the situation as such that the class of goods for which the government was purporting to fix prices was not such as to bring the action definitely within section 91, they would say so and the action would be set aside. In other words the courts will still be supreme with regard to any action taken under this legislation. Furthermore, if a situation of great emergency were to arise the very declaration of the state of emergency would make this section operative.
What harm then is in it? Why should the official opposition, who have been crying out for years, demanding that parliament be asked to write the different rules and regulations into the statutes, find fault with the fact that this is now to be done, by an act of parliament instead of by an order in council?


John George Diefenbaker: Is this not made under an order in council by the governor in council?


Walter Adam Tucker: If the order in council is passed under this head and it is not within the powers of Canada, due to the fact that conditions as they exist at the time it is passed are not such as to warrant the exercise of that right, the courts will unhesitatingly set it aside. Undoubtedly circumstances could arise, and I do not think my distinguished and learned friends across the way, and I include the Leader of the Opposition and the whole group, will say that conceivably circumstances could not arise within the next 12 months, under which an order in council passed by virtue of this section would not be held by the courts to be completely within the powers of this parliament.
The same thing applies to the section providing for relief from obligations. Is the strength of a nation to be dissipated by a shortage of essential supplies of some particular article and the country held up for ransom because of that shortage, and then parliament, speaking for the whole of Canada, not to have the right to protect the people of Canada against something like that?
I submit that the fathers of confederation, in


drawing up our constitution, were not ready to put our parliament in such a helpless position to protect the new nation they were bringing into existence. These powers are there to be used in certain circumstances.
The hon. member for Prince Albert said that investigators could be appointed to look into any defence contract or anything of that nature. That may be done only if it is deemed necessary, for example if it is clear that a person had made an exorbitant profit which he otherwise could be asked to return to the country. I wonder whether the opposition are against the government having that right to protect the taxpayers who find it so hard to pay their taxes and provide for the defence of themselves, their homes and their country. Do they really seriously contend that some large private industry should, if it manages to make an exorbitant profit, be able to say to the government, "Yes, we have done so, but there is nothing you can do about it". I take it from their speeches that they would like the government to be in that helpless position. If they would not like it to be in that helpless position they would support this bill.
The hon. member for Prince Albert drew attention to the section which provides that if a person is being investigated he might have counsel, but if a charge was laid he had the right to have counsel. I was interested to hear what he had to say in that regard. I have here the Inquiries Act which has been in force for a long time. I do not know what the stripe of government was which originally introduced it into parliament. It is chapter 154 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. It refers back to the previous revised statutes. I find that the section which the hon. member for Prince Albert drew attention to is exactly the same as the section in the Inquiries Act which has been in the law of our country for years and years. In other words, the provision in the Defence Production Act does not give the government any greater powers than it already has, in regard to investigating under the Inquiries Act. 1 should like to read the section to indicate to the house that that is true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will he not agree that there are no powers derived in respect of investigation under the Inquiries Act in favour of the Department of Defence Production unless they are conferred by the Defence Production Act?


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not admit that at all. If the hon. member will be patient I shall indicate that to him.
Section 2 of the Inquiries Act reads:
The governor in council may. whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.
In other words, under the Inquiries Act, the governor in council can cause an inquiry to be made into any of these questions. It provides that the governor in council may appoint, by a commission, commissioners, and give the commissioners power to summon before them witnesses and require them to give evidence on oath or on solemn affirmation. It goes on to say that the commissioners have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.
Then there is provision in part II of the act for departmental investigation. Section 12 reads:
The commissioners may allow any person whose conduct Is being investigated under this act. and shall allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel.
That is exactly the same as in the present Defence Production Act and as stated that has been the law of Canada for years and years. I was very sorry the hon. member for Prince Albert suggested that in some way there was something unusual in this act, at a time when a distinguished member of the government of a commonwealth country was sitting in the gallery. He suggested that in some way parliamentary government was being abrogated in this country by the provision that a person could be appointed to inquire into matters under the Defence Production Act and-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the hon. member not appreciate that under the Inquiries Act an inquiry may be instituted only by a decision of the government through an order in council, whereas under section 29 of the Defence Production Act the minister is given power to appoint an investigator who under subsection 2 of section 29 has all the powers conferred on commissioners under the Inquiries Act. In that case he is not receiving them through an order in council passed by the whole government.


Walter Adam Tucker: In answer to that statement I would suggest that if that is all the criticism the opposition have to offer of this bill, that it is quite all right for the government to set up a commissioner to go into these things by order in council but it is quite wrong for
Defence Production Act a responsible minister to do the same thing, then that is not consistent with the opposition attitude that the policy of the government is terribly wrong. Where is the fundamental difference which infringes upon the liberty of the subject? And is this the tremendous far-reaching change outlined by the hon. member for Prince Albert? Is that the only basis for attack, the difference between the cabinet doing it or a minister doing it, a minister who is acting as a member of the government of which he can remain a member only if he is satisfactory to the government as a whole and to the Prime Minister? Do they now say it is quite all right to have these powers to summon somebody in front of a commissioner and not give him counsel, if the commissioner does not wish to do so, until a charge is brought against him; that it is all right if it is done by order in council, but if it is done by a responsible minister then it becomes an infringement upon the liberty of the subject?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who ever said that?


Walter Adam Tucker: That was the point made by the hon. member for Eglinton, obviously.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, my hon. friend read section 12 of the Inquiries Act which, while it reads as follows:
The commissioners may allow any person whose conduct Is being investigated under this act, and shall allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel-
-is altered in effect by the subsequent provisions of that act in general.


Walter Adam Tucker: The commissioner has the right to summon a person before him, and if he does not come and answer questions he may be prosecuted. It says that in the Inquiries Act, and I shall read it again:
The commissioners may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this act, and shall allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel.
Let me read the wording of the similar section of the Defence Production Act about which the hon. member for Prince Albert waxed so eloquent this morning. Here is what it says:
29. (1) The minister may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause an inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter relating to or incidental to or arising out of a defence contract or any group or series of defence contracts or any dealings in or with defence supplies, and may appoint a person or persons by whom the inquiry shall be conducted.
(2) An investigator has all the powers conferred on commissioners by sections 4 and 5 of the

Defence Production Act Inquiries Act or which may he conferred on commissioners under subsection (1) of section 11 thereof.
(3) An investigator may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this act, and shall allow any person against whom a charge is made in the course of such inquiry, to be represented by counsel.
The words as to counsel are exactly the same, yet we had this terrible attack upon the government because a man could be investigated, and while the investigation is going on and before any charge is brought against him he is not to be allowed to speak through counsel. I suggest that if that is so terrible it is a strange thing that this same provision should have been in the Inquiries Act for so long. It is not a new principle. The hon. member for Prince Albert has been a lawyer long enough to know that. If everyone had the right to refuse to answer questions except through counsel the chances of conducting investigations would be very poor. But it is provided that when a charge is going to be laid the person shall have the right to retain counsel. That is one of the fundamental principles of British administration of justice.
A coroner may call persons and examine them and ask them questions as to how certain things happened. I do not think the hon. member for Prince Albert would get very far if he took the attitude that anyone called before a coroner would have the right to speak only through counsel. Obviously the state must have the right to investigate these matters. The British system protects the citizen by providing that nobody shall be accused and put in jeopardy without a chance to have counsel advise him. That right is fully preserved in this act, the same as it is in the Inquiries Act.
Hon. members opposite seem to object to the right to mobilize the industrial facilities of the country in the event it is found necessary to do so. Surely hon. members opposite will not say that it is not a good thing for the government to have that power with the threat of a world war under which we live today. Whether that power is adequately or properly exercised is something for which this parliament can hold the government to account, but surely in the world of today the government should have the right if necessary to mobilize the industrial and economic set-up of the country, to require returns to be made so there may be a check of how defence requirements are being met and whether exorbitant profits are being made. Section 19 of the act reads:
No person is entitled to damages, compensation or other allowance for loss of profit, direct or indirect, arising out of the rescission or termination of a defence contract at any time before it is


fully performed if it is rescinded or terminated pursuant to a power contained in the contract or pursuant to a power conferred by or under an act of the parliament of Canada.
I ask hon. members of the opposition what is wrong with that. If I enter into a contract with the government of Canada to provide them with supplies and it is provided that the government has the right to rescind or terminate the contract, that being one of the terms of the contract, why should I ask for damages if the government exercises its powers under the contract? Then it goes on to provide that if the contract is terminated by an act of parliament there shall be no damages. People who enter into these contracts know the government has the power by law to terminate. If through a change in the international situation it is not necessary to spend the millions of dollars involved in defence contracts, surely the government should have the right to terminate them.
Is it not right to put it in the act that the government shall have that power? Then if the contract is terminated the person has no complaint, because he then would know it was the law that it could be terminated and it would be something he took into consideration when he entered into the contract. Why is there anything wrong with that? Is it not just a matter of protecting the interests of the country? I cannot imagine the opposition actually being opposed to that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who has expressed opposition to that?


Walter Adam Tucker: It seemed to me it was being said that the government was asking for dictatorial power. I am running over some of these powers that have been so referred to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Pick out the sections conferring the powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Make your own speech.


Walter Adam Tucker: Another section with which fault was found was that giving the right to make orders appointing controllers, establishing the circumstances under which the government could have the right to appoint a controller. I suggest that under the present circumstances every democratic country in the world that has the same system of government as ours has vested that right in the government. It certainly exists in the government of the United States; it certainly exists in the government of the United Kingdom, and I believe it exists in the governments of Australia and New Zealand. That is the right to appoint a controller of some industry if a crisis should develop under present world circumstances. I wonder if the opposition think the government should not have that

right if the appropriate circumstances arose and if, having exercised it, they have to account to parliament for having done so.
With regard to the right to designate materials as essential for defence, under present circumstances does the official opposition really think the government should not have the right to designate the materials that are absolutely essential for defence?
Sections 21 and 22 indicate the sort of bill this is. Section 21 provides in subsection 2 that-
Where the minister is satisfied, either before or after the performance, in whole or in part, of a defence contract entered into after the 1st day of April, 1951, that the total amount paid or payable thereunder to any person is in excess of the fair and reasonable cost of performing the contract together with a fair and reasonable profit, he may by order reduce the amount that such person is entitled to retain or receive thereunder to such amount as he may fix as the fair and reasonable cost of performing the contract together with a fair and reasonable profit thereon and the minister may direct that person to pay to the Receiver General of Canada forthwith any amount which that person has received under the contract in excess of the amount so fixed.
When this bill is passed it becomes part of the law of Canada. Anybody entering into a contract for defence supplies knows that if it turns out that he has made what may be regarded as more than a fair and reasonable profit, the minister has the right to say, "You must refund the difference". That is part of the basis upon which he enters into the contract. I wonder if the opposition would say the government on behalf of our people should not have that protection and that, no matter how it might turn out, how large the profit might be in supplying something necessary to the defence of our country, the government should not have the right to recover an amount over and above the cost and a fair and reasonable profit.
I have no doubt, if the opposition, under the guise of arguing that this gives the government too much power, vote against this, most people will think they do not want the government to have the power to adequately protect the taxpayers. That is only a fair inference. Surely this right is one that a government should have. When it is spending between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of its entire outlay on defence it should have the right to protect the taxpayer to that extent.
But section 22 goes on to say:
A person affected by an order or direction made by the minister under section 21 may, within thirty days after the receipt of a copy of the order or direction, inform the minister of his intention to appeal against the order or direction to the Exchequer Court of Canada and shall, within such period of thirty days, file a notice of such intention in the court . . .
Defence Production Act
Hon, members opposite have had a great deal to say about the government taking the-power to do things and putting themselves beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. Here is one of the basic powers in this act, and it is provided that if anybody is dissatisfied with the ruling of the minister in exercising it, he can go to the Exchequer Court of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Only under that section and another section, but the one to which I referred had nothing to do with that; there is no appeal there.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am dealing with the powers that were found fault with. This is one of the vital powers in the act. It is subject to the right to go to the exchequer court.
Another section, section 23, deals with refusal to co-operate:
Where a person who has been requested to enter into a defence contract on terms and conditions that the minister considers to be fair and reasonable has refused or failed to enter into the contract,
. . . the minister may direct that person . . .
-to comply on terms which are considered to be fair and reasonable. In regard to that particular section, I wonder if the opposition would say that under our present economic set-up, for example, in the automobile industry, where a few people are in charge of the production of vehicles which are just as necessary to defence as guns or anything else, if the time came that somebody would not co-operate on fair and reasonable terms to provide vehicles to put this country in a position to defend itself, the government should be left without any recourse to protect the people it is supposed to protect. I wonder if the opposition would think that the wills of a few of the big captains of industry should be permitted to prevail over the will of the people of Canada as expressed by a duly elected parliament and government. Is that what they say they want, a government so weak that it cannot take the necessary steps to protect the country at a time like this? Is that what they mean by this talk that the government is wanting too much power?
I have yet to see any particular respect in which powers are given in this act with which they can really find fault. A general charge can be made, but I have gone over the sections of the act and dealt with them, and I suggest to the house that these sections are necessary for the proper government of our country at this time. This happens to be a Liberal government, but it is the elected government of the people of Canada, and the members of the opposition should want to see it in a position to protect the interests of the Canadian people just as much as if it were a government of their own party.

Defence Production Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my duty to advise him that his time has expired.


Walter Adam Tucker: I just wish to say in
conclusion-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Adam Tucker: I thank the house very much. I shall not take more than a minute. There is one point I wish to make in conclusion. I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members of the opposition section 37. While it provides that the people carrying out their duties under this act cannot be proceeded against, it definitely provides as follows:
Nothing in this section limits or restricts the rights of any person against the crown.
Thus rights are fully preserved, to go to court and to protect the interests of the citizens against the crown.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit that for anything done by the government under this act in the realm of interfering with individual liberties they must answer to the courts on the grounds of particular action. Tor anything that may be done along the lines of general policy they must answer to this parliament and the elected representatives of the people of Canada. I submit that in no way are the rights of the individual diminished or infringed upon except as is necessary to protect our country in these times undoubtedly of great crisis.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he say how he can square section 28 of the act with the statement he has just made, to the effect that there is no trespass on the rights of the individual or on the constitutional position of the provinces?


Clarence Decatur Howe: People with short memories should not ask that question, because it has been invoked for a purpose that my hon. friend should recall.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am asking the question for the benefit and the information of the minister.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have been asked a question with regard to section 28, which reads as follows:
28 (1) The governor in council may, by order, direct that a person shall not be bound by any obligation, restriction or limitation imposed on that person by or under any statute, order, rule, regulation, by-law, or contract with respect to such matters as may be specified in the order affecting the entry into or performance of a defence contract by that person or the carrying out of an order made by the minister under this act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And subsection 2.


Walter Adam Tucker: It goes on to state:
(2) Where the failure to fulfil any contract, whether entered into before or after the 1st day of April, 1951, is due to the compliance on the part of any person with any provision of this act or any order or regulation, proof of that fact shall be a good defence to any action or proceeding in respect of the failure.
With regard to that section, I was asked whether I said that did not entrench upon the powers of a province. My answer to that question is this. If any action is taken under this section that in any way infringes upon the rights of a province under the constitution, all they have to do is go to the courts about it and that action, if actually such an infringement, will be ruled to be ultra vires.


George Alexander Drew: If the hon. member thinks this would be ultra vires, why is he supporting sections that are themselves ultra vires, in his opinion?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am saying this, and I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition was in the chamber when I was speaking-


George Alexander Drew: I have not been out of it.


Walter Adam Tucker: This is to be a permanent act now. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that conditions might arise which would be different from those of today. Whereas today certain sections of the act might be ruled by the courts to be ultra vires, conditions might arise during the life of this act, which is indefinite, whereby without any doubt these powers would be regarded as intra vires of the government of Canada. For example, a declaration of national emergency would bring all these powers into full force and effect without any question, and there is nothing to prevent that declaration being made if conditions so warranted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But lacking that declaration now in this legislation are we to understand the hon. gentleman to say that under existing circumstances if any order is made-


An hon. Member:: We are not in committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 1 am afraid I shall have to point out to hon. members that we are not in committee, and that the hon. member had extended time by unanimous consent.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of all the charges and countercharges that have been flung back and forward across this chamber today, it would appear that all the groups in this house are in agreement on one thing, namely that the Department of Defence Production should be continued. What the disagreement seems to be about is the continuation of the unusual

powers contained in the act. I think the key to the whole thing could be summed up in the words used by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) just a few moments ago when he said, "in times like these".
I do not think anyone in this house would have any complaints whatsoever about the government having the powers laid down in the Defence Production Act in times of emergency. Certainly I would not. What I object to is that those extreme powers are being held and can be used by the government and by the minister not only in times of extreme emergency but at any time they desire to invoke them. There is no doubt that the terms of the defence production bill allow the Minister of Defence Production to control all phases of life in this country at any time he desires to enforce the terms of this act. In other words it could be a virtual dictatorship if the minister should decide to make it so.


Mr. Hansell:: Or if his successor wished to make it so.


Ray Thomas: Yes. I was going to say that; or any other minister who might come after him.
There should not be on the statute books any law which will allow to creep in abuses which could oppress the people of this country. That is the thing in this defence production bill that we are protesting against most strongly.
In introducing the original act the Prime Minister said there were some sections that should not be permanent. The Minister of Defence Production made the same statement. But now they seem determined to make them permanent, in spite of all the objections from those on this side of the house. We want to know what ones are objectionable, and we want to know what changes have occurred over the past three or four years which make it necessary to make these sections permanent now, when it was felt that they should not be permanent in a time of emergency and preparation for the Korean conflict.
As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) said the other night in speaking on that matter, if the government feel that these special powers are necessary at this time-and I am not going to argue with them on that score; maybe they are-they should make provision in the act to allow parliament to periodically review the need for these special powers, preferably every year or two. If that is done, then the parliament of Canada at given intervals could determine whether or not the powers of this department are necessary.
Defence Production Act
It is all right to say we can discuss this matter on the estimates and that we can cut down the minister's money if we feel that he is abusing his powers. Let us face the facts. Who is going to deny to the minister the money to make this country secure, even though we dislike the policy that department of government is carrying out? These powers could be-I am not saying they would be-used to pressure any person or any group of persons or any business into submission simply by threatening to invoke this act and make the products of any industry necessary for the defence of Canada.
I do not like any legislation, indeed I fear it, which gives any person or persons the right to oppress the people of Canada, whether or not they are going to use those powers. The powers are there and they can be used if anyone not quite as sincere and honest as is the Prime Minister should decide to do so.
The hon. member for Nanaimo, speaking yesterday, said we did not have the nerve to move amendments to the act. It is quite apparent that he was not listening too carefully when the hon. member for Peace River spoke the other night, because the hon. member for Peace River, in making his statement, said this:
I think the right thing for us to do would be to support those things which the minister requires and which are right, but also to serve warning that when the bill is in committee we will move for the deletion of clause 2, which repeals section 41 of the act, and offer an amendment to make it mandatory upon the government to bring the act back to this house for complete periodic review and scrutiny. We are unalterably opposed, may I repeat, to the granting to the minister and his department of unusual powers on a permanent basis, and against that we will continue to fight.
This quotation will be found on page 4540 of Hansard for June 8 of this year. As the minister said, this is a simple bill. It is short in length but extremely long in implication. This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) and other members as well, speaking from the C.C.F. or Liberal side of the house, said the question we should ask is this. Is there a world emergency? I do not think that is the question that should be asked at this time, because there is a world emergency now; and since there is a world emergency probably the minister needs the powers set out in the Defence Production Act at the present time.
The question that should have been asked by hon. members is this. Is there a permanent world emergency? Let us hope not. If there is not a permanent world emergency, then there is no necessity for making this act permanent.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When is it going to end?
4588	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act


Ray Thomas: We do not know when it is going to end. The solution is for the minister to ask for an extension of the act, as he has been doing. It expires in 1956, and he should ask for a four or five year extension if he so desires. If in the meantime it is desired to make the Department of Defence Production a permanent department, then that could be done under a special act without these special powers, and these special powers could be made a sort of appendix to the act.
It has been charged by at least two speakers, I think, that we have opposed the continuation of this department. I hope this afternoon I have made it quite clear that we do not oppose the continuation of the Department of Defence Production.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Why not vote for the bill, then, and take up the other points in committee?


Ray Thomas: I have told the hon. member what we were going to do in committee.


George James McIlraith: Why do you not vote for the bill, and get it into committee?


Ray Thomas: The hon. member can make his statement later. I am going to say this, and I shall repeat it for the hon. member's information. There has been no Social Crediter who has ever said the department should be discontinued.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Ray Thomas: That should be clear enough, I think. But let us have adequate control by parliament. As to the length of time there may be a necessity for these unusual powers in the act, let us have something of the nature that was requested at the resolution stage, giving us the right to periodically dig into the department to see whether or not the department should continue to have the same powers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, that great parader of red herring, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), really excelled himself a few moments ago and paraded before us a whole procession of red whales to confuse the issue. He was not content with that smaller breed of fish usually referred to in this regard. One would think from the hon. member for Rosthern's remarks that no defence arrangements whatever could go ahead in this country unless this bill were passed and the Minister of Defence Production were given a free hand. One would think from the hon. member's speech that this bill was essential to prevent wholesale profiteering and other terrible spectres of that nature which he conjured up from his imagination. One would think from his speech that this bill was essential to protect the liberties and


pocketbooks of the taxpayers. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what could be further from the real facts than all those red herrings which the hon. member for Rosthern paraded before us in his usual loud voice?
I propose, Mr. Speaker, to get back to the realities of the situation, to get out of this more or less wholly imaginative field into which a number of speakers on the government side and of the C.C.F. seem to have strayed. I think the hon. member for Rosthern, of course, took the palm as far as these imaginative wanderings were concerned.
When the Minister of Defence Production opened this debate on second reading last Tuesday he said this was a simple bill containing only two sections. I will agree that when you look at the bill it is a simple bill. It contains just two short sections. But what is involved in the bill is anything but simple. This is a bill amending the Defence Production Act. Naturally, as with all amending bills, we have to relate the bill which is before us to the act that is amended. So far as the first section of this bill is concerned, which increases the salary of the minister to the usual $15,000, we have of course absolutely no objection. Nobody has, and that does not enter into the argument. As was pointed out by the last speaker, no one has said during this debate that the defence production department should be abolished. I believe everyone is agreed that it should be continued on a permanent basis.
But when it comes to the second section of this bill, which repeals the time limit on the powers contained in the present act, that is a totally different question. It seems to me this second section contains a new, and I think extremely dangerous, principle so far as the government of this country is concerned. We in this party base our opposition to this particular bill on that principle.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Ottawa South (Mr. Mcllraith) asked why we did not vote for the bill if the defence production department should be continued on a permanent basis. The reason I am not prepared to vote for the bill, and I think the rest of the members of this party feel the same, is that it contains this principle. I would state the principle in these terms, that the government or the minister shall have extraordinary and dictatorial powers in a time of peace, or at least as close to a time of peace as we are likely to get in the foreseeable future. That principle is definitely embedded in this clause repealing section 41 of the present act. The minister wants to repeal the only saving clause in that act, the one which permits a review of the act by parliament at a specific time.

I believe the whole trend in British countries enjoying the British parliamentary tradition has been that extraordinary powers are given to the government in times of emergency or semi-emergency for a limited period of time, and a limited period of time only. In this particular bill the government proposes to forget all about a time limit and to have embedded in the statutes of this country on a permanent basis these extraordinary powers which the minister and the government would have.
That is the principle involved in this bill, and that is what we object to. It seems to me an extremely dangerous precedent to set, when an effort is made to put on the statute books a measure of this sort without any time limit whatsoever. It would be an admission on the part of this parliament that the ordinary safeguards against the executive becoming too powerful have been forgotten and abrogated. It would seem that the government does not care about those things; but we in this part of the house do care about them, and that is why we are opposing the bill.
It did not seem that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) realized the principle at stake. He never mentioned the principle to which I have drawn attention, but spoke entirely about other things. He was attempting to argue that this is not a period of peace. Well, it may not be a period of peace such as was known before the first great war, or between the first and second wars. But it is certainly a period of peace when compared with what we had between 1939 and 1945 and from 1950 until a few months ago, when the war in Indo-China came to an end. Certainly at the present time there is no hot war in progress that I am aware of.
I say therefore that this is a period of relative peace, or as close to peace as we are likely to get for some time. I suggest we must consider the Defence Production Act from that point of view, and not relate it to a lot of fancied dangers or emergency conditions because we are not back to a situation such as prevailed in Victorian times.
This bill is directly contrary to the accepted tenets of British parliamentary government and the rule of law, as they were taught when I went to university and as I believe they are still taught. It is contrary to what most of us have been taught to accept as the best form of government any country could follow. There can be no doubt that to embed powers of this kind in our statutes on a permanent basis, to be used in time of peace as well as 50433-290
9,	1955	4599
Defence Production Act in time of war, is not consonant with the general principles of British parliamentary government.
We have seen what might be called a competition between members of the C.C.F. and of the government in praising the Minister of Defence Production. They have said some very nice things about his qualifications for the job he has done in the last 15 years. I suggest, however, that those considerations should not enter into this discussion at all. It is a red herring. Those who have spoken from the C.C.F. and Liberal parties have been saying that the minister has been a good patriot, has been a good controller of industry, and that we can safely leave things in his hands.
I do not accept all of that; it has been a little too fulsome for me. But, even accepting all that, what does it have to do with the principle of this bill? Absolutely nothing. No matter what may be the qualifications of the minister, those qualifications have nothing to do with embodying in the law of this country a principle which is contrary to the basic ideas of the rule of law and British parliamentary institutions. I can only look upon this competition between members of the C.C.F. and those of the Liberal party, when they praise the minister, as taking place because they have no other argument to offer. They had no real arguments to offer to support the principle of the bill, and neglected to discuss the principle so far as they could. The minister did not deal with the principle involved, either. He glossed over it; and I do not blame him for glossing over it because had he not done so he might have spoiled the case he made, if indeed he made any case. His speech was devoted chiefly to why in his opinion the powers are needed.


Mr. Dickey:: What other principle is there in the bill?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have just dealt with the principle of the bill, but if the hon. member wishes I shall give it again. I have said that I think the principle of the bill is that the government or the minister shall have extraordinary and dictatorial powers in a time of peace and without any time limit. That is the principle involved in the bill, and to that principle we object.


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask the hon. member a question with reference to his comment about the time limit. I am wondering if he has read section 34 of the Defence Production Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have read it, but offhand I cannot recall exactly what it says. However, after looking at it briefly, as it is now

Defence Production Act handed to me, it is clear that the hon. member is even more confused than his colleagues who have taken part in the debate.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I was just asking the question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Section 34 refers only to the annual report.


George Alexander Drew: It shows that nothing was done last year by way of special orders.


George James McIlraith: Read it out loud.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member wishes to have it read, then I shall read it. It says:
The minister shall, before the 31st day of March in each year, prepare a report showing the operations of the department during the year last preceding and shall after completion of the report forthwith lay it before parliament, or if parliament is not then sitting, shall lay it before parliament within 15 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.
What has that to do with the time limit? I do not know how members on the Liberal side can be so confused and so completely unable to read and understand a section in a statute.


John Horace Dickey: People in glass houses should not throw stones.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am beginning to understand why we have had some of the speeches in support of the government. If there is no sensibility apparently there is no feeling, and no understanding.


John Horace Dickey: That is more than can be said about the speech we are hearing now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was saying that the minister had neglected to discuss the real principle in the bill. He glossed it over in the hope, I suppose, that the rest of us would pay no attention to it either. The greater portion of his speech was devoted to a discussion of why in his opinion the powers are needed. Then he stated that they are not really such extraordinary powers as opposition members have said. As I have said, his speech ignored completely the principle in the bill, and that is why we are offering this opposition.
The minister said that in his opinion there are no provisions in the bill which could be considered contrary to the supremacy of parliament. I submit he is not the best judge of that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It takes a good lawyer like you, eh?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think perhaps a number of members in the house might agree that the minister is either the poorest or one of the poorest judges as to what would constitute
[Mr. Harkness.)
an infringement on the supremacy of parliament. However, the minister-


John Horace Dickey: What section is infringed?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister may be more expert in this regard than I am giving him credit for, because I know he is the author of quite a number of these infringements; therefore he knows something about infringement of the supremacy of parliament from the practical point of view.


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


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am always ready to permit sensible questions, but I have found that the questions of the hon. member are generally inane and in the circumstances I would prefer to wait until I finish my general remarks, so they will not be broken by these senseless interruptions. At the end of my speech I shall be delighted to answer the hon. member's questions.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: On a point of order, the hon. member has just referred to an hon. member of this house as having infringed the supremacy of parliament. Let him make it more specific.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, I do not know that the hon. member needs to come to the defence of the Minister of Defence Production, who apparently has not taken issue with that statement. Therefore the hon. member sitting in the far corner has no question of privilege. If anybody has a question of privilege it is the Minister of Defence Production, but he has not raised it.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I might tell the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) it is difficult to follow the orderly development that I was intending because of the various interruptions.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is difficult for us, too.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can understand that. It is nearly always difficult for the hon. member to follow anything of a sensible nature. Therefore there is no change in that point of view; it is just normal.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We get very little of it in speeches from the right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Let there be no doubt that the powers which are contained in the present Defence Production Act, and which the minister wishes to have continued indefinitely by this bill, are extraordinary powers. The minister himself admitted readily enough back in 1951, when the act was introduced, that these were extraordinary powers. He made no bones about it at that time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us read it once again.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the minister insists.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I love to hear it read. This will be the tenth time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On this particular occasion, in order to prevent-


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a great contribution, now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You asked for it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not going to read the quotation you think I am. Lest there be any question that the whole thing is not being read and that it is being wrenched out of context-the minister is very fond of things being wrenched out of context-I shall read all the particular paragraph that is applicable. It is found on page 836 of Hansard of 1951:
It is proposed that the act would expire on July 31, 1956.
Before I continue with the quotation I should like to point out that all these great cries on the part of the hon. member for Rosthern and others that if this bill were not passed and the minister were not given these powers our whole defence effort would practically crumble up, and we would be in immediate and terrible danger, is complete nonsense. This act will be in effect until a year from this coming July. There is no emergency about this matter; there is nothing to worry about whether we pass this bill or not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who is worrying?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would suggest that the minister-


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is worrying. 1 do not think anyone else is worrying.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not worrying.


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


George Alexander Drew: You may have to stay longer than you think.


Douglas Scott Harkness: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member said he was going to read the whole paragraph.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I shall read it all, if you like.
Bearing in mind the present situation, and the program which has been announced by my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), a period of five years seems a reasonable minimum for the duration of the act. In the bill, provision is also made for the repeal of the Essential Materials (Defence) Act and for the suspension of the Defence Supplies Act during the period of operation of the Defence Production Act.
Is the minister satisfied that everything is in context?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; this is the tenth time it has been read.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As long as the minister is satisfied that nothing has been wrenched out I shall devote my attention particularly to this. "Some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature." The minister said that in 1951. Neither he nor anyone else has said in 1955 that that was an incorrect statement and that it is not still applicable. If that were true in 1951 I submit it is still truer in 1955.
Some of these powers are of an extraordinary nature, and they should not be of a continuing nature. Yet that is the very thing this bill proposes to do. The minister was agreeable to a time limit in 1951. I ask him why he is against a time limit now? What has occurred to change his mind? Is the emergency greater now than it was in 1951?'


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.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, they had no hydrogen bombs. I shall come to that. Certainly the minister is the first one, and this is the first time I have heard anyone say that the emergency we are in now is greater than it was in 1951.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What do you, think?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Prime Minister has nof said so. I doubt very much whether the Prime Minister will say so. The Secretary

Defence Production Act of State for External Affairs has not said so; the Minister of National Defence has not said so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think most people read the papers.


George Alexander Drew: The Secretary of State for External AfEairs said the very opposite.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has certainly done his best-


Clarence Decatur Howe: To say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said it is not as dangerous now as it was in 1951 is ridiculous.


George Alexander Drew: That may be so, but say it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has done his best to give the impression to this house and to the people of Canada that things are considerably better now than they were a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, four years ago.
Since the minister has raised this point, I should like to examine what the situation was in 1951 and examine briefly what it is now. What were the circumstances in 1951? The Korean war was going on. There was extreme apprehension of a third world war breaking out at that time. In view of the extreme apprehension of a third world war breaking out, not because of Korea but because we were afraid a third world war was coming, a whole new defence build-up in Canada was announced and proceeded with. That was the situation then. We started the big expansion in defence at that time. The world situation was looked upon as extremely uneasy, extremely dangerous. We got started on a whole lot of civil defence activities at that time, and so forth.
What is the situation today? There is no fighting war going on at the present time. The world leaders are all making statements that they are hopeful the tension of the world is easing, including our own Secretary of State lor External Affairs. In other words, the picture is better from every point of view .except for one thing. That one thing is that the Russians now have better and faster bombers, they have a larger atomic stockpile, and they have the hydrogen bomb. Apart from that the whole situation is better than it was in 1951.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is wonderful.


John Horace Dickey: Is that not enough?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words the emergency is not nearly as acute as it was in 1951.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It begins right after they drop the first hydrogen bomb.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister is trying to bring up another red herring, another bogeyman. As a matter of fact if a hydrogen bomb is dropped on this country it will not make one iota of difference whether the minister has these powers now and for the next year or two or whether he has not. It will not matter one iota. If a hydrogen bomb is dropped on this country the giving to the minister of these extraordinary powers in the next month or so, the next year or so, or whatever the length of time may be is not going to make any difference. That is a complete bogeyman.
The greatest period of activity by the Department of Defence Production presumably is over. We have had the defence buildup. I am not arguing, and no one is arguing, that the department is not going to still have a great deal to do, but its greatest period of expansion, its purchasing and so forth in such large quantities, is presumably over unless a full-scale war comes on. Whilst all this was going on, whilst all this large amount of purchasing was taking place, the minister got along quite well with the present act. The fact that there was a time limit in it had no effect. Why is he now opposed to a time limit? I ask that question again; why does he say that this section 41 must be repealed and there must be no time limit in this act? Nobody has answered that question, and as a matter of fact I think the reason nobody has answered it is that there is no reasonable answer. There should be a time limit.
Taking it from another point of view, as far as I know there are no shortages which require or are likely to require on short notice the institution of a priorities system. As far as I know there is no shortage at the present time of any essential material. As a matter of fact people are trying desperately to seU them. As far as some commodities are concerned, we are in a surplus position and are having difficulty finding markets.
I think it is quite evident that there is no industry which requires coercion on the part of the government to have it fulfil government orders. Practically all our industries are only too glad to get government orders. They are bidding vigorously against one another and taking all measures possible to get government orders, rather than requiring to have coercion applied to them to take such government orders. So from the point of view of the necessity for priorities in the case of essential goods, and the necessity of coercion to force industry to manufacture certain articles which are wanted, there is no need for these powers at the present time.

It just does not relate to the practical situation as we have it before us at the present time.
If the situation worsens, and if greater powers are required by the Minister of Defence Production and by the government generally, they can be readily secured. Some of us regret the fact that parliament is in session for over half the year, but at times we have sat here for nearly the full 12 months, with just short breaks in between. Parliament would be available the greater portion of the time; and in case the situation worsened, or in case there was apprehension that it would worsen, parliament could readily give these powers. If parliament happened to be out of session it could be called together within a very short time to grant these powers. There is nothing in the argument that these things are necessary for the security of the country.
As I pointed out, the minister has all these powers anyway until July, 1956. If the worst happens, if what the minister was referring to a moment ago happens and a hydrogen bomb is dropped on this country by any unfortunate chance-


John Horace Dickey: It would not be by any chance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -the fact that the minister had or had not these powers would not have anything to do with it. If that sort of thing happened it would happen rapidly; and if it did happen the War Measures Act would come immediately into force. Therefore from that point of view there is no argument as to the necessity for these powers at the present time, in a period of comparative peace.
I think it really comes down to this, that there is no real need for the extraordinary powers in the Defence Production Act from any practical point of view. However, the minister likes these powers and he is determined to have them, and without any time limit. I think that is what it really comes down to. The minister's speech on Tuesday was quite illuminating and significant from this point of view. I should like to examine one or two of his statements, and he will be glad to know that these have not been quoted before. Perhaps he will be happy to hear again what he said on Tuesday. I would refer first to page 4501 of Hansard of June 7; and so that I may not be accused of wrenching something out of its context -there are only four lines I really wanted to refer to-I shall read the whole paragraph, which is as follows:
The department has been permanent in effect since it was formed in 1939. After the department of munitions and supply was liquidated in
Defence Production Act 1948 its work was carried on as a branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce without a departmental act. It was found most difficult to carry on in that way-
This is what I want to emphasize:
-and we were glad indeed to have reason for forming the Department of Defence Production and asking parliament to enact a proper Defence Production Act.
Just think of the implications of that statement, that "we were glad indeed to have reason for forming the Department of Defence Production and asking parliament to enact a proper Defence Production Act". By a proper Defence Production Act the minister means one which gives him all these extraordinary powers. What the minister is really saying there is that he was glad the Korean war gave him a reason for resuming the powers which he had during and subsequent to the last war under the various emergency measures of that time, and in the immediate post-war period.


George James McIlraith: That is not the meaning of what you have read.


John Horace Dickey: Nonsense.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know the hon. member is a connoisseur of nonsense because he produces so much of it; nevertheless I give him sufficient credit for being able to read English, and I recommend this reading to him. I shall read it again:
-and we were glad indeed to have reason for forming the Department of Defence Production-


George James McIlraith: For forming the Department of Defence Production.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What that means is that the minister was glad the Korean war gave him an opportunity to resume his extraordinary powers.


George James McIlraith: To form the department, is what he said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With those powers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: With those powers.


John Horace Dickey: Absolute nonsense.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is obvious from that paragraph that those powers were liquidated in 1948 and the minister was lonesome without them. He felt lost without them. He had had them for about nine years at that time, and he just did not feel at home without them. He had become accustomed to these special extraordinary powers, and he was delighted to get them back. That is what he said in this statement. He was happy that he could resume with these special powers.
This is a most revealing statement from the psychological point of view. I think it points up strongly what we have all been told auite

Defence Production Act frequently and what I think we know, that power once held is never willingly released but always augmented if possible. The minister seized on this chance to get back his wartime powers, and he is now determined to have these powers for as long as he wants and without any question of referring back to parliament to have them extended or not extended or perhaps taken away from him. He is not going to take any chance on losing them or on making again what he no doubt considers the mistake of relinquishing these powers.
What he did in 1951 was really getting in the thin edge of the wedge, with the passing of this Defence Production Act in a period of emergency, with a time limit on it and so forth. But now he wants to drive in that wedge right to the hilt, and to embed it so firmly and strongly in the constitution that we will never be able to get it out; at least we will never be able to withdraw it as long as he is minister.
Now let us look at another statement by the minister which is found on the same page, immediately beneath the previous one I read:
The munitions and supply act was enacted In 1939 and was amended from time to time as the experience of the department indicated was necessary. The present act was based on the final edition of the munitions and supply act, and has proved to be comprehensive enough to cover all the situations we encounter in defence purchasing.
The part I wish to emphasize is that the present act was based on the final edition of the munitions and supply act. In other words the present Defence Production Act to which this amendment relates was based on the act which was in force at the very peak of the minister's dictatorial powers during the war. He took as the model for this act the form of the act when he was right at the top as far as dictatorial powers were concerned. The minister wants nothing but the best, nothing but the most extreme, as far as these dictatorial powers are concerned. Not for him any watered down version of these special or extraordinary powers, not for him any cold war shadow of his hot war powers. He wants the whole thing. He wants all or nothing. He went on in a subsequent statement to elaborate on that again, and I would like to put that on the record. At the top of page 4511, on the righthand side, of Hansard for Tuesday, June 7, 1955, the minister said:
In my opinion these are the powers needed to carry out Canada's defence production program. Either you have a defence production act with these powers, and all these powers, or you have no act at all.
The minister is not prepared to admit that you could have a Defence Production Act

which would be quite adequate for the present situation to enable him to operate and get all the supplies he needs without having all of these special and extraordinary powers which he secured and had at the very apex of his position during the last great war in 1939-1945. He must have them all. Apparently nothing will satisfy the minister except complete power to do as he wishes as far as the economic life of the country is concerned.
With all these powers, as has been pointed out by the minister and by others, I believe it is true that he will not use a large number of them. There are quite a few of these specific sections, and so forth, he will not use; but the important thing is that he has a bludgeon once he has this passed, a bludgeon with which he can threaten any businessman or any other person in the country to get what he wants. I have no doubt that is a very satisfying feeling for the minister to have. He likes to be in that position. He was in it for a long time; he has admitted in his own speech he was disappointed when he got out of that position, and was glad to get back into it when the Korean war came on.


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


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


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


John Horace Dickey: Would he be good enough to tell us the sections in this Defence Production Act he considers abrogate the rights of parliament?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. I think section 5 is one that would come in that category, and sections 15 to 32 or 33 inclusive-I have forgotten exactly which-would come in that category. Most of them at any rate are far beyond what is needed.


John Horace Dickey: I was asking about those that abrogate the rights of parliament, not whether the powers are needed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They all do that!


Douglas Scott Harkness: As Mr. Speaker has indicated that I have come to the end of my time, I do not wish to transgress.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Saved by the bell.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I fear I cannot answer. I had a considerable number of words for my hon. friends, the socialists on my left, and I am sorry I am not able to give them.

(Translation) :


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, through this bill the government would have us continue those immense powers granted by the Defence Production Act of 1951, and not only for one year, two years or five years, but indefinitely.
As everyone will recall, this act of 1951 had been passed at the time of the crisis resulting from the war in Korea, in the face of an emergency, and even then the opposition had made some well-advised reservations. At that time hundreds of thousands of communist Chinese were pouring across the North Korea boundary and casualties among the United Nations troops were running into the thousands. The situation had really become disastrous, and the free world was keeping an anxious eye on the battlefields in Korea.
Fortunately, today, while the world situation remains unsettled, we can rejoice at a considerable improvement. The situation in Korea has been stabilized and Western Germany has regained its sovereignty and freely joined the organization of Atlantic nations. Western nations are now experiencing their greatest boom since the beginning of the 1939-45 war.
For that reason, an atmosphere of relief can be felt throughout the world. Instead of living in an atmosphere of tension and emergency, as in 1951, those who are responsible for the defence of this country now have time to plan the co-ordination of our defences and do not have to take action in the midst of a crisis or emergency which is getting worse day by day.
No doubt, because of the cold war and the dangers of aggression from Soviet Russia and its satellites, our country has to assume obligations which warrant the existence of a department of defence production whose job it is to look after the procurement and production of supplies needed for our armed forces, without, however, jeopardizing the whole economy of this country.
But if Canada's obligations in the international field justify the existence of such a department, they certainly do not warrant the fantastic powers which the government seeks to have renewed and forever included in the statute books.
The government seems to have forgotten altogether that there is still a parliament in Canada. Of course, there are times when parliament is not sitting, but we should keep in mind that the house is in session from six to eight months a year, and that within the last five years the house has been known to sit
Defence Production Act for some ten months. Moreover, members may be required to convene here at any time, at a few days' notice. Why should all these extraordinary powers, which may have such impact on the economic life of the nation and even on the dearest rights of individuals, be withdrawn from parliamentary jurisdiction?
The minister may say that he needs such powers to face any emergency that might occur; but it is precisely in order to face this emergency that the War Measures Act has been included in the statute books.
At any rate, nothing in the present outlook can justify the enactment of a measure which would delight the most autocratic of dictators, especially in a democracy such as ours.
The members of my party who have spoken previously have shown eloquently the dangers which would threaten our parliamentary system if such powers were granted to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). The member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), with all the logic for which he is known, has very ably shown how dangerous such legislation would be for the individual citizens.
As for me, I should like to use the few remarks I wish to make to protest most strongly against some particular sections of that legislation. I would refer first of all to section 28, which reads as follows:
28. (1) The governor in council may, by order, direct that a person shall not be bound by any obligation, restriction or limitation imposed on that person by or under any statute, order, rule, regulation, by-law, or contract with respect to such matters as may be specified in the order affecting the entry into or performance of a defence contract by that person or the carrying out of an order made by the minister under this act.
(2) Where the failure to fulfil any contract, whether entered into before or after the 1st day of April, 1951, is due to the compliance on the part of any person with any provision of this act or any order or regulation, proof of that fact shall be a good defence to any action or proceeding in respect of the failure.
That section is a breach of the Canadian constitution and it certainly cannot be said that the present government did not do all it could to tear apart our constitution. It has become a matter of habit for the hon. members opposite.
Section 28 grants the governor in council the power to annul the obligations placed upon the citizens by provincial laws. Nobody can deny that in this case provincial rights are being placed in the hands of a federal minister, who is given powers, truly arbitrary in nature, which go against the spirit of confederation.
It simply means that the federal cabinet can annul a purely provincial law merely by passing an order in council.

Defence Production Act
By a mere order in council, the federal cabinet may annul a perfectly legal contract entered into between a provincial government and those under its jurisdiction.
Now the seriousness of such a step on the part of the government implies a situation of extraordinary urgency, such as actual war or imminent danger. In that event, and in that event only, there might be some justification for the enactment of legislation imparting such tremendous powers to a minister of the crown. But in peacetime, and merely in order to ensure that the government may make purchases necessary for defence purposes and to ensure that Canadian factories turn out the materials necessary to our armed forces, we are writing into a federal statute certain sections under which the federal cabinet is allowed, merely through an order in council, to annul a law which is purely provincial in character and even to make null and void a contract duly entered into by a provincial government, on the one hand, and those under its jurisdiction, on the other. Such powers are excessive, but the tragic thing about this is that the government dares ask this house to place this act permanently in our statutes.
Let us consider for a moment the possible effects of section 28, if it were to be applied fully. In short, we are now being asked to insert forever in our statutes a section which would allow the federal government to disallow a provincial act, on the sole condition that the Minister of Defence Production obtain an order in council to that effect. I cannot think of a better example of dictatorial powers, and I wonder if it is not characteristically dictatorial to ask us to give carte blanche forever to a minister, at the very moment when the rights of the provinces are being consistently attacked by the most centralizing government which has ever existed in this country.
I don't have to multiply instances, as I believe that the Canadian population, at least in the province of Quebec, has not failed to realize the state of mind in which my hon. friends opposite approach this matter. No doubt some will say that, up to now, those dictatorial powers provided by section 28 have not yet been exercised. Nevertheless, we are being asked to insert forever in our statutes this section which includes all that is necessary to enable the federal government to lay hands on part or even on all the power resources of any province, even though such resources come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

Section 30 gives the federal government the power to take over the whole highway system of a province.
Moreover, under section 28, the federal government may exempt from all provincial taxes any company or corporation holding some contract with the Department of Defence Production. I dare hope that those who drafted the legislation were not aware of the dangers of section 28, and I am satisfied that the Minister of Defence Production does not intend to use the powers it grants him. It is rumoured that the Minister of Defence Production will retire next fall and that the Prime Minister will do the same. You may well imagine-


Mr. Robichaud:: As well as the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Villeneuve:: Those rumours have been circulating for the past ten years.


Léon Balcer: Well, this morning in the press gallery I heard that the Minister of Defence Production would probably be replaced by the chairman of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Gordon. You can imagine-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The appointment is announced in the house!


Léon Balcer: You can imagine how much that little dictator of the Canadian National Railways could blackmail the provinces, corporations and companies, if he had the extraordinary and dictatorial powers granted by sections 28 and 30. We of the opposition strive strenuously to erase from our statutes certain sections which constitute a danger for Canadian democracy, sections which go against the true spirit of the Canadian constitution. It is unthinkable in peacetime that our statutes should include a section which would authorize the government-not as a result of a vote taken in the house but merely by means of an order in council-to vest such powers in the Minister of Defence Production. In fact, upon request by the minister, the federal cabinet could exempt from provincial taxation companies or corporations that held contracts from the Department of Defence Production.
The federal government would then be in a position to deprive the provinces of their sources of revenue and compel them to accept subsidies that would make them wards of the federal government, an aim which the central government has been striving to achieve for several years past. That is why I am asking the members of this house to look closely into sections 28 and 30 so that the Canadian constitution will not be imperilled and that the rights of the provinces and all that they represent will not be infringed upon. *

Mr. Speaker, such rights are an absolute denial of our constitution. I am now beginning to understand why the socialists rushed to the defence of their Liberal brethren in order to ensure that this dictatorial measure be permanently written into our statutes. These people, the socialists, have come to the aid of their Liberal brethren, knowing full well that the only way they can manacle the Canadian people is to ensure the passage of socialistic legislation which would paralyse private enterprise in this country, legislation such as is exemplified by sections 28 and 30, to mention only those two concrete examples.
Like this government, they never miss a single opportunity to make our country move towards the single central government and to put the provinces under its thumb.
The act as it stands endangers the prerogatives of parliament and the rights and prerogatives of the provinces. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it is not justified by the present world situation, and its permanent inclusion in our statutes would weaken our constitution and the democratic ideals guaranteed by the constitution.
For all these reasons, I shall vote against this bill.


Mr. Boisvert:: Will the hon. member permit me a question?


Léon Balcer: If you get any fun out of it, go ahead.


Mr. Pouliot:: This is going to be a press conference.


Maurice Boisvert: Does the hon. member agree that in 1951 the act, with the powers it confers, was necessary?


Léon Balcer: We needed it at the time to ensure our defence but we certainly did not need such ridiculous powers as are requested by the adoption of sections 28 and 30. Besides there was a state of emergency at the time.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: But in 1951?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the first time you are saying this; you did not say so before.


Pierre Gauthier: What was the emergency at the time?


Maurice Boisvert: May I ask a question-


Léon Balcer: Make your own speech.


Maurice Boisvert: -a supplementary question?


Léon Balcer: Go on, you have the floor.


Pierre Gauthier: Why don't you reply?
Defence Production Act


Maurice Boisvert: You just said there was a state of emergency-
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Order. I think the time has come for me to point out that the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) may, if he sees fit and with the permission of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), ask a question, in which case when the question has been asked I suggest the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska should resume his seat and the hon. member for Three Rivers should come to his feet if he is going to answer the question.
(Translation):


Jean-François Pouliot: He did not get this out of his own head, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


Maurice Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. member if he would answer a supplementary question to the question I have already asked?


Léon Balcer: I shall be pleased to answer it. (Translation) :


Maurice Boisvert: Is the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) aware that a high-ranking officer of the Royal Canadian Air Force is said to have stated last Thursday that war could not be avoided?


Léon Balcer: I think I saw it in the papers.


Pierre Gauthier: That, of course, is more annoying.


Léon Balcer: Was that your question?


Pierre Gauthier: That's not so sure.


Maurice Boisvert: Hear, hear.
(Text):


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: I should like to make it clear at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that it is not my intention to attack the present minister, nor to advocate that parts of this bundle of legislation that has been placed before us should be abolished. In common with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), I believe there is a principle involved upon which I feel I must express an opinion.
Before coming to that, however, I should like to give the reason why I am quite prepared to consider the government justified in asking for the continuation of the department. I think the Prime Minister, when he introduced the resolution on March 10, gave us a good explanation as to why the department should be continued. I do not want to read all of what he said, but there are a few lines I should like to quote in order to show

Defence Production Act that he went far enough and gave us enough information to enable me, at least, to support the continuation of the department. He said, as recorded at page 1904 of Hansard for March 10, 1955:
This amendment is being introduced to extend the life of the department so that it may operate on a more permanent basis. We feel that there are a number of reasons for recommending this action at this time.
Hon. members will recall that when the Department of Defence Production was established on April 1, 1951, it was to meet an emergency situation brought to a head by the fighting in Korea. At that time it was impossible to predict how long the need for greatly increased military defence procurements would continue. To meet the immediate situation, the government embarked on a three-year defence preparedness program which it was later found necessary to extend because of circumstances which continued to exist. Procurement machinery to carry out this was established on a short-term basis. Almost four years have elapsed since the Department of Defence Production was set up and it is now apparent that the temporary character of the department is neither in keeping with the international outlook nor satisfactory from an administrative point of view.
As far as the need for a separate department responsible for the production and supply of Canada's military requirements is concerned, the situation has not changed. The peak of the defence program is past-
I think those are significant words.
-at least we hope that what is past will prove to be the real peak, that will at no time be exceeded-but it is levelling off at a relatively high level and the magnitude ot the program is such that we feel it should not be left to the responsibility of crown agencies or branches of other departments with important functions of their own to perform.
Then, leaving out certain portions and coming to the foot of page 1904 of Hansard for March 10, 1955, we find this:
To carry out production and procurement to meet Canada's present sizeable and complex defence program requires a department staffed by competent and experienced officials. Hon. members will appreciate that it is difficult to attract and retain high-calibre civil service personnel in a department that is looked upon as temporary, that is to say, to have them come there for an indefinite time, and that is particularly true in peacetime.
This was on March 10, 1955, and it will be noted that the Prime Minister refers to this period as one of "peacetime". Then he continues:
When the situation is really critical, well, the critical nature of the situation weighs heavily in the minds of those who make their services available for the benefit of their fellow citizens. But when it extends as something which nevertheless becomes a semi-permanent feature of the necessary requirements, it is desirable, we feel, to have some permanent character to the organization.
That does give some information. I think every member in the opposition, including myself, agrees that if we can be shown something is necessary we will not oppose it. We

are satisfied it is important that the department be maintained for the purpose of retaining the personnel.
Then we have no quarrel with that clause in the bill which fixes the minister's salary. However, when we come to the powers being conferred upon the minister we feel that an important principle is involved. The Prime Minister is not very definite on that point, and says this:
I do not feel that the time has come to take out of the act those powers which are there and which enable the department to deal expeditiously with any situation that would interfere with the regular maintenance of Canada's defensive strength and the regular carrying out of Canada's undertaking.
The Prime Minister says he does not feel the time has come. I suggest that neither would he feel that these powers about which hon. members have been speaking, and which they have quoted, should be written into the law of the land. And that is where we take issue with this bill. Certainly no one wishes to tie the hands of the minister. When the Defence Production Act was introduced in 1951 it was my understanding that it was considered to be emergency legislation. The country was engaged in actual warfare. We had troops fighting in the front lines. We had commitments with our allies which had to be carried out with the least possible delay. Apparently, however, there was nothing but disorganization facing the government. We were neither prepared nor organized to meet that sudden emergency. Apparently no efficient machinery was available, and the country was faced with an emergency.
I understand that at that time the government did not wish to invoke the War Measures Act because it might indicate that our people were becoming involved in a major war, which the Korean outbreak was not considered to be. As has turned out, the military activities at that time were confined to what might be described as only a minor disturbance when compared with the two great wars which in our generation have bled not only this but other countries.
Therefore the government at that time, and I believe rightly so, decided that it should have these extraordinary powers. While I was not in the house and did not hear the arguments, I understand there was very little objection to the legislation. It was considered to be of a temporary nature and for a limited time only. It was to bring about speedy and efficient action in meeting a sudden emergency in which the country found itself. It was deemed expedient and wise to set up a new department of government. And as the years have gone by everyone seems to agree that this was a wise

procedure, and that the department has done efficient work. The minister was charged with the responsibility of securing the necessary defence supplies, not only for the Department of National Defence but other supplies considered necessary for the successful prosecution of the war, or the carrying out of a full defence program.
As I said, I have come to such conclusion from reading the remarks of the Prime Minister in 1951, when he was speaking to the resolution. Let me quote briefly from his remarks as they appear at page 613 of Hansard for February 23, 1951:
The greatly increased defence program not only calls for greater purchases, but, what is more important-
And this was in 1951.
-requires some direction of the production program in such fields as production, aircraft, shipbuilding, vehicles, armament and ammunition. The present high level of demand for practically all major commodities has already made it necessary for the government to take a certain measure of direction and control or allocation of such an essential material as steel, for instance.
Those are not very strong words, but from them one can gather that there was good cause for setting up the Department of Defence Production and giving it some powers of control and direction. Those words were spoken at a time when it was believed that such action was necessary, and at a time when it was necessary that there be some direction of the production program. It was a reasonable conclusion that there should be a separate department to look after the procurement of supplies which were then so urgently needed. There was no question about fixing the minister's salary. He was to be paid the same as other ministers, but then follow these words, and they are significant:
The present high level of demand for practically all major commodities has already made it necessary for the government to take a certain measure of direction and control or allocation of such an essential material as steel, for instance.
That was in 1951; and hon. members will recall, some better than I do, that that was quite a different situation from what we have today. Even then the Prime Minister did not use very strong words. Even when we passed the act we put a time limit on it. I do not think hon. members can say that today conditions are similar to what they were in 1951. Today many industries are running on part time. There is a surplus of goods and commodities. Thousands of men have been put out of work because industry has not been able to give them employment. As a result, industry is anxious to get orders.
If that is not so we have not been told by the minister or by any member of the government today that the facts are different from
Defence Production Act what we read in newspapers and what we hear around us. Even the aircraft industry, which is one of the essential industries in our defence program, is not operating at full capacity; nor are the shipyards to which the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) referred. I am not going to say anything more about it. As I see it, conditions are not the same at all. I cannot help but feel that industry would be very glad to do business with the government, glad to get orders for defence contracts, and there is certainly no evidence to the contrary.
Compare that with conditions in 1951, when this country was engaged in a hot war, when the people had ample money with which to buy goods, when the civilian population acquired a lot of goods. I can understand that the government might have difficulty in obtaining the supplies they wanted under those conditions. I can understand why the minister required those powers at that time. But when we come to consider putting this type of legislation in a permanent form so it becomes the basic law of our land, and when we consider and boast about freedom and democracy, it seems to me we are inconsistent, and we shall be looked upon by other countries as being inconsistent. We brag about how much freedom we have, and then we pass such a law as this and make it permanent on the statute books.
The Prime Minister indicated at the time that since the present Minister of Trade and Commerce had been carrying on throughout the war and had great experience in handling defence supplies, he had been asked to draw up or frame the act, and he was the one who would be responsible for it. While at that time he did not say the minister would be in charge of the department, I gather it was understood that would be so. Therefore the act was drafted by the minister or at least it was under his guiding hand, as he wished it to be, since he was the minister who was going to administer the act. No doubt he was pretty sure of that.
From his point of view I do not blame him much for wanting to get all the punch into it that he could. With his experience in business he felt that he could get things done as and when he wanted them done. Because of his experience he would know where to draw the line. I have no hesitation in saying that he put every bit of power into the act that he could possibly get into it. He knew that he had to organize and control the products and materials in a period when civilians were clamouring for many of the same materials. Because the economy was strong and purchasing power was high it was

Defence Production Act natural that he should obtain such broad powers, since he had a job to do and was responsible for doing it. I can understand that. As far as I can learn no one seriously quarrelled with his motive.
However, at the same time he realized that 'such laws should not be made permanent, and I assume he set the time limit. He was responsible for drawing up the act and he realized that it was giving one minister great powers. The present minister had no assurance that he was to remain in charge of this department as long as it lasted. Therefore, since he realized the danger, he himself recommended and put a time limit on it. In my opinion, and from the experience of the last four years, I believe the time limit was sufficient to bridge the gap in the emergency.
There certainly is no evidence, and no information has been given to the house, as far as I know, that convinces me that section 41' should be repealed. If it is repealed it will have the effect of placing on the statute books of this country a bundle of laws. It seems to me that we are being handed a bundle of laws in the same way that you would be handed a bundle of kindling wood. There is some good and some bad. I do not 'think that is a good way to present legislation to any parliament, without considering too much its effects. That is the way it seems to me. It is giving us a bundle of laws, part of which is good and part of which, in its administration, could be most vicious.
When I say that I am not thinking of the present parliament; I am not thinking of the next five, ten or fifteen years. I am thinking of the law that is being written into the statute books and that is going to remain there. Once it gets there it is going to be difficult to get it off. It could be used for the following purposes: for the control of the complete economy of this country; to destroy business; to kill private enterprise; to make inoperative provincial and municipal laws and regulations; to make ineffective contracts between labour unions and management; and, worst of all, as an efficient political machine to ruin our free and democratic methods of choosing a parliament.
No doubt hon. members will say that I am taking this too seriously. They may say that such things cannot possibly happen here. I hope they are right and that I am too pessimistic. I have not said these things are likely to happen, but I say they could happen under powers like this granted in peacetime. Once this bill passes and becomes law there is a vehicle waiting, ready to be put into action any time hereafter.

I do not believe the members of this government or their supporters have really stopped to realize what would result from such legislation. I am not at all surprised that hon. members who believe in the socialist doctrine welcome this type of legislation, because as far as I can learn from listening to their speeches they believe in a fully controlled economy. I do not question the sincerity of any hon. member sitting in this chamber, nevertheless socialism in action can be dangerous. Socialism in action has been compared to a car going down a mountain.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I
hesitate to interrupt an hon. member in the middle of an argument, but I can see again the danger, with which we were faced on a similar occasion not so long ago, of this debate on the advisability of adopting certain amendments to the Defence Production Act becoming a debate on the merits or the demerits of socialism. I would ask the hon. member to co-operate by holding his remarks as closely as possible to the bill we are discussing.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is proper, because this in fact is socialism. I think it should be open to us to discuss it from that point of view.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, we have heard a great deal during this debate from members of the C.C.F. and also from the hon. member for Rosthern on the values of socialism, and I think it should be open to hon. members of this party to refute those claims.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I have done at the moment is to ask the hon. member to co-operate by making his remarks pertinent to the bill we are considering, and I have the right to insist on that. I do not propose to permit an abstract debate on the merits or demerits of socialism at this time. I do not believe it is within the rules of the house that the debate should be allowed to stray that far afield. I have not at the moment ruled any hon. member out of order, but I have requested the co-operation of the hon. member who has the floor so that we may not find ourselves in difficulties which might be the cause for a more drastic intervention.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I shall try to co-operate, and possibly I should not continue from where I had reached; I shall leave that out. This legislation seems to me to point to full control of our economy, to what in other words would be state control. We have seen examples of where state control can place dangerous governments. I would hate to think that we were parties to placing legislation on our statute books which could be used to bring about such conditions in this country.

I think the minister realized this to some extent when he was moving the second reading of the bill on March 2, 1951, because he is reported at page 836 of Hansard of that day as having said:
It is proposed that the act would expire on July 31, 1956.
I believe this has been quoted before.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, how many times does the same paragraph have to be read in order to constitute repetition? I have kept track, and this is the eleventh time in this debate.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I will not quote it if
that will make the minister feel any better.


John Horace Dickey: Read it; it will take up some time.


An hon. Member:: Time killing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will forgive the hon. member if he is' three minutes short.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Sometimes I have to talk a little longer in order to get my ideas over, and I hope hon. members will forgive me. That particular passage has been quoted so many times that I think every hon. member knows, and I think the minister knows, that when he introduced this legislation the minister made it quite clear that there was a good reason for not making it permanent. That is the principle behind this, that these powers should not be made permanent.
What has happened? That question has been asked before, but it comes to my mind again. What has happened that has changed the minds of the minister and the government? If there are reasons and they are stated clearly, as the Prime Minister stated the reasons for maintaining the department, perhaps we could be convinced. At least if there are good reasons for keeping and extending these powers at the present time I certainly could go along with that. But what bothers me is that we are handed a bundle of legislation. How are you going to distinguish it? Some of it you are quite happy with and some of it you are most unhappy with. Is it being put up to us this way so that if we vote against it we have to vote against it all, or vote for it all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It does not matter.


Gage Workman Montgomery: There is only one thing I can say; it is disappointing to me. I will have to choose the least serious of two courses and vote against it. This matter has been discussed before, and the minister came back with this bill without any amendments. If I should vote for this in the hope that we would get amendments afterward I am afraid I would be left holding the bag, so to speak.
Defence Production Act We certainly would be disappointed. I think the only honest thing a person can do will be to vote against it. The only thing I can do is vote against this, at the same time feeling that the minister will get what he wants. I want to help the minister to carry out his work, but I have to vote against this bill to express my opposition to the other part of the act in which I cannot concur.
I do not think there is much more I can think of right now. It has been said this afternoon that this legislation is to control profits. Several excuses were given by the hon. member for Rosthern, that would lead me to think they have a different viewpoint on this from mine. As I see these powers, they are purely to give the minister the power to make industries do what he wants done when they refuse to co-operate. But so far I have not heard any evidence, nor have we been given any information, that in the last few years any industry has refused to co-operate with the Department of Defence Production. If we were given reasons and asked to support an extension for the time being that would be a far different thing from asking us just to repeal section 41 and make the whole parcel the permanent law of the land. I think, in all fairness, that we deserve either a full explanation-


Donald Methuen Fleming: From the Prime Minister.


Gage Workman Montgomery: -from the Prime Minister or from the minister whose responsibility it is to operate this department. The main thing is a question of principle. I gather from what the minister has said that he feels the time will come when the government may dissolve the whole thing but, after all, once this gets on the statute books permanently, is it not dangerous?
Unlike some other hon. members, I have not been here very long. I am not worrying in the least about the present minister getting along with or without these powers. I am satisfied that the present Minister of Defence Production can get along very well without these powers. I would not worry about procurement for our defence program, as long as the present minister is in charge of it, if there were none of these powers. What bothers me is that he wants to lead us to believe that he has to have these powers in order to do this job. I do not believe that. He can do it without these powers. He has been doing it for all these years. He had! educated industry in this country so well! that they are anxious to do business with him. Our program of continuing defence is not the emergency it was in 1951. Our

Defence Production Act program is, I venture to say, proceeding according to plan and as fast as possible.
This act still has another year to go. I should like to see what the hon. member for Calgary North suggested, this bill withdrawn and a new bill brought back next year if it is necessary to have some powers. The bill could be drawn in two parts, so that an assurance would be given to the personnel of the Department of Defence Production that they are not going to be thrown out in one or two years. In the other part of the bill the powers could be limited; and when the time runs out, whatever minister is in charge of this department could come before parliament, and I do not think he would have to worry about having those powers granted, if they were needed. All he would have to do would be to show this house that they were needed.
I think that has been borne out in the last seven or eight years. Whenever the government come to parliament and ask for money for defence or something of that nature, they get it. That is good evidence that there is confidence in the minister who is running the department. But where we have no confidence is in the fact that the next minister who is operating under this law may not operate as well in using these powers. That is the principle involved.
Hon. members should give a little serious thought to this matter. This is not an emergency, and I do not think anything would happen if this act did not pass this year. I am satisfied that the officials of the Department of Justice and the minister's assistants can draft an act that will be acceptable, that will not be dangerous and that will protect the personnel of the Department of Defence Production.
After all, I am satisfied that that is what this legislation is for, more than anything else; because in explaining it the Prime Minister spent more time on that and gave a full explanation, because it was a sound ground. I do not consider that the explanations or the grounds are sound upon which we have been asked to repeal section 41 of this act. In all sincerity I do not see how I could support this bill, although there are some things about it which I can support.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the past two days I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate on second reading of this bill. I hope I shall not be charged with political heresy for what I am going to say, but after listening to all the debate and especially the remarks made by the hon. members who are a part of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I feel it is time

this was said. We are all elected here as members of parliament, but we are the representatives of parties. That is according to our custom and perhaps as it should be. Having been elected here to the House of Commons, although we are members of certain parties which stand by certain principles and philosophies and programs, we in this house as members have responsibilities which are somewhat changed upon election.
I believe it is absolutely wrong and not in the interests of parliamentary democracy if a party which has the control of government completely ignores all suggestions and recommendations from the parties in opposition, just because the parties are in opposition. On the same basis, it is absolutely wrong for members of the House of Commons in opposition to oppose anything introduced by the government just because it comes from the government and we are in the opposition. It is because of that feeling that I said I hoped I would not be charged with political heresy. I think it is wrong for the government to ignore all suggestions that come from the opposition, and I also think it is definitely wrong for the opposition in any or all parties to oppose a measure just because it is introduced by the government.
After listening to this discussion which has taken place over the past two days, and in particular what has been said by the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition on my right, I am afraid they are opposing this measure for one reason only, namely that it is a measure introduced by the government.


Mr. Churchill:: Nonsense.


Harold Edward Winch: My friend here says "nuts".


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order. I said "nonsense".


Harold Edward Winch: That is my impression. That is my opinion. I say it does not make for a good parliament for members to oppose measures just because they are in the opposition.
In my brief time here in Ottawa I have at times thought the Minister of Defence Production, especially as Minister of Trade and Commerce, was wrong in some of his policies and in some of his decisions. Once in a while I think he is wrong in his decisions as Minister of Defence Production. But, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation at all, standing in my place here in the opposition, in saying that if this group, the C.C.F., were over there on the opposite side on the government benches, and if in an emergency a job had to be done and red tape had to be ignored, if I had anything to say-and I do not mind saying this-I would ask a man by the name

of C. D. Howe to go ahead and do it. His record has shown that he can get things done in an emergency. I am proud to stand before this House of Commons and say that, even although I disagree with him on politics and very often on his policies.
What is the situation with which we are now faced in connection with this bill? There are only two sections to it. As to the first one, everyone says there is no opposition regarding the salary of the Minister of Defence Production. There is only one other section, and it relates to whether or not there shall be a limit on the time the act is in force. The amendment says it is now to be perpetual. Yet, Mr. Speaker, have you noticed that in two days of debate the discussion has been on the powers in that act, which powers have been in effect and have been law for a good many years in the Dominion of Canada.


Owen C. Trainor: Five, to be exact.


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend says, "Five, to be exact".


An hon. Member:: Four.


Harold Edward Winch: Four years or five years. The Conservatives change their minds all the time. However, it has been the law. The powers have been there over this period of years. The only question arising now is this. Shall they continue and be reviewed?
As I said, I have been listening most carefully to all the discussion that has taken place for two days. Most of all I have been interested in what my friends in Her Majesty's loyal opposition have had to say on this matter. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker- and I am going to express this only as an opinion, because otherwise I would be out of order-that they are putting up a sham battle and beclouding the issue because they are the official opposition and feel obliged to oppose anything brought in by the government.
That is a principle with which I as a member of the opposition do not agree. If the government brings in something that is good, I am going to support it. If I think it needs amending, I am going to try to amend it. If it should be opposed, I am going to oppose it. If the precedent is good, support it. If it is bad, then wipe it out. If a new precedent is required, then let us bring it in.
At this session we have heard a great deal about the serious world situation. We all hope for peace. We all want it. We will all work for it. However, things happen speedily in this modern age. We are now spending on defence 47 per cent of the entire revenue of
Defence Production Act the federal government. 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 in 1941? Because of experience, and because the minister desires to have protection for Canada and to be able to move speedily in the interests of Canada, he requires a continuation of these powers.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery), who spoke just before I rose, was talking about socialistic powers and said that a continuation of the act was socialism. Socialism introduced by whom? The bill was introduced by the Prime Minister of Canada, who I do not think is a socialist. Second reading was moved by whom? By the Minister of Defence Production, who is not, I am certain, a socialist. I know these men are not socialists. Yet from their knowledge that private enterprise in Canada, even in an emergency of war, will put their profits before the interests of Canada, they feel that they need these powers in order to ensure that in the event of another emergency the minister in charge of defence production will have the power to control industry on behalf of the Canadian people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Harold Edward Winch: At six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was at the point of concluding my remarks on second reading of the bill which is now before us. Although there has been a two-hour intermission, I have not used that time for the purpose of adding to my remarks. I was at the point of closing at six o'clock, and I am only going to add exactly what I was going to say if I had had the time prior to six o'clock.
First of all I should like to reiterate my opening remarks. I would say that those on the government side should not oppose all suggestions from the opposition merely because they come from the opposition. Secondly, I would say that members on the opposition side, irrespective of party, should not oppose any government measure or principle merely because it comes from the government. I feel that this is the essence of good government and a good parliament.
4604	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
I feel very strongly, sir, as I have already outlined, that the opposition to the bill itself, as presented by the various members, has not been on the basis of fact or on the basis of principle, but on the basis that because it is a government measure it must be opposed if you sit in the opposition. So far as I am concerned, and I know I am safe in saying that so far as our C.C.F. group is concerned, I approach this bill from the point of view of the facts and the necessity for it. We in this group believe that the direction and control of our entire Canadian economy, at a time when almost half of our federal revenue is required to be allocated to the defence department, should be in the hands of the elected representatives, that is parliament. If parliament is not meeting, then it should be under the control of the elected representatives as represented by the cabinet and, under this bill, as represented by the Minister of Defence Production.
I fail completely to understand the arguments that have been presented by the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. The bill does not deal with powers, it only deals with time. They ask for a review. In the intermission since six o'clock I have gone over the act again. According to my understanding the Minister of Defence Production has to make an annual report to this parliament, and the public accounts are open to all members of this house. In addition, all estimates have to come before our parliament. At that time any queries can be put to the minister.
Under these circumstances, sir, when the Minister of Defence Production has to report annually; when the public accounts have to be filed annually; when the estimates can be examined annually in the house, and when nearly one-half of the entire federal revenue has to be allocated to the departments of national defence and defence production, then in my opinion there is still a state of emergency. That being so, and because the present minister in the first year of the last world war had to report that Canada was being sabotaged by private enterprise companies because they placed their profits before their patriotism, I say any understanding, patriotic Canadian has no other choice but to do what I am going to do, support the second reading of this bill.


Ernest George Hansell: It is not very often, Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity of congratulating my very good friends who sit immediately to my right. They are my very good friends. In fact I always regard the hon. member for Cape Breton South as a bit of a chum. I must congratulate them on doing something I have been trying to do


throughout the country for a long, long time. I have been trying to drive my socialist friends and my Liberal friends together. I feel that they have accomplished more in this debate than I have been able to accomplish for quite some time out in the country because-


Harold Edward Winch: I would rather join the Liberals than the Conservatives.


Ernest George Hansell: -they are supporting this measure which, in principle, is a measure for the concentration of power, not only in the hands of a government but in the hands of one man. I have found in my reading and in my appraisal of socialism, and the moves that are made from time to time by my socialist friends, that they can always be depended upon to come to the defence of any measure that concentrates power in government hands.


Clarence Gillis: In the public interest.


Ernest George Hansell: As a matter of fact, it is amazing to me that even my Liberal friends, as a party, should be so pleased with the support the socialists have given them in this debate. They seem to be extremely happy. They laugh at certain digs the C.C.F. give to those who are opposing the measure. You would think they were bosom friends.
I congratulate my socialist friends on something else. They have been more powerful in their speeches in support of this bill than have members on the government side of the house. But even though that is so, it seems to me there is something screwy in the discussion of this measure thus far, something that seems inconsistent. Here we have a measure which gives permanency to the Defence Production Act. Not only does it do that, but it gives permanency to the extraordinary powers given to the minister. That is one thing we in this corner of the house are concerned about.
We are in favour of a department of defence production. We believe that at the present time, when conditions are complex and perhaps dangerous, the minister should have those powers. My leader, the hon. member for Peace River, has already said that. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) has said the same thing, as has also the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas), and I am saying it now. But we are not in favour of a bill that gives the minister this power forever and ever.
I have said there was something inconsistent in what some speakers in this debate have said. I would refer again to my socialist friends, who over the years have described themselves as great peacemakers, as those who are always holding out great hope for peace. Their attitude has been that

you can save the day by negotiation. Yet in this measure they support the government in setting up the Department of Defence Production forever and ever, and giving the minister exceptional powers under the act to decide things for himself for the same length of time. Well, if there is such great hope for peace, and we all want it, one would not think the minister would need these exceptional powers forever.
How my C.C.F. friends weep and cry when the H-bomb or some other bomb or some new nuclear weapon is tested somewhere out in the Pacific. Oh, they are so alarmed. "Why is all this taking place?" Yet what they are voting for in this instance is to give the minister all the power he needs. Yes; if we happened to be manufacturing or finalizing these nuclear weapons the minister could go out into the middle of the Pacific ocean and bang them off or explode them. He would have power to do that under the act. And they are quite willing to support him, by accepting this measure.
Only a few weeks ago we were discussing the entry of West Germany into NATO. What was the purpose? The purpose was to make it possible for them to fight the aggressor with us, side by side. But the socialists split on that. "No, no; we cannot permit Germany to rearm even though they are rearming to fight by our side". But they are content to give the minister all these powers in the Department of Defence Production, so that we may continue producing the most deadly weapons it is possible to produce. It just does not add up, so far as I am concerned. It does not make sense; it is not logical; it is inconsistent.
If the government wants to have this department set up forever, if they want the minister to have these powers forever, then do they expect that war is inevitable? I do not know the answer, I do not know what their attitude is; but I do know that the other day a very high-ranking officer was fired because he spoke out of turn. And what was one of the things he said? While he may not have used these exact words, he indicated in what he said that war was coming, that it was inevitable.
I am not going to criticize the government for the position it has taken in reprimanding that gentleman for making a pronouncement of government policy. I stand with the leader of this group when he says that government policy should be announced by the government, and only by the government. And I stand with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that on major policy it should be announced in this House of Commons. Nevertheless there is an important
Defence Production Act factor in this matter. I am not so much concerned with whether that high official spoke out of turn as I am-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member not to continue discussing the matter to which he is now referring, unless it has some direct bearing on the legislation before the house. He can realize the kind of argument we could have on that particular subject.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; I realize, Mr. Speaker, that you may have been somewhat concerned lest I should go too far afield. However, I was only going to say that I am concerned as to the truth of the statement more than with what action the government took in the matter. Is it true that war is inevitable? If it is, then of course we must have a department of defence production. If war is coming, then we must give the minister certain powers in serious times to mobilize the productive capacity of the country and produce those goods which are necessary for war.
But if that is so, then the government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say there is going to be peace, and at the same time prepare for war. I do not think anyone will disagree with that statement. When the minister, with his powers over defence production, mobilizes the productive capacity of the country to manufacture war supplies, why is he doing it? Why do we make bombers, if they are not to fly? Why do we make bristling atomic guns, if they are not to be fired? Why do we make any nuclear weapons if they are not to be used? Why do we spend $3 billion a year on arms if they are not to be used? I should like to ask that question. Someone says, for safety. Well, I know that argument has been made over and over again, that we can negotiate by reason of our strength. It is a pleasant argument, but what does it really mean? It really means that if we are strong we can scare the enemy. Well, now, who is kidding who in this thing?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whom.


Ernest George Hansell: Whom. War weapons are manufactured to be used, and certainly we are not kidding the enemy. We are not scaring the enemy as we negotiate, because up to now in their negotiations they have not shown one tiny thread of nervousness. As a matter of fact I am inclined to think that we are the boys who are nervous; for in all our negotiating from the standpoint of strength we have lost, for the most part.
We are opposed to this measure, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying we are opposed to the entire bill, particularly in respect to
4606	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act the continuation of the Defence Production Act. My leader has already stated that we are in favour of that. We are opposed to the concentration of power in the hands of one man. We are opposed to that not because we believe that the present incumbent of this office would use the power unwisely. We certainly do not believe that, because we have a great deal of respect for the minister. We are not opposed to the bill for that reason; we are opposed to the principle, and that principle is embedded in our Social Credit philosophy. We are opposed to the centralization of power because it is a negation of democracy. We are therefore opposed to this measure which gives the minister these powers in perpetuity.
We have been accused over and over again of holding to a philosophy of dictatorship. Just before the last election an article was published in Liberty magazine, written by Leslie Roberts. It did not bother us to any extent, but it was read by a great many people. The pictures were there. What were the pictures? They were not pictures of the Social Crediters; they were pictures of German troops marching the goose step. They were depicting that as what the Social Crediters would do. The article tried to indicate that we believed in the centralization of control; that we believed in dictatorship. Well, this is one time when we are opposing a measure that puts the power of dictatorship into the hands not only of the government, but of one man.
When he spoke on behalf of his party the other night the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre tried to indicate that it was all right to give the minister these powers because, after all, he has to come back to parliament whenever he needs another $2 or $3 billion. When my leader spoke the other night the hon. member interjected and asked how many of the estimates were statutory. Well, it is true that only one item is statutory.
Of course we can always oppose the minister when his estimates are before the house. That is a pleasant story to tell. It is pleasant to talk that way. I know we can talk when the estimates are before the house, but I should like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to tell me when any discussions on the estimates have been effective in reducing an item by $1, let alone reducing them to $1. It has never happened. It is technically true that the money has to be appropriated by parliament. The same thing that happens on estimates happens on a great many other parliamentary matters, such as legislation. If the minister wants it his party will back him up; and while we can talk about it and use this chamber as a sort of sounding board,


the minister will get the money and will continue to operate with dictatorial powers.
My colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, pointed out to me this morning one section of the original act that we are amending. It is section 27 (2), which reads:
Where a controller has been appointed to carry on a business or a part thereof, he shall be deemed to be the agent of the owner thereof for the purpose of carrying on the business or that part thereof-
I suppose an agent of an owner is an agent who represents the owner and does what the owner wants him to do or tells him to do. I continue:
-except that the owner shall not have any right to control the business or that part thereof and the controller may, subject to any instructions of the minister, do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of carrying on the business or that part thereof.
If that is not expropriation in principle I do not know what it is. The minister has power from now to eternity to appoint a controller over any business and say "the controller is there with absolute power". The business may belong to someone else, but the owner has no right whatsoever to interfere in any way with the operation of his own business. I say in principle that is expropriation without paying for it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, you pay for
it. The owner has recourse to the courts.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not see anything here about paying for it. The minister does not need that in this act anyway, because he can do that. Governments have that right today by the use of proper processes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely; that is what we are saying.


Ernest George Hansell: But what this act amounts to is this. A person has a business. The government, because of powers given to one man, can take over that business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And pay for it.


Ernest George Hansell: That may be so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the hon. member's argument has been shot.


Ernest George Hansell: My argument as to expropriation has not been shot; that is one thing that has not been shot, because all governments have it. Why put it in here; why put it in the hands of one man? That is what we in this group are opposed to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Even the Social Credit government of Alberta has it, and it is administered by one man.


Ernest George Hansell: I know they have that right as a government, and so has this government without this act at all.


An hon. Member:: They are just spelling it out.


Ernest George Hansell: It is being spelled out and put in the hands of one man forever. That is what it is doing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is the hon. member talking about, Methuselah?


An hon. Member:: That is eternal life.


Ernest George Hansell: It may be eternal life as far as the minister is concerned, because I cannot guarantee what is going to happen to him when he gets to the golden gates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps he will expropriate the gates.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know that he would. When he faces those golden gates I know he will look at them and ask if there is a defence production act up there under which he could expropriate them. I am sure there will not be, because I made up my mind a long time ago that there is no socialism in heaven. I do not cast any disrespect upon my friends; there are socialists in heaven, but no socialism.


An hon. Member:: Social Crediters but no Social Credit.


Ernest George Hansell: I believe some of my good friends may get in by the skin of their teeth.
Much has been said during this debate about the minister having these powers to protect the taxpayer against unscrupulous big business. No person in this house, no party in this house is going to countenance the unscrupulous actions of big business, or even little business, but this act is not designed to protect the taxpayer. Let us not kid ourselves about that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I interrupt the hon. member? There is a renegotiation clause in that act which netted the taxpayer over $600 million after the last war. I suppose the hon. member would want that eliminated?


Ernest George Hansell: No, I do not want that eliminated; it is quite all right to have that in the act. But the argument is made that the purpose of this act is to protect the taxpayer from unscrupulous big business, as though they could not be protected without putting unlimited powers in the hands of one man. That is the thing we are getting at.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How do you work that out?
Defence Production Act


Ernest George Hansell: That is what we are opposed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had better try A
plus B.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend talked about the people being exploited. This act is not designed to prevent the exploitation of the people; this act is designed to more effectively mobilize the productive energies of this country for defence purposes. That is the purpose of the act.


An hon. Member:: Defence of whom?


Ernest George Hansell: Let us not be pulling red herrings over the pathway. That is the purpose of the act, and we support the purpose of the act.


George James McIlraith: Then vote for it.


Ernest George Hansell: We are not voting for the bill because, as my leader said the other day, it has a most iniquitous clause which gives the minister all these powers forever, by the repealing of section 41.
If the minister wants these powers for another couple of years we are quite willing to give them to him. That is all right; that is reasonable, because the way things look now the complexity of the times will perhaps last that long. If in a couple of years times have not changed we would be quite willing to extend the powers for another couple of years. There is nothing wrong with that. But that is not what the minister is asking us to do. He is asking us to take out of the bill a section which would permit this matter to come before parliament in that way every so often. The powers are to be given to him for eternity, until the act is repealed.
There is another thing I cannot quite understand, and that is why the minister needs these powers for all time. I cannot understand why he would not be satisfied to have them for two or three years at a time, and have the matter brought before parliament periodically so the powers could be renewed. I do not see why that would not be satisfactory to him. If he is willing to do that he will receive the support of this group, but he is not willing to do that. Why is he asking for the repeal of this section? There must be some other reason. I do not know what the other reason is, and any argument as to that would be only a guess, as there could be a variety of reasons.
The minister is not going to be here forever. The saying is going around that he may retire. I do not know, as that is his business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question? Does he contemplate that this government will go on forever?

Defence Production Act That seems to be the basis of the argument of all the other parties in the house.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not contemplate that this government is going on forever. As a matter of fact, if I did contemplate that it would mean I would be banging my head against a brick wall because-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are.


Ernest George Hansell: -I am out to defeat this government.


An hon. Member:: That is the brick wall.


Ernest George Hansell: I am pleased to say that here and there we are meeting with some reasonable and satisfactory success, but that is not the point. The point is that the minister is asking for these powers forever. The minister may not be here in a few years' time; I do not know.


Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West):: Whom are
you going to ask?


Ernest George Hansell: Somebody will be succeeding the minister and that is what I had in mind in objecting to these wide powers being granted. I think we will all agree that the minister has done a good job.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Don't speak for all of us.


Ernest George Hansell: He did a good job during the war and he is doing a good job now. We are not talking against the minister and his efficiency when we oppose this measure, not by any means. Writing this into the bill means that these powers will go to his successor, and we do not know who that will be. It may be someone completely unable to perform the same functions as the minister, but he will have these powers just the same.
I do not know, but it could be that business generally in this country has some confidence in the minister. I hope it has. But there is no reason to say that business will have the same confidence in his successor.


Mr. Ellis:: I thought you were arguing on the basis of principle.


Ernest George Hansell: Therefore we are saying that the concentration of power in the hands of one man, written into the act in perpetuity, is a wrong and evil thing. We are opposed to the bill now presented to us because it calls for the deletion of section 41, which would bring this act before parliament in a year's time. As my leader said, we are prepared to give the minister the powers at present. We are willing to vote for the bill if section 41 is not repealed, but we are not willing to vote for this package bill which gives the minister these powers forever.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable that we should be having this extended discussion on this subject tonight in the Canadian House of Commons. As I read the act under discussion tonight, one part of that piece of legislation is designed to perpetuate wartime powers in peacetime. As I have listened to the remarks of hon. members on this matter, the only complaint they have raised concerning the legislation is on the part of the act which is designed to perpetuate these unlimited powers that have grown up during wartime emergencies, particularly during the emergency of world war II and the recent Korean crisis.
I say it is remarkable that we should have to take time to re-emphasize this point, because in a free parliament in Canada the dangers involved should be obvious. One good result emerging from the extended discussion is that it reveals the state of mind and soul of the Liberal majority, and reveals in particular the degree to which the doctrine of statism has crept into that party. We have listened to many members of the opposition make their contribution. We have heard very few representatives of the government in this discussion. In most cases the spokesmen on behalf of the government have tended to minimize the dangers that have been raised by members of the opposition, and actually we have had very few serious contributions to the discussion from that side of the house.


Joseph Warner Murphy: What would you expect?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is bad enough, of course, Mr. Speaker, when we have government supporters ignoring the complaints, the accusations and the criticisms that are being levelled at certain aspects of this measure by members of the opposition, but it is infinitely worse when the same criticisms are ignored by the leaders of that group. I hope we might hear from the Prime Minister himself before this debate concludes, because the legislation stands in his name. I hope to demonstrate in the contribution I shall make to this discussion that the matter is of such importance that it demands a statement and an explanation from the right hon. Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member? I have been glancing through the debate right from the beginning. As I had occasion to say previously-see Debates, May 24, 1955, pages 4063-5-whenever debates are extended over a long period we come to a point when arguments are often being repeated. Just as the hon. member is embarking upon the

point that the Prime Minister, whose name appears on the order paper, as the mover of this bill, should be here and address the house on this bill, I want to remind him with all deference that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), at page 4513 of Hansard, expressed a similar contention; the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), at page 4540, made the same point; the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he made his remarks last evening, began by his appeal to the Prime Minister to address the house on this bill; the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), at page 4539, did the same thing. That is the list only of those members whose speeches I have read so far.
I would ask the hon. member to refrain from repeating. It may be that he has a totally different argument from all those we have heard so far, but it is my duty to remind the hon. member and others who may follow him in this debate that there is a standing order, standing order 40, subsection 2, which forbids repetition either of one's own arguments or arguments used by others in the same debate. Having said that, I shall ask the hon. member to bear these remarks in mind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


John Horace Dickey: Not the same speech all over again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that it is a point of order you have referred to. May I respectfully submit to you that standing order 40 (2) contemplates that there should not be undue repetition of an argument. But the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and the hon. members who have participated earlier in this debate, to whose remarks you have made reference, are making an appeal and a demand. It is not a matter of repeating an argument; it is a matter of making an appeal and a demand that the Prime Minister, in whose name this resolution stands, should come to the house and give his reasons for it. With great respect, in my submission to you there is nothing in standing order 40 (2) that this type of appeal and demand offends.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Another 101-minute speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a matter of repeating an appeal and a demand.


Mr. Speaker:: No matter how you put it, it is repetition. The hon. member for Eglinton, in making the appeal, advanced certain reasons for doing so. All the other members to whose remarks I have referred have done
Defence Production Act likewise. This is exactly what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has just announced. He says he is making an appeal, and he is going to give the reasons for it. After we have had the appeal and the reasons the appeal was made exposed by five members already, it is a question of judgment.
As I had occasion to say earlier, it is difficult to administer this rule, but the hon. gentleman himself, if he reflects on the wording of it, will probably ask himself, as I do, at what point does the repetition become repetitive and tedious so that it constitutes the next step, which is persistence in repetition. Then, if that obtains, the next step is so grave that I may direct the hon. member to discontinue his speech; and if then the member still continues to speak, I have the power to name him. So repetition of one's own arguments or arguments used by others in debate is a very serious matter.
At this moment, having asked the hon. member to keep in mind what I have indicated to him, I am satisfied he will continue his speech without repeating the arguments made by others. I am not making a ruling at this moment. I am merely asking the hon. member's co-operation with respect to the situation I have indicated. I shall follow the debate very closely from now to the end, and if there is no other cause for me to rise I shall be glad to remain seated and listen to the other speeches that are made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If Your Honour has occasion to cite standing order 40, paragraph 2, again, would you let us know whether there are any precedents for ruling that repetition refers to repetition of arguments that another member has made? There is nothing to that effect in standing order 40, subsection 2, itself.


Mr. Speaker:: No. If the hon. member will look at the report of the committee on procedure in 1927, where to avoid redundance they eliminated those words and just combined the one standing order pertaining to relevancy and the one standing order pertaining to repetition, he will find it shows the words. But in practice the Speakers have always enforced the rule as it was in the text before the article was simplified by the committee on procedure in 1927. See Journals, volume LXIV, 1926-7, pages 242-3. See also volume III, Debates, 1920, page 2286; and Debates, March 10, 1939, page 1782.


Mr. Green:: May I suggest to Your Honour that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is in order in commenting on the fact that the Prime Minister has not taken part in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Defence Production Act


Howard Charles Green: I say that for this reason if for no other. The Prime Minister was in the house this evening for a period, and now he has gone out.


George James McIlraith: Just like the Leader of the Opposition.


Howard Charles Green: He had an opportunity this evening to take part in the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The mere fact that an hon. member does or does not participate in a debate or the fact that he is in the house or goes out of the house is not a matter which should be raised as a point of order. We have the right to speak, but we also have the right to listen in this house. It does not necessarily follow that one must speak. Hon. members are supposed to make their remarks relevant to the principle of this bill. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe not only asked why the Prime Minister did not speak, but mentioned all the ministers who were then present in the house. The hon. member recalls that. If he looks at page 4540 of Hansard he will see that appeal was made not only to the Prime Minister but to all the ministers who were then present. The hon. member said:
I am surprised that the Prime Minister has not been in the house during this debate. I realize his responsibilities are great, but I can think of no greater responsibility after having moved this motion than to be here to safeguard the rights of parliament which, in the years that have passed, have been championed so often by those who sit to your right.
He made a similar appeal elsewhere. As reported at page 4545 he referred to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who were then present in the house. Why is there a rule pertaining to repetition if it is not to avoid repetition such as that to which I have just now referred?
As I said, hon. members may look at the pages to which I have referred. I have before me Hansard of June 7; that is the day before yesterday. I think the hon. member for Eglin-ton cannot deny that he made an appeal to the Prime Minister to say something on this matter. He also made a review of the pronouncements of the Prime Minister on a previous occasion when there was discussion of this legislation, when the creation of the department was first proposed to this house.
As I said, if that rule is to mean anything it must be interpreted along the lines I have indicated. Of course, generosity is rather on the side of the member who has the floor because, as I said, it is a rule which it is difficult to administer. I am merely pointing out to the hon. member at the moment that


he indicates that he is entering on the same line of argumentation as that which, as I have indicated by quotations from Hansard, has been propounded by five members already. I think it is my duty to remind him of the rule and to ask him to be careful in the presentation of his argument.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That rule interferes with the filibuster.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Howard Charles Green: Surely Your Honour is not ruling that the hon. member cannot comment on the fact that the Prime Minister had not participated in the debate this evening or this afternoon. The comments to which Your Honour referred were made about the failure of the Prime Minister to speak yesterday or on Tuesday evening.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh,


Howard Charles Green: Surely, as this debate progresses, an hon. member in the course of his remarks is entitled to comment on the fact that the Prime Minister has not yet taken part in the debate although the motion stands in his name. Surely the hon. member is in order in doing that.


Mr. Sluder:: What rule stipulates that?


Howard Charles Green: That is not repetition. It is referring to what is happening at the actual time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: It is quite a different thing from repeating arguments. The hon. member is simply commenting that today, Thursday, June 9, the Prime Minister has not yet seen fit to rise in his place and make any speech on the motion for second reading of this bill. I suggest to Your Honour that such comment should not be ruled as repetition.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is certainly paralysing when you cannot repeat.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I may be permitted to do so, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the matter raised by some of my hon. colleagues, and in particular by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. For many years I have noticed that the members of the opposition are strong in their advocacy of human rights and fundamental freedoms.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't repeat yourself.


Jean-François Pouliot: If freedom of speech is
acknowledged, and if human rights and fundamental freedoms are to exist, may I say that the right to remain silent is just as sacred as is the right to speak.


An hon. Member:: It is a virtue.


Jean-François Pouliot: The fact that one prefers to remain silent rather than to speak cannot be held against him, because it would be a good example to all the members of the opposition.


Mr. Nowlan:: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) would say that if they remain silent twice, the rule of repetition can be invoked against them. I think there would be that real danger, that you might be accused of repetition if you remained silent too long.
What I am concerned about with regard to this point of order is this. Frankly it intrigues me and bothers me, because I feel that if this ruling is accepted which has been made by Your Honour, with Your Honour's background and wide knowledge of the rules, then I suggest with deference that it is a little bit novel, shall we say, to some of us.
I wonder why there ever was a closure rule in this House of Commons if repetition cannot be indulged in. You do not need a rule concerning closure because you are automatically cut off by your rule against repetition. I am remembering, this rule having come in in 1927, that between 1930 and 1935, on unemployment insurance we had a debate of 48 days. There was no time limit during part of that debate.
What I am wondering is this. Perhaps the members of the House of Commons then were more brilliant in those days than they are today, but I cannot conceive of a situation where somebody did not repeat some argument that someone else had used. I am wondering if the Speaker ruled against them on that score. I am rather intrigued with the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to precedents. Surely if my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, coming from the west coast, uses an argument in his forcible and dramatic way, which undoubtedly will be much superior to that which I could raise, is Your Honour suggesting that because I come from the east coast I cannot indulge in the same argument, that I would be foreclosed because of repetition? Frankly I think that ruling, if it is as I think Your Honour is trying to state it now, is going much further than it has ever gone before. With deference I suggest that we should question it quite closely.


Mr. Mclvor:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I feel even the Prime Minister would admit that it would be difficult to improve on the statement made
Defence Production Act by the Minister of Defence Production. I should like to hear the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, to see if he has new material, because he has brains.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say a word to put at ease the minds of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). Whenever the Speaker rises some hon. members seem to think he always makes a ruling. There is a rule, standing order 12, however, that he shall preserve order and decorum. The moment he believes a rule is about to be violated he must warn the hon. member, and that is all I am doing. I feel I have full justification for that, because I have heard hon. members say and have read in Hansard during this debate exactly what the hon. member indicated he was about to do, that is to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to speak in this debate. He was going to give reasons for that, and I take it other members have done so.
I believe I have indicated that I base this suggestion on standing order No. 40, subsection 2. I claim that if the mention of repetition in subsection 2 is ever to mean anything or has ever meant anything, it is in a situation such as that which has just arisen. It may be because this rule is difficult to administer that it has not been invoked as often as hon. members perhaps would think in this house. In the United Kingdom, where a rule exactly the same as we have, with the exact wording as we had it prior to 1927, does exist, it is often invoked by the Speaker. See United Kingdom Commons' standing order 20, as it appears in May, fifteenth edition, page 1025. See also United Kingdom debates, 1404-1419, December 3, 1953.
There is also another point which I did not mention, and which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and others should keep in mind. It is that all government bills could easily be in the name of the Prime Minister, yet it could be one of his colleagues who would move second reading for him. Since relevancy is to obtain in any debate, I would ask hon. members of what use it is to bring that up in the debate and say that a minister should or should not speak instead of the Prime Minister. Hon. members know very well that there are some bills that are introduced by the Prime Minister. This one concerns the extension of a department and it appears in his name, but it does not necessarily follow that the minister in whose name the bill appears is the minister who will have to move the various stages of the bill. Is it relevant to the principle of a bill to make extended remarks on the point that the minister or the
4612	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act Prime Minister, in whose name the bill appears, has not spoken or should speak? In other words, at this moment I do not raise the point and I do not intend to proceed further.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I know you are not inviting discussion on the point, Mr. Speaker, but in fairness I think there should be added to your closing observations this fact. The point you have just mentioned is not the only ground that has been put forward in this debate as to why the Prime Minister should take part. It was one point, but surely there are many important questions-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth speech by the same hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: There is, I suppose, some relationship to the point of order. However, I find it difficult to believe that what the hon. member is about to say has a direct bearing on the point of order I have raised. I would not want him to have to repeat the reasons which he advanced in his earlier speech. I am not ruling on that ground. I am not giving a ruling. I am merely asking the co-operation of hon. members not to repeat, as the rule says, arguments used by others in the same debate or to repeat one's own arguments in the same debate. The hon. member may continue.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I certainly did not intend to become the centre of a procedural discussion, Mr. Speaker, and I most decidedly do not intend to comment on the point of order. I have been in the house long enough to realize that new things are developing each day in parliamentary discussion and procedure, and before one dares to inject himself into a discussion of this kind he must have considerable experience behind him. I must say, however, that I have learned something new this evening as a result of the discussion that has taken place, because from past experience in the house it has come as a surprise to me that repetition is one of the unpardonable sins. It seems to me that in the past repetition has proceeded apace in most discussions we have had.
Now, proceeding with my contribution to the debate, Mr. Speaker, this bill has been described as a very simple, innocuous bill. I fail to see certain aspects of it in that light. Perhaps if it were viewed in isolation and as a separate item one could so describe it. Certainly, as you examine the bill presented to us, it seems to be very simple and harmless. But on the other hand, if you look at this matter of perpetuating exceptional powers delegated to the minister in the Defence Production Act, I feel that we are


justified in concluding this is just another symptom of a trend that has been under way for far too long, not only in this parliament but in other democratic parliaments.
From time to time in our debates in this house concerning trends in parliament the book "The Passing of Parliament" by G. W. Keeton has been mentioned. It deals more directly with the United Kingdom parliament than with this house, but I feel that if this Canadian House of Commons allows these exceptional powers to be included in this act in perpetuity it is definitely part of this fundamental erosion of the rights of members under our parliamentary system. At page 7 of this book Keeton says that parliament is tending to become merely a censor of executive acts.
The argument has been put up in defence of this measure that there is no need to circumscribe or limit these exceptional powers because the estimates of the minister will be coming before the house each year and hon. members will have an opportunity to level the necessary criticisms to keep the application of these exceptional powers within reasonable limits. Going back to Keeton's statement, that procedure is merely putting parliament in the role of a censor, not an active creative force in the legislative process. We would merely be censoring what had already taken place under these exceptional powers if they happened to be used by the minister. Certainly they are provided for in this act.
Keeton also goes on to say that there are many trends under way in our parliamentary system. He indicates that even in democratic parliaments such as our own and that of the United Kingdom, the democratic processes are on the road to Moscow; that is a phrase he uses.
He gives three points in support of that viewpoint. First of all, the road to Moscow is marked by the one-party state; and who will deny that we have come perilously close to that unhappy situation in this country? Only recently the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who should have a broad knowledge of this situation, decried the unhappy circumstances in which we have an opposition divided in its own councils and therefore rendered almost powerless to take an effective part in the parliamentary deliberations of this house. The one-party state has been a part of the trend.
Then Keeton points out that the road to autocracy is open when we have an all-powerful executive which can almost usurp and arrogate to itself unlimited powers because of the relatively weakened position of the opposition. Third, he indicates that the

trend toward autocracy and the passing of parliament is marked by a path toward a planned economy, particularly a planned economy where government monopolies predominate.
I submit that we are moving in the direction of all three in this house; and the only thing that has slowed down the process is the fact that we do have an opposition which has prevented the executive from assuming absolute powers in this chamber. I say this matter is of profound importance, because if we are going to perpetuate in peacetime conditions the powers that have emerged during a wartime situation, then we are definitely assisting in this undesirable trend described as "the passing of parliament".
I listened to a discussion on "Citizens' Forum" not so long ago on this subject. "Citizens' Forum" is a program arranged by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to sound out public thinking on public matters. During that discussion, whether it was put forward seriously or not, someone described parliament in terms which I shall set out in a moment. "Citizens' Forum" is a responsible discussion group, and discussions reach a high level. Therefore it is rather a tragic state of affairs when we find someone defining parliament in these terms:
Parliament is an inexpert, rigidly regimented, desperately overworked and intellectually exhausted agglomeration of lobby-fodder going through the motions of lawmaking under the scornful gaze of a public well aware that power rests outside the parliamentary system.
The person making that statement went on to describe the increasing resort to orders in council and the procedures of delegated legislation when, as Keeton describes it, there is a continuing shift in the governmental centre of gravity from the floor of the House of Commons to the offices of the great departments of state.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that I feel all these matters are involved in the legislation we are debating this evening. I have indicated that exceptional powers are necessary in time of war, but I would just as strongly suggest that as soon as actual war is removed as a threat to the country, we should try to withdraw from those exceptional powers as rapidly as possible, if we are going to preserve our free democratic parliamentary system of government.
Power became concentrated in the cabinet during the war. I quote from a government publication which reached my desk just the other day. It is an outline for discussion
Defence Production Act leaders issued in connection with Current Affairs, volume 8, No. 11. The first question asked in this pamphlet for discussion leaders is as follows:
Is a democratic system of government an effective instrument in time of crisis?
Here is the answer appearing in the pamphlet:
Parliamentary procedures, with full discussion of all sides of the question, are not always the swiftest way of arriving at decision and action. In times of crisis almost instantaneous decision and action are sometimes necessary. Parliaments have consequently developed the device of delegating more power to cabinets during emergency periods. Thus the cabinets of both Canada and the United Kingdom had more directly exercisable power during the second world war than they have now. Parliament grants those powers, usually for a specifically limited time-
I underline the words "usually for a specifically limited time".
-and parliament can withdraw it when it is considered no longer necessary.
I suggest that the members of the official opposition are quite justified in demanding that some limit be placed on the powers incorporated in this act, particularly when we are in peacetime conditions. It is bad enough in wartime to have absolute cabinet control, but it is tragically dangerous in time of peace.
I know the difficulty arises from the fact that there has been no change in administration since the end of world war II. The United Kingdom perhaps is a little more mature in this regard than we are, because they turn their respective parties out of office more quickly than we do here. Unfortunately we have not had that salutary state of affairs since the end of hostilities in 1945, with the result that you have a group of politicians who have become inoculated with the power complex. The only argument I have heard in attempting to refute the opposition is. "We must be right, because so many support us. We have been returned time after time to a majority position in the House of Commons."
Well, I do not have to repeat that popular statistics concerning recent election results indicate that the government holds office on a minority popular vote, mainly because the opposition is divided in its councils. I feel that it is a tragedy if in defending freedom, which is the purport of this resolution-and we are all for it; we all realize that we must have a permanent Department of Defence Production to provide our armed forces with the necessary equipment-we lose by the subtle process of inner decay the very freedom we are defending.
I have another observation on this point from a Canadian writer, George Hambleton, who has recently produced the book "The Parliament of Canada".	And-
4614	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member again. He is about to give us his fifth quotation. I heard several quotations yesterday. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) gave us quite a few quotations from a certain book, "The Urge to Persecute", and from another book, "Faith and Freedom". Now the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is giving us a review of a book by Keeton, "The Passing of Parliament". He has quoted from a government publication, and now he is about to quote from another book. I understand that it substantiates some of the points he is making. According to the rules he must present his arguments in his own words, not in the words of others. The hon. member may say, "Well, yesterday you allowed quotations to be made; why should you not allow them today?" He said a moment ago, "You allowed repetition in other debates; why do you not allow it now?" I understand that I have to bear the onus of that negligence, but there comes a time when it becomes so obvious that intervention is sometimes helpful.
I am sure the hon. member is not doing this purposely and does not want to take advantage of the rule. Therefore I am again merely pointing out to him that he has given us five quotations, and my remarks might serve to indicate to him that for the remainder of his remarks there should not be another five or six quotations.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am beginning to feel a bit frustrated as I keep running into these technical hurdles. Again I am amazed at the ruling because, as I have said in the house on former occasions, I have heard lengthy quotations read and no difficulty has been encountered. I would say that some of the points I have made have been more by way of paraphrase than direct quotation, and I shall paraphrase the gentleman to whom I referred, who reminds his readers that the power of the cabinet is now such that during world war II we had a regime which was nothing less than a dictatorship by consent. I feel that the exceptional powers in this legislation are perpetuating this unhappy condition.
If I may refer to a personal experience which involves an historical character, I think I can do so without infringing on the rule that we must not quote too freely. During the last war I had the privilege of going to the continent quite soon after the liberation of France. In fact the battle was still raging furiously in the Cherbourg peninsula. Hon. members are all aware of the stakes that were involved in that conflict. We went across the channel to try to establish direct


contact with mobile radar installations under whose direction our particular squadron was operating. At the tip of the Cherbourg peninsula we were housed in the chateau de Tocqueville.
I was quite thrilled at that experience because, as hon. members will recall, de Tocqueville was one of the outstanding historians of the early nineteenth century. Over a hundred years ago he had foreseen just the unhappy state of affairs that modern democracies find themselves in today as they are confronted with crisis after crisis. In his writings on democracy in the Americas he pointed to four dangers that would be faced by American democracies within the foreseeable historical future.
The first point was the possibility of responsibility in government being bartered for security. The second point was the danger of democracy degenerating into majority rule, a form of oligarchy, and that is a question that has already been referred to by the hon. member for Prince Albert, who mentioned the tyranny of the majority in reference to this discussion. The third point was that dull uniformity would tend to depress the exercise of individual will; in other words, a trend toward a mass society would tend to deaden individual responsibility, and the individual would be willing to acquiesce in anything so long as his security could be guaranteed.
The fourth point was that increasing complexity of national life would lead to the necessity for a rigid autocracy. I thought it was ironical, Mr. Speaker; the night we stayed in the chateau de Tocqueville we were housed in the library. Incidentally the chateau had been occupied by the nazi forces until just a few days previously, and it was interesting to discover that the library of that great historian had been very carefully preserved even by the nazi forces. They at least had respect for the contributions of this outstanding man toward a better understanding of our democratic processes, yet there was a strange irony of fate. Here just a hundred years later a country which at the time that de Tocqueville had written was the centre of liberty, equality and fraternity, had fallen for several years under the iron heel of a dictator, a situation which he had prophesied in his writings a hundred years earlier.
It has been interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see the enthusiastic manner in which the members of the C.C.F. party have embraced this legislation. I was very interested in the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because I saw him in a new

role. He was enthusiastic; he felt that this legislation might be regarded as the wave of the future so far as his particular point of view was concerned. He made reference to the fact that if we are to meet emergencies there is necessity to have what is sometimes called democratic socialism, national socialism, state socialism, state capitalism, or whatever phrase you like to use to describe this trend toward increasing domination by the state. On the other hand, it is necessary to curb the rights and the privileges of private industry, because the captains of industry are not to be trusted with the responsibilities that are inherent in the continuing emergency conditions that face us at the moment.
If I had time I should like to give another quotation, but I do not know whether to launch into it. It is very pertinent to this point. The members of the C.C.F. party are strongly in support of the idea of democratic socialism or state domination of our productive activities. In the book "Make This Your Canada", a review of C.C.F. history and policy, there is a very interesting and significant passage on page 24.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I was in the
house and heard the previous interruption of the hon. member. I do not want to anticipate what he is going to read, but from the title I judge it will be very difficult for one to relate it to the principle of this bill. If he can relate it to the principle of the bill, well and good; otherwise I would ask him to devote his remarks strictly to the principle.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The only point I am making in my discussion, Mr. Speaker, is that the inclusion of these exceptional powers is a trend toward state domination, and that is why we are opposing this aspect of the legislation. My quotation is right on that point, if I may be allowed to proceed.
Our own experience in the field of war production has been confirmed and emphasized by the accomplishments of the Soviet union. The whole democratic world has been filled with admiration of the victorious struggles of the red army. And that admiration is deeply deserved. Yet our appreciation is incomplete if we do not understand some of the reasons for the magnificent results achieved by the Soviet peoples in their opposition to Hitler's invasion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Having heard part of the quotation, I think most hon. members will agree that we are departing from the principle of the bill.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Does this bill not deal with the emergency situation of war or the threat of war?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just defence production.
Defence Production Act


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was under the impression that the Department of Defence Production was being established on a permanent basis in order to take care of any possible threat of war. Just to paraphrase the remainder of this quotation, it goes on to point out that the soviets were able to handle the emergent situation they faced when attacked by nazi Germany because they had a planned economy and a complete authoritarian system of organizing their productive capacity, with the result that they were able to meet the onslaught of the enemy.
It is understandable that members of the C.C.F. group would be strongly in support of a measure of this kind because it indicates the trend toward state socialism, state national socialism, or however you describe it; this increasing trend toward domination by the state. But I am surprised when I find members of the nominal Liberal party succumbing to what has been described as the dominant dogma of our age, that chaos, confusion and crisis can be stopped only by an increasing resort to coercion and force on the part of the executive arm of government. That is the reason the members of the official opposition are opposing this particular aspect of the legislation.
In his contribution to the debate the hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to incentive as an encouragement for wartime production, and implied that the incentive that was most undesirable in connection with wartime production was the incentive of profit or blood money. There are other kinds of incentives. Under the old Gladstonian school of Liberalism unlimited gain or the profit motive was the incentive. On the other hand, there is the socialist incentive or the incentive of statism, the incentive of those who subscribe to the belief that unlimited power for the state is necessary in order to build up an efficient production system to meet any possible threat. The incentive of that particular school is the incentive of unlimited power, and in the extreme where you have absolute dictatorship taking over it implies concentration camps and other types of power of that sort.
In traditional fashion the Conservatives try to find a happy medium between these two extremes, and that is the position we are taking on this matter. It would be a most unhappy and unfortunate state of affairs if we were to allow ourselves to be led, perhaps unconsciously on the part of the government, to subscribe to the dominant dogma of the age that the state must have absolute powers if we are going to prepare the country to meet a continuing emergency.
4616	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act In concluding I would say that this particular viewpoint professes to have a strange faith in the capacity and ability of politicians. The captains of industry, responsible citizens of this country, are bloodthirsty men who it would seem have no interest in the welfare of the country or of our free political institutions. They cannot be trusted in a time of emergency to come to the aid of those values which underline our way of life.
On the other hand this mystical belief or faith in the ability and integrity of the politician implies that the captain of politics would be all-wise, all-benevolent, allrighteous and could be completely trusted in handling the affairs of production. That is far from the true situation as is to be found in the pages of history. The individuals we should be most suspicious of are the politicians, and that is the reason we have opposition to governments; that is the reason why we have the diffusion and division of power, to prevent a government becoming too powerful and being placed in a position where it can abuse its power.
After all the captain of politics, just as the captain of industry, is subject to all the human frailties that have dogged the footsteps of man down through the pages of history. Perhaps I can express this viewpoint best by quoting a little piece of poetry I heard some time ago which described a politician. It went something like this:
He would not kiss the babies as he went along the way.
He believed that public business should no more than others pay,
He insisted on insisting on economy in fact, Which for any politician is a curious way to act. He said I made a promise to the people in this town
If they voted me in office I would keep the taxes down.
So I mean to keep that promise, and he fired a dozen clerks
Saying one is all that's needed if he's honest and he works.
He refused to pose for pictures just to further spread his fame,
On every public project he refused to splash his name.
He was early at the office and on the job he stayed,
He respected all the citizens but no favourites he played.
He tried running public business in a private tradesman's way.
But the things they said about him filled his family with dismay.
He was honest, he was earnest, he was truthful and sincere,
But he was no politician so he didn't last a year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, is this doggerel pertinent to the Defence Production Act?


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


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I lost 15 minutes in the discussion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That would appear to cast some reflection on the timing. My experience has been that the officials at the table are most accurate in that respect. I may advise the hon. member that allowance was made for the interruptions on the point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think it unlikely I will run over the time, though there are only 20 minutes left. I propose to speak without tedious repetition if that can be avoided, and I hope to present one or two new phases in this debate.
We are dealing with Bill No. 256-I appreciate that this has been said before-to amend the Defence Production Act. It has been said that this is a simple bill containing only two sections. The explanatory notes point out that with regard to the first section the only change is the substitution of the word "fifteen" for the word "ten". The second clause reads:
Section 41 of the said act is repealed.
What could be simpler than to increase the salary of the minister and keep the act in force after July 31 of next year? All that is required is for the house to pass this simple little bill in a few minutes and then proceed to other business. Well, there is more to it than that. A real problem has been presented in this relatively simple enactment, and that is continuing all the Defence Production Act operation except section 41. Further than that, the core of the matter is that the intention here is to make the act permanent.
As I followed the minister's argument in the early stages of the debate, he stressed the point that there was a continuing emergency, and various hon. members have dwelt upon that during the course of the debate. The meaning the Oxford dictionary gives to "emergency" is as follows: "Sudden juncture demanding immediate action". I think it is important to keep that definition in mind. We are tending to use the word "emergency" with a much wider meaning than that. There is nothing at the present time that indicates a sudden juncture demanding immediate action. As I say, the minister, in the course of his early argument, based it on what he called a continuing emergency, and he stressed the fact that a permanent department was essential in order to retain experienced employees.

There has been a measure of agreement in the house with regard to some of the matters that have been mentioned in the course of the debate. There has been general agreement that the department should be made permanent. There has been some general agreement that the world situation is uncertain. There has not been agreement that there is at the present time an emergency. The world situation has been described by the minister as being worse now than it was in 1951. We cannot recall that other ministers have indicated that in recent times. The Prime Minister, who I judge is going to participate in the debate at the appropriate moment, when speaking to the federal-provincial conference on April 26 dealt with the subject of world affairs and painted the picture as he saw it.
I shall not quote at length from his statement, but I think it is important to get his viewpoint because it has its bearing on this subject of defence production. The Prime Minister on that occasion-and 1 am quoting from page 6 of the Hansard of that federal-provincial conference meeting-said this:
In 1950 we met in the shadow of the Korean crisis and the ministers most directly concerned spoke to us of the urgent tasks confronting us in the defence field. Since then the situation has changed. On the surface it seems to have changed for the better. The fighting has stopped. Fundamentally, however, the situation has not improved, but we have grown more used to it. The world remains divided and suspicious; it appears likely to be that way for many years.
He goes on further to speak about the gravity of the risk that threatens Canada should a major war break out, and he says this. I quote again from page 6:
If a major war commences we must expect at its very beginning-that is, in the first few hours- heavy attacks on North America with large nuclear weapons. These attacks would likely take place on Canadian targets as well as on those in the United States.
That is a somewhat alarming view of world affairs, which should be presented to us here in the house if that is the situation, but I see no hint there of an emergency as defined by the Oxford dictionary. As I say, there has been some measure of agreement. What are the differences here in the House of Commons? We have been saying on this side that the powers are excessive except for an emergency, and we have said that the powers should not be permanent. It is interesting to see what has happened so far.
Attempts to reach a compromise on this -natter were made during the course of the iebate at the resolution stage in March. At
Defence Production Act that time the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as indicated on page 1996 of Hansard, said:
I hope that between now and then-
That is, when the bill would get second reading.
-the government might consider whether some changes in the act itself might be made. I suggest, as one change, that instead of wiping out the expiry date altogether another expiry date might be written into the act. The department as set up originally in 1951 was to expire July 31, 1956, and perhaps the government would consider putting in an expiry date of, let us say, July 31, 1958 or 1959.
Then, as other people participated in the debate, there was agreement to that suggestion on the part of the hon. member for Peace River. Then the minister himself intervened to say, as shown on page 2001 of Hansard of March 14, 1955:
If it were not for the human element in the department I would be quite willing to set another date and debate the matter again.
As reported on the same page, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made a suggestion in these words:
Why would it not be possible to word the bill in such a way that the department is made permanent but these powers are made temporary, and subject to review within a certain length of time?
With that suggestion the hon. member for Peace River agreed. As reported on page 2002 the Minister of Defence Production said this:
If the house wishes to adopt this resolution before the bill is brought in, the government will consider the request of my hon. friend.
He is referring to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.
I do not know whether or not the government will accept the hon. member's suggestion, but at least it will be given consideration.
Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated-


An hon. Member:: No tedious repetition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If there is tedious repetition here, Mr. Speaker, it is because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been repeating himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You fellows have been repeating what I said.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He said:
I hope in the consideration which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has promised to give he will consider the possibility of wording that section in the opposite way, letting it stand that the department goes on but including a provision in section 41 which would say that sections so and so of this act-and these could be the sections dealing with the wide powers-will expire on such and such a date. This action would give the

Defence Production Act officials and employees of the department a sense of permanency as far as their employment is concerned, but would also bring before parliament at an appropriate date and on a mandatory basis a review of the whole question of the powers contained in the act.
The general spirit of the house was different from what it is on this occasion. The Prime Minister, who intervened at that time in the debate, said this as reported at page 2002 of Hansard:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has already stated that the government would give consideration to the views which have been expressed here in that regard.
That is in regard to these compromise solutions. Then as reported at page 2003 the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra summed it up. This will indicate how close we were to agreement on that occasion. He summed it up as follows:
I suggest that the matter be allowed to stand as it is at the present time, on the understanding that the resolution goes through and that the government will give serious consideration to this suggestion.
That gets us past the resolution stage, Mr. Speaker. We have reached the month of June, three months later. A change has taken place. What is the reason for that change? I do not propose to repeat some of the things that have already been quoted from the statements made in 1951 and again this year with regard to the extraordinary powers not being necessary. This morning when the hon. member for Prince Albert was speaking he drew attention to the fact that when special emergency powers were required in 1945, one year was considered to be essential; that in 1951, when the act was first brought in, five years was considered to be essential before review; and that now, in 1955, we have reached the stage of no limit. That represents a considerable change of thinking in a ten-year period.
My good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and I am not sure that I should draw attention to him again-changed his position during the course of three months, strangely enough, as did the minister. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was criticizing my friend the hon. member for Eglinton, and incidentally, accusing him of being somewhat loquacious and long-winded-a criticism which I thought was odd coming as it did from my good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Physician, heal thyself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I merely objected to his talking for so long without telling us where he stood.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was apparent to everybody but the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, for whom I have the greatest respect, has told us where he stood because he has changed his position in the period from March to June. Speaking of the hon. member for Eglinton, as reported at page 4536 of Hansard he said:
He wants a time limitation in the bill.
So did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a few months ago.
He did not state how many years or what length of time. I suggest it is parliament's job not just to say we will turn these powers over and we will review them in two, three, five or ten years. No, it is parliament's job to maintain a constant scrutiny of a department of this kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you not agree?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I quite agree. I also agree that there should be a limitation, as I intend to point out.
The minister, having somewhat altered his position in the course of three months, I regret to say, repeated the arguments he made in March. He drew our attention to the fact that one of the reasons for the necessity of making the department permanent was in order to hold the members of his department. Then he suggested that at the time the estimates were under consideration we could review the work of his department and suggest changes. That matter has been effectively dealt with by others, so I need not dwell upon it. In reply to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the powers might be limited, he quoted his legal advisers to the effect that it was rather difficult to express that suggestion in an act so it would be satisfactory. Let me point out-and I think I just have time in which to do so-that on March 10, thinking of how this act might be terminated when the time came for it, the Prime Minister as reported at page 1905 of Hansard said this:
. . . leaving It to parliament to decide if and when it will be proper to bring it to a termination.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on Wednesday, as reported at page 4542 of Hansard, the Minister of Defence Production said this:
I do not propose to be told now by any hon. member just when I will liquidate it.
Hence, Mr. Speaker, you see that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production are not in agreement. The Prime Minister suggests that parliament will decide when this act shall be terminated some time in the future, and the Minister of Defence Production says that he will not permit any hon. member to suggest-

Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: To tell him now.	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, no. That "now" crept in afterward.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have some other interesting comments to make on the attitude displayed by the Minister of Defence Production and the remarks he has made on this bill. May I now move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Churchill the debate was adjourned.


Walter Edward Harris: In my absence tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I hope the house will pass the unemployment insurance bill first; will take the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and pass at least the first item and as many more as may be possible; and then will take the estimates of the Department of Labour.


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

[Stage Direction]
il
6