1955-06-07

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Piclou) presented the fourteenth and fifteenth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the fifteenth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Sixth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Croll.

Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction not so much of Hansard but of a misunderstanding between the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and myself last night arising from our rather casual use of words. As reported at page 4467 of Hansard the hon. member for Cape Breton South said the national credit societies act was a government measure passed by this parliament. I asserted that was not so, that it was the bill of a private member to incorporate a credit union society under a federal charter. However, I was wrong. The bill I had in mind was not the national credit societies act but the Canadian Cooperative Credit Society Limited Act, a private bill passed in 1953 and sponsored by a private member, Mr. Bater. However, the hon. member for Cape Breton South was also wrong, for there is no such act as the national credit societies act. The act he probably had in mind is the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, a government-sponsored measure to control interprovincial activities of credit unions, passed earlier in 1953. Otherwise we were both right in that both these acts are important in the discussion which took place on the role that credit unions should take in the new fisheries improvement loans bill.
If I may add one final word, a couple of miners such as the hon. member for Cape Breton South and myself have at times been exasperated by the way lawyer members of
parliament quibble over words. This incident shows us the importance of exact legal terminology.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has brought himself and myself up to date, I bow to the superiority of his research department.



PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENTS RESPECTING BOYS* INDUSTRIAL HOME, NEW BRUNSWICK CENTRAL REFORMATORY
The house resumed, from Monday, June 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. 381, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act-Mr. Garson-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Boys under 16 years.
Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask your advice with respect to procedure on clause 1? In that clause it is set out that sections 110 to 120 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act, chapter 217 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, are repealed and other sections are substituted therefor. That is the only actual governing clause. Under that clause do we discuss all the amending clauses? Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?


The Chairman:: Order. I have called clause 1, and it is of course in order to discuss any matter coming under clause 1 which apparently deals with a number of sections in the original enactment.


Harold Edward Winch: That being the case, I should like to speak on clause 1 with particular reference to what will now be known as sections 110 and 111.
On the second reading last night I asked a number of brief questions relative to a principle in the bill and asked the Minister of Justice if he would give a detailed explanation of that principle in the committee of the whole. After reading what I said in Hansard this morning, I realize I spoke far too briefly. Perhaps if I were to make my own position clear on this matter and state the reasons why I requested the minister to give us an exposition of that principle, my purpose would be served.
It has been my privilege, Mr. Chairman, in the past 22 years to have had some connection with boys' industrial schools, and in that

Prisons and Reformatories Act period of time not only to have interested myself in the cases of boys under the age of 16 who have been bad boys, but also upon occasion to have been called upon by judges in charge of juvenile courts and welfare courts in cases of boys who were incorrigible. As a result of that 22 years' experience and knowledge, as I said last night, I am a little bit disturbed by the principle which is outlined in clause 1 concerning what will be sections 110 and 111.
A youth under the age of 16 is without doubt at a very impressionable age. He makes a serious mistake and comes into conflict with the law. He appears in court. Now, once in a while you meet, and I have met, youths under the age of 16 with whom there is not a thing you can do. In the majority of cases, however, so far as my experience goes, when you have a boy of the age of 16 who has been arrested and brought into court, he is a very frightened boy. Under the terms of this bill and the two sections I have mentioned that youth, because he has broken the law and been arrested, can be charged with a crime as though he were an adult. I do not think there is any way we can get around that. But, Mr. Chairman, he can also be sentenced as though he were an adult. I do not think there is any way to get around that, at the moment at any rate.
But having been found guilty and sentenced, under the principle which I am now discussing, he can then be sent to a boys' industrial home. I feel, sir, that is as it should be because it would be a terrible thing if a boy under 16 were sent to a provincial jail or a penitentiary. I am in complete agreement with the attorney general of New Brunswick and the Minister of Justice on that. Once he has been found guilty and sentenced on a definite charge, we now find under the principle in this bill, it is possible that, having served his sentence and having paid his debt to society for the crime which he committed, he can then be sentenced by a judge to an indeterminate time in the boys' industrial school so long as the total sentence does not exceed five years.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make my position clear, and that is why I am on my feet again this afternoon in committee of the whole. I believe that, as applied to youthful offenders, the indeterminate sentence is best. That is my belief-although I realize there are arguments against it. The chief argument- there is really only one-against the indeterminate sentence, one which I have learned from conversations with boys in the industrial homes and with adult criminals in penitentiaries who are serving indeterminate sentences on charges of being habitual criminals,


is that they harbour a feeling of hatred against society and against the courts, a feeling of hatred against everybody, because they do not know when they can get out. I have yet to speak to one boy in a reformatory or one prisoner in a penitentiary, serving a sentence as a habitual criminal, who has not developed an aggressive hatred against society in general. They feel that they may be imprisoned for a month, or for life-they do not know which. Believing as we do in rehabilitation, in my opinion we make a mistake when we deny the many hope by withholding from them knowledge as to when they will again be free.
Referring more particularly to boys in reformatories, I said a few moments ago to the Minister of Justice, through you, Mr. Chairman, that it is my belief that, although these boys may not know whether they are going: to be in the reformatories for a month or for five years, the indeterminate sentence is best for those under 16 years. However, I do not approve of the way it is being carried out in one or two of the provinces, and as recommended in the act. Under clause 110 and clause 111 they are charged with a definite offence and given a definite sentence. Take a boy under 16 years of age. He is impressionable. At that time you can work with him, or you can with the great majority of boys. After they have been charged and sentenced, and have paid their debt to society, it is possible under this legislation to keep these boys in an institution for a period that shall not exceed five years. Ask any psychologist or any psychiatrist what he thinks will be the reaction of the majority of boys who have committed a crime and served their sentence and still cannot be released but may be held in the discretion of the judge or the parole board up to a period of five years.
I say, sir, most sincerely from my knowledge of working with boys in an industrial school for 22 years that that is not going to rehabilitate them; that is not going to make them socially conscious; that is not going to give them a feeling of friendship. I am sure it will build up aggressiveness and a hatred that can lead them down the road to further criminality. I completely realize what the minister and attorney general of New Brunswick have in mind. We must have a provision so that boys who are incorrigible or anti-social can be handled, disciplined and trained in an institution in the hope of making them good members of society. I agree with that; but, sir, I disagree with a provision under which a boy who is charged, found guilty and sentenced, and has served his term, can be kept in an institution. From the psychological point of view it will be far better

-and I commend this thought to the Minister of Justice-to have a different procedure with respect to boys under the age of 16. It should be one of two things. As I said last night on second reading of this bill, when a boy has served his sentence for the crime of which he has been found guilty he should then be released. If he is incorrigible, and if it is in the interests of the boy himself and society, he should remain in an institution. Then either his parents, the children's aid society, the welfare society or any government agency interested in the development of children could then bring him before the court as an incorrigible and give him an indeterminate sentence in the hope that a useful citizen can be made out of him. The boy would at least know that he had served his sentence and was being released.
There is one other approach which I favour even more than the one I have just mentioned. If a youth under 16 years of age breaks the law and is brought to court I suggest that a study be made of his background, his emotions and his outlook. If the boy is found guilty, instead of sentencing him to a period in an institution and then perhaps keeping him there after he has served his sentence, I suggest that he should be given an indeterminate sentence at the beginning. He would then know that his length of stay in the institution would depend upon his good behaviour and his adjustment.
Personally I believe that such a boy would feel better if he knew at the beginning that he was being given an indeterminate sentence and his length of stay would depend upon his attitude, his behaviour and his adjustment rather than to be given a definite sentence and then after having served it be told that he would be kept on for a further period after he had expiated his offence against society.
I must conclude, otherwise I shall be repeating myself. I feel deeply about this matter from the point of view of the psychological effect upon a youthful offender. I submit that the imposition of two sentences will not help to rehabilitate a boy under 16 years of age who has come into conflict with the law.
Secondly, I think it is a wrong concept of Canadian justice that when a boy is found guilty of a crime and sentenced he can still be retained in an institution up to a period of five years after he has expiated his crime. That is not my concept of Canadian justice.
I realize the motives of the Minister of Justice and the attorney general of New Brunswick, but I would ask the Minister of Justice if perhaps we are not making a mistake in an approach of this kind. I want
7.	1955	4485
Prisons and Reformatories Act the minister to understand that I believe sincerely in the indeterminate sentence; I think it is the best thing in the world. But let us have it as a first charge and not as a second one. Let us remember the psychological effect on a youth under 16 years of age when, having served his sentence, he cannot get out. I ask the minister if he will please give this approach some thought and if he will explain the reasons why, in his judgment and in the judgment of others, they bring in this kind of a recommendation.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I too have some knowledge of boys. I have often been convinced that there is no bad boy. I have sat in juvenile court and in police stations and I have been convinced that the individual who should have been sent to court was not the boy but the father or the mother. Where a boy has a father and mother who spend a good deal of time in the beer parlour and let him go where he likes, who is guilty? I was well pleased when the Prime Minister, when he was minister of justice, said it is far better to give the prisoner-whether he is a boy or a grown-up-the benefit of the doubt and not ask him to serve his complete sentence.
I should not say it but I have had 183 boys and adults out on permit or parole and only 3 have partially failed. I have never had a boy placed under our supervision who failed. I agree with the hon. member who has said that it would be far better to let the boy know when he goes in that a good deal depends on his conduct. That is one side of it. But the other side of it is that the folks at home that know him, outside of the family, should keep an eye on him, write him his weekly letter and tell him that there is hope for him and that he should make good.
I am sure that the Minister of Justice will be just as lenient as was the former minister of justice in giving the boy the benefit of the doubt and in letting him come out under the supervision of somebody whose Christian character is known to be practical and who is not afraid to spend a little bit in his behalf.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Vancouver East in the exposition he has just made on juvenile criminality. Certainly the arguments that he has advanced are cogent even though they are emotional as well. On the face of it, it seems that legislation such as this is more or less in keeping with the ideas of criminologists of 25, 30 or 40 years ago rather than of today.
As I listened to the arguments he advanced I tried to place myself for a moment, as one must, in the position of a juvenile offender who has been punished by the court for the
4486	HOUSE OF
Prisons and Reformatories Act wrong that he has committed. The initial punishment he receives is in keeping with the enormity of the crime he has committed. That punishment would be the punishment that would be administered to one of mature years. He starts off with that punishment.
Because of the fact that an indeterminate sentence commences after the termination of the fixed sentence, if I understand the authorities correctly, there can be no remission of part of the fixed sentence when it is to be followed by one that is indeterminate. The only reduction that can be made will be the reduction by the parole board of the sentence subsequently imposed and commencing at the termination of the original sentence. He is then in this position. He has paid his penalty to society in respect of the first sentence he has received. Then he starts all over again with a sentence that, as far as he is concerned, may be up to five years or may be shorter. That, of course, is something he does not know. In other words, there is no reward for virtue under this type of legislation.
If the juvenile has received a sentence of two years, under normal circumstances he should expect to be released at the end of a year and three or four months, with the balance of his sentence served outside the jail or penal institution and under parole. But the juvenile offender is not put in that position and is not today, in two jurisdictions, in that position. He must serve his two years. Then he starts all over again. To me that is a dangerous reincorporation in our law of a principle that is not in keeping with the advances that have been made in criminology in the last 25 years.
My friend the hon. member for Vancouver East has an experience that deserves the respect of parliament, in view of the degree to which he over the years has interested himself on behalf of those who are unfortunately in the penal institutions of this country. He points out that if the situation were reversed and if the first sentence were indeterminate, there would be a reward for reform. As the situation is now, the wrongdoer serves the sentence that any older person would serve; then having done that and having been denied the parole to which an older person would be entitled, he commences another sentence.
I feel that the minister should be able to place before the house and the committee suggestions arising out of the experience in the two jurisdictions that already have in effect similar legislation. I understand that Ontario is one of the provinces, and that there is another province with similar legislation


in effect, namely British Columbia. Will the minister place before the committee the following statistics? How many juveniles under this legislation have, in each of those provinces, received first a set sentence and thereafter an indeterminate sentence? Of those so sentenced, how many became recidivists or repeaters?
After all, the aim of the criminal law today is to punish but at the same time to reform; that is, the aim is to give to those who have made a wrong step an opportunity for rehabilitation, an opportunity to go forward in the world, raising their heads once more because, while they have made one wrong step, society is not going to condemn them indefinitely into the future. As a matter of fact, today one of the major reasons for recidivism, as I see it, is the fact that when a man serves a term in a penitentiary or a jail and then comes out, particularly in times when jobs are not available, the situation becomes impossible for him, there being not available to him any unemployment insurance for the time during which he was actually in employment before he committed his offence. He goes forth into the world unable to find a job and hanging over him there is the stigma of recent conviction. Instead of encouragement to resist temptation that becomes stronger because of his previous conviction, he finds once more that he is forced into the position of having again to commit crime. I have had some experience with those who have committed crime. I have appeared for the defence in several hundreds of cases. I have never had a client who repeated, but in every case where I have acted and the person has been convicted I have taken a personal interest in him when he has come out of jail. I did not mean to speak about that, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to deal with personal matters. But I do know I am proud of the fact that I have never had a repeater.
This comes about through the simple act of trying to give assistance, not monetary assistance but encouragement. It is no encouragement to an offender, whether young or old, to know that at the expiry of his sentence, when he has satisfied his debt to society, society may say: Well now, for an indefinite period of the next two or three years you are still going to be kept in custody until such time as you prove you have shown a tendency to reform. First you blot out any hope of reform from the fact that the person has served a two year sentence. Then, having blotted it out, you want to resurrect that hope and have him come forth a good citizen.
I ask the minister to give the statistics. They are available and will tell the story

whether or not this system has been successful in the jurisdictions where it has been tried. If it has, idealistic arguments have little place. If it has not, the hon. member for Vancouver East has graphically and powerfully placed before the house considerations that deserve the thoughtful respect of each and every one of us.


Mr. Knight:: I should like to say a word or two on the bill, although not from the point of view that the hon. members for Prince Albert and Vancouver East have discussed it because I am not competent to do that. But I do want to say a word or two generally because I am interested in these industrial homes and in what they can and should be. I am principally interested in two phases more than any others. One concerns the educational facilities which are or are not and, if not, should be supplied. Another has to do with whether or not these places have the advantages of having trained psychologists attached to their staffs.
May I say here that when I questioned the previous minister of justice on the matter of trained psychologists in connection with our prisons and penitentiaries a number of years ago, I was surprised to learn that there was only one at that time and he was attached to Kingston penitentiary. Surely if it is necessary to have psychologists on the staffs of our high schools which are teaching boys and girls who are normal at least to the extent of not having committed any crime, there is an even greater need for the guidance of trained psychologists in industrial schools.
I am glad the bill has been introduced because its purpose ostensibly and actually is to advance the cause of penal reform in New Brunswick. A boy who might otherwise be given a sentence of three months or more in a penitentiary or common jail can now be sent to the boys' industrial home. If sent to the penitentiary he would have to mix with hardened criminals and sending him there would, in my opinion, simply defeat the purpose of the punishment. But an industrial home can be, and I emphasize "can", a source of individual rehabilitation and social redemption as far as the boy is concerned. Again, if a boy is sentenced for 14 days or more he can, by the decision of the judge, also be sentenced-


Harold Edward Winch: To five years.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -forthwith or at the expiration of the two weeks sentence, to a period in the industrial home. When I first read the bill I thought the boy had to serve the two weeks sentence first and would then be
Prisons and Reformatories Act further sentenced, but I see he may be sentenced forthwith or at the end of his imprisonment. Why that provision, "or at the expiration of his imprisonment", is in the bill I do not know. Perhaps the minister will be able to explain that to us. He may be sentenced forthwith or after the expiry of the short sentence to a period not exceeding five years in an industrial home. I do not want to trespass on the ground already covered by the hon. member for Vancouver East, but I suggest that pretty wide powers are given there involving great responsibility over the life of a boy up to a period of five years. I take it, of course, that the people under whose authority this is done are responsible people. I believe they are judges under the terms of the act.
Then there is to be a parole committee which will have the power to discharge a boy or to discharge him in the custody of someone who can give him employment. The latter can only be done with the consent of the parent or guardian of the boy. There is of course a danger there as to the type of employer. We have heard of a number of unfortunate cases. I do not need to go back into the classics to find an example. We find them every day in our newspapers. I warn the minister that there are still Simon Legrees about.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has emphasized the matter of environment and what it does to people. The hon. member for Fort William meant exactly the same thing when he said there are no bad boys, there are only bad parents. That is simply another way of saying that it is the environment surrounding the boy which is usually- I do not say always-to blame for the condition that has arisen. If environment has been the cause, then I suggest that environment must be the cure. That brings me back to my first words. For the benefit of my hon. friend, may I say I am not arguing for a moment that we should commit these boys for five years, but if we are going to do so we want to know the sort of place to which they are going to be committed. If environment is to be the cure then the home, wherever it is, must be a place of joy-yes, I say "joy"-and reformation and not a place where they will suffer further degradation, as has happened in the past.
There must also be educational facilities of such a type that when the boy leaves the industrial home he will not be at a disadvantage compared with those who have attended our ordinary schools. I say again that while the boy is there he should be in the care of those who can exercise guidance-I think that is the word they are using now-in the
4488	HOUSE OF
Prisons and Reformatories Act same way as in our ordinary high schools and universities. There should be guidance instructors or guidance teachers. While the boy is there he must have the benefit of guidance and training by men qualified in that particular profession.
I want to mention one more thing and that is the stigma of a jail sentence. I suppose it is rather difficult to get away from that. But I do suggest that if we are to do away with the stigma of a jail sentence or of any sentence, we must send these juvenile delinquents, as I say, to a place where there is actual happiness and to which there shall be no stigma attached in their own minds upon discharge.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I rise to speak briefly on this matter, Mr. Chairman, because as I listened to the discussion last evening it seemed to me that the interpretation then was somewhat different from the interpretation being placed on the bill this afternoon. Both the hon. member for Saint John and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton representing the province of New Brunswick spoke on this bill at the second reading stage. It was my understanding from their remarks that this legislation was coming before the house on the basis of a recommendation from New Brunswick, and the suggestion was to bring the legislation in line with a program of modernizing the New Brunswick penal system. On the other hand, this afternoon there seems to be a feeling that this legislation is a retrograde step in the handling of juvenile delinquents in New Brunswick.
Now, as I have attempted to read the bill and follow the discussion, I was rather inclined to the viewpoint that this legislation was more in sympathy with the modern emphasis in criminology, that we should think in terms of reformative measures rather than punitive measures. The essential purpose of the bill seems to be to provide for the establishment of a central reformatory, a modern type of institution. I think that is a good step because one of the weak links in the chain of our penal institutions is the inadequately staffed and inadequately programmed local jails and, in many cases, provincial institutions.
I know that in my own province of Manitoba there has been considerable discussion on the problem created in our provincial institutions as a result of the lack of adequate facilities to carry out a modern program of penology. As I understand, the purpose of this bill is to provide for a modern type of institution that will make possible the more comprehensive approach to the problem of treating juvenile delinquents. I raise that


point because I should like to have a clarification from the Minister of Justice when he replies to the various points that have been raised in the discussion this afternoon. Either the bill is going to carry out the wishes of the government of New Brunswick or it is a retrograde step, as has been indicated in some of the remarks here this afternoon.
The second main purpose is to provide for a parole board. That is contained in what will be section 112 of the act. This section reads as follows:
The lieutenant-governor in council may appoint a parole committee whose duty it shall be to inquire from time to time into the cases of prisoners sentenced to the boys' industrial home, and where as a result of such inquiry the parole committee thinks proper, it may permit prisoners serving sentences in the boys' industrial home to be discharged on parole under conditions approved of by the Minister of Justice.
I am in favour of extending the system of granting paroles because I believe it is a much healthier approach to the problem. Particularly in the case of juvenile delinquents, we should be trying to reform them within society rather than trying to provide an artificial environment in a penal institution. Again it is my impression from the remarks of the two members from New Brunswick that the purpose of this legislation is to broaden the parole facilities and to emphasize the remedial rather than the punitive aspect of dealing with juvenile delinquents. The Minister of Justice will notice that I am putting this in the form of a query because I am in a bit of a quandary as to which is the right interpretation of the legislation, whether it is a retrograde step or whether it is actually going to deal with the reforms suggested by the province of New Brunswick.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, in the granting of parole facilities to the provincial government, I am wondering whether the supervision of the parolee under those circumstances comes directly under the provincial authorities or still falls back upon the federal authorities? I say that because if any program of parole is going to deal adequately with the situation there must be proper supervision and properly trained personnel. There must have been some form of rehabilitation program that will help in the transition from the life of the institution to life in free society. Provided the personnel are available and provided an adequate parole program is available, I would tend to feel that this legislation is a step in the right direction.
So far as the indeterminate sentence measure is concerned, I am wondering whether the emphasis in allowing for an indeterminate sentence is to make it possible to further punish the delinquent, or is it to

provide a longer period of time in order to apply a remedial and educational program? I would suggest it is much better, especially in the case of juvenile delinquents, to release them at the time when they are psychologically ready rather than subscribing to the philosophy that when their time has expired out they go, regardless of whether or not they are psychologically prepared. I would presume also that the indeterminate measure is there to allow a suitable time for completing any trade training that the juvenile delinquent may be undergoing within the institution. Again, if that is so, it is absolutely essential that the provincial authorities have adequate programs set up within the so-called modern institution.
I have presented all this somewhat in the form of a query because we seem to be at cross purposes as to the emphasis placed on the measure last night.


Mr. Hansell:: Before the minister replies, I have a question or two to which he might reply at the same time. Although I did not speak on second reading, I am inclined to favour the bill because I believe it is a step in the right direction in giving boys a chance when they recognize they have done wrong. I believe you cannot stereotype human nature. You cannot impose penalties and say we imposed that penalty on one boy a few months ago, and therefore we are going to impose the same penalty for the same crime on another boy. Perhaps from the legal point of view that is a reasonable approach; but from the point of view of human nature it may not necessarily be. I have had considerable experience in work among boys and have been in charge of a number of boys' camps. I have studied boys under those conditions and believe I have learned something about them. In my earlier experience the philosophy was held out to me that, in reality, there never was a bad boy. However, after having operated some of those camps I am inclined to the belief that that philosophy is wrong, and that there are bad boys. Of course the philosophy has its background in the thought that we should never look upon boys as being basically bad, and that we should keep in mind that under proper environment and as a result of proper training their lives can be shaped so that even those who may appear to be the worst may turn out very well indeed.
I remember one boy who had the habit of inflicting punishment upon animals. He would grab a cat, take out his knife, and cut its head off, just to see the reaction. At one time or another however in that boy's life he received a different kind of instruction, and because of that instruction 50433-283
Prisons and Reformatories Act and an improved environment he turned out to be one of the best young men in the community. As a matter of fact he became a medical doctor. Perhaps his experience in cutting the heads off cats gave him a good deal of practice.
I do not believe human nature can be stereotyped. This bill gives the boy a chance. It may be found that, after all, his punishment may have been a little too harsh, and it may be felt that with the proper adjustments in his life he may make a great improvement.
However, what I had intended to say at this time was along slightly different lines. All the reformatories in the world do not get at the basic or root causes of juvenile delinquency. I doubt very much whether we could introduce legislation that would deal adequately with this problem. I made reference to the subject last year when we were considering the minister's estimates. Perhaps in doing so I was slightly out of order, because I noticed that at the time the chairman was tremendously agitated. I did so however because there does not appear to be any place in the estimates or, in fact, anywhere else, where one could discuss in detail the subject of juvenile delinquency, and suggest a remedy for it.


Harold Edward Winch: I suggest that it could be done under the administration vote in the minister's estimates.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps so; I am not going to argue the point. I have always made the claim that nothing could happen in Canada that would not find its place under some department of government, upon which responsibility could be focused. But when it comes down to certain principles of life it seems that we cannot legislate, and it becomes very difficult to know what action to take.
I claim that the solution to the problem of juvenile delinquency is not that of dealing with it when it is upon us. Rather, the basic solution is to deal with it before it becomes juvenile delinquency. Therefore I claim the home is greatly responsible for the situation, and it is something concerning which we cannot legislate. Not long ago I read an article stating that the wave of juvenile delinquency in these days could be traced to the condition during the war years, when mothers and fathers were working, or fathers were away and mothers had to assume all the responsibilities of the homes. It was suggested that under those conditions children did not have the chance they should have in their own homes, and it was pointed out that

Prisons and Reformatories Act the war was responsible for the juvenile delinquency which followed.
This contention can be overemphasized, in my opinion. I believe we have to focus responsibility upon home and school life. Some service clubs have taken an active interest in this respect and have done marvellous work. It is unfortunate that we cannot appropriate more money to organizations of that kind, with a view to preventing juvenile delinquency.
However, when this condition develops it must be dealt with. The minister is taking the proper procedure in this bill when he gives the boy or the girl a chance. When it is found that proper environment and proper direction can help these young people, and that lives can be saved, it is only proper that they be given that environment and direction.
Let me say at once that I have no use for any process of mollycoddling. In my view when people commit wrongs they should be punished.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the hon. member in favour of two punishments for one crime?


Ernest George Hansell: No, I am not in favour of two punishments for one crime. I believe that when the penalty is meted out, and when that penalty has been paid, then the debt to society is cancelled. However, I do not look upon this bill as making provision for two punishments.


Harold Edward Winch: That is my only point.


Ernest George Hansell: I agree with my hon. friend on that. Referring again to my reference to mollycoddling, there are some who believe that only kindness should be shown in the treatment of crime. I do not think that is so. There are times when firmness must be shown, while at the same time showing a measure of kindness.
At this point I would ask the minister a question. Perhaps he would be prepared to discuss the matter at some greater length, because most of us are not too well informed about reformatories. I believe that the personnel of these reformatories must be very carefully chosen. If you get men in boys' reformatories or women in girls' reformatories who are going to be great big bosses and nothing more than bosses, who are going to throw their weight around and take it out on the boys just to be spiteful or to get their own way, that is not the way to handle them. I have found from experience that sometimes you can take a very bad boy who is upsetting the whole works by his attitude and give him some responsibility. He exercises that responsibility. He feels that he counts


for something, and through that responsibility you can sometimes overcome the problem that he himself is making.
All I am saying here is that trained and efficient personnel should be chosen for the particular positions in those reformatories, but at the same time having due regard for everything. Their chief function should be to see whether they cannot make something out of the life of the boy or girl. If they are there simply to hold down a job and to see that the inmates are regimented, that they are in at night at a certain time and to act as big bosses, then they will not reform the children. That is my own view.
I note that the parole board is chosen by the provincial government. Can the minister throw light on the method that the parole board uses in determining what parole should be given? Do they interview the boy or the authorities? Is it paper work? Just what method is used?
I do not think I need to take up any more time of the committee. I have expressed my ideas. I do emphasize once again that you will not get rid of juvenile delinquency by all your prisons or all your penalties in the world. There has to be something basic in it. It has to be tackled at its source.


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to hear and reply to all criticisms; but perhaps I might have shortened the debate somewhat if I had risen to my feet earlier in the discussion, and I am at fault to some extent for not having done so. Several of those who have taken part in the debate have proceeded quite sincerely upon what I must regard as a misconception of the arrangement that is envisaged in this proposed legislation.
But before I deal with this point perhaps I had better answer the question which has just been asked of me by the hon. member for Macleod. He asked what are the conditions under which parole would be granted by a provincial parole board appointed under this proposed legislation. I do not think I can do much better by way of a reply to that question than to read the conditions of the licence-that is the term used, the parole licence-which is issued by the British Columbia parole board under a provision in the Prisons and Reformatories Act, dealing with that province. They are as follows:
1.	The licensee,-
That is the parolee.
-during the term of his licence, shall be under the supervision and authority of the provincial probation officer.
2.	He shall proceed to such place and remain in the care of such person as is directed by the provincial probation officer and shall not move

from that place or change his residence without the consent of the provincial probation officer or the person under whose care he has been placed.
3.	He snail obey such instructions as may be given him and shall report periodically as and when directed.
4.	He shall abstain from any violation of the law.
5.	He shall not habitually associate with notoriously bad characters, such as reputed thieves and prostitutes.
6.	He shall not lead an idle and dissolute life without visible means of obtaining an honest livelihood.
7.	He shall preserve his licence and produce it when called upon to do so by a magistrate or peace officer.
Then there is a provision for further conditions to be inserted at the bottom, applicable to the specific person named in the licence.
I said during the debate on the second reading of the bill, by way of a suggestion to the hon. member for Vancouver East, that I thought the reason for this provision would emerge if he would read slowly and aloud the clause which is under discussion. Perhaps I had better indicate the sincerity of my suggestion by following that course myself. Clause 111 reads:
Where any boy, apparently under the age of 16 years, is convicted of an offence punishable by law on summary conviction, and thereupon is sentenced and committed to prison in any common jail for a period of not less than 14 days, any judge of the supreme court or a county court, in any case occurring within the county or counties for which he is such judge, may examine and inquire into the circumstances of such case and conviction, and when he considers that the material and moral welfare of the boy requires such sentence, he may, as an additional sentence for such offence, sentence such boy, either forthwith or at the expiration of his imprisonment in such Jail, to the boys' industrial home, to be there detained for the purpose of his industrial and moral education for an indefinite period, not exceeding in the whole five years from the commencement of his imprisonment in the common jail.
The clauses of this section that require emphasis are these. When the judge "considers that the material and moral welfare of the boy requires such sentence", he may sentence the boy to be detained in the industrial home "for the purpose of his industrial and moral education for an indefinite period not exceeding in the whole five years". I must confess thatvMr. Winch:	As additional to the offence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, as an additional sentence.


Harold Edward Winch: To the offence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid that I do not
get my hon. friend's point.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister emphasized certain clauses. I am asking him to emphasize the part which appears halfway down the clause as follows: "As an additional sentence for such offence."
50433-283i
7. 1955	4491
Prisons and Reformatories Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As an additional sentence for such offence.


Harold Edward Winch: Is that in law?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In law?


Harold Edward Winch: An additional sentence for
an offence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The language to which my
hon. friend refers is necessitated by the fact that the only way under our law in which one free man can lawfully interfere with another free man's freedom is by virtue of such a provision in the law as that under which an accused who has been found guilty can be sentenced and thereby deprived of his liberty for a period of time, determinate or indeterminate, not to exceed a prescribed limit, by reason of the offence that he has committed. It is perfectly clear in this legislation that the real reason for the indeterminate sentences for these boys of an age of less than 16-


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman,-*


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will let me' finish the sentence, or the idea, then he can ask all the questions he likes. The real reason for this indeterminate sentence is to provide for the boy's welfare. The section says that the judge may do this in view of the circumstances of the case, and for the purpose of his moral and industrial education.
Let us take a concrete case of a young lad, we shall say, of 14 years of age who is brought before a magistrate for what may be a pretty minor and frivolous offence such as stealing a banana from a fruit stand, or something of that kind. They might let him off with a suspended sentence and without sending him to an industrial home, or jail, without taking his liberty away at all. But supposing the police who arrested the boy find on inquiry that the home he comes from and the environment in which he lives make it seem to be quite likely that this first offence is but the beginning, that if he continues to live in that environment he is headed for a really serious criminal career.
Under those circumstances it seems to me that while the offence itself might not be serious-if you will read the section you will see that where a boy is committed to a prison for not less than 14 days, that is anything above 14 days in the way of a determinate sentence, that is sufficient justification for an indeterminate sentence-the intelligent thing to do is to have that boy taken away from this unfavourable environment in which he is living and put in an industrial home where he can be properly trained. I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Vancouver East,

Prisons and Reformatories Act object to this procedure. I had always understood that in his humane attitude towards prisoners he had thought-and I must say that if I correctly appraise his thoughts I agree with him-that the real function of all prisons should be, not so much to punish as to rehabilitate. It is true that prisons are provided for the security of society; but if we do not rehabilitate in the prisons and merely treat the prisoner's incarceration as punishment, then the security to society that we provide is very temporary and in many cases will cease the minute the man is released from prison.


Harold Edward Winch: I appreciate what the minister is saying and his interpretation of my views on rehabilitation is absolutely correct. As I understand it, the minister is discussing the new section 111. -


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am attempting to reply to a number of hon. members. I have no objection to my hon. friend from Vancouver East putting a question, but I should like to preserve some sort of continuity in my remarks and would appreciate that my hon. friend should not make a number of speeches in interruption of my own remarks.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the minister not referring to section 111?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend wishes to ask a question I shall be glad to answer, but I would prefer that he should not interrupt me in order to make another speech.


Harold Edward Winch: Section 111 deals with summary convictions under which a boy may be sentenced to a short term, but then, and I quote, there can be an additional sentence for such offence. I ask the Minister of Justice how that additional sentence of up to five years can be imposed on summary conviction which is for not over two years. Where in the law do you find that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend will find it in the language of the section he has just quoted. That is what this section says; and that supports the argument I have been making. It makes it abundantly clear that where a boy has been convicted of a summary offence for which he may be imprisoned for only 14 days the judge, where he sees that the facts warrant it, may order that the boy be detained in an industrial home for an indeterminate period not exceeding in the whole five years.
Does any person suppose that this indeterminate sentence is really a punishment so much as it is an attempt at the rehabilitation of that boy in perhaps the only way in which it can be brought about? If the boy comes from a broken home, say with a drunken
IMr. Garson.]
father and a prostitute mother, it does not strike me as being a very intelligent disposition of his case to put him in prison for 14 days and then let him return to that evil kind of environment.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Would not the boy have a better place to sleep and have better food to eat when he goes to that place?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of course he would have. In addition to that he would receive proper training. My observation has been that most criminals come from unhappy homes. During their childhood they have lacked that kind and intelligent care which would be given in an industrial home even though on an institutional basis. If you examined these cases, as I had to do in connection with the duties I discharged when we did not have a solicitor general handling the federal Department of Justice remissions, you would find that in a great majority of cases the men and women who are criminals have had an unhappy home in their childhood.
Even though the parents are poor, if there are a loving and respectable mother and father the child usually gets a good start in life. But even with wealthy parents, if there is no love and respect in the home the child gets a bad start. When therefore we come here with a provision of this sort I would have thought the hon. member for Vancouver East would have been the first member to support it.


Harold Edward Winch: If it is the first sentence, yes. I have said that twice now, that the first sentence should be the indeterminate sentence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have listened to this discussion as to the difference between a primary indeterminate sentence and the indeterminate sentence being imposed afterward. I must say that I find it to be a rather quibbling sort of argument. If the determinate sentence is 16 days and the indeterminate sentence lasts three years, what difference does it make with regard to the three-year period that it was preceded by 16 days?


An hon. Member:: None.


Harold Edward Winch: It certainly does.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In all these amendments to the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as I went to some trouble to explain on the second reading of this bill in order that there would not be any misunderstanding as to just what function we are performing in this connection, we are dealing with legislation which has to do with the administration of provincial institutions. We are overcoming a certain difficulty under our constitution by providing in this case federal

legislation for the government of New Brunswick which after careful consideration that government has asked us to provide.
That being so, I think that unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary we are bound to take the position that in asking for this legislation the provincial government of New Brunswick, which is a responsible body, was acting properly and within its rights. Unless therefore we have some cogent reasons which are quite apparent on the surface for thinking they are quite wrong in regard to this particular section we should grant it in the form in which they have asked for it.
In this connection, what are the facts? This section under discussion is not, as would seem to be indicated by some of the arguments we have heard, the product of some new brainstorm that has overtaken the government of New Brunswick in the last few weeks. As I indicated on the second reading of the bill, this industrial home for boys was set up in 1893. If the hon. member for Vancouver East and the other hon. members who have taken part in the debate will look at the legislation of that time they will see that this provision which we are discussing has been in our act since 1893. If it were subject to the abuses which are now attributed to it one would have thought that they would have become apparent long since.


Harold Edward Winch: There have been changes in thinking by 1955.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly there have been changes in thinking by 1955. But I suggest quite sincerely to my hon. friend-who I think himself is of the same view-that, so far as this particular section is concerned, the concept that a juvenile delinquent who is the product of a bad home environment should be taken from that environment and put into a proper institution is one with which I am sure he would agree. It is certainly one with which I agree.


Harold Edward Winch: I have made that point clear all down the line.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am saying that. I am giving my hon. friend full marks. That is why I say I cannot understand why he is opposed to this section.


Harold Edward Winch: On the procedure.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As to the procedure, what difference does it make whether there is this determinate sentence and then the indeterminate sentence?


Harold Edward Winch: It makes a great deal of difference.
7, 1955
Prisons and Reformatories Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Moreover, I would point out that this provincial parole board, which will be set up under the legislation we have before us here, will be made up of responsible citizens. It will operate under conditions which will be fixed by myself as Minister of Justice similar to those which I read to the committee a few minutes ago. If this provincial parole board had any reason to suppose that the juvenile who was serving this indeterminate sentence in the industrial home was not making the progress he should make, or if for any other reason that might occur to the parole board it thought he should be released, I am sure it would be glad to release him. But I am also sure that if the boy had an evil home environment there is small likelihood that the board would release him from the industrial home to go back to that evil environment.
The question may be asked-I think it was the hon. member for Saskatoon who raised it-whether this industrial home was to be properly staffed. In that connection I think probably I could not do better than read this letter. I may say that this is a different letter from the one I read on Friday. It is a letter which we received from the government of New Brunswick back in 1953 at the time they were considering the setting up of this industrial home. This letter reads as follows:
In 1949, the child welfare officials of this province expressed such concern with respect to the spreading of juvenile delinquency that the provincial government appointed a committee to investigate the conditions leading to delinquency and to recommend methods of dealing with delinquents.
The report of the committee, under the chairmanship of Miss Bessie F. Touzel, assistant director of the Canadian Welfare Council, Ottawa, recommended a number of important changes in the legislation respecting this subject.
The Boys Industrial Home Act, chapter 22 of the revised statutes of New Brunswick, 1952, was accordingly amended at the 1953 session of the legislature to conform to recommendations contained in the committee's report.
In other words, legislation was put through the New Brunswick legislature to make in this home the administrative changes that are the counterparts of the federal legislation which is required to cover the question of the detention of convicted persons under the Canadian Criminal Code so they may be legally received and detained in that home. I quote again:
The boys industrial home, which is specifically designated in part V of the Prisons and Reformatories Act as the place of imprisonment for the purposes of the act, was established by provincial iegislation in 1893 as a reformatory prison, and a "governing board" was constituted a body corporate for the ourpose of its administration.

Prisons and Reformatories Act
The amendments made to the Boys Industrial Home Act during the last session of the legislature are, in short, as follows:
(a)	The governing board of the boys industrial home, referred to in part V of the Prisons and Reformatories Act, has been dissolved and the administration of the home confined to the minister of health and social services.
In other words, it is directly responsible to a minister of the crown in the New Brunswick government. The letter continues:
(b)	The home is now described as a reformatory or industrial home, rather than as a reformatory prison as heretofore.
Then listen to this:
(c)	The aims of the home are now confined to-
Not detention or imprisonment.
-the education, industrial training and moral reclamation of juvenile delinquents.
(d)	The act, as amended, provides for the establishment of an advisory board and a parole committee.
The board and the committee have since been established.
In keeping with the recommendations of the Touzel report, every effort is being made to provide the boys industrial home with trained personnel. The appointment of a new superintendent is pending;-
I think this answers the question raised by the hon. member for Macleod.
-the appointee, a trained clinical psychologist, will be assisted by a psychiatric social worker. These two officials are already on the staff of the department of health and social services.
However, the boys confined to the home will not fully benefit from the improvements adopted by the province of New Brunswick since most of them are committed for violation of the Criminal Code of Canada and as such are subject, almost exclusively, to part V of the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Then, in order to carry out these reforms which have been authorized by the provincial legislation, since they also come under the federal Prisons and Reformatories Act, he says this and I again quote:
T therefore request that consideration be given to amending part V of the Prisons and Reformatories Act so as to make all the provisions of the Boys Industrial Home Act applicable in all respects to juveniles committed for violation of the laws of Canada.		
I am enclosing copies of the Boys Industrial Home Act, with amendments, together with a copy of the recommendations made by the "parole committee". These recommendations have been approved in principle by the minister of health and social services and myself.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, it seemed to us that the requests of the government of New Brunswick were fair, wise and proper. Indeed, I cannot find much higher praise for them than to say that they meet the views of the hon. member for Vancouver East in respect of the proper treatment of juvenile offenders, namely a treatment that is rehabilitative in character and not merely punitive. That being so I plead-[DOT] and I think with good cause-for the support
[Mr. Garson.l
of the hon. member for Vancouver East and the other members who have spoken to the reforms which are covered by these suggested amendments.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks made by the Minister of Justice. On rehabilitation I of course agree with him 100 per cent. With the remarks of the attorney general which he has just quoted from the letter, I of course agree 100 per cent. There is no question about that whatsoever.
I have always had the highest regard for the Minister of Justice and I am rather disappointed at the line he has taken just now. He knows that not only I but all of us agree on all this approach, with regard to advancement, plans for rehabilitation and for taking care of the young. When I spoke on second reading last night and again this afternoon in this committee, at no time whatsoever did I criticize the advances provided for in this bill nor did I oppose the bill as a bill or criticize the question of rehabilitation. I have consistently raised only one point and the Minister of Justice unconsciously, shall I say-because I do not think he would do it deliberately-has kept completely clear of and away from the only point that I have raised.
I notice he has spent all his time on what will be section 111, having to do with summary conviction, but has made no mention at all of the new section 110 under which much heavier sentences can be imposed. I do not want to repeat. I have only one query, and it is the only one I have ever raised. It has to do with the psychological effect on a boy under the age of 16 who is charged with an offence under the law, found guilty, sentenced to a definite term and then having paid his debt to society, finds himself in the position of having a further sentence imposed in the discretion of a judge, which sentence can keep him in an institution up to five years.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would he, as in many cases is the only other alternative, send the boy back to the bad environment from which he came?


Harold Edward Winch: I am afraid that the Minister of Justice either did not listen to what I said last night or has not listened to what I have been saying this afternoon. As a matter of fact, I was called out of order by the Speaker last night when I tried to speak about environment as it affects criminals in this country, and especially as it affects our youth.

The minister will realize 1 was called out of order last night when I tried to speak on that very matter. I want to know, and the minister has not answered me yet, under what law, what phase of Canadian justice, is a person found guilty of the same offence twice? The minister partially explained that by the fact that it is being done by this legislation. I maintain that is not right. If a boy is guilty of an offence, find him guilty, sentence him, let him serve his sentence and then release him.
I come to what the Minister of Justice asked me. He wanted to know if I would send the boy back to the same environment. The answer is no. If it is wrong for the boy to go back to that environment then remove him from it not on the basis that he has served his sentence on the charge on which he was found guilty but on the basis that he should be removed from the environment as a delinquent, as a bad boy, as a boy needing the opportunity of education and training.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Read the section.


Harold Edward Winch: I have read it and I know it. In sections 110 and 111 you find him guilty first-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Certainly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What does he think that language means?


Harold Edward Winch: Where?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In section 111, the section we are discussing. It reads:
. . . such judge, may examine and inquire into the circumstances of such case and conviction, and when he considers that the material and moral welfare of the boy requires such sentence, he may-
And so on.


Harold Edward Winch: Read the "and so on".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly. I will read the whole thing.
-as an additional sentence for such offence, sentence such boy, either forthwith or at the expiration of his imprisonment in such jail, to the boys' industrial home, to be there detained for the purpose of his industrial and moral education for an indefinite period, not exceeding in the whole five years from the commencement of his imprisonment in the common jail.
The point I would emphasize again, and which I think the hon. member for Vancouver East is overlooking, is that this is not done except where the judge considers on examination of the circumstances of the case that the material and moral welfare of the boy requires such further detention in
Prisons and Reformatories Act the industrial home for the purpose of his industrial and moral education. So far as these purposes are concerned, I cannot imagine any that would be more worth while.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the weirdest situations in which I have ever found myself in my 22 years' experience. I am convinced the minister and I are not far apart and yet at the same time we are worlds apart because the minister will not recognize what I am trying to tell him, that as an additional sentence for such offence the judge can do so and so and so and so. I am trying to point out that from the psychological point of view that is dynamite in the case of a boy at that impressionable age under 16. How many times do I have to tell the minister that it should be put as an indeterminate sentence to meet exactly what the minister wants, but do not leave it so that the boy will feel that he has been sentenced, has served his term and is still there.
I can assure the minister and all other members of the house that it is not going to rehabilitate psychologically a boy under 16 when he can be sentenced to a definite term and then receive an additional sentence up to five years. It will not help in the case of those who come under section 110 which is taken from the Criminal Code. It will not help a boy who has received a sentence of two years or more to find that, having served his definite sentence, he still has more years to serve on an indeterminate basis. I am going to quit. The minister and I are very close together on what we desire, but I am convinced that the minister is missing out on the procedural effect. That is all I am asking him to consider.
As I said last night and this afternoon, I welcome the bill as an advance in Canadian penology. I most sincerely welcome the letters expressing the approach and views of the attorney general of New Brunswick. He should be most highly commended. But I feel a mistake is being made in sections 110 and 111, and surely it is our responsibility in the House of Commons to point out a possible improvement.


Mr. Hahn:: I have a question or two I should like to put to the minister. When is the boy sentenced to the additional term? Is it at the time of the trial? Or after he has served his first sentence is the case again brought before a judge for review and the possible imposition of an additional sentence?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the terms of the section make that quite clear. It reads:
Where any boy, apparently under the age of 16 years, is convicted of an offence punishable by law on summary conviction, and thereupon-

Prisons and Reformatories Act
Sentence will be imposed right after conviction.
-is sentenced and committed to prison in any common jail for a period of not less than 14 days, any judge of the supreme court or a county court, in any case occurring within the county or counties for which he is such judge, may examine and inquire into the circumstances of such case and conviction, and when he considers that the material and moral welfare of the boy requires such sentence, he may, as an additional sentence for such offence, sentence such boy . . .
The boy could come up for sentence before a magistrate, and if my hon. friend will examine section 111 he will see that it is only a judge of the supreme court or a county court who has the authority to impose this indeterminate sentence. It would have to be done, therefore, after the boy had been before the magistrate because first of all there must be a primary, determinate sentence imposed by the court before which the boy is found guilty, and then a subsequent inquiry by a supreme court or county court judge into the circumstances of his case.


Mr. Trainor:: May I ask the minister whether or not the accused has the benefit of counsel at this subsequent hearing resulting in the indeterminate sentence?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I certainly think there is no doubt at all that he has the privilege of having counsel. I do not think I could honestly say that in every case in which a juvenile came up he would be assured of counsel unless perhaps the bar association in New Brunswick, as they do in my own province, have a board set up for the purpose of seeing that prisoners are represented by counsel in all cases, whether or not they can afford it. I must say I do not know whether or not that exists in New Brunswick. He has the right to have counsel, that is certain.


Owen C. Trainor: It seems to me that the point the hon. member for Vancouver East is raising is an objection to committal other than by due process of law. In other cases in which there is a committal it is always after a trial in which the individual has all the privileges of counsel. I should think that this would be a very important consideration, that no individual be committed to any institution on any type of sentence unless somewhat the same formalities are carried out as in a regular trial.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: So far as the procedure in the administration of justice to which my hon. friend has referred in New Brunswick is concerned, it will be appreciated that those are provisions that would have to be made there as a matter of practice. In any event, I would think it would be a most extraordinary thing
[Mr. Garson.l

for a supreme court judge of that province or a county court judge to ever make an order of this kind without the most careful investigation. You see, the investigation he makes is into the circumstances of the case. How did the boy come to do this? What was his background and his environment? I cannot imagine a judge making an order of that kind without the most careful and exhaustive investigation, even if there were no counsel there at all.


Mr. Fairey:: I think the difficulty has arisen here in the matter of interpretation. I support fully the preference which seems to have been expressed for the indeterminate sentence. The difficulty seems to be the objection to what has been termed two sentences for one criminal act. I have read these two sections carefully, and I would ask the minister if this interpretation is not really the true meaning of section 110, and the reason why the expression occurs, "may further sentence"?
Using the example of the hon. member for Prince Albert, where a person is convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of two years, who would then be released on parole after serving a term of probably a year and three or four months, does this not mean that the person is, in effect, given an indeterminate sentence? He could not be released at a time earlier than one year and three or four months. In other words, after he serves a sentence appropriate to the offence for which he has been primarily committed, he can be paroled?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In other words, what my hon. friend is saying is, does he not have to serve his primary determinate sentence in full before any probation can be exercised in relation to the indeterminate sentence? No, I think not. I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Prince Albert said and I will grant that in cases which have to do with adults where there is a primary sentence, determinate sentence and a further indeterminate sentence, the cases are exceedingly exceptional, if indeed there are any, in which the remission board grants a remission in respect of the determinate sentence until it has been served in full, knowing there is in addition to that an indeterminate sentence.
One of the reasons for that is, as my hon. friend may know, that most of these indeterminate sentences are imposed in respect of people who have been convicted as habitual criminals. There are not very many of them and there are not many indeterminate sentences. But when an indeterminate sentence of that kind is imposed upon a man convicted of being an habitual criminal he has always

a record as long as your arm, he is usually a very desperate criminal, and there is no basis in fact for the granting of any remission, either of the determinate or indeterminate sentence. In other words, it does not arise from the rule that was referred to by the hon. member for Prince Albert which was, as I understood it, that having imposed a determinate and indeterminate sentence you could not remit in connection with the determinate sentence until it was fully served. It arises rather from the fact you very seldom have grounds for the exercise of any remission, in the case of an adult habitual criminal, in relation to either the determinate or indeterminate sentence.
In the case of a juvenile it would seem to me quite clear that if a boy were sentenced to a year determinate and another two years indeterminate, or three or four years indeterminate so the total would not be more than the five years indicated, then if at the end of six months perhaps the parole board had evidence brought before it whereby they were assured that this lad could get out of the industrial home and get a job with a farmer who was willing to take him and where he would have loving care, then I do not think they would have the slightest hesitation about granting parole. But as I apprehend it the main purpose of this whole legislation is that if there are no families that will take these boys, if there is no other environment in which they can be placed, at least they will be assured of the kind of environment which the industrial home will supply them. This will provide them with a decent chance in life. The thing we have to keep in our minds above all else in considering this legislation is that we are not dealing with adults, we are dealing with children. We are trying to provide that they shall not, if they have been convicted of an offence, ever have a worse environment than that which the industrial home provides.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question? I hope I am not out of order, Mr. Chairman. Would the Minister of Justice consider moving that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, in view of the fact that a committee meeting of the greatest importance in which he and I are both concerned has been called for 4.30?


Mr. Philpott:: Before that is decided, Mr. Chairman, may I say that for the past two days I have listened carefully to all the arguments and for the life of me I cannot see that the hon. member for Vancouver East, whom I esteem very deeply especially in this particular matter, has really explained what his grievance is. I agree entirely with 50433-284
Prisons and Reformatories Act what he says about the psychological effect of indeterminate sentences, and what seems to be the imposition of a double sentence. Surely, the whole purpose of what we are trying to do here is to validate some legislation that has been requested by New Brunswick. What New Brunswick is asking for is exactly what has been in effect in Alberta and Ontario.
While my lawyer colleagues in the house may not like this term, I think that sometimes when you make laws you have to have a legal subterfuge to achieve certain good things. I think the end that is being achieved by the two sections in dispute, sections 110 and 111, is entirely the end that the hon. member for Vancouver East wants to achieve. It seems to me what he objects to is what seems to be the power of a judge to inflict a second sentence at the end of the determinate period. When you come down to reality, surely what it is in practice is that the judge, for the sake of the boy or the girl, can keep that boy or girl away from an environment that would do injury to that boy or girl. But when'we come down to reality, surely what it is in actual practice is that a judge, for the sake of the boy himself, or for the girl, as the case may be, is keeping that boy or girl away from an environment that would be injurious. So it seems to me that if we had the complete privilege of wording the act as we would like to word it, we might have done so in such a way that it would not have caused such unnecessary conflict. However, I for one cannot see any difference between what the hon. member for Vancouver East is trying to get and what the Minister of Justice is giving us in this legislation.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest, and for two reasons, to the discussion of this matter. I have listened, first, because apparently the measure is intended to combat juvenile delinquency, which is a very important problem in Canada today. In the second place, I have before me an article which appeared in the Vancouver Province of May 30, bearing the heading "To the Penitentiary at Fourteen". It states in part as follows:
A 14 year old British Columbia boy has been sentenced to two years in the penitentiary for car theft.
The brief Canadian Press story about the sentencing of this lad had little to say about his case, except that he was one of four pyjama-clad youths who escaped from Brannen Lake school for boys a few days ago.
We do know, however, that when he appeared before Magistrate L. Beevor-Potts in Nanaimo he pleaded to be sent to the penitentiary because "at least I'll learn something there."

Prisons and Reformatories Act
This, apparently, indicates the expressed desire of a youth who found himself in the toils of the law, when he said he wanted to learn something that might be of some particular value to him. No doubt this is not the only boy who has recognized his difficult position and asked that something should be done for him. The fact that this boy has indicated a desire to learn, while being sent to a penitentiary, is most important indeed.
For this reason I would be most sympathetic toward the bill. I raised a question earlier because I felt there must be some way of getting around the principle of the double sentence. If the clauses are read carefully, as the minister has suggested, then every individual will be made to understand that a possible five-year sentence is facing him. That is a most important factor. Under those circumstances I would suggest that possibly the offender should be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of five years.


Elmore Philpott: To a reformatory.


Frederick George Hahn: Such sentence would be subject to review at a particular time, as stated by the judge who passed the sentence. It might be, of course, a magistrate who would sentence the individual to two weeks to begin with. It could not be done by a magistrate, because an indeterminate sentence of five years would not be permitted from him. But whoever sentenced the individual could ask for a review by the parole board at the end of two weeks, or a month, or two years, as the case might be. At that time it might be decided to set a later date at which the sentence could be reviewed, if it was found that the boy was making headway, that he was learning, or that it was hoped he might do so.
I would support the hon. member for Vancouver East so far as his contention regarding the psychological effect is concerned. A person who has paid for his crime has the right to feel that he will be free and able to continue his life with his old friends. If that boy were then to find that he was to be brought before a judge and sentenced to another five years, as an indeterminate sentence, it would simply sour his attitude towards society. I do not think we would be treating such an individual properly. I would ask the minister to give some consideration to the suggestion I have made, in the hope that something might be done.
There is one other question the minister might consider. Is there similar legislation in effect in any other province of Canada; if so, in what province or provinces?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I realize the hon. member does not have the federal statutes in front of him.
However, if he would look at section 52 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act as passed by this parliament he would see that similar legislation is in effect in Ontario, that it is found in section 137 of the Manitoba part of this act, in section 92(6) of the Nova Scotia part and section 142 of the British Columbia part of this act limited to girls only.


Frederick George Hahn: In view of the fact that it is in effect in British Columbia, if it is working properly I am wondering why a child of 14 would ask to be sent to a British Columbia penitentiary so that at least he could learn something, as is indicated in the editorial in the Vancouver Province of May 30.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I could not answer or give explanations about an individual case in any province. In such a case there may be a number of circumstances that would make a certain course seem the wise one. However, since I do not know anything about the case to which the hon. member referred, I could not comment upon it intelligently.


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, this discussion has extended over a wide field. However, after listening to the minister's explanation I cannot see very much to worry about. I am not absolutely or 100 per cent familiar with the intention in this instance, or with the details of carrying out reformation procedure in New Brunswick.
I do think, however, that hon. members who have spoken about sections 110 and 111 have overlooked section 112. It is the new section that gives the protection, because it gives the provincial authority the right to set up a parole committee which will review cases from time to time, or as often as required. All these institutions will be under the supervision of a person to be known as the inspector of penal institutions. He is to be a trained man and will be in charge of county jails, the industrial home for boys and the central reformatory. It will be his duty to see that in connection with detention there will be associated the idea of reform, education and rehabilitation rather than that of punishment.
This principle was expressed clearly in the letters read by the Minister of Justice. My reading of sections 110 and 111 does not indicate that a judge or a magistrate would give a sentence for a definite period and then bring the boy back and give him a further indeterminate sentence. It is all done at the same time, and I doubt if one boy or girl in a hundred would know there was a fixed period of detention with an indefinite period added. It would mean to them that they would be detained for a certain length of
fMr. Hahn.]

time; then, under section 112, whether they are detained for a fixed period, or a fixed period plus an indefinite period, their case may be reviewed.
That is my interpretation. If I am wrong in that I am sure the minister will correct me. As I say, that is the intention of the clause. If that is so, then we are causing ourselves a lot of worry and taking up a lot of time on this bill which is not necessary. This legislation was given a great deal of thought before the Department of Justice was asked to present it. I have faith in those in charge of the administration of justice in New Brunswick; I am sure the legislation will be carried out with the idea of reform, education and rehabilitation in mind, and that is what we are all after.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Green:: The minister has indicated that the boundary between Alberta and British Columbia has now been completely marked. Can he tell the committee what the position is with regard to the boundary between British Columbia and the Yukon? It has been my understanding that that particular boundary has never been clearly marked. I should like to know whether or not that is the situation.


George Prudham: I understand the work is continuing but has not yet been completed.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any work done in the way of marking out the boundary between British Columbia and the Yukon?


George Prudham: Yes, parties have been working there in the last year.


Howard Charles Green: It just started last year?


George Prudham: No; they were working during the last year. I am not just sure what year it started. They are still working.


Howard Charles Green: When is it expected that the work will be completed?


George Prudham: I am sorry, but I cannot tell the hon. member that. I will tell him that on my estimates.


Howard Charles Green: They are actually marking the boundary between British Columbia and the Yukon?


George Prudham: They have been working on it. I do not know how soon it will be completed. I shall be very pleased to give my hon. friend more specific information when my estimates are before the house.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Just as a matter of
interest, how is a boundary marked?
[Mr. Prudham.I


George Prudham: The boundary is marked at intervals of slightly over a mile by permanent markers of concrete or stone, or some other permanent marker.


Howard Charles Green: It is marked in that way along the Rocky mountain range, is it?


George Prudham: Yes, it is. The intervals between the monuments may vary in mountainous country, but it is clearly marked at intervals of a mile or slightly more than a mile.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
George Prudham: the third reading of the bill.


An hon. Member:: By leave.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (for the Prime Minister) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill containing only two sections. The first section provides that the salary of the minister shall be $15,000 per annum. At the present time the salary of the minister is $10,000 per annum, but unfortunately the present minister does not draw that salary; for the moment the salary is not paid. However, occasion might demand at any time that a separate minister of defence production be appointed, and in that case I think every hon. member would wish him to receive the usual salary of $15,000 per annum. Through an error this ministry was not included in the salaries bill, and it is now proposed to correct that error.
The second section provides that the act, which would normally expire on July 31, 1956, will not expire and that the section providing for its expiry shall be repealed. As I explained when the resolution was under discussion, the reason for that is that the work of the department is a continuing work. Perhaps at earlier stages in the life of the department the work has not been as complicated and as difficult as it is at the moment. The department has under construction the mid-Canada early warning line, a large and important and difficult project located halfway between here and the Arctic

ocean. It also has under development a supersonic fighter plane involving a new supersonic engine and a new airframe. In addition it has all the supply problems incidental to maintaining troops in Germany and in Canada, and responsibility for keeping the equipment of the army, navy and air force up to the required standards.
Earlier discussion indicated that there is no particular objection to extending the life of the department. The necessity for extending its life is that it is impossible to hold the class of men we have in the department on the basis of temporary jobs. People who see that their jobs are going to expire in one year start looking for other jobs, and quite properly so. We know now that the services of these men and women will be required for a number of years, and we believe they are entitled to the security extended to service in permanent departments of government. Therefore it is proposed to make this department a permanent department.
The department has been permanent in effect since it was formed in 1939. After the department of munitions and supply was liquidated in 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, 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.
Since 1939 the Department of Defence Production has spent probably $17 or $18 billion, yet it has been free from dishonesty, maladministration and the difficulties that frequently beset defence purchasing. I can tell hon. members from experience that defence purchasing is the most difficult type of purchasing to be undertaken by any government department.
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. It was drafted with that purpose in view and was based on the experience of several years of defence purchasing in wartime. We believe it is a model act.
I may tell hon. members that practically every country has the equivalent of our Defence Production Act. I am familiar with the acts in vogue in the United States and the United Kingdom, and I can say that the powers taken under our act are considerably
Defence Production Act more modest than those granted by either of the two acts I have mentioned.
There seems to be no objection to extending the life of the department; that appears to all hon. members as reasonable, but there was objection raised to extending the life of the Defence Production Act. During debate on the resolution I undertook to examine the situation with a view to amending the bill to take cognizance of some of the objections raised earlier. The matter has been gone into most thoroughly with the Department of Justice, with the Prime Minister and with the officials of my department, and for reasons which I shall state I cannot say at this time that we are prepared to amend the Defence Production Act in any manner whatsoever.
I note it is nearly five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps before going into why we cannot offer amendments at this time you would call it five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 376, to authorize Trans-Prairie Pipelines, Ltd., to construct, own and operate an extraprovincial pipeline-Mr. Weaver-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1:
Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, we do not seem to have this bill in its amended form. I wonder whether the sponsor could indicate whether the bill that is now before the committee is in the same form as the other similar bills that went through the house.


Mr. Weaver:: If the hon. member will look up Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, June 1, he will find all the amendments set out.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


Howard Charles Green: Are you referring now to clause 1 as it was rewritten in the committee?


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I should call the clauses in this manner: Clause 1 as amended in committee. Would that be agreeable to hon. members of this committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble as amended agreed to.

Trans-Prairie Pipelines, Ltd.


William Alfred Robinson: I understand that the title will be amended on third reading. Shall the title carry?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


George Dyer Weaver: the third reading of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I understood there was to be a motion to amend the title.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the amendment to the title is to be made in the last motion, which is to'be that the bill do now pass and the title be as amended. That is the next motion. Shall the third reading be agreed upon?


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps it should be pointed out on third reading, Mr. Speaker, that when this bill originally came before the house it contained only two sections and was in effect a bill to authorize a Manitoba company to go into the operation of pipe lines. Objections were taken to the form of the bill on second reading. Then in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines it was changed from a bill which authorized a Manitoba company to construct a pipe line into a charter for a new company, that charter being much in the same terms as those of the other pipeline charters which passed through the house.
I think it was because those quite extensive changes were made that it is now necessary to change the title in order to describe the bill as a bill to incorporate a pipe-line company, whereas previously it was merely a bill to give, to a company which had already been incorporated under the Manitoba law, the power to construct a pipe line.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.


George Dyer Weaver: that the bill do now pass and that the title be "an act to incorporate Trans-Prairie Pipelines of Canada, Ltd."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce bills on the order paper. I understand that it is the wish of some hon. members that Bill No. 447 be allowed to stand.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Bill No. 427, Mr. Speaker.
IThe Chairman.]


Mr. Speaker:: Then Bill No. 427 will stand. Shall all the other bills be taken in the one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall these Bills Nos. 419 to 426 and Nos. 428 to 448 inclusive, being divorce bills, be now read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 419, for the relief of Marie The-rese Jeannette Mainville Froment.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 420, for the relief of Goldie Mosco-vitch Katz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 421, for the relief of Yvette Cayer Lefebvre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 422, for the relief of Regina Wiener Strelezky Distelman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 423, for the relief of Marie-Louise Ashby Tremblay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 424, for the relief of Lorna Greenberg Buium.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 425, for the relief of Myrtle Ada Lewin Derbridge.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 426, for the relief of Georges Etienne Barry.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 428, for the relief of Eileen Bay-liss Roberts.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 429, for the relief of Ernest Augustus Lepage.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 430, for the relief of Rosaire Jacques Rene Tetrault.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 431, for the relief of Phyllis Lucy Stiles Beal.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 432, for the relief of Margaret Durning Mullins.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 433, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Lorraine Callard Ramsay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 434, for the relief of Ann Mary Allward Spighi.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 435, for the relief of Anne Rynski Vincent.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 436, for the relief of Dora Helen Simmons Glancy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 437, for the relief of Joseph Louis Armand Carrier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 438, for the relief of Marie Me-rilda Longval Roy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 439, for the relief of Charles Edouard Thibodeau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 440, for the relief of Rose Bowman Fox.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 441, for the relief of Marguerite Gladys Letitia Mathers Grimsdale.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 442, for the relief of Jennie Switz-man Rashcovsky.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 443, for the relief of Charles Ryerson Stewart.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 444, for the relief of Hilda Em-malin Christensen Taylor.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 445, for the relief of Glendon Joseph Lynes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 446, for the relief of Kenneth Rae Story.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 447, for the relief of Joseph Marcel Plourde.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 448, for the relief of Mayo Arthur Perrin Harrigan.-Mr. Hunter.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 379, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that in the short time I had available on the previous occasion when we discussed this bill, I pointed out that there were certain obvious inequalities-perhaps I could use that word- in the proposals that had been put before the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I realize that the explanation he gave was an understandable one, namely that he thought the bill would be more acceptable in its present form than in some other form, though he probably would be prepared to say that the principle he was trying to have established by parliament was that a cabinet minister should not hold a directorship in a company during the time he was a member of the cabinet. For the reason one has not far to seek, of course. It is that there may be occasions when, at least in theory, a minister might be obliged to devote some time to the duties of a director, and that possibly the obligation of a cabinet minister is to devote his full time to being a minister of the crown.
This has not always been the case in Canada. I think everyone recognizes the fact that in late years it is true that the work of a cabinet minister has been taking more of one's time than it formerly did. I do not suppose it was very long ago that many ministers found it possible to discharge their obligations to the crown and their service to parliament in part of the time during the week, and could in fact engage in other personal occupations for part of the time. But
7, 1955
Senate and House of Commons Act in recent years, with parliament sitting from five to six months a year, with the greatly increased number of bills that come before parliament and the greatly expanded services that are being given to the public through the administration, a minister in many cases is rather wishful that the day had more than 24 hours, and there is not too much time to devote to personal affairs. Nevertheless, sir, until this debate arose I do not think the point was ever made that there should not be any time left for a minister to devote to other affairs to which he felt he owed an obligation, without for the moment examining whether such obligations may be such as to have a commanding demand on his time.
In the course of his introductory remarks the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred, as I recall it, to two countries outside Canada as examples, and I wish to deal briefly with his one reference to the United States and his one reference to the United Kingdom. In the case of the United States, as I understood him he had reference to the swearing in of cabinet ministers by the newly constituted Republican administration some three years ago. The house will recall that one of the cabinet ministers chosen by the President was obliged to divest himself of certain holdings in a corporation before he was acceptable to that particular committee of congress which passes on the acceptability of cabinet ministers.
That case is entirely different from that which is supposed to be placed before us in this bill. The objection taken at the time to the cabinet minister was not that he was a director of a corporation. The objection taken was that his holdings in a particular corporation were very substantial and that the corporation not only had many contracts with the government but in some cases exclusive contracts, especially in connection with the production of war materials and the like. It was not the case that he would have to devote some time to merely being a director, nor was there any suggestion that the trusteeship which he undertook as a cabinet minister could not be carried out properly under the circumstances, but merely that he himself was financially greatly interested in the company concerned, and that that was not a matter which ought to be passed over lightly by the committee investigating his qualifications.
May I point out what every member of the house of course knows, that the system in the United States is wholly different from that which obtains here. There the president is responsible to congress, it is true, in the sense that certain choices of personnel have to be approved by committees of congress in

Senate and House of Commons Act some cases, but he accepts full responsibility and indeed has visited on him the onus of full responsibility for the administration of the government of the United States.
That is not the situation here, sir. We as a cabinet are responsible both to one another and to the prime minister, and the cabinet as such is responsible to parliament in a wholly different manner from that which obtains south of the border. In any event, I stress the fact that to cite the instance of Mr. Wilson as an example of what has been done elsewhere which should be followed in Canada is merely to gloss over the great difference in the constitutional effect in both countries.
My hon. friend also mentioned, but only in one sentence, the practice in the United Kingdom. I was rather expecting him to give us some information about it, but perhaps because he felt his time was limited he did not pursue it further. He left with us the impression that the practice in the United Kingdom was such that if it were followed here we would in fact adopt the amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act that he is proposing. 1 intend to make some reference to the practice in the United Kingdom, and to point out that it seems to me illogical to suggest amendment of the Senate and House of Commons Act as a way of carrying out what he apparently has in mind.
In the United Kingdom, as I think we are all aware, directorships are matters of emolument, and certainly in the past at any rate have been lucrative to those holding them. In Canada perhaps that is also true in some cases, but certainly not on the scale that has obtained in the past at least in the United Kingdom. I should also point out that in the United Kingdom they have a unitary state, and we would not have the situation I have already mentioned with respect to provincially incorporated companies or federally incorporated companies. For that reason, sir, it might be supposed that in the United Kingdom they would have already taken the step that has been recommended to us by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In other words, where no distinction could be made one would have thought that if they felt there should be a statute they could have passed one, because anyone serving in the cabinet there could only hold a directorship in a United Kingdom corporation or a foreign corporation, and it would have been easy to lay down the rules in that way.
The fact that they have not done so has led me to suppose there may be some merit in not setting up a statutory bar to anyone serving as a cabinet minister and retaining


or carrying on some other activity outside that of government. But I propose to examine in detail the practice in the United Kingdom, because it seems to me that in one sense it commends itself to us as a standard of practice. On the other hand, it definitely does lay down the rules which in effect obtain in this country in one form or another.
If I may have the permission of the house I should like to read from Hansard of the United Kingdom the rules that obtain there, for the purpose of placing them on the record and examining them to see if they are applicable to Canadian conditions. They will be found in Hansard of the 25 th of February, 1952, at pages 701 and 702. A statement was made by the then prime minister in answer to a question which apparently had been put to the ministry some time before. The question was:
What regulations govern the continuation of salaried service with a private company on appointment to ministerial office?
Perhaps hon. members would bear in mind that this happened just a few months after the government had changed in the fall of 1951, I think. The regulations are rather lengthy and I will have to crave the indulgence of the house for the purpose of examining them. I propose to read the record and then make some comments. The Prime Minister answered by asking leave to circulate a copy in the official report, which I take it is equivalent to asking that the document be incorporated in Hansard and not read. There are, as a matter of fact, eight rules. I shall read them from beginning to end and then, as I say, I should like to have the privilege of going back to discuss them. They are:
1.	It is a principle of public life that ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties.
2.	Such a conflict may arise if a minister takes an active part in any undertaking which may have contractual or other relations with a government department, more particularly with his own department. It may arise, not only if the minister has a financial interest in such an undertaking, but also if he is actively associated with any body, even of a philanthropic character, which might have negotiations or other dealings with the government or be involved in disputes with it. Furthermore, ministers should be free to give full attention to their official duties, and they should not engage in other activities which might be thought to distract their attention from those duties.
3.	Each minister must decide for himself how these principles apply to him. Over much of the field, as is shown below, there are established precedents; but in any case of doubt the prime minister of the day must be the final judge, and ministers should submit any such case to him for his direction.
4.	Where it is proper for a minister to retain any private interests, it is the rule that he should

declare that Interest to his colleagues if they have to discuss public business in any way affecting it, and that he should entirely detach himself from the consideration of that business.
5.	Ministers include all members of the government except unpaid assistant government whips.
6.	Ministers must on assuming office resign any directorships which they may hold, whether in public or in private companies and whether the directorship carries remuneration or is honorary. The only exception to this rule is that directorships in private companies established for the maintenance of private family estates, and only incidentally concerned in trading, may be retained subject to this reservation-that if at any time the minister feels that conflict is likely to arise between this private interest and his public duty, he should even in those cases divest himself of his directorship. Directorships or offices held in connection with philanthropic undertakings should also be resigned if there is any risk of conflict arising between the interests of the undertakings and the government.
7.	Ministers cannot be expected, on assuming office, to dispose of all their investments. But if a minister holds a controlling interest in any company considerations arise which are not unlike those governing the holding of directorships and, if there is any danger of a conflict of interest, the right course is for the minister to divest himself of his controlling interest in the company. There may also be exceptional cases where, even though no controlling interest is involved, the actual holdings of particular shares in concerns closely associated with a minister's own department may create the danger of a conflict of interest. Where a minister considers this to be the case, he should divest himself of the holding.
8.	Ministers should scrupulously avoid speculative investments in securities about which they have, or may be thought to have, earlier or confidential information likely to affect the price of those securities.
I notice that there was no debate on that answer, and presumably it was accepted by the house as a general statement that would be applied by the then prime minister in any future change in connection with his ministry. Presumably also he had applied those rules in the formation of the ministry which had occurred perhaps three or four months before that.
So far as I have been able to ascertain, sir, those are the only published rules of any kind with respect to the problem with which we are now dealing. There may be others in other jurisdictions, and perhaps hon. members will be able to correct me, but so far as I have been able to determine there are no other rules. However, as I may have implied a few moments ago, there are certain practices in the United States, and I have no doubt there may be some obscure statutes there that are the authority whereby the respective congressional committees consider the qualifications of the various candidates who are recommended for appointment by the president.
I should like to point out to the house that these are the rules which Mr. Churchill laid down, and which presumably he applied,
Senate and House of Commons Act and in the course of which he made the frank statement that with respect to certain matters therein it was for the minister himself to decide whether or not he was affected by these particular rules. He also went on to say that in the final result it would be for the prime minister to make the decision as to whether or not the minister should divest himself of these particular interests.
On the matter of interests, sir, may I repeat what the hon. member said to me in the few minutes I had two weeks ago, that he was not making any suggestion that in the particular case he had in mind and to which he referred there was any conflict of interest; that there was any financial advantage, or indeed that there was anything more than this proposal which had always been in his mind. Perhaps it could be said that certain present circumstances would only add to the strength of his argument. He did not, however, assert anything which in my view would contravene the spirit of these rules. In other words he did not make an argument for the amendment he was proposing which would be borne out by conduct which the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was suggesting was improper under the circumstances.
I therefore repeat, Mr. Speaker, that it would seem to me that until recent years at least there has been no settled practice in commonwealth countries-perhaps in others for all I know-of a growing restriction on the activities of cabinet ministers outside the administration of their departments and in common with their colleagues in the administration of the government. If there is or has been a tendency to restrict those activities, it has grown up just in recent years, probably for the reason I have given, that it would seem there was not enough time in a day to devote to anything else but the affairs of the public.
I realize that some of the rules I have just read are more or less a repetition of rules which had been stated by a former prime minister of the United Kingdom many years ago in connection with another incident. Presumably in the 40-odd years that have elapsed these rules have been observed by succeeding prime ministers, and for some time at least these rules have been merely a reflection of a long-standing practice there. However, I think it is fair to say that I do not recall, nor can I find very much record in the United Kingdom of anyone suggesting prior to this, that a person should not be a cabinet minister if he was the director of a corporation, and this probably breaks new ground in that respect. I repeat that perhaps other researchers may find an earlier record of it.
4506	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons Act
For these reasons, therefore, I suggest that the bill before us, even if it were considered to be progressive, is at least no more than timely. It is perhaps even a little before its time. Evidently public opinion in the commonwealth countries, and perhaps in others, has not up until very recently at any rate approached this problem with any particular concern about whether cabinet ministers should or should not be directors of companies. I grant you, sir, that I have not found it possible to search all the statutes of other commonwealth countries and, as I say, there may be exceptions that I have not been able to find.
To go back over the rules, therefore, may I point out that the standard of conduct expected of cabinet ministers seems to include, first of all of course-and so obviously is it the case that it was left to the end to state it-that they should not engage in speculative investments in securities about which they have or might be thought to have confidential or early information.
That is, as I have intimated, a throwback to an incident in the United Kingdom of 40-odd years ago; and I do not recall any such incident in Canadian public life, though there may have been one. In fact, my recollection is that even prime ministers in this country have held directorships in companies, though not in recent years. We haye gradually approached this problem as one which rests on public opinion, because the prime minister of the day is obliged to make his choice of cabinet ministers acceptable to the public, and acceptable of course to parliament as well, though not in the sense that the president of the United States must choose cabinet ministers who are acceptable to congress. I fear many of us would not be on the front benches if we had to submit our qualifications to opposition members.
Let us therefore consider these rules, though not in detail, because I do not propose to take them in detail. However, they divide themselves into three general groups. First there is the matter of private interest. And with respect to that, as I have said I do not find any evidence of any suggestion that private interest is conflicting in any way with public duty. I do not wish to widen the subject of the discussion, but my understanding is that hardly anyone would expect a cabinet minister so to remove himself from the trade and commerce of the country that he would not be able to resume his occupation or his livelihood should he cease to be a cabinet minister. All that need be said on that point is that


his private interest should not conflict with his public duties. We are in complete agreement with that, of course.
The next rule has to do with the holding of directorships. Once again we find that in this particular case there is an exception with respect to private companies for the maintenance of family estates and only incidentally concerned in trading. From the wording it must be clear that the Prime Minister had in mind trading as such, that is, companies doing business by way of contracts with the government and so on. We had again here the inference of private profit, or the conflict of private interest with public duty.
In this case I pause only long enough to say that the sponsor of this bill is not suggesting that we are discussing that point at the moment.


Mr. Knowles:: Is it not correct that the
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, before he stated the exception, laid down a general rule against cabinet ministers holding directorships?


Walter Edward Harris: What he said was this:
Ministers must, on assuming office, resign any directorships which they may hold, whether in public or in private companies, and whether the directorship carries remuneration or is honorary.
Then he went on with the exception. The exception is the one I have indicated, that he was not to be concerned in trading as such- a company dealing with the government by way of contract, and for profit. For a moment, if my hon. friend wishes, I shall comment on the general statement rather than the exception. The general statement was that a minister must resign certain directorships upon assuming office. My hon. friend made the point, however, in the course of his argument, that we are discussing generally the course to be adopted in Canada.
A full explanation has been made of the practice heretofore obtaining in Canada, namely that a total disclosure has been made, at least in recent years, to the prime minister of the day, as to the holding of certain offices in corporations. The prime minister, having been made aware of this, concluded that this was a matter which rested with the minister concerned. I am now referring to the occasion the Prime Minister referred to when he accepted office in 1941. That having been the practice heretofore, it might therefore appear that the proposal of the hon. member would be one that would apply in the future to any newly sworn-in ministers of the crown.
I take it that in this particular case Mr. Churchill was saying that. I do not know

that he did in fact take into his ministry prior to that date anyone who at that date had been a director of a corporation. I have not made inquiries; but it would seem that on this particular date he proposed that hereafter any minister he asked to serve with him would be expected to resign his directorships. I have no way of knowing whether in fact that has been done from that date to this, but I suppose it has. I address myself to the fact that it would seem that the plain statement in the preliminary sentence was qualified by the remainder of the section I have read.
Now, with respect to shareholdings, I do not need to go into that because the hon. member does not cover it in his bill. However, I have read the whole of it so there will not be any suggestion that we confine ourselves for the moment solely to the purpose of the amendment before the house. Because I think the problem is much greater than just the immediate question of whether the Senate and House of Commons Act should be amended so that from the date the amendment was passed by the house those of us sitting here who happened to be directors would have to divest ourselves of those directorships, and that thereafter the prime minister would be put in the position that in offering a post to one who appeared to him likely to serve the public well in that post he should always make sure, before he was sworn in, that he had resigned any directorship or other office he might hold in private life.
That brings me, therefore, to the problem which confronts us in determining what should be done with regard to the bill before the house. The bill does propose, as I said the other day, that there would be certain exceptions to the rule that would be established with respect to cabinet ministers. A minister could not perform the duties of his office if he were a director of a corporation incorporated by federal statute or by letters patent issued by the crown. That would leave it, sir, that other ministers might serve and at the same time hold directorships in provincially incorporated companies.
, I know the hon. member hastened to say that if I would move an amendment to the bill he would be glad to adopt the suggestion that cabinet ministers should not hold any of these offices; but I think it points up the peculiar position we have in this country, namely that we are not a unitary state and that possibly our ministers should not be subject to rules which were laid down in another jurisdiction which happens to be a unitary state. Nor should it be supposed, sir, that our position is precisely that of the
Senate and House of Commons Act United States, where they have other practices and other constitutional obligations.
For this reason it seems to me that we ought to examine the problem a little more than the mere discussion of it as the principle of this bill would allow; and that we should not as a parliament impose a bar against a future prime minister without very carefully considering what the difficulties might be, in so far as we can see them, which might be attached to the formation of a ministry at some time in the future.
It seems therefore, sir, that it would be better-and I place this before the hon. member knowing that he holds strong views on it-to say that this is not just a simple bill of six or seven lines that could be passed in this house in the course of the next two or three weeks or even a month. There are matters that ought to be considered at greater length than it is possible for us to do at the present time. We might do one of two things, sir. We might withdraw the bill for the moment on the assumption, and indeed on the assurance, that it will be given full consideration in the interval between now and the next session of parliament; or alternatively, we might consider it in this house in a committee.
I realize that what I have said might indicate that I would personally agree, after consideration, to an amendment to the statute. I hope that is not taken from what I have said, because as at present advised it seems to me unwise to have a statutory bar. Nevertheless it is not unwise, in my view, to consider rules that might be stated in much the same manner that Mr. Churchill stated rules in the United Kingdom for his guidance in the formation of a ministry. Let us however admit that if these rules were stated in the manner that Mr. Churchill laid down, they would not be binding on any subsequent prime minister, who would accept responsibility to parliament and to the country for any deviation that he might feel ih honour bound to make from those rules. Perhaps that is what the hon. member has in mind.
There has been a quite steady approach to this problem, with a definite withdrawal of cabinet ministers over the years from private activity, and in time no doubt the number who will take part in other private affairs will be very small, as in fact it is at the moment. Nevertheless, even then the hon. member might feel that there ought to be a statutory provision with respect to the holding of these various offices.
I think I have made it clear-I hope I have-that I am not convinced there ought to be such a statutory bar, nor am I to be

Senate and House of Commons Act taken as saying that we ought to go back to the old days when many ministers did in fact hold directorships in companies, or that they should be allowed by practice and indulgence to devote considerable time to their private affairs. A parliamentary session today is lengthy. The preparation for it is onerous, and the discharge of administrative duties, even when parliament is not sitting, certainly takes a great deal of the minister's time. I firmly believe also that if a minister is not sitting in parliament or discharging the duties of his office or preparing for the next session of parliament, it is his obligation to defend the administration of which he is a member in public, and to see the public as often as he can so he may be aware of public sentiment on any given point and be prepared for it at the coming session of parliament. That does take a very great deal of one's time; but that is not to say that the holding of directorships in itself is wrong or improper. Indeed, no one has suggested that so far in speaking on this particular bill.
If my hon. friend does not feel that he can let this matter stand for the time being I propose to move:
That this bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.
You might ask me, Mr. Chairman, why privileges and elections? There is no particular privilege of a member of parliament involved here; but as I think hon. members know we have always-at least I personally have always-taken the view that the standing committees of the house can be most useful, and that names themselves do not mean very much. If we could refer more matters to committees than we have been doing in the past we would have better legislation and indeed better consideration of the subjects we choose to bring before this house. It seems to me that these rules- and, as I have said, the statutes of the United States congress and any rules or obligations that may be imposed in other jurisdictions- are matters which could be given serious consideration by the committee.
While I do not suppose they would feel that they could improve on some of these, representations ought to be made before the committee with respect to any variation there might be under Canadian conditions which would make these rules, if not inapplicable, at least inappropriate for our people here.
I was rather interested, sir, to find that in fact this seemed to be the only declaration made by a commonwealth prime minister since that which had been made by Mr. Asquith on another occasion before the first


world war. If there has been any other declaration of principles as a whole rather than merely an explanation of a detached incident it would be desirable to have it to guide this parliament in determining its course in the circumstances. Whether the committee could in fact recommend to parliament rules which could be incorporated in the Senate and House of Commons Act is a matter of opinion.
As I said a moment ago, I am not yet convinced that there ought to be a statutory provision for this; and if I were convinced I think it would be with the conviction that we could only have a short statement, perhaps of a minimal nature, which would permit a future prime minister to have as much leeway as possible in the formation of his ministry.


Mr. Drew:: I dislike interrupting the minister at this point, but since he has made certain statements that I would not wish to leave without comment I draw your attention to the time, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that it would be appropriate for the minister to conclude his remarks.


James Sinclair: The minister is making the main speech in answer to the remarks of the mover of the bill; therefore he can take as much time as he wishes. The hon. member should know the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the Leader of the Opposition is allowing the minister to conclude, and I presume he will proceed to do so.


Walter Edward Harris: If I have broken any rule of the house with respect to time limit it is the first time I have done so since I have been here. I do not propose to do that. I was interested in what the Leader of the Opposition said, and I am most anxious to have no misunderstanding with him about this. If I have made a statement which to his knowledge is incorrect, as I have indicated on more than one occasion when I have qualified what I have been saying to show that I was not certain that my remarks had covered the whole ground, I would be glad if he would correct me so that I may-


George Alexander Drew: I am pointing out that the minister has spoken for over 40 minutes and that was the reason I said it would be appropriate that there should be some opportunity before this discussion terminates, which will be in seven minutes, to comment on certain of his observations that it seems to me should not be left on the record without comment.


Walter Edward Harris: I appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition has said. I rather thought from his prior remarks that he was intimating

I had made a statement of fact with which he did not agree. Now that he has said I have made observations on which he would like to comment, of course I would not want to delay him. I would correct immediately any error in fact that I may have made.
I take it that the hon. member is not prepared to allow further discussion to stand until another session of parliament. I have moved the amendment which is now before the house. I suggest to the hon. member and to the house that this would be the appropriate way of disposing of the whole problem of the holding of directorships and the like, and also of considering the principle of whether there ought to be a statutory bar, or whether we should not leave the matter as it has now been stated by the Prime Minister, who said that he felt that the matter rested with the minister. It could be considered also whether it would be desirable that the Prime Minister lay down certain rules and make it known publicly that they would be applicable to his ministry, though not necessarily to any other ministry.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rose to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the time limit had elapsed for the reason that I felt some comment should be made on the observations which have been placed before you by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). I think the minister has been splitting hairs throughout the whole of the speech he has made.
There is no need to refer this matter to the standing committee. The rules are there. The minister read a statement made at Westminster in 1952 by Mr. Churchill, I assume with approval. I think hon. members will find that the statement made by Mr. Churchill on that occasion, in which he laid down eight rules, was a summing up of the practices which had been established over a long time.
I say at the outset that I would not have supported the bill before us, for the simple reason that I do not believe this is something that can be reduced to a statutory obligation. I believe this is something that must be established by the Prime Minister. There is a vast difference between the government in Canada and the government in the United States. The Minister of Finance has indicated that there is a greater degree of obligation upon a minister in the United States to divest himself of any possible conflict of interests. I submit that the very contrary is the case. In the United States we do not have a government which has by tradition established the degree of solidarity that there is in Canada, nor is that government
Senate and House of Commons Act answerable day by day to the house. The situation here is quite different. Our tradition is parallel to the tradition in the United Kingdom, as has been clearly indicated by the minister himself.
There is a long tradition in relation to this matter, and it goes back much earlier than the minister mentioned. As an example, in 1906 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman laid down a rule for the conduct of ministers, and I should like to quote just one statement. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said that all directorships held by ministers must be resigned except in the case of honorary directorships in connection with philanthropic undertakings and directorships in private companies. On a later occasion the prime minister of Great Britain explained that he was making that exception because there were a number of family directorships and private operations that would not possibly involve any conflict of interests.
The case to which the minister obviously was referring was known as the Marconi scandal, and in that connection Mr. Asquith laid down certain detailed propositions very similar to those laid down in 1952 by Mr. Churchill.


Mr. McCann:: Was it law in either case?


George Alexander Drew: What I am pointing out is that at the time the prime minister annnounced the rules they had become part of tradition. What I am saying relates to the statement I have made that I would not support the adoption of a law. The Prime Minister has said that it is a matter for the conscience of the minister, but I submit that it is a matter for the conscience of the Prime Minister.
Under our system the prime minister is called upon by the representative of the queen, or of the king as the case may be, to form a government. The ministers are not chosen by the crown; the prime minister is asked to form a government. The members of that government are answerable to him, and it is his conscience which is the determining factor. In fact the third rule stated by Mr. Churchill in 1952 and read to us by the Minister of Finance established the proposition that while it is the duty of the minister to examine the facts as he knows them, the judge is the Prime Minister. He is the one who must decide whether the course being followed is consistent with our tradition.
I would point out that in 1913, when Mr. Asquith was dealing with the situation which arose out of what was known as the Marconi scandal, be began by making the following observation:
The first . . . and the most obvious is that ministers ought not to enter into any transaction
4510	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons Act whereby their private pecuniary interest might, even conceivably, come into conflict with their public duty . . . Again, no minister is justified under any circumstances in using official information, information that has come to him as a minister, for his own private profit or for that of his friends.
Then Mr. Asquith went on to lay down a number of propositions which bore a very marked degree of similarity to those now before us.


Walter Edward Harris: I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree that the rules in that particular case were with respect to speculation, not with respect to holding office in companies.


George Alexander Drew: The situation arose out of
speculation in connection with Marconi shares, but the statement as to the obligation of ministers covered a much wider field than that of speculation. I submit that while the eighth rule laid down by Mr. Churchill in the House of Commons in Britain in 1952 referred to speculation, it was properly placed as being an important rule, but the earlier rules were also important. I should say that the earlier rules were vitally important, and the most important rule of all was that there must be no conflict of interests, that there must be no situation which would permit the possibility of the suggestion of conflict of interests.
That is something for the Prime Minister to lay down. I cannot understand the Minister of Finance saying that it would hardly be satisfactory to establish rules in this way because later prime ministers might not follow the rules that had been established. These rules have been established for some time. They must be established by the Prime Minister, because he accepts the responsibility from the crown. Instead of referring this matter to any committee I submit that the Prime Minister should tell us whether he agrees with the statement that has been read by the Minister of Finance when he quoted the words of Prime Minister Churchill in the British House of Commons in 1952.
I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Drew the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: At eight o'clock the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.



COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe, Port Arthur (for Mr. St. Laurent) for the second reading of Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was interrupted I had dealt with two sections of the bill and was about to deal with the objections to the Defence Production Act which were raised when the resolution preceding the bill was under discussion. I shall now proceed with the latter question.
I should like to deal first with the statement I made in March, 1951, on the nature of the special powers contained in the Defence Production Act. Reference to the continuing nature of those powers should not be taken out of its context but should be read in conjunction with statements on the situation made at that time. We were confronted with what we then believed to be an extraordinary situation, one we hoped would clear up within the three-year period set for the defence program. Our hopes have not been fulfilled. For the better part of four years we have been living in what was once considered an extraordinary situation, and there is still no indication of when we can expect it to improve to the point where our defence production program can be cut back. The statement I made in 1951 was made in good faith, in the earnest hope that we would now be living in a world in which normal peacetime conditions would prevail. Such is not the case, and it is in the light of present-day circumstances that I am compelled to recommend the continuation of the Defence Production Act in its present form.
At the resolution stage the Leader of the Opposition implied that in asking for the continuation of the Defence Production Act the government is getting away from traditional methods of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary responsibility, and that there is a denial of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. I must admit that I am only a layman in this field, but it seems to me that this is not the case. Under our present parliamentary procedures the house has an opportunity to review the responsibilities and functions of each department at least once a year, when the estimates

are being considered. Traditionally this is the way in which legislation can be examined critically, the way in which it can be determined whether or not it meets the needs and conditions of the times.
Furthermore, in setting up a department of defence production, the minister in charge of that department is fully responsible to parliament for the way in which he discharges his responsibilities and for the department's operations. At any time he can be called upon by this house to account for his actions. Surely this is parliamentary procedure and parliamentary responsibility. As for the rule of law, there are numerous references to the right of appeal to the courts against the crown under this act. I would draw the attention of hon. members to section 37 which, while it does not permit court action against an investigator or controller in the performance of his duties, goes on to state that "nothing in this section limits or restricts the rights of any person against the crown."
To sum up the points I have been making, there is nothing in the act that denies the supremacy of parliament, nor is there anything that prevents recourse to a court of law or that contravenes the jurisdiction of the courts.
Before the resolution on the present bill was concurred in on March 14, I gave an undertaking that the government would consider the request made by the hon. members for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and Peace River (Mr. Low). This request was to include in the act a clause which would make the powers of the department subject to review within a reasonable period.
This question was referred to the Department of Justice, and officers of that department pointed out that in view of the fact that a review of legislation is a matter which parliament can undertake at any time, an express provision requiring a periodic review of this kind would have no real significance. In order to require a review by parliament and attach to it legal consequences it would be necessary, for example, to provide that the act would expire at a stated time unless reviewed and reapproved or re-enacted before the expiration of that time. This obviously was not the intent indicated by the request put forward by the hon. members.
Suggestions of the Department of Justice to achieve the results desired by the hon. members were along these lines, as in each case they required that certain sections of the act be singled out at this time and
Defence Production Act designated as clauses which should expire at a given date in the future. Again this is not satisfactory, as it is impossible to separate the powers of the act in this way. I would point out again that this act was drawn up on the basis of experience gained in handling defence production over a period of years, a period that included the unsettled era following world war II as well as the years of actual war. 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.
Much has been made of the so-called extraordinary powers in the Defence Production Act. Hon. members have been urged from several parts of the house to read the act carefully. I agree that this should be done, but I wonder whether some of those who have made the plea have followed their own advice and have read all the sections with equal care. There is not the slightest suggestion in the act that personal liberties or freedoms can be menaced or abridged in any way. There is in the act, and I think there should continue to be, authority to interfere with property rights in appropriate cases.
My hon. friends opposite have not seen fit to bring to the attention of the house the safeguards which are also contained in the act. Stirring denunciations have been made of sections 23 and 24, relating to directed contracts and requisitioning of supplies, but no mention has been made of section 25, which clearly provides for compensation to be paid, such compensation to be arrived at by mutual agreement or, in default of such agreement, to be fixed by the exchequer court. In other words this is definitely not confiscation nor anything approaching confiscation. It is in fact no different from the Expropriation Act which has been in force since confederation, and longer if we go back to English law. Under the Expropriation Act the land is first expropriated by the crown and compensation is worked out afterward. As I have already pointed out, this is similar to the procedure under the Defence Production Act.
A good deal has been said about section 32, dealing with offences, but no mention has been made of section 33, dealing with the defence of due diligence which may be made by any person charged with an offence. This clause gives the person who has been charged an opportunity to establish that he exercised all due diligence to comply with the terms of the act but failed because of reasons

Defence Production Act beyond his control. In addition, nothing in the act prevents any person who feels himself aggrieved from having recourse to the courts.
Now let me turn for a moment to sections 26, 27, 28 and 29, all of which have been mentioned adversely. I cannot see how it would be possible to have an act dealing with defence procurement and production without section 26, which deals with priorities. Priorities regulations are still in effect today in the United States. With respect to section 27, I do not feel that it is any indictment of this section, which deals with the appointment of a controller, to point out that it has not been used since 1951. What is important is not whether it has been used but whether it is a power which might be necessary, and what the consequences would be if it -were deleted. Using this criterion, I feel that this is a necessary part of the whole purpose of the act.
With respect to section 28, dealing with relief from obligations imposed by the act, I would point out two things. First, this is a power exercised not by the minister but by the governor in council. Second, it is intended to help, not to penalize. In other words it is a necessary adjunct to the earlier powers contained in the act, and is designed to protect any business firms which might otherwise get into trouble through entering into a defence contract or complying with an order or regulation. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked if this section had been invoked during the life of this act, and the answer is no.
With regard to section 29, which deals with the appointment of an investigator and which has not been used since this act came into force, I should only like to say that this is a protection on which I believe the country is entitled to insist when the whole security of the state and the lives of its citizens may depend on matters being thoroughly, properly and expeditiously investigated. Furthermore, this section does not confer on the investigator any powers over and above those contained in the Inquiries Act, nor are the powers of entry and seizure any greater than those of the Income Tax Act. I am sure hon. members will agree that neither of these acts is as vital to the safety of the nation as is the act under consideration.
In the debate on the resolution I was asked the number of prosecutions under section 32, and the date of the last one. There have been nine different cases since the act came into force. The date of the last conviction was May 30, 1953.
I would ask hon. members to consider carefully what it is we are discussing today.

No one likes the idea of large armed services, large expenditures for what are essentially unproductive and destructive purposes, and life in a world threatened by war waged with weapons of almost unbelievable powers of destruction. Nevertheless such are the facts of life. In addition, we do not now enjoy the leisure and time granted to earlier generations in dealing with threats to peace. When we act we have to act quickly. I do not know how the impression has been gained that all is now well, and that our difficulties are behind us. Certainly we have found no such happy interlude in defence production matters. We are faced with difficult and challenging duties which we hope to discharge conscientiously and expeditiously. These duties relate to the safety and security of each one of us, and I should not like to accept the responsibility for recommending that the means by which these tasks are carried out should now be made less efficient.
In conclusion I may say that I think I can claim to have more experience in defence purchasing than any other man now living. At least I am the only man doing defence purchasing today who did the same job throughout the last great war. I have tried to carry out defence purchasing under the munitions and supply act, then without an act, and now under the Defence Production Act. I say to this house that it is my conviction that to carry out an efficient job of defence procurement the department must be armed with an act giving the powers necessary to do the job.
I have had a great deal of experience in buying for governments. I started some 40 years ago as a consulting engineer, and I have been doing some buying for governments ever since. I can tell this house that generally speaking a government order does not receive the same attention as a privately placed order. The reason is that generally speaking the government cannot put on as much pressure as does the private buyer. That has been my experience, and that was my experience in buying for our defence procurement during the years when I had no act to support me.
I believe that when this country is supplying great sums for defence it is entitled to the assurance that those funds are being spent efficiently and carefully. For that reason I tell this house that as a minister of the crown I cannot conscientiously recommend that my department be deprived of powers which I believe are essential to that purpose. I may also say that I do not intend to make any such recommendation.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: This Bill No. 256, Mr. Speaker, to amend the

Defence Production Act, stands in the name of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has today left it to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) to make the speech on second reading in its favour. I hope that before this debate has gone very far the house will have an opportunity of hearing from the Prime Minister.


Mr. Gingras:: He is not afraid to talk.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman says the Prime Minister is not afraid to talk. I hope, then, that before long in the course of this debate we will have an opportunity of hearing from the Prime Minister. Perhaps he can give the house the reasons why the house should give second reading to this bill. If the hon. gentleman is giving assurance to the house that the Prime Minister will be heard on this subject, then that assurance will be welcomed.
When the resolution preceding this bill was before the house, which was about three months ago, at the conclusion of the discussion the government agreed to give consideration before moving second reading of the bill to proposals contemplating some limitation upon the life of the powers proposed to be continued by the bill. The Minister of Defence Production has made it abundantly clear in the course of his remarks tonight that the government does not intend to have anything whittled away from the powers contained in this bill. The suggestion which three months ago had sufficient merit at least to commend it to the consideration of the government finds today, at the hands of the government, not sufficient merit to warrant the subtraction of the dotting of an "i" or the crossing of a "t" from the Defence Production Act.
In spite of the brave words used by the minister in his speech today everybody knows that the cabinet has been divided on this question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, that is an absolute falsehood. My hon. friend has no foundation whatever for that statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has used words that are completely unparliamentary, and I demand a withdrawal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The charge of "falsehood" is perhaps unparliamentary. I would remind the hon. member, however, that he has made his statement, to which the minister made reply; and the hon. member must take the assurance of the minister about things which are within his peculiar knowledge.
Defence Production Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: May we have the withdrawal?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker,
I doubt if my remark is unparliamentary.
I was not referring to the hon. member but I was referring to the statement he made.
I will say instead that the statement was wholly without foundation in fact.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister withdraw the unparliamentary remark he made, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no necessity to withdraw, as unparliamentary, remarks unless they were directed personally to the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: It was.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I say there is nothing that needs to be withdrawn.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then do I understand it to be your ruling that, when a minister, referring to something a member says in the house, says it is a falsehood, that is not a reflection on the member? Do I understand that to be your ruling, because that is what we are dealing with.


Mr. Pouliot:: If you will permit me, on a point of order, I would say I listened to what has been said. A statement was made by the hon. member for Eglinton-if I am not mistaken; I hope this designation is true, not false. I heard him make the statement to which the Minister of Defence Production answered, "This is false." He did not say the hon. member for Eglinton was false; he said that what the hon. member had declared was false. It may be true or false.
The hon. member for Eglinton cannot pose as one who has the gift of infallibility. He has not. He may make a mistake, if he will permit my saying so. He may make a mistake, an error in fact. Then what he says is false, but it is not said deliberately. It may be in good faith, and I presume it is. He has been led into error, like all the Tories in this country. I am sure he is sincere; and it is because he is sincere-I will not say "mad", because that might not be parliamentary-that he is offended, and offended because one does not agree with him. But those who do not agree with the Tories in Canada are numbered by the millions and millions. And in this house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am discussing a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think perhaps I have had sufficient assistance to decide the
4514	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act point of order. May I draw the attention of hon. members to citation 256 in Beauchesne's third edition, which says:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
It will be noted that the citation uses the expression "charging him with falsehood or deceit." The minister used the words, "that is a falsehood." He did not charge the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: He was in error.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister later said the remark had no foundation in fact, rather than using the word "falsehood". I consider the incident thereupon is at an end.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, do I understand then that you are not directing or asking the minister to withdraw the word ''falsehood".


Clarence Decatur Howe: Listen to Mr. Speaker.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member-


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is intoxicated with his own importance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I listened carefully to the entire interjection, and in my opinion the minister made no imputation against the hon. member for Eglinton. He said that a certain remark made by the hon. member for Eglinton was a falsehood. He later said, after the hon. member for Eglinton had risen, that it was without foundation in fact. I think that is sufficient to close the incident.


Mr. Rowe:: On a point of order, how would you term the member a "falsehood" if you did not term his remarks a falsehood?


Jean-François Pouliot: May I rise on a point of order?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Sit down.


Howard Charles Green: Sit down.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was the first to rise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I cannot, of course, deal with hypothetical points of order raised by an hon. member. The hon. member for Eglinton may proceed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I say no more about the point that has been raised, except that I note that it is sufficient to make an
fMr. Deputy Speaker.!

alternative statement without withdrawing unparliamentary words. That is the effect of it.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, yes; that is the effect of the ruling that has been made, and careful note will be taken of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Eglinton will please try to refrain from placing an enhanced interpretation upon the ruling I have just made. I said- and I thought clearly and distinctly-that the minister had substituted the words "without foundation" for the word to which the hon. member objected, and I think that closes the matter. If there had been any imputation against the hon. member, then of course I would deal with it in a different way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, no more can be said about it now; but-


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the effect of it may be more far-reaching than some realize at this moment.
What I said, I said with some reason, in the remark I made. In this period when consideration was to have been given, according to the undertaking given by the government three months ago, what I say is that it is perfectly evident now that in the face of the demand of the Minister of Defence Production for a continuation of these sweeping powers under the act, the Prime Minister has wobbled. We will be waiting to hear from the Prime Minister in the course of this debate some justification, from his own lips, of the course he now proposes to condone; as to how a man who has been a leader of the bar, who has been president of the Canadian Bar Association, whose life in large measure has been dedicated to the law, can now be party to a course which proposes to embed permanently in the statute law of this country a denial of the rule of law. That is a task the discharge of which we await on the part of the Prime Minister in the course of this debate.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the denial of the rule
of law?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps my hon. friend could restrain himself. He may find it difficult to restrain himself when listening to me, but I am not going to have a lot of silly interruptions.
Let me make it perfectly clear on this point that we of Her Majesty's loyal opposition attach both importance and gravity to the measure now before us. The cabinet has had its opportunity to review this measure in

these three months, with a view to giving effect to the very reasonable and proper suggestions that came from this part of the house at the resolution stage. Those proposals have been rejected. On the issue thus created we of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are prepared to join issue and, so far as we are concerned, a major issue it is.
Sir, it is not an uncommon complaint heard from time to time that there is not sufficient difference, in a political sense, between the two old, major parties.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Slander.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, sir, I am not one of those who attach very much importance to cries of that kind, because in my reading I have learned that the same thing was said 50 years ago about the same two parties. But, sir, to those who give ear to that kind of talk let me make it abundantly clear now that in this situation there is as between the government on the one hand and us of Her Majesty's loyal opposition on the other a deep issue, a clear-cut issue, an issue as to the status and the authority as well as the prestige of the parliament of Canada; and on that issue, that clear-cut, deep issue we are prepared to fight. We are not unmindful of the fact that this is an advanced stage of this session, that we have had a taste within the past two days of a temperature of 90 degrees, but here is a case that we consider to be of the highest importance, one that lays on every member of this house the highest kind of responsibility; and on this issue we now join battle.
Sir, the bill, as the minister reminded us this afternoon in seductive tones, is very brief. We are asked to measure the importance of this bill by its brevity. Well, sir, there are only two short provisions in it. I do not know that we have had any shorter bill before this house in a long time. It is quite unlikely that we shall have as short a bill as this is before us again for a long time. But let no hon. member of this house misjudge the importance and significance of this bill simply because of its unusual brevity. This bill, both in its effect and in the principle involved, is of far-reaching importance and of the utmost significance.
I can dismiss very briefly, sir, the provision in the bill that proposes an increase in the salary of the Minister of Defence Production from $10,000 to $15,000 per annum. Of course this was an oversight when the amendment to the Salaries Act was passed just over a year ago. It seems to me it should not be introduced in a bill of this kind; it ought to be handled by way of an amendment to the
Defence Production Act Salaries Act, but we are not making an issue of that. So far as that provision in the bill is concerned we shall put no opposition in its way.
But, sir, let no hon. member of this house dismiss, minimize or overlook the importance of eight words contained in this bill. These words are;
Section 41 of the said act is repealed.
There are only a few words. Should we be spending time on so few words in this House of Commons at an advanced stage of the session, when most are impatient to conclude the business of the house as quickly as possible? Sir, the significance of these words is this. The measure we are asked to pass tonight is more far-reaching than the original bill that was passed in 1951. There is this fundamental difference in the two bills. The bill of 1951 was a bill which under the extraordinary circumstances then obtaining vested extraordinary powers in the government and in the minister, but it made it all subject to a time limit, which made it necessary for the government to come back to parliament if they wanted an extension of the life of that measure and of those powers, within the space of five years. But what are we asked to legislate for here tonight? Sir, we are asked in effect to re-enact this entire measure, and to remove from it that one saving provision.
Therefore, sir, what we have before us tonight is something much more than simply the continuation of a measure. The act of 1951 had a limitation of time. This amendment, if passed, will create an act without any limitation of time or limitation of any other sort by way of substitute. That is the true basis of comparison. That is the true measure of the effect of the legislation now before us.
Sir, I ask again, as I asked at the resolution stage, that no hon. member of this house should cast his vote on this amending bill until he has gone back and read the 22 pages of the act which, by these mere eight words, we are asked to extend and to embed on a permanent basis in the statute law of this country.
It is clear that we should turn back our thoughts to four years ago, to the conditions under which and the state of mind in which parliament considered and passed the Defence Production Act.
What were those conditions? Sir, it was nine months after the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, when the forces of aggression had swept over the 38th parallel and had overrun almost all of southern Korea; when the United Nations, taking advantage of the fortunate absence of Russia from the security council, had passed resolutions condemning

Defence Production Act that act of aggression and summoning the member nations to render aid in resisting aggression; and when Canada, along with 15 other nations, responded by sending aid in the form of army, air force and navy contributions to the forces of the United Nations. Then when, as it seemed, victory had been snatched from defeat, we found Chinese troops pouring over the Yalu river by the hundreds of thousands. It appeared that a desperate defeat was about to be inflicted upon the forces of the United Nations, and for a time a debacle was barely avoided.
These, let me remind hon. members, were the facts that stared this House of Commons in the face four years ago when in March, 1951, we were asked under those extraordinary and critical conditions to pass legislation that was itself of an extraordinary nature.
Sir, extensive description is really not necessary because the Prime Minister himself, at the resolution stage just three months ago, used these words to describe the situation with which we were confronted, along with the other nations of the free world, in April, 1951. These were his words, as we find them at page 1904 of Hansard of March 10, 1955:
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.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the
situation now? Tell us about that.


William Earl Rowe: Where is the fighting now?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the minister will possess his soul in patience for a while we shall have a look at the situation now and test whether the descriptions of the improvement in the situation that have come from some of his colleagues are entitled to a little more respect from the minister than he has undertaken to show in his statement tonight.
Sir, those were the conditions according to the Prime Minister's admission. This bill was passed to meet an emergency situation brought to a head by the fighting in Korea. Those were days of scarcities of materials, of a world-wide scramble for strategic materials. It was a world caught unawares by aggression, when it seemed that we were on the verge, it might well be, of a third world war. I can remember one of the colleagues of the Minister of Defence Production coming into the opposition lobby at that time and telling us in grave tones, with a long face, that it looked to him as though we were on the verge of a third world war.
That was the condition under which this statute was born. That was the frame of mind the government asked on the part of
IMr. Fleming.!

parliament in approaching this matter. That was the very time when parliament at the request of the government was legislating, if you please, in terms like these, and I read from the preamble of the Emergency Powers Act which received royal assent on March 21, 1951:
Whereas an international emergency exists that threatens the security of Canada:
And whereas it is essential that emergency powers be conferred to enable measures to be taken as urgently required from time to time to carry out adequate defence preparations, to regulate the economy of Canada to meet the needs of defence and to stabilize the economy and to safeguard it from disruption that may result from defence preparations in Canada or from emergency measures taken in other countries, in order that defence preparations may not be impeded;
That was the kind of legislation that parliament was passing in March, 1951, at the request of the government. Parliament was legislating in terms to give parliamentary and statutory acknowledgment to the fact that a grave international emergency existed that threatened the security of Canada.
Let us then compare those conditions with conditions in the world today. The Minister of Defence Production has asked parliament and the country in effect to say that there is no material change in conditions as between March, 1951, and today. What then is the meaning of the statements we have heard in Canada from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) about the improvement in conditions? In fairness it must be said that they have been guarded statements, as properly they should be. Nobody can say that there is no danger in the world today, but at any rate the Secretary of State for External Affairs has permitted us to believe that there has been improvement. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has invited us to believe that there has been improvement. Mr. Dulles has said that there has been improvement. Sir Anthony Eden has said, not once but on various occasions, that the situation is improving.
Are we to cast aside all these reliable assertions and accept the position which the Minister of Defence Production puts before us in saying that there is no material improvement, that to all intents and purposes the situation is as bad as it was in 1951 and therefore we should give him all the powers that were considered necessary in March, 1951, when parliament gave recognition to the existence of an international emergency which threatened the security of Canada?
Has there been no improvement since March, 1955? At the time this measure was being discussed at the resolution stage all the interested countries had not ratified the treaty

for the rearmament of Germany, but we know now that this has been accomplished in the meantime, and that the time has now come which has been looked forward to for a long time, when the western nations are in the position, according to the accepted phrase, of being "able to negotiate from strength". Although four years ago we were faced with an international emergency threatening the security of Canada; although we have now, four years later, reached the position where the western nations feel that they are able to negotiate from strength, the Minister of Defence Production says there is no change in the situation which would justify parliament in subtracting from him one iota of those sweeping powers he had voted to him in 1951 at the hands of parliament.
So that this debate may be cast in its proper perspective, let me state with care the position we take. The minister correctly said this afternoon that we do not question the necessity for the continuation of the Department of Defence Production. The case for the continuation of that department was established to our satisfaction even before the resolution was introduced.
We agree that the civil servants in the employ of this department should not be on a mere temporary basis. We agree that a department of this kind should be able under present conditions to handle the problems of procurement better than a crown agency like the Canadian Commercial Corporation. So we support unreservedly the position that the *department should be made permanent and that those who now have temporary status should enjoy the same status as the employees of other departments.
Second, we are quite prepared, as we said at the resolution stage of this measure, that the department should be given adequate powers to meet any foreseeable needs having regard to the situation and having regard to the fact that parliament is going to continue to meet and is not, we trust, going to be sent home indefinitely. But we say, and we say with all conviction, that the powers in this bill are excessive, and that under present conditions there can be no justification for the government asking that these sweeping, yes, untrammelled powers, be vested in the government and in the minister, since so many are vested directly in the minister.
We say that it is a curious paradox, indeed a paradox that could exist only at the hands and in the minds of this government, that when the world was faced with such an international emergency as to threaten the security of Canada the government asked parliament to confer such powers upon the government subject to a time limit, but now when the
Defence Production Act western world describes itself as being in a position to negotiate from strength, when the situation according to the description of every responsible world leader has improved substantially, the government opposite asks parliament to go further than it did in 1951 and confer these powers afresh, but this time without the effective limitation in time that was proposed and accepted in 1951.
The minister made an extraordinary statement today. He described this as "a model act of the kind". What kind? I say this can be better regarded as a model decree of a Caesar. What are the powers in this act? Do not take my description, rather let us take the government's own description of the powers in this act. First of all perhaps it would not be amiss to take the words of the minister, and I quote from page 839 of Hansard of March 2, 1951:


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read the whole
paragraph this time for a change.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister described the powers in these words:
By and large, these are the powers that are now contained in the Defence Supplies Act, which, hon. members will notice, is only being suspended during the life of the present proposed act. Other powers are of an extraordinary nature but fitted to the extraordinary circumstances of today.
Those are the words of the minister; that was his description of the powers conferred by parliament in March, 1951. They were powers of an extraordinary nature fitted to the extraordinary circumstances of March, 1951, when we seemed to be on the brink of world war III. That was the minister's description of the powers that were conferred upon him by this bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Very good, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Don't be carried away by it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Lest it be thought that I am paying too much attention to the minister, let us look back at words which the minister used on that occasion and which the Prime Minister said three months ago, when this measure was under debate at the resolution stage, in clear terms represented the view of the government and the Prime Minister. At page 836 of Hansard of 1951 we find that the minister used these words:
It is proposed that the act would expire on July 31, 1956. There is no particular significance to this date, other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature.
Let me repeat:
. . . some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature.
4518	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
Those are not my words. Those are not the words of Her Majesty's opposition. Those are the words of the minister. Those are the words of the government, given complete recognition and acceptance by the Prime Minister in this house just three months ago.
What were those powers which came within the ambit of that description? Mr. Speaker, when this measure was under debate at the resolution stage you will recall the efforts I made to find out from the Prime Minister what were the powers in this bill that were so described. You will remember that when one endeavoured to pursue the Prime Minister on this subject he dodged, sidestepped, averted and avoided the question. If you will look at pages 1998 and 1999 of Hansard of March 14, 1955, you will see on the part of the Prime Minister about as complete an example or performance of sidestepping as we are likely to see inscribed in any parliamentary record. He would not answer the question. That was what it came down to. Faced with his own statement or the statement of his spokesman in 1951 that this bill contains special powers which should not be of a continuing nature, the Prime Minister was not prepared to say what those powers were. He avoided that question.


Mr. Dickey:: That is only part of the statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Very well. We turn now to what the minister himself says in 1955. If you will look at Hansard of March 11, 1955, at page 1967, you will find the minister saying this:
X quite agree that all the powers set out In the act should not be continuing powers;


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read it all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what the minister said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is about the fifth time the hon. member has taken paragraphs out of their context. Again he reads it out of its context.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is the beginning of the paragraph. Must I go back and read the whole paragraph that goes before it in order to satisfy the minister?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I referred to that paragraph in my speech.'


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; the minister referred to it in his speech again tonight, and he tried to water down and run away from the plain words he uttered in March last. He tried to run away from the words he uttered in March, 1951, and he tries to run away from the words he uttered on March 11, 1955. Again in 1955, just three months ago, the


minister is admitting that there are powers in this act that ought not to be of a continuing nature. Will he be frank enough to tell the house what are the powers in this bill that ought not to be of a continuing nature?
The whole balance of his speech tonight- which was not in balance-sought to make the house think that in this act there are no powers that ought not to be of a continuing nature. That was why I asked the Prime Minister, not once but many times, what were and what are the powers in this act that ought not to be of a continuing nature, according to the government's own definition, and the Prime Minister denied me an answer.
Then let us turn back once again, this time to the words of the Prime Minister. Let us look at the words uttered by the Prime Minister on March 5, 1951. You will find them at page 908 of Hansard. Here I quote the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra:


Howard Charles Green: Then may I ask the Prime Minister whether any further powers would be required to carry out defence production if we were actually in a third world war?


Mr. St. Laurent:: I do not anticipate there would be.
Do hon. members appreciate fully what the Prime Minister was saying there? He was saying to the house in March, 1951, that the powers in respect of defence production conferred by this act were all that would be required even if we were cast into the maelstrom of a third world war. Let hon. members opposite ponder well that there are powers in this measure that the Prime Minister has said are all that would be required in respect of defence production even in the event of a third world war. Is the house going to legislate on that basis? Is the house going to go so far beyond the measures it took under those conditions and in the face of that statement by the government in 1951, and enact today a more far-reaching measure than the one it enacted in 1951?
In his speech tonight the minister sought to play down the provisions of this measure. To listen to him, Mr. Speaker, one would have thought it was such a milk and water measure that it did not give him adequate powers for the task that has been assigned to him. But let there be no mistake in the mind of any hon. member. The descriptions I have been giving to the house as to the powers contained in this bill are descriptions given by the government itself. They are descriptions given by the minister and by the Prime Minister; "extraordinary" and "special powers which should not be of a continuing

nature"; "powers that should not be of a continuing nature"; "powers as great as would be required in the event of a third world war".
I submit to the house that the description of those powers that the house has heard in the passages I have quoted from statements made in this house in 1951 and in 1955 by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production were true, fair and accurate descriptions of those powers. I hope the house will not be misled by these cooing, seductive words of the Minister of Defence Production tonight into thinking that these powers are not what in fact they are. Look at some of these provisions, Mr. Speaker.
Section 15 reads as follows:
15. The minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty and subject to the provisions of this act-
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that it is the minister who may do these things; it is not the governor in council. These are powers conferred directly on the minister.
(a)	buy or otherwise acquire, utilize, store, transport, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of defence supplies;
(b)	manufacture or otherwise produce, finish, assemble, process, develop, repair, maintain or service defence supplies or manage and operate facilities therefor;
(c)	construct or acquire defence projects and sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of them:
(d)	arrange for the performance of professional or commercial services;
(e)	purchase or otherwise acquire, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of real or personal property or any interest therein which, in the opinion of the minister, is or is likely to be necessary or desirable for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);
(f)	make loans or advances to or guarantee repayment of loans or advances made to a person for tne purpose of providing assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by, or to provide working capital for, that person for the manufacture, production, finishing, assembling, processing, development, storage, transportation, repairing, maintenance or servicing of defence supplies or for the construction or operation of defence projects or by way of advance payment on account of or to enable that person to carry out any contract entered into with the minister under this act or any defence contract; and
(g)	do all such things as appear to the minister to be incidental to or necessary or expedient to the matters mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section or as may be authorized by the governor in council with respect to the procurement, construction or disposal of defence supplies or defence projects.
Then, sir, section 16 goes on to provide for a fund to be known as the defence production revolving fund, to consist of $100 million, which shall be placed at the disposal of the department for these purposes. It is a revolving fund and has been used as working capital by the department. Then let us look at section 17, which reads:
17. (1) The minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty, enter into contracts for the carrying out
Defence Production Act of anything he is authorized to do under section 14 or 15 and the following provisions apply with respect to every such contract entered into by the minister on behalf of Her Majesty: . . .
Then follow a number of provisions, and I draw attention to subclause 1 (e), not because it is the only one that is important for this purpose but because I think hon. members should have their vigilance directed to it. It provides:
(e)	a contract may be entered into by the minister without the approval of the governor in council if
(1)	in the opinion of the minister, the contract must be entered into immediately in the interests of defence,
(ii)	the estimated expenditure, loan or guarantee does not exceed $25,000, or-
You will see that these are alternative provisions.
(iii)	competitive tenders have been obtained and the lowest tender involving an estimated expenditure not exceeding $50,000 is accepted . . .
Then, sir, turn if you will to section 23, which provides:
23.	(1) 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, if the minister is satisfied that such person owns or controls facilities that are suitable for or can be adapted to the work required to carry out such contract and that his refusal or failure was without reasonable excuse, the minister may direct that person to produce, deliver or store, or to construct, as the case may be, on such terms and conditions and within such period as the minister considers to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances, the defence supplies or the defence project or projects that would have been the subject matter of the contract if it had been entered into.
(2)	A person who stores defence supplies pursuant to a direction under this section is liable for the loss thereof or for damage thereto as if he had agreed to store them for reward.
Then, sir, we have section 24 which is in these terms:
24.	(1) The minister may, where he deems it necessary for any of the purposes of this act-
Note again, sir, that this is one of the provisions that confer power directly on the minister.
-by notice in writing to a person who owns or has in his possession, custody or control defence supplies, requisition the supplies on behalf of Her Majesty.
It goes on in subsection 2 to provide that where a notice is given, title to these defence supplies vests forthwith in Her Majesty. Turning forward now to section 27, it reads:
27. (1) Where the minister-
Again note it is "the minister".
-is satisfied that
(a)	a person who has entered into a defence contract has failed or is likely to fail to perform the contract in a businesslike and efficient manner,

Defence Production Act
(b)	a person who has entered into a defence contract has failed to keep proper and detailed accounts and records of the cost of the work performed under the contract, or
(c)	a person to whom a direction has been given under section 23, or who is required pursuant to a regulation to give priority in the carrying on of his business to the production of or dealing in defence supplies, or construction of defence projects has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction or regulation or the minister is satisfied that he will so fail or is likely so to fail
the minister may authorize another person (in this act called a "controller") to carry on, until the minister otherwise directs, the whole or any part of the business of that person.
Then the further subsections go on to provide that the controller so appointed shall be deemed to be the agent of the owner for the purpose of carrying on that business.
Then I come to section 28:
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 first 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.
Sir, do hon. members realize the full import of the provisions of section 28? Is it realized by hon. members that at this time, at a time when the west is negotiating from strength, it remains possible for the cabinet to make an order directing that any person shall not be bound by any obligation, restriction or limitation imposed upon that person by or under any statute? That includes an act of the parliament of Canada. That means that even where an obligation is imposed upon a Canadian subject of Her Majesty by act of the parliament of Canada it remains possible under this legislation for the governor in council-


William Earl Rowe: To repudiate it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to make an order destroying that obligation. That is what that provision means. It can nullify any obligation created by an act of the parliament of Canada or by a statute of any of the legislatures of Canada or by any contract, if it happens to be one that the governor in council chooses to think should be overriden for the purposes of this act.
Are hon. members of the house going to put themselves in the position of continuing legislation of that kind? Are they prepared to go further than before and embed permanently in the statute law of Canada provisions that

the governor in council may nullify for these purposes any obligation imposed upon a Canadian subject of Her Majesty by an act of the parliament of Canada, by an act of any legislature of any province of Canada or by any contract?
Then follows section 30:
30. The governor in council may, from time to time,
(a)	designate as an essential material any material or substance the control of the supply and use of which is, in his opinion, essential to ensure the availability of adeauate defence supplies or for the construction or operation of defence projects; or
(b)	designate as an essential service the carrying on of any commercial activity, including the generation and distribution of electrical energy, the control of which is. in his opinion, essential for the adequate production or use of essential materials for defence supplies or defence projects; to meet the requirements of the defence forces of Canada or for co-operative efforts for defence being carried on by Canada and associated governments.
Sir, do hon. members realize that under this act it lies within the power of the governor in council any time it chooses to do so to designate as an essential material, and therefore make it subject to all the provisions of this act, any material or substance the control of the supply and use of which is, in the opinion of the cabinet, essential to ensure the availability of adequate defence supplies and that, with respect to any defence project, it rests within the power of the cabinet to designate any project, any commercial activity of any kind, including the generation of electrical energy, as an essential service and so make it subject to all the provisions of this act? Do hon. members from Ontario stop to realize that under the provisions of this section it rests within the power of the cabinet to designate all the enterprises, all the undertakings, all the works of the HydroElectric Power Commission of Ontario as an essential service and make them subject to all the overriding provisions of this act and the powers of the minister in regard thereto?
Then, sir, we find that section 31 says:
The governor In council may do and authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he deems necessary to control and regulate the production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition or use of essential materials or the supply or use of essential services for the purposes of
(a)	ensuring the availability of defence supplies or the construction or operation of defence projects for the defence requirements of Canada and for co-operative arrangements for defence being carried on by Canada and associated governments: or
(b)	ensuring that abnormal requirements of essential materials and services for defence supplies or defence projects are obtained in the manner least likely to cause disruption of the trade and commerce of Canada dependent on those materials and services, which disruption might impede or prejudice the defence preparations or the economic stability of Canada.

Then, sir, it goes on:
Subject to the regulations, if any, the minister may, by order, as he deems necessary for the purposes specified in subsection (1),
(a)	require any person who produces, possesses, deals in or has in his possession or control any essential materials to deal with, supply or dispose of any such materials in such manner and in such priority to that person's other transactions as the minister may prescribe;
(b)	require any person who produces or processes any essential materials to produce or process any such materials in such manner and in such priority to that person's other production or processing operations as the minister may prescribe;
(c)	prescribe the quantities of, the manner and circumstances in which and the conditions on which any essential materials may be produced, processed, used, acquired or disposed of, either generally or within periods of time prescribed by the minister, and for these purposes may require persons to obtain permits;
(d)	require any person who supplies any essential service to supply the service to such persons, to such extent and on such conditions as the minister may prescribe;
(e)	prescribe the restrictions and conditions according to which an essential service may be supplied or used, either generally or within periods of time prescribed by the minister, and for these purposes may require persons to obtain permits;
(f)	fix the maximum prices, either by determining the selling price or the mark-up, at which and the terms and conditions on which any essential materials or essential services may be sold or offered for sale by any person; and require any seller to refund to any buyer any sum or consideration received in excess of a maximum selling price so fixed;
(g)	prescribe the circumstances in which and the terms and conditions on which, for any purposes of this act, permits shall be obtained from the minister or from a person designated by the minister; grant general or other permits; and amend, suspend or cancel any permit;
(h)	require any person to furnish such information respecting essential materials produced, processed or dealt in by him or essential services supplied by him, or respecting his production and other facilities relating thereto, in such time and manner as the minister may prescribe; and
(i)	do such further things in regard to the production, supply, distribution, and use of essential materials or essential services as may be authorized by order or regulation of the governor in council.
Section 32 goes on then to attach a penalty to a breach of the provisions of this act or of orders or regulations made under authority of this act, and these penalties may go up to two years' imprisonment or fines up to $5,000. That is what that act does, and those are the powers the act confers, some of them on the cabinet but many of them directly upon the Minister of Defence Production. Is it any wonder, sir, that the Prime Minister acknowledged in 1951 that no wider powers than these would be required in respect of defence procurement or defence production in the event of a third world war? These are the powers that made, were intended to make, and which the government now asks this house to grant to make the cabinet and minister omnipotent.
Defence Production Act
The minister made the amazing statement this evening that this bill goes no farther than the provisions of the comparable legislation in the United Kingdom. I do not know what on earth he was referring to. He must have a different kind of statute book of the United Kingdom to refer to from the one which I have been reading. The legislation that was passed in the United Kingdom in 1951, on the basis of the emergency arising out of aggression in Korea, does not hold a candle to this Defence Production Act of ours. The legislation that was enacted at Westminster in 1951 was entitled the Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes) Act, 1951. This received the royal assent on May 26, 1951. It simply added to the purposes for which certain powers were conferred on the cabinet by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, the following:
(a)	providing or securing supplies and services required for the defence of any part of His Majesty's dominions or any territory under His Majesty's protection or in which he has jurisdiction, or for the maintenance or restoration of peace and security in any part of the world, or for any measures arising out of a breach or apprehended breach of peace in any part of the world; and
(b)	preventing supplies or services being disposed of in a manner prejudicial to the defence of any part of His Majesty's dominions or any such territory as aforesaid or to peace and security in any part of the world or to any such measures as aforesaid;
Then it went on to attach safeguards even to the use of those powers, which are very much more limited than the powers contained in our Defence Production Act, If you refer back to the act of 1945, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, chapter 10, which was amended by the statute to which I have just referred, it will be seen that the powers that were conferred even at the close of world war II were not as great. I ask hon. members to bear that in mind. Here I am referring to powers that were conferred upon the cabinet in Great Britain in December, 1945, just after the conclusion of hostilities and while conditions were still very disturbed. This act conferred certain powers upon the cabinet, not upon a minister. Section 1 provides:
If it appears to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient that any defence regulation to which this section applies should have effect for the purpose of so maintaining, controlling and regulating supplies and services as-
(a)	to secure a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community or their equitable distribution or their availability at fair prices; or
(b)	to facilitate the demobilization and resettlement of persons and to secure the orderly disposal of surplus material; or
(c)	to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace; or

Defence Production Act
(d)	to assist the relief of suffering and the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's dominions or in foreign countries that are in grave distress as the result of war;
he may by order in council direct that the regulation shall have effect by virtue of this act . . .
And so forth. Now, those are the provisions in the legislation of the United Kingdom. I say to hon. members that they will search in vain for legislation comparable to the Defence Production Act, at the time of its passing, as to the powers it confers on the cabinet, or powers conferred upon a minister.
I urge that hon. members, before they vote these renewed and extended powers-because they will be extended in the sense that now they will be without limit in point of time-should ask themselves this question and apply this test. Are these powers necessary? Well, surely in the light of the fact that we are negotiating from strength today it is not going to be said, particularly in view of the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that conditions are not improved over what they were in 1951. Therefore it is surely fair, in asking ourselves "Are these powers necessary today?" to ask what use was made of them, to ask what use the government and the minister found it necessary to make of them in the days of crisis, beginning in 1951.
What is the record? Well, the minister was asked some questions by myself in the house on March 11, at the resolution stage, as to the use which the government had found it necessary to make since 1951 of these sweeping and untrammelled powers conferred upon the cabinet and the minister by the sections of the act I have just quoted. Here are the statements of the minister as to section 23. He says, "There has been no resort to that section." Then as to section 24, he refers to the fact that there were priorities orders some time in 1951, 1952 and 1953, but acknowledges that two years ago the priorities system came to an end, and that accordingly no use had been made of the powers under that section for the last two years.
Then we went to section 30, and I asked the minister:
What orders are in effect under section 30?
The minister answered that there were none. Then we went on to section 31, and I asked if there were any orders outstanding under section 31 today, to which the minister replied that there were no orders outstanding at that time under section 31. Then I asked about prosecutions under section 32, and the minister said tonight that there were, altogether, nine prosecutions, and that the last conviction was entered on May 30, 1953.

So it is evident that there has been no occasion to use the powers under that section for the past two years.
Then the minister was also asked about section 27, which gives him the power to appoint a controller, and he admitted that the government did not find it necessary to use the power to appoint any controller. Then as to section 28, the minister has said tonight that the government has not invoked that section. It is evident again that the government did not find it necessary to use or invoke the extraordinary powers conveyed by that section. Similarly in regard to section 29, no use has been made of the powers to appoint a special investigator.
It is evident from this review that since those very trying days beginning in 1951 the government has not found it necessary to use more than a fragment of the powers the government now asks to be continued, and continued without any limitation whatsoever in point of time. The whole aggregate use made by the government and the minister of the powers under this act, the extent to which they found it necessary to resort to or invoke those powers, just falls infinitely short of justifying the sweeping powers under this act.
Sir, the minister himself gave away the whole case he was trying to make for an increase in those powers when he admitted this, as reported at page 1967 of Hansard:
X know of no one who does not take defence contracts, all the defence contracts they can get under this act; they are very glad to do so.
Sir, in the face of that statement how can the minister seriously ask this House of Commons to go on vesting in him sweeping powers which the government has not found any occasion to resort to or invoke in the very trying days behind us? The fact is that we are in a buyers' market today, and the minister well knows that. Industry well knows it. The minister has plainly admitted that he gets all the co-operation from industry that is required.
Now let us deal with one or two, indeed with all the arguments the minister has put forward in asking for this grant of powers. First of all, he has not told us explicitly but we know from past experience that the government always seeks to justify the granting of excessive powers to it, at the expense of parliament, by saying, "Oh, but we need stand-by powers." Sir, this government does not need stand-by powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We did not say that, either.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact of the matter is that parliament is an existing institution. Parliament can be called together very swiftly. We remember very well August, 1950, when parliament, even in the face of a crippling national railway strike, was called together in a matter of several days. Members got here somehow or other in a matter of several days after being called; in much less time, indeed, than a week.
Is it to be said that such a calamity is going to befall this country under present conditions that, with reasonable powers under a proper measure of this kind, the interests of the country would suffer while parliament was being summoned? Sir, I say to you that, in face of the facts, that argument just does not hold water any more. But if a supreme calamity should befall this country, then I say the only supreme calamity which could justify these sweeping and untrammelled powers being conferred by parliament upon the cabinet would be a third world war, and we might as well be frank enough to acknowledge that fact. Canada has all the stand-by legislation it needs for that purpose under the provisions of the War Measures Act, chapter 288 of the revised statutes, which stands on the statute books of Canada. There are continuing powers. If that supreme calamity which, pray God, may never befall us, should come about, every power that Canada needs, the supreme power, is there at the government's hand, if it chooses to invoke that act under those extreme circumstances.
Therefore I say, sir, that the argument the government has used in times past about the need for stand-by legislation just does not hold water. On the contrary, the existence of legislation of this kind places in the hands of the minister-a minister who has never been unwilling to accept grants of power at the hands of parliament-powers that could be used to create compulsion, a compulsion of fear on the part of Canadian citizens.
Will hon. members recall the words used in the house by this same minister on September 8, 1950, when, in reference to the Essential Materials (Defence) Act, he said this:
I suggest to the committee that a word from the government is more effective if there is a law in the background that can be applied in case the response is not all that may be desired.
I suggest to you, sir, that there is a sinister meaning lurking in those words. And I say to you, sir, it is such a sinister possibility that the House of Commons ought to be supremely vigilant in not placing such powers in the hands of a minister as will permit him to hold a club over the head of any Canadian or a threat over the head of 50433-2851
Defence Production Act any person, particularly in face of his own statement that he has had co-operation from business, and that business wants defence contracts.
Then there is the argument sometimes used in connection with this legislation, one we have heard in years past, that this legislation could be used by a beneficent government for the purpose of distributing the benefits of defence production. This was the measure that some members thought was going to be used to bring the benefits of secondary industry to the maritime provinces, for instance, or to take some defence construction to the prairie provinces. Well, sir, that was a very hollow and empty promise, as hon. members well know. I do not think any hon. member is likely to be deluded by that argument again.
Then in fairness I wish to recall that the minister did tell us when this measure was under discussion at the resolution stage-you will find it on page 1995 of Hansard-that we were faced in Canada today with shortages. He was apparently trying to chill the blood in the veins of hon. members as they recalled the scramble for the strategic materials that were in such short supply when this measure was first passed in March of 1951. The minister used these words:
As I have said, we have a shortage today of nickel. We have a shortage of copper. We have a shortage of aluminum, and we are threatened in Canada with a shortage of scrap iron.
Sir, what are the facts? The fact is that production of copper is running at record rates in Canada. The fact is, sir, that the same can be said of the production of nickel and of aluminum. Our exports of these metals are at record highs today. I do not suppose we have ever known anything like these figures in peacetime, and therefore in the face of the fact that Canada is exporting those metals at such a prodigious rate today, I do not think anybody is going to take very seriously the suggestion of the minister that we have a shortage of those commodities or metals in Canada today.
I appeal to hon. members, sir, and I do this respectfully and earnestly. Here I am not appealing to a minister whose mind is inflexible; I am appealing to hon. members who normally support the government, in the hope that they will individually take a serious and responsible look at what they are being invited to do. Here I am not dealing with something that is abstract or theoretical; it seems to me that in talking about the rights of parliament and the position of parliament as the champion of the rights and freedom of the people, we are talking about something that is more practical than anything else I know of.

Defence Production Act
The supreme duty of parliament, in discharging its responsibility to the people, is to be true and faithful to its traditional role of the champion of the rights and freedom of the people. I quote, sir:
The privileges of parliament are the privileges ox the people, and the rights of parliament are the rights of the people.
Sir, those are not my words. Those were the words of a greater Liberal than is to be found in the House of Commons today. These were the words of Edward Blake in his speech in London on August 28, 1873.
How this government loves to dress up what is in fact a denial of the rule of law, the subjugation of parliament to the executive branch of government, by having parliament go through the process of conferring upon them the power to legislate. And that vicious practice is dressed up. An attempt is made to clothe it with an air of respectability by calling it "delegated legislation". Sir, no euphonious title will succeed in applying a sufficient disguise to this vicious and threatening practice.
Hon. members can well see, in the light of the description of the Prime Minister of the powers under this act, that these are such powers as make it possible for the government to make itself dictator of the Canadian economy tomorrow. Under this legislation the government, and particularly the Minister of Defence Production, hold the Canadian economy in the palms of their hands. The government can override any other legal obligation howsoever created.
Sir, these powers are so sweeping that I am quite sure most Canadians just could not believe this is the way in which parliament is called upon by this government to legislate. But there are recent words by a very eminent Canadian Liberal whose political as well as professional views have been sought by this government, or have been made known to this government in more ways than one. I refer, sir, to a speech made in Toronto last Friday by Professor J. A. Corry of Queen's University, which was reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail, of June 3, 1955, and from which I draw a couple of paragraphs:
The events of the last 30 years have reinforced the attachment of the thoughtful to the rule of law. But the substance of the rule of law will not be preserved unless very substantial numbers of the electorate put a high value on individual freedom, feel a sense of personal responsibility for its maintenance, and are habituated by constant practice to steering their own course. This opinion was expressed last night by Professor J. A. Corry of Queen's University, president of the Canadian political science association, speaking on the prospects for the rule of law . . .
Dr. Corry outlined how the rule of law was threatened by the delegating by parliament to its

executive government of wide-reaching discretionary power. Special study was made of the situation in Britain, with detailed consideration of the Crichel Down case in which a bureaucratic decision was finally reversed after a long fight.
"No one knows how many Crichel Downs there really are over which village Hampdens failed to make any dent in the departmental armor," the speaker commented.
If discretionary powers of executive government are concerned with the margins of activity in which individuals and groups engage together, and not with the core and centre of the relationships, the community can hope to benefit by discretionary regulation. Dr. Corry believed. If, on the other hand, government has pulled down too many of the guiding signs that law provides, and replaced them with a promise of policy directives which cannot be predicted as to timing and which can be changed at will, the essential self-generating initiative which is the mark of the free community will be paralyzed.
"Where comprehensive planning and directing of economic and social life has been conceded to the government, the rule of law and its consequent individual freedoms cannot survive," the speaker stated.
Sir, these are not my words; these are not the words of any member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. These are the words of a very eminent Canadian political thinker, and a Liberal, if you please. This is what he has to say about the practice of delegated legislation, this vicious and unwholesome practice in which we are being invited by the government to indulge again.
Sir, hon. members, as I conceive it, were elected to this house to legislate, not to abdicate the legislative function to the government. They are elected to preserve freedom, not to open the doors or admit the Trojan horse of executive power into the citadel of Canadian freedom.
We of Her Majesty's loyal opposition have fought this kind of legislation, and I think we can point to some success. And, sir, we mean to go on fighting against this vicious practice. Let there be no doubt in the mind of anyone on that score.
Sir, I address myself, I will not say hopefully but at least earnestly, to hon. members opposite who normally support the government and call themselves members of the Liberal majority in this house. I quote to them words which are not mine:
You are representatives of the people, and I put it to you, as you are greatly honoured, should you not greatly dare? You are sent to do your duty to your constituents, whether your acts always give satisfaction or not.
Sir, these are the words of Mr. Howe; not the Minister of Defence Production but the great Joseph Howe, than whom no Canadian had a greater understanding or perception of democracy, according to the British parliamentary tradition. Those were words addressed to the majority, that they should

do their duty whether they give satisfaction or not; in this case whether or not they give satisfaction to the government opposite.
And again:
Free and independent men in the legislature, as in the country, are the best counterpoise to faction and the mainspring of a nation's progress and greatness.
Those are the words of Egerton Ryerson, one of the greatest of all Canadians, uttered in 1867.
I give one more quotation. These are not the words of a Canadian, but they are worthy to be the words of any Canadian believer in democracy:
The most dangerous enemy to truth and freedom amongst us is the compact majority.
Those are the words of Henrik Ibsen, to be found in his "An Enemy of the People". I do not wish to take anything away from the position of the majority in this house, but I do ask hon. members who constitute the majority to ask themselves as individuals, after they have read, marked and inwardly digested the provisions of this bill, whether they are justified in removing the time limitation which parliament found it necessary to write into this legislation in a day of crisis in 1951, and continuing to grant all these powers without curb and without time limit.
Freedom is not something abstract and theoretical; it is something intensely practical. Not so many years ago there was a man who said:
It is true that liberty is precious-so precious that it must be rationed.
Some hon. members will recognize those as the words of Nikolai Lenin. In 1955 let the Canadian parliament not be a party to the rationing of that freedom which is embodied in the authority of parliament.
Hon. members have been asked to believe that it is necessary to do this, even in face of the fact that the government did not find it necessary to invoke more than a fragment of these powers in days more difficult than those we are living in now. I think of the words of William Pitt, who said:
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
If things were different the government's case might be stronger, but we as members of this house cannot close our eyes to the fact that whether it is exercising extraordinary powers or even ordinary powers this government has set its face against communicating information to parliament which the elected representatives of the people ought to have. Indeed it has reached the
Defence Production Act point now where there is a veritable complex on this subject in the mind of the cabinet and of those who have supported it through thick and thin. Under those circumstances parliament is curbed; under those circumstances the great days of parliament are gone. It rests with us to decide whether we shall reverse this trend and restore something of the greatness of parliament. I quote again:
Parliament is the grand inquest which has the right to inquire into anything and everything.
Those were the words of a man who spent a great deal of his life holding ministerial power in Canada; those were words uttered in 1861 by Sir John A. Macdonald. In those days parliament was a grand inquest with the right to inquire into everything and anything, but it is not today, when we see secrecy imposed by the government, and hon. members of this house in the discharge of their solemn obligations to the constituents who elected them denied information they ought to have. Surely then hon. members are going to think seriously before they confer unlimited and untrammelled power upon this government without any limitation of time.
This is what I hope will be my final quotation:
Our objects are open and avowed. We seek no concealment, for we have nothing to conceal.
Those were the words of a great Liberal; those were words uttered by Robert Baldwin in 1844. That was the predominant and guiding principle in Liberal thought in those days, that Liberal governments having nothing to conceal should not make an effort to conceal. But this Liberal government in this year 1955 finds it necessary to conceal from the elected representatives of the people in parliament.
Our duty here is to restore the greatness of parliament. It is our duty to know what is required to be known by the people and their elected representatives, and above all to see that legislation that is to bind Canadians is passed in the open for all to see according to proper and established and traditional parliamentary processes.
The minister says, "Oh, it is enough that my estimates will be up every year." How can you repeal or amend legislation on the minister's estimates? The suggestion has nothing but nonsense in it. All you can do then is just discuss things in an amiable sort of way. Yet we are asked to say that that is an effective substitute for a statutory limitation of time on these powers.
The minister talks about the rule of law, and then admits that he does not understand very much about it. It was not necessary for him to make that open admission. If

Defence Production Act parliament is to go on conferring the right of delegated legislation, then we have in fact torn the rule of law to shreds and tatters. Make no mistake about that. Some hon. members may not realize that tonight, but the day well may come when they will realize it.
We are told by the minister that the Department of Justice having reviewed the bill says that it does not find it practical to introduce a limitation on the powers, or to limit the life of the powers. Is anybody going to take that kind of statement from the minister seriously? It will be taken no more seriously than were some of the other statements by which he sought tonight to lead us along this path toward the destruction of the rule of law. Presumably this is the same Department of Justice which in 1951 approved a measure that contained a very effective time limit which is to be done away with by this bill.
Then the minister says, "We must have all the powers or no Defence Production Act at all." What a typical statement; all or none! As far as the minister is concerned, it is all or none. There is no place here for even a limitation such as parliament thought it necessary to introduce in the days of crisis in 1951. No, it is all or none; all the power or none! We know what the choice of the minister will be as between all the power or none; it will be all the power.
We have had opportunities in this house during the past decade to see what power does for people. How often I have thought of those words with which Shakespeare described Cleopatra:
-other women cloy
The appetites they feed, but she makes hungry
Where most she satisfies;
The possession of power does not satisfy the appetite for power; it whets the appetite for more power. We have seen that in this government. We have seen that in this minister. The appetite has proved insatiable. Now when some powers the government has had are about to come to an end by the lapse of time the government's slogan is: what we have, we hold.
Mr. Speaker, the position of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is this, and I emphasize it again. We support the continuation on a permanent basis of the Department of Defence Production. We are prepared to give the government what powers are adequate to meet any proven existing need, or any that can be measured within the foreseeable future under present conditions, bearing in mind that parliament is never far away and can be called at any time if the government needs it. According to our view, these powers

must be clearly defined and must be commensurate with a proven need. So far as we are concerned there will be no wholesale abdication on the part of parliament to satisfy a ministerial appetite for power.
May I remind the house that this legislation dates from the very time parliament passed the Emergency Powers Act. Indeed that act was passed in the same month-March, 1951. That legislation conferred upon the cabinet the most extraordinary powers, indeed everything the cabinet would derive from a proclamation under the War Measures Act except power to arrest, detain and deport the person. That legislation, however, had in it a safeguard which was thought to be wise and necessary. It was the safeguard of a short time limit, which compelled the government to come back to the house two years later and again, year after year, before it received an extension of these powers. That was a sound precedent in any case where any powers that have any reason to be described as extraordinary are voted to the cabinet by parliament.
Why should not that precedent be observed here, Mr. Speaker? You will recall that the Prime Minister on April 29, 1954, when he was asked if the government was going to ask parliament to renew those powers for another year, said this, as reported at page 4229 of Hansard:
. .	. we have come to the conclusion we will
not at this session ask parliament to extend the Emergency Powers Act. We felt it was a grave decision to make because there is still a pretty explosive situation existing in the world. I hope the situation will not require the exercise of any but normal powers by the governor in council. But should it develop that there would have to be, in the interests of the safety of the nation, powers exercised that are not normally conferred upon the governor in council by existing legislation, we would have to resort to the War Measures Act. I sincerely hope that will never be necessary while X am a member of the government.
Every hon. member in this house will hope that it will never be necessary to invoke those powers. But note, Mr. Speaker, that a year ago, before the world situation had undergone the improvement that happily it has undergone in the intervening year, the Prime Minister then was saying that conditions had improved so far in 1954 over those in 1951 that that extraordinary legislation conferring these wide, sweeping powers could be allowed to lapse; and second, he recognized that stand-by legislation was available to meet any supreme need that might arise. How can hon. members then treat seriously any suggestion that it is now necessary to do away with the time limitation on the powers conferred by this measure? Words of this kind have a hollow ring today.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that the issue here is deep-seated, clear-cut and fundamental. It is the issue of the rule of law and the preservation of the authority of parliament. It is not simply a matter of the preservation of the form of parliament but the preservation of the substance of parliamentary authority and rule. We will have nothing to do with the grant of powers vastly in excess of need. We will not be parties to embedding permanently in the statute law of Canada sweeping and extraordinary powers so wide that they would not need to be widened for the purpose of defence production even in the event of a third world war, according to the Prime Minister's own definition. We will not do this to indulge the government's appetite for power.
This theory of the strong executive, so far as we are concerned, must be regarded with certain limitations. The very learned author of the book entitled "The Passing of Parliament", namely Professor G. W. Keeton, dean of the faculty of law at University College, London, England, in his chapter entitled "The Road to Moscow" points out that there are three principal attributes of the Soviet system. They are as follows:
(1) a one-party organization in which, although there is a wide power of criticism within the party, no external opposition is tolerated: (2) an all-powerful executive, which can put into effect the program decided upon by the party, without substantial impediment or modification, especially that which might emanate from an independent parliament, and (3) an economy which is moulded within the framework of a comprehensive plan, and in which all the more significant activities are government monopolies, subservient only to executive control.
Defence Production Act
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that while the government cannot be said to subscribe to the first of those attributes except in so far as it is permitting the other place to die by neglect, nevertheless the government is going overboard in the direction of the all-powerful executive and carrying with it the danger of the third attribute, namely the organization of the economy within the framework of a comprehensive plan. That may suit the philosophy of some parties in this country such as those with a socialist view; but, Mr. Speaker, it does not suit the philosophy of the Conservative party. So far as we are concerned there are higher authorities than these; there are higher principles and higher standards to guide the legislators in the Canadian democracy. Supreme over any all-powerful executive, in our view, must stand the authority of a free, sovereign and independent parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I guess there is nothing left for me but to move that the debate be adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Knowles the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue this debate tomorrow. Then we shall take the committee stage on Bill No. 3, respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements, and then Bill No. 415, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


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