RESOLUTION OF CANADIAN UKRAINIAN ASSOCIATION


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthem):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In this morning's Ottawa Citizen there is a headline which reads: " Score speeches by three M.P.'s on Ukrainians." The article then goes on to say:
Protesting "slanders and falsehoods" which, it claimed, are being disseminated through speeches by Walter Tucker, F. Zaplitny and A. Hlynka in the House of Commons, the Canadian Ukrainian Association has passed a resolution which states that the views expressed by these men are not those of the majority of Canadian Ukrainian people.
The article continues:
The association points out in the resolution that a body with headquarters in Winnipeg, the Canadian Ukrainian committee, is collects ing money to be used to aid "these nazi collaborationists and traitors to settle in Canada."
It goes on to say:
In the opinion of the association, the three members of parliament mentioned in the resolution, "actually speak on behalf of fascist and semi-fascist committees among the Ukrainian Canadians who have had previous connections with the nazi in Germany."
This refers to a speech which I made in this house on September 26, 1945, in reference to that subject. I have uttered no slanders and falsehoods. I merely asked that our troops have nothing to do with the forcible repatriation, into Soviet hands, of displaced Ukrainians whose only offence was that they had worked for and favoured a free Ukraine and who feared their fate if they fell into Soviet hands. I pointed out that no one knew for certain what was happening behind the iron curtain that divides Europe to-day and that if this policy were maintained we should not forcibly repatriate these people to what they claimed might be a terrible and undeserved fate.
The Canadian Ukrainian committee is headed by a distinguished Canadian clergyman. Its members are all loyal and distinguished Canadians. It supported, and the bulk of Ukrainians supported, our war effort, not only after Russia was attacked in 1941 but in the dark days of 1940, when those who followed the communist line were attacking the war as an imperialist war and doing their best to hinder our war effort. -
When I speak on behalf of this committee, representing as it does the vast bulk of Canadians of Ukrainian origin in Canada, I do not speak "on behalf of fascist and semifascist committees among Ukrainian Canadians who have had previous connections with the nazis in Germany." I deny this categorically. I say from long experience that the members of this committee are loyal and true Canadians. They have proved their loyalty. If they have sympathy with their kith and kin in Europe and seek to assist them in their misery, that does not make them pro-nazi or fascist.
Ever since I have spoken on behalf of these people I have been the victim of a slanderous smear campaign. The object is clear. It is to intimidate all public men from saying anything distasteful to the communists, no matter how true or justified it may be. I call on all responsible newspapers to study the situation and not lend themselves to these tactics in any way. I would say in conclusion it is an attempt subtly to undermine freedom of speech in Canada. It will not succeed in this free country.
Private Bills



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.
Sixth report of the special committee on veterans affairs-Mr. Tucker.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Whitman be substituted for that of Mr. Brunelle on the standing committee on printing.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill .No. 204 for the relief of Leopold Levesque.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 205 for the relief of Myrtle Elizabeth Fraser Bennett.-Mr. Rose.
Bill No. 206 for the relief of Sylvia Pamela Solomon Lande.-Mr. Cleaver.
Bill No. 207 for the relief of Annie Kandel Ashkanazy.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 208 for the relief of Rose Acomsky Bloom.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 209 for the relief of Ethel Meakings Downs.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 210 for the relief of Evelyn Isabel May Ramsay Jarvis.

Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 211 for the relief of Arthur John Frederick Temperton, junior.

Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 212 for the relief of Myrtle Ann Westover Coleman.-Mr. Rose.
Bill No. 213 for the relief of Marie Gertrude Owens Conant.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 214 for the relief of Louis Humble. -Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 215 for the relief of Sarah Silver-stone Michelin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 216 for the relief of Roderick Auguste Robert de Lotbiniere Harwood.-Mr. MacLean.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of bill No. 217, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Aggregate amount of guarantees.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: 
Mr. ILSLEY:: There are powers under the Export Credits Insurance Act to make a loan or loans to the United Kingdom, but the financial limits of the government's powers are such that we do not propose to avail ourselves of the powers in that act to make a loan to the United Kingdom. We are not asking for enough money to give us the scope that we shall require. As I said yesterday, we have not discussed in any real sense a loan from Canada to the United Kingdom, the terms of the loan, the size of the loan or anything of the kind. We shall undoubtedly be discussing those terms before very long.
The only powers that we have to advance money on behalf of the United Kingdom to producers in Canada are the powers contained in section 3 of the War Appropriation Act, and we are making advances under section 3 of the War Appropriation Act at the present time. It will be understood that we owe the United Kingdom money on various accounts, and they owe us money on various accounts. These many and complicated matters are being examined and studied, but in the meantime I do not anticipate that we shall be embarrassed by the lack of any statutory power other than section 3 of the War Appropriation Act to make loans to the United Kingdom.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the limitation on that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is the amount of the appropriations of the acts. There was a war appropriation act last spring, and there is also the War Expenditures and Demobilization Act which was passed recently. The total money which has been appropriated under these acts is something like $3,300 million, if I remember correctly, but of course a large part of that has been used up for other purposes.

Export Credits Insurance


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have no desire to cause any delay this morning, but might I suggest this. It is not immediately apparent to me why we have no opportunity to discuss somewhat further the situation vis-a-vis the United Kingdom, which seems to me even more important than the one we are discussing now. Would it be satisfactory to the minister if it were understood that this matter might be brought up and perhaps some further questions asked, let us say during the estimates of the Department of Finance, or on some occasion of the kind?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I will agree.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the alternative, I might as well ask the minister if he will say a word further about it now. This may be the appropriate time. ILet me repeat what I said a moment ago. Does the minister not agree that the situation with regard to the United Kingdom is more important, perhaps overwhelmingly more important, than any other situation which we have? He has explained to us that it does not come to any considerable extent under this act, because although there is a small Tesidue of power under the act they do not propose to use, it there.
The minister has explained to us the situation generally under the War Appropriations Act. Frankly I have been disturbed, as I suppose everyone in this house has been disturbed, by what has been going on at Washington. The situation there is fraught with results whose importance it is hard to find words to express. I hear people talk blithely about our keeping up our national income. They speak, of the national income we have had during the war, and I sometimes wonder if the people who talk in that strain are taking into account the way that national income arose. I do not propose to take time on that. I only propose to say that for that reason I think this bill is of tremendous importance. I suppose we should bluntly face the fact that there is the possibility that we are giving this money away. Why are we giving it? because we do not dare at the present time to do anything else. We do not dare to refrain from taking measures which will temporarily help to sustain our export trade. We hope that a degree of sanity in world trade matters may emerge within. the next feiw months. Apart from humanitarian considerations, which I take for granted, we are moved by the hope that we are going to get an open door in these countries for our
trade; or, putting it a little differently, that we are staking people who will be good customers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I might ask another question while I am on my feet. I have no desire that we should take a huckstering or technical attitude. The minister spoke yesterday and, if he then said all he wants to say, I will not press the point, but I take it that a very important question arises as to what agreements or understandings we have with those countries to which we are proposing to make these large advances. In the case of France the advances are very great indeed. The French are pretty hard and realistic people in their trading arrangements, and I assume we have given full thought to that.
But I come back to my first point-one, it seems to me, of overwhelming importance- and that is, where are we going to stand with regard to the United Kingdom at the end of the negotiations now going on at Washington and which, week after week, we hoped to hear were successfully terminated The well known United States correspondent, Herbert L. Matthews, writing from London the other day, spoke gloomily about it and said that even if the agreement went through, the British would feel that they had been dealt with in a rather harsh manner, and that they might not go on with the Bretton Woods agreement. The Bretton Woods agreement may prove to be a matter of life and death to people like ourselves.


Mr. LOW:: Mostly death.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would ask the minister again if he does not think that something more should be said on this matter and an opportunity given to the house, before it adjourns, to discuss the tremendously important question of what we are prepared to do and what we should do in the matter of loans and credits and the like. In the case of Great Britain they are not, as I understand it, really covered by this bill at all.


Mr. COLDWELL:: This morning it was
intimated over the air that within the next forty-eight hours some anouncement might be expected from Washington or London regarding the negotiations at Washington. The way in which the matter was worded leads me to believe that the announcement might be of a kind which may involve the discussion here of our own interest in this matter. I think what has been said by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is very much to the point
Export Credits Insurance

in that respect. I do not go all the way with him in some of the other points he raised, but I do go all the way with him in that there should be an opening for a discussion in this house, and we should understand whether or not there is sufficient power to do what we may find it -not only in the interest of humanity but in our own interest to do within the next few months. The point made in that connection is, indeed, one which the minister should consider.
I do not know what agreements or understandings are involved in this proposed expenditure. Perhaps the house should be more fully informed. To be told, as we were a few moments ago, that the war appropriation and other treasures would give the government under the act some S3,300 million, is not sufficient information upon which we can base any opinion. I would urge upon the minister, as suggested by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, that he provide an opportunity for discussion should the occasion arise, as it may well arise. My thought is that if an announcement is made from London and Washington within the next forty-eight hours it may not be that an agreement has been reached, but something quite different.
I am more convinced than ever that the house ought to see to it that the Bretton Woods agreement gets a thorough investigation in the banking and commerce committee before we are asked to vote on it here. I do not think that this is the place to give it the investigation it requires. This is not the place to call the departmental officials whom we must call in order to understand all the implications of that agreement. While on balance we may have to support and accept it, I am much disturbed about it. I am not convinced, and I do not like to be put in the position of having to approve agreements of this sort without having much more information than we have at the present time. However, I rose to concur in the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario in respect to this particular bill.


Mr. McMASTER:: Perhaps when the minister answers the questions asked by the last two speakers he will answer one which I should like to ask. It is a very considerable sum which he is asking us to consent to have guaranteed, and I should like to know whether the government has a policy as to what exports shall be subject to this guarantee. It is easy enough to give stuff away, or sell it cheaply, or sell it to one who cannot pay. I should not expect, for instance, that automobiles would be guaranteed. I suppose the government has in mind some products for

export which will benefit Canada to a great extent while also benefiting very much the people who receive them. I hope the minister while he is on his feet will state what is the policy of the government in that regard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said that the limit contained in the War Appropriation Act of $3,300 million limited our powers to make advances on behalf of other governments as agent. There is no such limit, I findi The power to advance there is to make advances out of unappropriated money. Under the foreign exchange order, there is power to buy sterling as well which would furnish the United Kingdom with Canadian dollars to enable them to make purchases. I wanted to make these corrections so as to keep what I say strictly accurate.


Major James William Coldwell: That gives a little better picture.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It gives a little more freedom.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I mean.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Whether it is too much is for the house to say, but I do not think it is. There are many uncompleted transactions with the British. We shall be paying bills to the British for one thing or another for the next few months, and all sorts of accounts are being adjusted. We have claims against them and they have claims against us, and it would be impossible for me with any definiteness to describe that situation. Mutual aid was concluded on the second day of September, and we knew that with these accounts against each other, and power to make advances, under section 3 of the War Appropriation Act, as agent of the British government we would be able to keep trade flowing until we could make a definite agreement with the United Kingdom. I do not know what agreement they are making with the United States government. As soon as that agreement is made we shall look at it. We have great interest in such an agreement, and the agreement we make will have-to take that into account. I am willing to give the committee any information I have when the estimates of the Department of Finance are under consideration, but the government cannot give now a statement of its intentions with regard to size of loan or terms of loan to the United Kingdom, and will not be able to do so for some time. I should think the situation would be clarified before next session, and I anticipate that it will be necessary to have a special act authorizing financial arrangements with the United Kingdom.
2S95

Export Credits Insurance
As the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario says, that is a matter that is more important than our dealings with any other country in the world, with the possible exception of the United States, our dealings with them being on a different basis entirely-the basis of -each one paying for what he buys and neither lending to the other, and so on.
It would be premature for me to say anything definite about what we intend or expect to do or can do with the United Kingdom. I agree with what the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario says; in fact, from what I recollect of what he says, I agree with it all. It is of tremendous importance that we should make satisfactory arrangements with the United Kingdom. It is of tremendous importance that we should keep trade flowing both ways with them. I do not intend to deal with that, except in passing, under this bill, which is designed to authorize loans to countries other than those in the sterling area. I indicated the possibility that some parts of the sterling area might avail themselves of the privileges of this bill, and in that connection I mentioned India, but I have nothing definite in mind.
Yesterday I said-and this touches upon the point raised by the member for Muskoka-Ontario-.that in our dealings with France we had stipulated for most favoured nation treatment, and that it was a term of the agreement. I find that the matter is referred to only in correspondence between the two countries, in a letter which I wrote to the representatives of the government of France as follows:
At this time, when Canada will be assisting France to increase substantially its imports from Canada for purposes of reconstruction, and when the Canadian government hopes to see an increase in exports from France to Canada, it seems to me appropriate to suggest that Canada and France might agree to extend to one another most favoured nation treatment in commercial policy. Such action would, I think, impress upon the people both of France and of Canada our intention to develop future trade between the two countries on a mutually advantageous basis.
I went on to say that I understood the Department of External Affairs would welcome an opportunity of discussing the possibility of such action with representatives of that government at an early convenient day. The relevant passage in the reply is as follows:
As regards your suggestion concerning the most favoured nation clause, this is a question which in due course will be discussed between [DOT]the representatives of our countries, _ but in conformity with the general principles included in the lend-lease master agreement, which is well known to you, and that France has signed,
I can now assure you that-the French government will collaborate with the Canadian government in concerted action to elminate all forms of discriminatory treatment in international commerce and to the reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers.
It is true that in these loan agreements we have not tied up these countries with regard to tariff treatment or similar treatment on Canadian exports into those countries, nor do I think it would be practicable to do so. The subject matter of these loan agreements is certain goods which will be ordered for the next two or three years, and of course [DOT] we need have no worry about these goods because they are buying them and taking them into their own country. So that the question of tariff treatment of these goods is not one of indifference to us, though it need not give us any worry, inasmuch as they are borrowing money to buy the goods.
To get a long-term agreement covering other goods during a subsequent period would be a very difficult task. It would involve long commercial negotiations, and the view we have taken is that such commercial negotiations should rest on their own feet. Our policy is to seek and try to obtain reciprocal reductions in trade barriers. The concessions that we would make would be tariff reductions, and the concessions we would seek would be tariff reductions in consideration of our reductions in tariff, without attempting the almost impossible task now of trying to tie up with these loans trade negotiations involving tariff treatment on a wide range of products coming into this country as well as going into those countries.
It may be that some principle should be kid down. In fact, principles were laid down in our mutual aid agreements with these other countries, but apart from general principles I do not think it would be practicable to incorporate in these loan agreements trade agreements covering goods other than the goods they intend to buy with these moneys.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I perhaps gave the minister a slight misunderstanding of what was in my mind. I should be loath to see us tie up with individual agreements, because, if I understand tariff matters rightly, every time you enter into a bilateral agreement with some country it raises difficulties in relation to the broad question of multilateral trade, which seems do me, frankly, the only solution for this country. I wish to reiterate a point I made a few minutes ago. I have been disturbed to find that apparently we have regarded ourselves as nothing more than interested spectators of
Export Credits Insurance

what has been going on at Washington. To me, we are so vitally concerned in this that I have never been able to feel that we were merely interested spectators.
I inferred from what the minister said that we had nobody actually sitting in at the Washington conference. I had thought that we had some economic observers, and I hoped that they were more than observers because I have always felt that we Canadians ought to be able to do more to bring Britain and the United States together than anybody else. We have talked a lot on that and I think with considerable justification. We have talked a lot about our influence in the world. I think we should have more influence on what is going on in Washington now. We should let it be known. If other hon. members feel as deeply concerned about what is going on in Washington as I do, I think that the house should go on record in the matter. It may be that what we say here would not fall entirely on deaf ears. We played a considerable part in the war; Britain has acknowledged that.
I think the time has come for us not to ask a quid pro quo but to try to play a very considerable part in connection with these trade negotiations which are going on. I want to make my position clear. We must have multilateral trade so that world trade will move, let us say, as freely as it did in the first decade of this century. I am not talking about free trade; that raises all kinds of difficulties. I am talking about a reasonable degree of freedom. Without it the prospect for this country is very bleak. I think we had better be specific about it. I hear people chant about full employment in a kind of incantation; they think that by repeating it we are going to get it. Well, many of the people who talk so glibly about full employment do not seem to understand the full implication of it.
I understand that yesterday someone said:
1 Why do not we take the money that it is proposed to use for these advances and use it :or social services?" The reason we are making these advances is to build up foreign trade so as to give us an income which will enable us to have social services. I hope I have not got the cart before the horse. Let us be frank about this. Let us not make fools of ourselves. Let us look at it in a realistic way and not forget the influence which I hope this country has. I suggest to the committee that there ought to be a debate on this matter in the house. If my views are the views of the members of the house then I think it is desirable that the people of Britain should know

it and know it in time, because they are not going to disregard what the people of Canada think.
I believe, and I say it again, with somewhat tiresome iteration, that multilateral trade is essential to this country. If we do not get multilateral trade we face economic reorganization. I was talking to a very competent economic friend of mine yesterday. He told me he had been discussing these matters with a man whom you might describe as an apostle of the new economic thinking. My friend asked the man to be specific and I will also be specific. Suppose we increase the consumption in this country by as much as we possibly can by internal arrangements; how much of the present wheat production will be consumed in Canada? The utmost that we can expect to consume in this country would be about twenty-five per cent of our production. If I am wrong in that, hon. gentlemen to my left will correct me. Am I wrong? If I am right, then where is the remainder of the wheat to go? If we are to have a tied-up regional world wherfe are we to export if we are not in the sterling bloc, into which incidentally we do not fit. Let anyone in the house tell me where. I want to use moderate language. If there is a bloc and all that it entails it is a serious thing for this country. I think we should omit nothing to prevent this. I do not think that a day or two devoted to this talk in parliament would be wasted. If other hon. members present have the views I hold, and to which I have been giving expression, their voice would be heard in Britain, and the views we hold would be known.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Perhaps a debate on this question would be worth while, even though hon. members do not hold the views of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. Views have interest and relevancy although they may differ. After all, if all hon. members held the same views I suppose there would be no need of a debate.
A question was raised as to the power which the government may have to make financial and trade agreements with the United King-don?. To my mind that is a very important question. I do not believe that we can settle the exact terms of that at the present moment, first because of the short time that this parliament expects to be sitting, and second because of the unsettled state of world affairs and the arrangement between ourselves and the United Kingdom. But this house should do something before we adjourn to make certain that the government has sufficient power to deal with any situations which may arise between the time of prorogation and the openi

Export Credits Insurance
ing of a new session. If .the government has that authority, then I should feel quite satisfied to leave it at that. In fact I am convinced that in any case we shall have to leave it at that, because of the factors I have indicated. I have no objection to the matter being discussed, but I think it will be left in that position.
A moment ago the hon. member raised a point in regard to the conversations going on in Washington between the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States, and indicated that Canada should have an observer at this conference. To me that appears to be a peculiar doctrine in our international affairs if Canada is an autonomous nation. While we may have ties with the United Kingdom, I am sure that those ties do not give us any right to sit in and observe what goes on between the United Kingdom and any other country with which the United Kingdom does business.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is wrong.


Angus MacInnis: All right; then I should like to hear the right view. If Canada should be sitting in on this conference, then there is no reason in the world why she should not sit in on the conference between the United Kingdom and China, the United Kingdom and Brazil, the United Kingdom and the Argentine or the United Kingdom and any other country. I have no objection to this country having observers at the conference if we are asked so to do, but I am satisfied that it would not be the proper thing for Canada to assert that we should sit in at the conference.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said he had heard someone ask this question: "Why could we not expend for social services in Canada the moneys we are now expending to promote trade with other countries?" Perhaps that version of what he heard arose out of what I said in the house yesterday. Let me first of all assure the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that I gave my wholehearted support to the export credits insurance bill and supported it, I think, on reasonable grounds. When he spoke a moment ago he said it was likely that we would be giving this money away. He then qualified that by saying that there was a possibility of our giving it away. If we are giving it away, if it is a matter of chance, is there any reason why we cannot give the same amount of money in social services to the people of Canada who need it? There is not. In the past as we looked across from Canada to some other country we have had the hope-I do not know whether we have got over it or not-that we could sell our goods there. We always looked
on those countries as a place where we could sell something. There are very fine people in China, we said, and we wondered if we could sell them something. There were very fine people in Brazil, and we wondered if we could sell them something. We always thought of them in terms of what we could sell them. That day has passed. We still have to think of them in terms of what we can sell them, but we have to think of them also in terms of what we can exchange with them in order that we may build up their economy, and by building up their economy we are assuring our prosperity and theirs. If it is not done on that basis it will not be done at all. That is what we must be concerned with from now on. As a matter of fact the old system of capitalist trade was a system which destroyed itself.
When we come to make trade arrangements and bring about freer trade with the rest of the world I am convinced that the people whom we shall find most opposed to that freer trade are the very people who are supporting the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. I have already seen signs of that in the Financial Post, in a statement to the effect that we in Canada could not expect to accept imports to pay for our exports, that the exports would have to be paid for by Canadian loans. There may be certain ways in which that can be done without giving our goods away, but if there are such ways I do not know of them. I do not believe that there are any. If we do not accept either directly or indirectly value for value for the goods which we export, then we are giving those goods away. I am in favour of discussions and debates on this matter, but there are certain fundamental facts which we shall have to keep continually in our minds while those discussions are being carried on.


Mr. QUELCH:: I find myself in accord
with what the last speaker has said. I could not help but be amazed at the implications of the statement of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. Every once in a while we hear members of the house talk about a large national income and the comparatively small population of the country. They emphasize the fact that it would be impossible for a small population to consume the total production of the country. Then invariably they bring up the question of wheat and try to make people believe that some hon. members suggest we in this country can consume our total production of wheat. Well, in the first place let us remember that the national income is only around nine billion dollars and the population around twelve million. That works out to an average income of
Export Credits Insurance

around $3,000 per family of four. Does anybody suggest that a family of four could not consume an income of $3,000 a year if they had the opportunity? Nobody suggests that we should consume all the wheat we produce, but we do believe that the people of this country can consume the imports that could be brought back to Canada in exchange for that wheat. We feel that that is the right thing to do, and we have an interest in trying to build up large foreign investments as a result of the sale of that surplus wheat, investments that can pay for losses in the future.
I quite agree that we have a moral obligation, resulting from the war, to help countries which have been overrun by the enemy. That is an entirely different question. Any contribution we make to mitigate the suffering' those people have had to endure as a result of the war should be dealt with in an entirely different way from the method adopted in this measure. I know that to a certain extent UNRRA has helped, but the operations of UNRRA have been greatly reduced since the first year it was brought into operation. Originally it was to help to rehabilitate and reconstruct certain areas, but by resolution 12, passed at Atlantic City, it was made into a straight relief organization rather than a relief and rehabilitation organization. The point I am interested in in regard to this bill is exactly how do we provide for repayment of those loans. I take it they are to be repaid in Canadian funds. Do we acknowledge the responsibility of accepting imports to provide the people with Canadian funds to pay the bill? There is a joint obligation. There is no use in giving another country credit in Canada to buy our goods unless we are also prepared to accept credit later in their country to buy their goods. I agree that we need multilateral agreements, but there is nothing to prevent us from trading our credit for the credit of another country on a multilateral basis. The important point is that there should be trade balances. All nations should try to balance their trade. You cannot balance trade by merely balancing the money resulting from the overdrafts as suggested by Bretton Woods. Bretton Woods in reality is nothing more than merely a device to try to bring about balances of payment by having large scale overdrafts. It is interesting to know what is going to happen when each country has exceeded its quota by two hundred per cent.
I should like to know from the minister what main point of disagreement there was
tMr. Quelch.]
between the Department of Finance and Professor Keynes when he was in this country. A good deal of publicity was given to the fact that the main point of disagreement was that England wanted to have the right to repay with her exports whatever loans she got from Canada; in other words, that England was interested only in getting goods from this country that we would be willing to take payment for by accepting imports from England. I think everybody will recognize that that is a sound basis for trade. I should like to know from the minister whether or not that was one of the main points of argument.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, there was no point of disagreement. Certainly that matter was not up for discussion at all.


Victor Quelch: It was given prominence in the press.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know; I cannot help that.


Mr. HACKETT:: Will the minister say whether or not Canada did participate in the negotiations which have been going on in Washington between the United States and Great Britain, and whether or not we had somebody observing those negotiations?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. The negotiations at Washington are not trad? negotiations; they are financial negotiations. We had no observer present. We were not there because we were not invited to be there. Those were financial negotiations btween two countries, just as we are carrying on negotiations, on a much smaller scale, of course, with other countries at which we have no other observers present.


John Thomas Hackett: If we can rely upon the press, those negotiations involved trade. In any event it is astonishing to most people who know of the close relationship which has existed between Britain, the United States and Canada, to learn that we were not present at negotiations which may have a far-reaching effect upon our trade and our whole economic welfare. The hon. member for Vancouver East suggested that inasmuch as Canada is an autonomous country there was no reason for its being present at negotiations between two other autonomous countries. Well, that is a general proposition which may be defended in a general way.
I submit that when the relationship is that which has existed between this country and Great Britain, when we have pledged our future in support of a trade upon which our very lifeblood depends, it is not satisfactory to learn that these negotiations have been

Export Credits Insurance
going on without our knowledge and may be terminated to our utter detriment and undoing.
Does the minister not consider that Canada's interests are such that it should be intimated to the high contracting parties that we should be heard before any definite conclusions are arrived at? If we cannot export our wares, if we cannot export our wheat, then truly a blight will fall on the prosperity and welfare of this country. Our friends to my left, the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Acadia, make some reference to the principles to which they give adherence. That is their right and privilege, but the world at the present time is organized under a different system, and for the present-


Angus MacInnis: The world at the present time is not organized at all.


John Thomas Hackett: It is possible that we
may be on the fringe of chaos, but that is no reason to find fault with those who are attempting to redeem us from that situation. When there is in the offing a trade treaty which may upset the welfare, the prosperity and the influence of Canada, Canada should be represented when the negotiations are in progress. We hear so much about friendship, we hear so much about community of interest throughout the world, and yet if we are to believe the press, negotiations which may be vital to our existence have been going on in the capital of a friendly power between friendly powers and allies, and we are not consulted. There has been an oversight somewhere. I am inclined to place the blame on the doorstep of the government whose privilege and duty it is to watch over the destiny and welfare of Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, there has been no oversight whatever on the part of the government. Canada's views with regard to trade are well known. They are well known as the result, of public statements by this government and they are well known as a result of representations made to the British government, of which I think the United States government is well aware. I want to emphasize what I said before. These negotiations that are going on in Washington are financial negotiations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister deny that while they may have started as financial negotiations they went on and became trade negotiations? I was credibly informed, and I think it was stated in the press, that subsequent to the .beginning of the financial negotiations British trade experts had been brought out.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know whether that is so or not, but I am satisfied that no trade negotiations of any consequence in which Canada has an interest will go on without Canada being a participant. We have no power to bore our way into discussions between the United States and the United Kingdom. Australia has the same right that we have; South Africa has the same right; New Zealand has the same right; many other countries have exactly the same rights. Those autonomous dominions which are part of the sterling area, I was going to say had a greater interest financially in the negotiations than we have. This is not a conference of a number of nations; it is financial negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United States.
With regard to our trade views, with regard to the desirability of multilateralism as contrasted with bilateralism, the desirability of keeping world tariffs low and of eliminating or avoiding the imposition of quotas and embargoes and exchange controls which prevent the flow of trade, our position has been stated repeatedly to the United Kingdom, both to delegations that came here and publicly. The . delegation that went to Washington came to Ottawa first. We cannot properly do anything more than we are doing at the present time.
There may be a lot of nervous people around who are afraid that the United Kingdom is going to sell us down the river. I do not expect that they will, but if they do, then we shall have to adapt ourselves to that situation. We cannot run around outside a closed door down therd clamouring to be let in to say something about a deal that is being made between the United Kingdom and the United States.


John Thomas Hackett: The door should not be closed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let us consider what our position is. We have to act with a fair measure of self-respect and dignity in these matters, and with some regard to usage and propriety.


Air. GLADSTONE:: Mr. Chairman, I think it might be helpful if we changed the setting at Washington just for a moment. Suppose this conference were between Russia and the United States. Would either of those countries look with favour upon Brazil or China or Canada or South Africa or any other country sitting in on their conference? It does not seem to me that Canada is in any different position with respect to this present
Export Credits Insurance

conference than if the conference were between the United States and any other country.
Referring to one other aspect of the situation that has been dealt with, namely, this credit of $750,000,000, I rather view it in this way. Supposing a private individual who was in difficulty and hard circumstances arranged a loan from a friend. It would not be expected that that loan would be paid back immediately. The loan would be made for the purpose of tiding him over for a period. Then when he had recovered himself through his own efforts he might be able to resume repayments. This is exactly what our attitude should be with respect to the credits we grant at this time, not only to Great Britain and France but to various other countries. We should not expect that they will be able to give us goods immediately in return for the goods we supply them. As they are able to rebuild themselves in the years to come we hope that they will be able to repay the loan, either in goods or in cash. I simply suggest that this is a measure which will help out those nations in the meantime. We all realize that the future welfare of the world depends upon the prosperity not only of our own nation but of all other nations.


Mr. FRASER:: I do not think that any member of the house said that the credits should be paid back at once, as suggested by the hon. member-none in this group anyway; far from it.


Robert William Gladstone: Not in your group, but it was suggested in another part of the house that almost immediately we should receive goods in return for*our exports.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think the main concern at the present time is that we protect the interests of the Canadian worker and farmer. That is what we have to think about, in granting these loans to other countries. But I rose to ask a question. On November 22 I asked the following question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on what Premier Attlee said when he was here on Monday, namely, that it was not true that His Majesty's government in Great Britain had told the Canadian government that Canada could do business with the United Kingdom and the sterling area only if they erected plants there. I would ask what information the Department of Trade and .Commerce has ' in regard to the United Kingdom refusing to grant import licences to ship Canadian goods to the United Kingdom.
I think this question should be answered before we dispose of this bill. That is the way I feel about it.

Mr. MacIvINNON: I stated in reply that certain representations were being made by this government to the United Kingdom government. That has been done but so far we have received no reply. When we receive the information I shall be able to make a statement to the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On November 23, the following day, the minister said:
I wish to advise the house that at the very earliest opportunity I intend to make a statement on the question raised by the hon. member for Peterborough West, which is attracting a great deal of attention not only in the house but throughout Canada generally. More completely to inform the house upon the situation, certain communications are being carried on, and just as soon as they can be brought to finality I propose to make a statement to the house.


Mr. MacKINNON:: That is still the
situation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think the minister will agree that it is important that we should have a definite understanding with Great Britain before this bill goes through. I personally suggest that we pass only part of the bill now and let the rest stand over until next session.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have tried repeatedly to make it clear that we do not intend to use this bill for the purpose of making loans to Great Britain. I do not see why the hon. gentleman connects the two matters.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The reason I connect them is this. If we do not know where we stand with Great Britain, we certainly do not know where we stand with any other country.


Mr. FULTON:: I wish to refer to a question I raised yesterday after the minister had made a general statement op the resolution and intimated that it was not contemplated to use the extended provisions of this act to conclude agreements within the sterling area. I asked the minister if he would state or give the house some indication of what he had in mind with regard to restoring trade relations between Canada and other empire countries exclusive of Great Britain. I had in mind particularly Australia and New Zealand. The minister in his statement had made a reference to India. This whole question is tied up closely, I feel, with the discussion which has taken place here this morning on the economic negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United States. The minister attempted to make the point that Canada should not be running around outside a closed door, and he said that Australia and New Zealand had not asked to be included in those negotiations.

Export Credits Insurance
But Canada is in an entirely different position from Australia and New Zealand, which are in the sterling bloc. Canada, while not definitely tied to the dollar bloc, has largely a dollar economy, but at the same time we are very much concerned in and closely allied with the sterling bloc, and I think we should be consulted. As the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario has said, if we are not consulted we should make our views known in the negotiations that are being carried on between the sterling bloc and the dollar bloc, because we are in a peculiar dual position. The minister put us in a wrong position when he said that we should not run around outside a closed door. Neither Britain nor the United States would put us in that position; indeed it exists only in the minister's mind. He should give a fair answer to the representations that have been made on this subject.


Mr. JACKMAN:: This bill is of great importance. In involves $650,000,000, in addition to the $100,000,000 already set up under the Export Credits Insurance Act. That $650,000,000 is an amount larger than our total pre-war budget, and yet this measure comes up for consideration late in the session and we are expected to pass upon it in very short order. It is impossible in such a short time, or by the methods at present adopted, to give matters of this financial magnitude the consideration they deserve.
The minister said that the Washington conference was largely a financial conference. 'Finance is but the bookkeeping of trade, and if we are to believe the many dispatches which have appeared in the newspapers in regard to the conference, now long drawn out, in Washington between the British and the Americans, trade certainly has entered into their discussions in- very large measure. As the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario have said, we in Canada are in a peculiar position, because, while not of the sterling area but more largely of the dollar area, we are greatly concerned with the ability of the sterling area to take our goods and to pay for them with goods in return.
Some statements have been made in-regard to whether or not we should have bilateral or multilateral trade. I believe what we need in this country is trade, and whether we get it under one form or another is not of particular concern. What we need is the ability to make goods, to provide jobs for our people, and to have those goods bought and paid for by other countries where necessary and that we get something in return. One thing we have surely learned in the last twenty-five years is
that we cannot receive money in return. The only way that a foreign country can pay for Canadian goods is by our taking goods in return, although that may not be by a pure bilateral process but through a three-cornered movement or otherwise.
Mention has also been made of the fact that perhaps Canada could use some of the labour and materials which will go into the export of goods which will be financed for the time being through this act by using these goods for our own needs. I believe in foreign trade; Canada, as the fourth largest foreign trader in the world, must rely to a large extent upon that means, for our whole economy -our food economy particularly-and our natural resources must find an outlet for the time being in other great population centres of the world, and we must rely therefore on foreign trade; yet foreign trade is never the equal of domestic trade. If we can build up domestic trade, trade which we can to some extent control, we are much better off. Let us make no mistake 'about the bill now before us. It is to finance trade largely with countries outside the sterling area which have been the largest consumers of our products, and which have bought far more from us than we have ever bought from them; yet they were able to balance their accounts through their other world trading. If there are at the present time unsatisfied needs of the Canadian people, and we are now suggesting that we should develop exports in certain directions, and we do not know whether those exports will be of a permanent nature or whether this measure is a mere stop-gap, let us carefully consider in this committee whether or not some of the man-power and materials which would go to the furnishing of these goods might not be better applied, not only in the short run but in the long run, to the production of more housing in this country, to satisfy more of the needs of the people of Canada, and to raising their standard of living.
As I have said, domestic trade is infinitely better than foreign trade. We of course must rely to a large extent on foreign trade, but where we can put the emphasis on domestic trade let us do it rather than encourage stop-gap foreign trade, if that is what this should be.
To revert to my original topic, while we may not have been invited to sit in or to be a partner in the British-American conference at present going on in Washington, and we cannot demand entrance, yet I believe that if suitable representations were made we would not find the door so closed that we should not know what was going on there. The discussions have a most direct bearing on the future
Export Credits Insurance

of this country and on jobs for our people. If we are to grant large credits to foreign countries to take our goods for the time being, what are we to get in return? Shall we obtain any assurances that they will give us longterm trading agreements to take certain of our export surpluses, or are we simply going to find, after we have given them a certain amount to tide over the present time, that we have accomplished nothing, whereas we might have been satisfying the wants of our own people?
I point out that this bill is not, as is the UNRRA bill, a contribution for the relief of distressed areas in Europe. This, as I understand it, is purely a business bill having to do with trade relationships. If we find that we cannot export so much of our present and pre-war surpluses as formerly, it will be necessary gradually, and with as little hardship as possible, to reorientate our own economy and provide more things which our own people can use, rather than continue to have these great export surpluses which we now have in certain commodities.
It is very difficult for us, with all the duties we have as members of this house, to give to this measure the consideration to which it is entitled. I believe that we must apply ourselves to this problem, because of the incursion of parliament and government into the activities of the people, their daily lives and their whole economy depending upon government action to some extent, for direction at least. How different that is from the old days, when everyone believed that the less governments had to do with business the better. Now, every party in any parliamentary system has taken upon itself the responsibility for job creation and for the prosperity of the country. We must realize that our duties have changed in nature, and it is about time we changed our methods of procedure. We cannot possibly give this measure the consideration it requires if we are to do it in the formal body of a committee of the house or in the house itself. We must adopt more of the United States system of committees, if you like-perhaps not in its extended form; but we must be able to have before us those who are experts on these particular subjects, those who attend conferences with other nations with whom we aj-e dealing, so that we may have a fair idea of what all the implications are and not just hit the high spots, which often is as much as is done in the house upon the most important measures. I would therefore suggest to the minister that consideration be given to bringing these matters before a suitable committee so that full representations may be

made before that body, and adequate knowledge may be had before we come in this house to discuss such important measures.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I did not agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East when he said he did not think Canada ought to be in the capacity of observer in connection with what is going on at Washington at the present time. It is definitely my belief that we ought to have the best observers down there that we possibly can have, because of what is happening to-day, because of all the influences which are being brought to bear from all over, aiming at the disintegration of the British empire through the breaking up of the system of inter-empire preferences. That system was a great advantage to Canada, and empire trading preferences are one of the things which hold the empire together. I believe it is most important that we make it clear that we are not consenting parties to the disintegration of the British empire through the breaking up of our trade arrangements. Canada is not in the sterling bloc, but individual Canadians have a tremendous number of frozen credits in the sterling bloc and they cannot do anything about it. We are therefore as much interested in the sterling bloc as we are in the dollar bloc; indeed we are more interested than any other of the' nations of the commonwealth, and therefore we ought to see to it that competent observers are watching these proceedings very closely.


Mr. GREEN:: There are one or two questions, Mr. Chairman, which I should like to direct through you to the minister about the policy with regard to export trade.
The first has to do with mutual aid. This present bill provides to a degree for the continuation of mutual aid, and there was a statement made some three days ago by the Canadian ambassador to the United States reported in the press of December 1, under the heading:
Pearson says Canada wants no settlement for mutual aid goods.
That heading may not represent accurately the statement which was made. However, the first paragraph of the report reads as follows:
Atlantic City, N.J., Nov. 30.-Canada did not allow financial consideration to interfere in making war supplies available to her fighting allies "and we don't ask now for any settlement for goods given under mutual aid and used by others to fight for us", L. B. Pearson, Canadian ambassador in Washington, said to-night.
I think the minister should state whether or not that announcement coincides with government policy. Also he should explain to the committee whether or not it is ex-

Export Credits Insurance
pected that further sums will be required for guarantees or loans to other countries apart ffom the United Kingdom and the other nations in the sterling bloc. I understood last year, when this Export Credits Insurance Act was first brought in, that the making of a guarantee or a loan to another government was only a temporary measure, that the long-range policy of the government for assisting export trade was contained in the first part of the act, which provides for export credits insurance. I have here Hansard for August 1 of last year; at that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce made this statement, as reported on page 5897:
It is the intention of the government to have part I become operative as soon as possible. Part I is essentially looking toward the carrying on of this export business in time of peace. I do not think it is necessary to wait until then for it to begin to function, and in the meantime part II will operate. Conditions during the war and possibly immediately after the war * will make it difficult for part I to become operative in a very large way during this particular period.
Then I asked:
Am I correct in saying that the basic policy of the government for increasing the export trade of Canada is to insure transactions between the Canadian exporter and the foreign importer?
Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West): Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Coldwell: Transactions as between individuals?
Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West): Yes.
That was the announcement of policy last year. I should like to know whether or not that is still the long-range policy of the government, in promoting export trade, and that this business of providing guarantees and direct loans to foreign governments is only a temporary measure to tide us over the postwar period. I think I am correct in saying that if this amendment goes through, there will then be available for promoting export trade $200 million, which can be used by way of guarantee to foreign governments; 8750 million which can be used by way of direct loan; this makes a total of $950 million; and under part I of the act, the export credits insurance provision, there will be available another $50 million, making a total of $1,000 million. The minister said in introducing the bill yesterday that at the next session there would have to be amendments made to part I of the act, and I assume that one of these amendments will be to increase the amount that can be used by way of insuring business. I ask the minister to state whether or not this is correct.


James Angus MacKinnon: As to the amendments which will likely be brought before the house at the next session, I am not able to make any definite statement now, but I do not want the hon. member for Vancouver South to misunderstand the amount of business involved in the money which is provided under part I of the act. That is simply a guarantee; there is no relation to the volume of business which is transacted under part I of the act.


Howard Charles Green: It is not a guarantee, it is insurance? Is not that what the minister means?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is insurance; it is a guarantee-


Howard Charles Green: By way of insurance.,


James Angus MacKinnon: By way of insurance. That is it exactly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to the questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South, the first question was whether what Mr. Pearson said correctly represented government policy. I should say that substantially it does. The mutual aid agreements are public documents; the reports on mutual aid have been placed before the house, and generally speaking the supplies which were sent under mutual aid are not to be paid for; they were regarded as contributions to a common cause. Some of them, such as ships, were chartered only, the ownership being retained by the Dominion of Canada, and those will be returned; and there was the right also reserved in the agreements to claim the return of certain other property.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Pearson's statement appears to be waiving that right to claim a return. That was why I asked the minister about it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does it? I did not understand that it did at all. I understood from everything I heard there that Mr. Pearson was simply saying that Canada did not expect settlement for the goods delivered under mutual aid. I think that under the lend-lease legislation of the United States the president has reserved the right to require certain return advantages, or something of that kind. Well, we had the power to do that under our mutual aid legislation, too, but it is largely an empty right. Here we are, under these export agreements, seeking to sell goods, not to get goods from other countries now; it is the other countries which need the goods, rather than ourselves. So, if I understood correctly the citations from Mr. Pearson's speech, I should say that they substantially represent government policy.

Export Credits Insurance

With regard to the next question whether this policy of loans by the government to foreign governments is a temporary or permanent policy, it certainly is intended to be a temporary policy. Part I embodies a permanent policy; it sets up an institution, a corporation which will continue and which will function indefinitely.


Howard Charles Green: Part I is really the long-range policy of the government to promote export trade.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, one of them only.


Howard Charles Green: So far as this bill is
concerned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: So far as this bill is concerned, yes. Indirectly perhaps the loans will promote export trade in the future. That is, they enable countries to reconstruct themselves and convert themselves into healthy trading units. But the policy of lending I would not expect to go on indefinitely or as a permanent policy at all, and I do not know of any money which will be required beyond ' the amount asked for in this bill, for any country except the United Kingdom.


Howard Charles Green: This bill is meant to cover all possible loans?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is meant to. I cannot say that we shall not be back some time, but we do not know of any other requirements that we will have for export loans to any country except the United Kingdom. We are providing or we are asking the house to provide us with enough money to cover everything reasonably in prospect, with a small margin, in that $750 million; that is S650 million additional. Is there any other question?


Howard Charles Green: Will there be provision made in the amendments next year to the first part of the act that a larger sum of money than $50 million can. be used for insurance of export trade?


James Angus MacKinnon: In answer to the last question of the hon. member for Vancouver South, I would say that at the present time there is no evidence that a larger amount of money is required under part I of the act. But, to supplement the answer I gave a few minutes ago, I should like to point out that it was found, in the working out of part I of the act, that certain amendments were necessary. There were half a dozen of these, and they were put through by order in council P.C. 5845, which has been tabled in the house. These amendments at least will be introduced by way of legislation next session.


Howard Charles Green: How much business has been done up to date under part I of the act?


James Angus MacKinnon: I could not give that information offhand, but it will run into very large figures. I think the policies run from a few dollars up to two or three million dollars.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has no idea
of the approximate total?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have not the figures before me. I might get that information later.


Howard Charles Green: I should also like to ask
the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether consideration has been given to the type of goods Canada would have to be prepared to import from these countries to which loans are to be made. I think the principal countries are France, Norway, Netherlands, Netherlands East Indies, Belgium, the U.S.S.R. and China. I presume the Department of Trade and Commerce has given pretty careful consideration to what products we would expect to get from those nations. Everyone' in the committee admits that if we are to get payment at all a good deal of it will have to be by way of goods from these countries. Can the minister tell us to-day what products it is expected we will have to take? I mean the main products; I do not want them all.


James Angus MacKinnon: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I have not the details before me which would enable me to answer that question, but I can say that in our negotiations with the people who have come to Canada in connection with obtaining these credits, our people \ have held discussions. We have considered what goods they were anxious to have, and in most cases those people had lists of the things they wanted to buy. In some cases we had to tell them we could not give them what they wanted because we had not those certain goods in surplus supply. In other cases we were able to tell them we had the goods which we could let them have. In other cases we had to try and keep them down somewhat in their requirements. In other cases we suggested that they might, be able to use other goods we had in surplus supply for export. I may add that conversations are going on continually in the recently established import division of the Department of Trade and Commerce, in connection with what goods can be profitably and economically brought in from the various countries with which we are hopeful of extending our trade.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will agree,
I think, that this is a very important feature of the bill. We are loaning huge sums of


Export Credits Insurance
money to other countries. We will have to take back goods from those countries for at least a portion of those loans; otherwise in effect we will be giving away this money to these other nations. Surely it is the duty of the Department of Trade and Commerce to consider very carefully in connection with this whole transaction and in connection with this bill what are the main types of goods we must take from each of these other countries. There are not so many of those countries, only six or seven and I would ask the minister to let the committee have a more detailed statement on that point. Both the committee and the country are entitled to that information. The Canadian people should have the opportunity to size up this whole policy and to decide whether or not they are in favour of it, and those people who are going to be hurt by the importation of these goods should know ahead of time what to expect. We hope no one will be hurt, but probably someone will be hurt financially by those imports. That information is of the utmost importance, and I would ask the minister to get it and make a statement to the house before this bill goes through.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to point out that we do not necessarily take imports to the same amount as the instalments due us.


Howard Charles Green: I realize that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All the other country needs to do is export goods or services to somebody, and perhaps get the gold with which to pay us. The hon. gentleman is asking us to cover our plans in regard to imports in some cases for the next thirty years, and I do not think we can give him that information.


Howard Charles Green: No. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has already said his department has given consideration to the type of goods that will have to be imported from the countries who have come here to ask for credits.


James Angus MacKinnon: Not under this particular legislation. It is a continuing matter in the import branch of the department, through our trade commissioners, to ascertain what goods we can profitably import from other countries with which we are dealing.


Howard Charles Green: The information would be very beneficial even if it were not tied up with this act. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said his department has considered it and that the other nations coming here to negotiate have given that information.


James Angus MacKinnon: No, they have not.
47696-183J


Howard Charles Green: That has entered into the discussions, as it naturally must; it is the businesslike thing to do. We should have a statement of the main types of goods each of these nations could export to Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is rather remotely connected with this matter. I should think all we could do would be to try and foresee the kind of imports this country will be taking from the world at large. -


Howard Charles Green: No; there are only six or seven of these countries.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But that is not necessarily the way in which these advances are going to be repaid at all. Take the case of France, for instance. France may export to a South American country and that South American country may export to us. So long as France exports to somebody we get paid. It is just a matter of compiling a list of imports.


Howard Charles Green: I know that just as well as the minister does, but I also know as he also knows that France will want to export as much as possible to Canada to help repay this loan of 8242,500,000. I should like to know what probably will be the goods France will want to export to Canada. We are stepping into a new field here. The government is either going out to give away Canadian, goods, or it is going out to promote trade between the nations. It is a new step, and the Canadian people are entitled to information of the type I suggest. I realize that it is embarrassing for the government to give that information-


James Angus MacKinnon: Not at all.


Howard Charles Green: -that they do not want the men who will have to compete with goods coming in from France, for example, to be upset about this business. But I suggest there is no reason why the Minister of Trade and Commerce should not make a statement of this kind. He has set up a division for imports, so why all the hesitation; why all the secrecy? Why can he not say we would expect such and such goods from France, largely; we would expect from the Netherlands East Indies such and such goods; we would expect this and that from the U.S.S.R., and so on. Surely this committee and the Canadian people are entitled to that information.


Angus MacInnis: I knew we would get into this business of trade pretty soon.
Export Credits Insurance


Howard Charles Green: I am not opposing it at all; I am simply asking for the information. I have not said one word to the effect that it is a bad thing. I am all for export trade, as much as anyone in this committee.


Angus MacInnis: For import trade, too?


Howard Charles Green: My province of British
Columbia depends on being able to export, it is true largely to the United Kingdom and the other parts of the commonwealth; but I think this information should be given along with the other information that has been given by the two ministers during consideration of this measure.


James Angus MacKinnon: I can assure the hon. member there is no information concerning any possible imports that is being withheld from the members of this house. On my own estimates I can be asked as to what imports we may expect from any' country in the world.


Howard Charles Green: Then why cannot the minister give that information to the committee now, for the different countries that are mentioned?


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the section carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Chairman; I want to make a comment and ask a question. My comment is 'this. I did not raise this question this morning just to waste the time of the committee; I raised it because I thought it was a very serious matter, and I still think so. I was disappointed with the minister's answer, on the whole. I was disappointed when he spoke about Great Britain selling us down the river. I assume he was not attributing any such thought to me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not greatly impressed by that, but I do not propose to press that point. Actually we have sat in on a great many matters, including the atomic bomb. The point I should like to make is this; I will answer the minister as well as I can, and I think he will agree it is a quite good answer. I am not afraid of Great Britain selling us down the river, but the British are in some mental perturbation, let us say, as to whether they can go for the joint arrangement, let us call it multilateral trade, or whether they will retire into the sterling bloc. They have been debating at Washington for weeks as to whether the offer they are going to get there will be sufficient, and my point, which I believe is a very substantial one, is this. If this thing is on balance between the United States and the United Kingdom, then what we are prepared to do might just affect the balance one way or the other. We should not just go along after the door is banged, barred and bolted and say we would have done so and so; we should be prepared to put our weight on the scales now. In spite of the minister's rebuke, which I do not quite take at its full value, I suggest again that if this thing is still on balance, as it appears to be, it might not be too late even yet for us to indicate what we are prepared to do.
That brings me to another point. I quite realize the government has gotten into the habit of thinking they do not need the endorsation of the house, that they can go ahead and do things themselves. Up to a point that has been perfectly proper, though some of us think that attitude has been continued perhaps too long. But now I come to this. If I am right, as I think I am, in saying that our contribution might just tip the scales, I believe we should make known now what that contribution may be. I inferred from what the minister said that we were waiting to see the conclusion at which they arrived, but then it may be too late.
Now before I sit down I am going to direct a question to the minister. I am still uncertain in regard to an answer the minister made,

Export Credits Insurance
because if he is correct it seems that what the newspapers have been saying is all wrong. I understood the minister, to say that these negotiations, these pourparlers in Washington, were purely financial. Am I correct?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is what I understand them to be.	*


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understood they started out in that way but my understanding is that long ago they began to be trade negotiations. Well, I am not suggesting that we should be undignified, but I am suggesting that the Minister of Finance of this country is a person with considerable standing in any negotiations between these countries, and I am suggesting that if he had wanted to be represented at those negotiations he could have been. The minister has told us the British people were here and got our views before they went down to Washington. To me , that is not the same thing at all, and I entirely refuse to accept the suggestion that we could not do anything in respect of this. Indeed to some extent the minister has accepted my view by saying that we indicated our position while the British people were here en route. Now I want the minister, if he would be kind enough, to find out whether these reports we have been reading in the newspapers are wrong and there have been no trade negotiations, or whether they are right and he was wrong a few minutes ago. In the next place, and perhaps this is important, I should like the minister to tell us whether in fact there have been economic observers from the Department of External Affairs who have been perhaps not sitting in, which is a rather equivocal phrase, but who have been in the neighbourhood, who have known what is going on and who perhaps have been consulted off the record.
I think that is a fair question to ask, for this reason. I have a; feeling, and I am quite unrepentant in this, that the minister's own department might have had more to do with this than apparently it has. My final suggestion, and again I am unrepentant, is that the part Canada is going to play in this might well be decisive; that it should be known, and that it should not be decided by the cabinet while parliament is prorogued but that we should have a chance to discuss it now. And I repeat my further suggestion that if I am right in thinking the contribution we make may be decisive it should have not only the sanction of this house but should have all the publicity it can get. I am not suggesting that the minister can be tied down to this or that detail. I have enough sense to know that if they are going to deal it
has to be in a large way. But I do suggest the government might still come to this house and discuss this all-important matter before we prorogue, because if it is as important as I think it is an extra day or two would not matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend says Canada should perhaps inform the United Kingdom what we are prepared to do, and that might tip the scale. Will he tell us what he means by "what we are prepared to do"?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I understand it from the reports of competent observers in London, the British are troubled. They feel that the terms of the advances that have been proposed are-well, the word "harsh" has been used, and another word I have forgotten. At any rate the report is that they are in some doubt as to whether the proposals made by the United States are adequate. I am suggesting that if they had proposals of a similar kind from Canada-because after all ours are of a very similar kind-it might have a very profound effect. The dispatch I quoted said they were seriously considering in London whether they would go it alone. I think the phrase was. To go it alone, as I understand it, means the sterling bloc, and what that implies for us.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then I want to ask one other question. What is it the hon. gentleman fears may be happening which will be prejudicial to the future of Canada?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: A dispatch, again from a competent observer, suggested that if the British were not satisfied with the termination of these negotiations they might go it alone, to repeat the phrase I used a moment ago; and m3' strong recollection is that one of the things this might very well mean was that Britain would not enter into the Bretton Woods agreement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then it is not trade negotiations the hon. gentleman is concerned about at all; is that, right? I am trying to grasp the hon. gentleman's idea.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me answer that question by saying it is a debating point, because we all know Bretton Woods, while a financial measure, is really ancillary to trade; it will stand or fall eventually by trade; and after all I really do not feel that the answer the minister has given is a substantial answer at all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to get somewhere with this thing. I understand that the suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite is that trade negotiations are going on. I said that
Export Credits Insurance

to the best of my knowledge they were financial negotiations. I am told' that trade experts went to Washington, but whether that was for the purpose of this conference or not I do not know. Trade negotiations are coming on, and they are coming on pretty fast, but they are not these negotiations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Unless the newspaper people are all wrong, such important trade * questions as empire preference agreements have been under consideration. The newspaper people say also, and we believe them, that pressure has been, put on that as one of the conditions of this loan from the United States the empire agreements are to be played down. Personally I am not arguing against that for the moment. If we can have multilateral trade, that to me is the thing, but surely it cannot be said that what I have been talking about is not a substantial matter. After all, what Britain needs will come mostly from the United States and Canada, and she is to have valuable assistance in the way of credits and trade arrangements and what not. As I understand it, a whole field of that kind has been under consideration and has been explored at Washington. To split it up seems to me to be meaningless.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Great Britain knows exactly what our views are with reference to preference and tariffs.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They should know what we are prepared to do in the way of granting credits to assist.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We do not know what we are prepared to do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Should not our government know?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Because we must see what arrangements she makes with the United States. The hon. gentleman's view is all distorted. In proportion the deal with the United States is so much greater, so much more important, of so much more magnitude than anything that would be done with the Dominion of Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister could have said that our contribution to the war in 1940 was small.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.

The house resumed at three o'clock.



NATIONAL EMERGENCY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of bill No. 15, to confer certain powers upon the governor in council during the national emergency following the war.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temi&-couata):	Mr. Speaker, in the first place I
desire to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and the other members of the cabinet who have discussed this important matter with the representatives of the provinces. It is a very great problem that they had to face, and they have come to a certain compromise regarding the distribution of powers between the dominion and the provinces. The subject has been argued, discussed and debated for a long time. Some jurists hold the view that as the jurisdiction of the dominion on the one hand and of the provinces on the other are both exclusive, it is impossible for the dominion and the provinces to come to an arrangement on matters which are not already provided for by the British North America Act, and that any change in the distribution of those powers should be ratified by Westminster; in other words, that the agreement with the provinces to abandon part of their jurisdiction to Ottawa and the decision of Ottawa to abandon part of its jurisdiction to the provinces is null and void unless ratified by Westminster. I shall not argue that point. All I shall say is that I am sure that my colleagues realize the tremendous importance of this legislation.
During the war parliament did not function as it used to before. Its powers were delegated to various bodies and individuals, and the law of the land most of the time was no longer the enactments by both houses of parliament with the sanction of the king; it was instead just an order. Naturally conditions were most difficult, and we were told that it was necessary to act in that way because matters of urgency might arise at any moment. That was a very good explanation in some ways.
I should like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as a state of war was declared between this country and certain countries of Europe the member for Temiscouata wrote to the Prime Minister to inform him of the increase in the price of sugar which was then taking place. The reply was that the government

National Emergency
would see to that matter, and the government intended to do it in a way that is unknown to most members of the house. The first intention of the government was to have it done by two members of parliament under the jurisdiction of the then minister of national defence, the Hon. Norman Rogers. Mr. Rogers called two members of parliament to form a committee of internal security,' the purpose of which was many-sided. It was to look after dominion-provincial relations, food, commodity prices, protection against air attacks, and finally a survey of the press and public opinion. It meant that the government wanted to have all those matters looked after by a couple of members of parliament. The only trouble was that the job was too tremendous for any two members of parliament to be able to do. But that was the offer. Those two members declined-they were to be paid a living allowance in virtue of an order in council passed under the War Measures Act-because it was impossible for any two or even three human beings to deal with matters of such magnitude. But the government should be given credit for the offer that was made at that time for the settlement of those difficulties, and also for foreseeing the inflation which would have resulted if no action had been taken by the government at that time to control prices. It was wise to do it, and the government showed foresight. To govern is to foresee, and the government showed foresight by doing its best to prevent inflation.
On the other hand there is always the question of responsibility and control. I remember a long time ago, after the last war, when Sir Henry Thornton was appointed as the big boss of the Canadian National Railways, there was a certain element of the Canadian Press which suggested that Sir Henry should be free from politics, that he should be left alone to earn- on his job as the big boss of the Canadian National Railways. I knew Sir Henry Thornton very well. He was undoubtedly a great man, but he needed the control and supervision of parliament to do what he would have been able to accomplish under wise guidance. A small number of people who represented the yellow spirit of a few individuals in the management of the railway objected to it and told the government. "Now that you have appointed Sir Henry, leave him alone"; and that feeling has continued to exist, even in this house, when we have been told that some people were doing so well and were such great men that we had to give them the reins although they were not responsible to the people.
We have a responsibility to the people. Each member of parliament is a shock-absorber
for all the policies of the government. We are in contact with the people. We meet them every time we go home. They come to us, they tell us their troubles, and then we come here to try to redress wrongs.
Since the institution of parliament there have been two ways for us to correct wrongs. One is by the sponsoring of public legislation by private members, the other is through the control of expenditure. During the war members of parliament were not allowed to present public legislation. Some public bills were moved by private members but they did not go further than the second reading, and all the initiating of legislation, I mean regular legislation, passed by both houses and sanctioned by royal authority, was left to the government.
With regard to the control of expenditure, I have complained many a time about the shape of the public accounts, suggesting that they should include the details of all expenditure, because it is much better for the country when all expenditure is brought to light in detail, even though nobody reads the public accounts-and each one of us must confess that reading them is not as interesting as reading the latest novel. But so long as the figures are given and all the information is available to all persons, not only members of parliament but everybody, those who have made that expenditure are much more careful. Seldom is crime committed- in daylight; it is the darkness of the night that favours crime; and the same principle applies with reference to information which is lacking in the public accounts. We were told that so much work was done on account of what is properly called war effort that it would have been impossible for the king's printer to publish details of all accounts. Here again we fought for detailed accounts, and I pay homage and respect to my hon. friends the members for Davenport and Broadview for their assistance in the matter.
Well now, there is a great distinction between the settlement of dominion and provincial taxation and the prevention of an oncoming crisis in this country. Even though the arrangement which has been reached by the dominion cabinet ministers and the provincial cabinet ministers is splendid, and I assume that it is, and that they have all shown good will, for which I congratulate them, and have done their best to achieve results, I do not see how the proposal which is contained in the corrected bill No. 15 will prevent the crisis which we are bound to expect in this country, on account of the lack of purchasing power of gradually increasing numbers of unemployed. When a man manufactures a
National Emergency
[Stage Direction]
suit, a pair of boots, an electrical fixture or anything else, he applies his skill to do it and to do it well, and he should earn enough money to be able to purchase adequately, because he is entitled to the comforts of life as much as anybody else. If we consider the tactics of some of our large employers we may wonder whether they will not kill the goose which has been laying the golden eggs, by keeping their men at work for too many hours and preventing others from securing work. It is a great problem. As a rule, now, the hours of employment are ten per day. On the other hand there are man who do not work, who have been let go, who may get something for a limited time from the unemployment insurance fund but whose future is far from being bright. They are greatly concerned because their skill is not being put to use at the present time, Others, too, may be laid off and increase the numbers of unemployed. How long will they be out of work? Well, it is the secret of God. But here our duty is to see to it that the wheels of business in this country turn regularly so that the least possible number of Canadian citizens shall be affected by the period of transition which we have reached.
It is very easy to paint a rosy picture of the future. It can be done when someone tries to convince himself by auto-suggestion that conditions will improve. Sir, I may be contradicted in some quarters but I believe that those who are the true representatives of the people are precisely the men who have been elected by the people to enact legislation for the benefit of the people at large. Those men are found here and in the other legislative assemblies of this country, and their duty is not always to consider the accomplished fact. Their duty is to proceed exactly as the government did at the start of the war and even before the war began, with regard to anticipated inflation. The duty of all public men to-day is to prevent the crisis that otherwise will inevitably come. I do not wish to pose as a prophet of evil; not at all. But it is enough to listen to people in all walks of life to know that their hearts are not full of that joy that one could expect after we have won a victory over the common enemy. There is worry in every home; we do not find the exuberant joy that we saw everywhere after the first war. Of course, in many countries in Europe the war is still on. It is the same in Asia; the fires of hate are not yet extinguished throughout the world. Far from it. So much so, that in the bill I hold in my hand it is mentioned that the war is not over. Fortunately it was changed in the new draft Think of it, sir.

After V-E day in May last and V-J day in August the war is still on-most extraordinary. But fortunately it was decided by the dominion-provincial conference that the war will be ovbr on the first of January.
I have some suggestions to offer before I resume my seat, and one of them has reference to the responsibility of members of parliament. We have not only a responsibility for answering the letters that we receive, which is one of our duties, and for acting honestly and fairly with all our electors, which is another of our duties. Our task is much more than that. Foresight is not the exclusive possession of the government. Members from all over the country are here to inform the government about disturbances that may occur in their far distant constituencies. They are here to make suggestions.
My first suggestion is that we put an end to the crisis of irresponsibility. I do not mean ministerial irresponsibility, but clerical irresponsibility, which has been the curse of the country since the beginning of the war. I am ready to give credit to some men who have been at the controls. I am ready to say they have done their best. But my contention is that they would have done much better had they been submitted to the control of parliament and had they not been called supermen, men who cannot make a mistake. With the problem of irresponsibility we have that of infallibility, and in this case it means that those who are not responsible to the people are infallible while those who are responsible to the people are fallible. The latter proposition is just as true as the former is not. We are fallible, of course, but the others are fallible too, and I do not see why members of parliament who are responsible to the electors for all the errors and mistakes of these men should always receive the blame.
We can make friendly suggestions for the improvement of things in this country, but they are always and inevitably turned down, and they are turned down because they come from members of parliament. If any member of parliament who makes a suggestion were a dollar a year man he would be considered a genius. It is precisely because the member of parliament is elected by the people and is responsible to the people that he is not accorded the same degree of confidence and respect as the others are.
It cannot go on like that. I am for the Tudor. system of government and not for the Stuart system. You remember very well, sir, the difference between parliaments under the Tudors and under the Stuarts. The Tudor

National Emergency
kings were friendly to parliament and the Stuarts were not. And how did that struggle end? By the triumph of parliament.
My impression, sir, is that we live now in an atmosphere of illusion. Members of parliament work hard. They are in committees early in the morning and sometimes they sit there during the afternoon, and their work on those committees may be done very conscientiously, leaving them not a moment of leisure. But what purpose does a committee serve? What purpose does any committee serve here as things are at present constituted? Members are bound to make decisions, because if they do not reach a decision there is no agreement and there is no report. And when a report comes in it is put on the shelf to wait for future generations.
My impression of what is done by members of parliament is that each of us could be compared to a horse on a disconnected treadmill. The horse walks all the time on the treadmill but does not advance one inch. It is covered with sweat, but the mill is disconnected and nothing is done, although the horse has .the illusion of accomplishing something. I do not say that to deprecate the work of members of parliament. I have the greatest admiration for my colleagues, but I find that in spite of the enormous quantity of work that is done by each of us we do not achieve the results which we should get, because perhaps we are not taken sufficiently into the confidence of the government in the drafting of policies of national concern.
I do not think that the present system of various boards will help to prevent a dangerous state of affairs in this country. To a certain degree it is a question of taxation. It is not so much a question of restriction as the foremost question of adjusting difficulties between capital and labour in order to settle them.
We are about to contribute to the establishment of an international peace court somewhere in Europe or in Canada. Why not have our own peace court here, a peace court composed of men who are outside of the government and outside of the civil service, men who are free from big business and who will not represent classes?-because the representation of classes inevitably brings about a clash. What we need is the representation of the nation, as we represent it here in parliament. We need a body really independent of government, a body which is not a stool-pigeon of the government or the servant of the government; a body which is entirely free. This body should be composed of men of the soundest judgment, men who will be able to 47696-184
deal with the question of the fluctuations of labour, of wages and even of salaries. It should be a kind of tribunal on which the dominion government as well as the provinces can be represented. They should represent the nation for the benefit of the nation.
There are serious-minded people who think that should be done at the earliest possible moment. Perhaps it is not too early to do it now. Sometimes I have spoken of things that were not believed when I said them, but I now ask my colleagues to think about realities, to think about the things as they are now, and also their trend. I am sure that they agree with me that something has to be done to meet unusual conditions. Moreover it is impossible for any government to find jobs for all the boys returning from overseas. It is impossible for the government to keep in their former jobs all the men who have been working in munitions plants. There are many things that should be done; there are many wrongs that should be redressed. When I think of the boys of the merchant marine who have no preference in the civil service I am ashamed.
How many corrections are to be made? Suggestions may come from any member of parliament, but my suggestion to-day is (hat while this legislation may be needed at the present time, if we are to bring about lasting and favourable results we must adopt,something different at the next session of parliament. I [DOT] do not want my constituents to be the slaves of anyone for a certain number of years. The question is not so much the issuance of permits for tires or the removal of some restrictions as it is the organization of the thing that we should never have departed from-order in society. I distinctly remember that in February, 1939, at the beginning of the session before the war, I mentioned all the speeches that had been made about discipline in England, in the United States and even in Canada. Some of those people who were so strong for discipline were praising Hitler. There was an Anglican archbishop who was praising Hitler. He said that Hitler was a coming man, a man who had a policy that would benefit the world to the utmost. Of all those whom I have mentioned there was only one man who spoke of order, and the surprising thing is that he was the Minister of Finance. He spoke of order in a speech he made in New York.
I am against discipline. If we call for discipline it is because order no longer exists. Our work here should not be for the continuation of discipline of the Canadian people; it should be for the reestablishment of order, which is
[Stage Direction]
National Emergency
[Stage Direction]
the gift of God to man. The men who are not of good will in this country are very few. We must work together for the reestablishment of that order. It cannot be done in one day; it cannot be done in two days or in two months. It should be the work of the future sessions of parliament to see that that is brought about. I say to the government it will be much more important for members of parliament to meet in committee for that purpose than to waste their time discussing the extradition treaty with the United States, a horse on a disconnected treadmill.
I deeply regret that in the first place, so many of those experts do not know how to work. In the second place they lack imagination. In the third place I find that they are imbued with an exaggerated sense of importance, an importance that is attached to them by others. I do not say that to depreciate them too much, but they need control. We are here to control what is done not only by the government but by all the boards which administer Canadian business. There must be a great reform, and that reform must start in this very house, where hon. members must display their sense of proportion and give as much importance to any of their colleagues as to anyone who is not responsible to the people. It was quick and easy to depart from centuries-old tradition; it will perhaps take us a long time to come back, but this is the right way. We shall not find the right road by going farther along the wrong one. We shall . have to retrace our steps to the crossroad, find the right way and then proceed farther along it; and the right way is that which has been beaten by our forefathers. It is the way of ministerial responsibility. We have had some troubles in this country. They always occurred because the government of the day departed from the principle of ministerial responsibility.
I will not say any more for the time being, but perhaps I may do so later on.
I have spoken with great concern about the future, and those who have children will understand my feelings. Most of us are old enough; we do not know how long we will live. Perhaps we shall see the next war, perhaps not. What is to be hoped is that the next war will be put just as far as possible into the future, so that neither the living generation nor their children nor their grandchildren will see it, because when it comes it will be the end of the world. But the end of the world may not only come through the' atomic bomb. There are civil wars that are to be averted at all costs, and this is one of them. Hon. members of the House of Commons should put aside all their

political differences to consider this matter as it deserves to be considered. I hope at this time the government will be broad enough to accept some earnest suggestions offered by a veteran of parliamentary life who has at heart the welfare of his fellow citizens.
Mr. PAUL EDMOND GAGNON (Chicoutimi) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the motion now before us must once more .bring home to the Canadian people the fact that the optimistic views they had entertained when victory was achieved by our armed forces are not quite in line with the government's plans.
It is distressing to realize that the dismal wake of blood, tears, worries and troubles which the European storm has carried over this country, instead of giving way to new visions of joy and splendor, continues on its march winding and gloomy toward restraint and distress.
When the honourable member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) said on July 3, 1944
that-
We shall come out of this war overburdened with the most gigantic financial effort in our history, struggling with an economy upset by the present conflict, and compelled to undergo numerous privations and sacrifices for many years to come.
-he was perfectly justified in voicing concern, about the future of this country.
Mr. Speaker, in the name of the great principles of peace, security, order and freedom, the most sacred rights of the citizens are sacrificed upon the altar of a deified state and a permanent character is given to an abnormal system which has lasted but too long and which, unless checked by parliament, will result .in the disappearance of the last vestige of that democracy for which thousands of human lives will have been sacrified in vain.
The passing of bill No. 15 will enable the government to continue controlling by order in council the material and social life of this country.
By adding the word "transitional" in the title of the bill the government has only lengthened a sentence which already contained too many words, since the bill might simply have been entitled "Dictatorship, second stage".
Section 2, worded in terms somewhat different from those of the section formerly proposed, has the advantage, from the standpoint of the government, of being less explicit, more sentimental toward the starving people of Europe, as well as more vague and nebulous for the man in the street.

National Emergency
Section 3 is an improvement on the original wording, but nevertheless it is still unacceptable.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I may point out to the honourable member that bill No. 15 as reprinted and amended is not before the house. The reprinted and amended bill will first come up in committee. The bill cannot be amended before the second reading.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
(Text).


James Horace King: I might repeat to hon. members what I have just said in French to the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). The hon. member was discussing the amended and reprinted bill, and I informed him that the reprinted bill would come only before the committee of the whole; so actually we have before the house the original bill. I must add that on the motion for second reading it is not permitted to discuss the amendments. The question before the house is the principle of the bill.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Finally, parliament will find itself before a definite situation which it may criticize but which will not have been submitted to it for approval and for which it will be held responsible by the people. The golden age of governmental boards will thus have reached its height. The czars in charge must feel secure; they are and will remain above the law. They are ahd will remain above the representatives of the people. Being accustomed to controlling trade in all its forms and to piy into everybody's business, Mr. Gordon will continue to dictate to everyone, including the provincial legislatures, to dominate the unruly, to prosecute them before the courts and, by way of amusement, to assume the role of supreme arbiter of fashion, and to determine with his learned advisers, the colour, the length and the thickness of ladies' under-garments and men's shirts.
The ineffable wartime prices and trade board has permitted and encouraged, by its untimely interventions and culpable omissions, the manufacturers to abandon the maldng of low-priced articles in favour of [DOT] goods on which they make large profits.
The quality of garments, canned goods, gasoline, has deteriorated but the authorities, however, have not decided to alter the standard prices of the basic period, and this has contributed to an important rise in the cost of living.
Now we come to the selective service. It is an unmitigated conscription system, placing the country's man-power under the grasp of the all-powerful officials who force everyone, 47696-184J
employer and employee alike, to bow to their rulings and comply with their demands. They may tell one of the good people from my constituency that although there is no work for him in his town, there is plenty of it in northern Ontario; that he had better leave his family and go to work as a miner in a place hundreds of miles from his home; or else, there will be no unemployment insurance for him.
Mr. Speaker, the workers in my constituency, who have toiled like galley-slaves during the war and have often received, at the end of the week, nothing better than tax receipts for their pains or cheques reduced by half by fiscal deductions, are tired of these annoyances and vexatious measures. They want work but they also want to remain free to sell their services to whatever employer they prefer, without having to report to a superior whenever they quit a job or take on a new one.
On the other hand, the property owners have had enough of the lessons taught them by the rent administrators during the war and they now wish to be again masters in their own houses and be entitled to rent their properties to whatever tenants they choose. However, the infallible creatures of the government tell them that they may not do it.
What does it matter to me that, in order to gild the pill, some restrictions on a few commodities have been removed and some orders have been cancelled; our people are tired and have had enough of boards of all kinds, who have taught nothing but crime and moral turpitude, by forcing our citizens to resort to all sorts of tricks in order to evade the law and get what they sorely needed.
Bill No. 15 authorizes the governor in council to adopt rules which he deems necessary, according to his liking, iri the fields of production, trade, exchange, transport, etc. It is a blank cheque handed the government, not in order to safeguard the rights and privileges of the ordinary man, the humble citizen, the poor or the masses who have suffered and are still suffering, not in order to allay and reduce the effects of six years of privation, but to preserve in the country a war-like atmosphere which will allow the government to please the brass-hats thirsting for military prestige and the bureaucrats stricken by the evil of internationalism, who want an armed force in time of peace to defend foreign countries in time of war. Our people will have to go without sugar, so as not to displease monopolists who will not import this product from South America in order better to control the market.
National Emergency

We will ration meat so as to send more to certain European countries which buy their wheat in Argentine and their bacon in Denmark, when that suits them, but which gracefully accept gifts in critical times.
The Canadian people have sacrificed a great deal during the war; they have, according to civilian and military authorities, both Canadian and foreign, come forward, since 1939, with a tremendous effort on behalf of the allied cause. A heroic task has been achieved, and we are proud of our soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought that the principles of free peoples might triumph, just as we are proud of our workers, farmers, technicians, engineers and scientists who, in the rear, have given an outstanding performance in keeping our armies supplied with munitions, clothing and first rate services. Our people, to whom we held out bright prospects of paradise on earth in a new era of peace and prosperity, accepted without grumbling every hardship and annoyance, in .the hope that by working and helping to shorten the slaughter, they might the sooner enjoy the blessings of the usual everyday life under normal economic conditions. Unfortunately, at present, they must be satisfied with casting envious glances on our neighbours to the south.
As a matter of fact, as soon as hostilities ended, the United States relaxed their control in order to give employment to a greater number of workers and to make it possible for private enterprise to reach maximum production in a minimum period of time, to attain world supremacy in trade and to compete profitably with other countries on international markets. They have put into practice the saying that "Charity begins at home".
Do you not think that the American republic is setting the example for us? Canada, one of the largest producers in the world, may lose the place she occupies in international trade unless the barriers imposed upon her fcra'de by the various control boards are lifted as soon as possible. Our country's prosperity depends on our export trade and if we want to keep employment at the same level as during the war, we must continually increase production in order to export the greatest possible quantities of goods produced by our workers and farmers.
I am aware that the British government has obtained from parliament the authorization to administer the country in conformity with the War Measures Act, but I am also aware that Mr. Anthony Eden stated in the British House of Commons when Prime Minister Attlee introduced that measure "never before

has a British government asked in peace time for such far-reaching powers as requested by the Labour government-


Mr. LALONDE:: The British government asks for the continuation of controls for five years.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: -such extended powers are not necessary", he added. I would like to know if a spirit of interdependency moves us to imitate Great Britain in this regard and whether the main purpose of bill No. 15 is primarily to help European nations by supplying them with the materials and foodstuffs which are left after the people of Canada have been rationed.
I should like to know also whether farmers will still be forbidden to partake at their own table of the honey and, cheese -which they produce on their own farms, whether furniture manufacturers, for instance, will be allowed to manufacture beds with pressed-board end panels, selling for three times the price of pre-war steel beds and to manufacture living room suites costing a .minimum of $100 whereas in 1938 we would get three suites for that price.
Will the workers and their fellow employees be prevented to travel to their shops in their own motor cars, under the pretence .that we must save gasoline, we must not exceed the prescribed travel limits in order to enrich the powerful transportation companies?
Jefferson said that "the countries where the government is least autocratic are the best governed". When the state seeks to dominate the individual, Mr. Speaker, it always finds arguments to justify its untimely interference in spheres which do not concern it.
By entrusting the administration of the country to a bureaucracy which is frequently incompetent, always troublesome and irritating, and which serves the state and not the people, democratic principles are disregarded and a further step is made in the path leading to dictatorship. I recognize that it is necessary to maintain some supervising bodies, but I do not believe that bill No. 15 as amended is urgently needed-


Mr. LANGLOIS:: Name them.


Maurice Lalonde: Could the hon. member name those bodies?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: It is up to the government to name them,-and I shall vote against such a comprehensive bill-
Several hon. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!


Mr. HEON:: Let him continue, there still is some courtesy left in this house.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: That suits you.

National Emergency


Georges-Henri Héon: Courtesy suits those who
know its meaning.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: -as this one. It is a principle of law that a general legislation must not be based on exceptional cases. The war might have justified such a drastic and despotic measure, such an outrage against individual freedom, but to-day there are no such military reasons, even though the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is appropriating again this year billions for military expenditures. If controls are necessary, 1 endorse the views expressed by a prominent Toronto business man who suggested that such controls be enacted by means of legislation and that parliament should sit as frequently as necessary.
I should fail the workers, the farmers, the merchants and the industrialists of my country if I did not protest against this unhealthy encroachment of public authorities upon the field of private enterprise and I should deserve the censure of my constituents if I approved a measure intended to deprive them of clothing, transportation, leisure, bread and freedom.


Mr. JEAN LESAGE (Montmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe the speech which the honourable member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) has just delivered is indeed ill-advised. He is one of the personal friends whose acquaintance I have made in this house and whom I have valued. He has greatly disappointed me.
He discussed in the most superficial way a matter which is most difficult. I do not wish to impute motives to the honourable member and I dare say that the views he has expressed and the way he has expounded them, have originated in the minds of people who do not sit in this house. The hon. member has mentioned the prices which prevail in the United States, in his remarks, he said that there is no control in the United States-That is true, but everyone in this house knows how much during the recent war-and even since the end of the conflict-prices have risen in the United States. They have gone up to such an extent that there has come an economic upheaval which, I regret to say, is evidenced by the constant increase in the number and importance of strikes in the neighbouring country.
Would the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) like to see economic chaos happen in Canada? Did his electors send him to this house for the purpose of holding out to them the prospect of the abolition of controls that were established in the general interest?
I am sure that the hon. member has not thought that his constituents were merely voters to whom he would ask a renewal of his mandate in a few years. I still hope that he has considered them as Canadian citizens who are entitled to economic and social security, and I hope that in this debate, within the next few days, he will repent for having delivered a speech which, in spite of the sympathy and friendship I have for him, I consider as ill-advised.
(Text).
Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly the mandate which has been entrusted to us, we are here to study the present conditions as well as those we may foresee, and to write the laws which will meet such conditions for the benefit of the people, the whole within the limits of the constitution, the rights of the provinces and the sovereignty of parliament. We are here to meet the economic conditions of the reconversion period with legislation that will enable the people of Canada to go through that period without violent shocks. That is our primary duty.
What are those conditions? How can they be met? And then, what effective laws should be adopted? Those are the questions which I intend to discuss.
What is the present economic condition? May I summarize it in a few words? The supply of goods is far below the demand for goods. Before the war our economic life was governed by the law of supply and demand. During the war the supply of goods and services became so low that some controls had to be established in order to avoid inflation and to distribute adequately the few goods and services available. The situation has not changed since the war ended, and will return only slowly to normal conditions. I quote from the proposals of the government of Canada at the dominion provincial conference on reconstruction:
Rehabilitation of men in the armed services, re-conversion of war plants, relief for areas devastated by war and participation in emergency international commodity controls are all emergency requirements arising out of war and call for continuation of national controls for a temporary period. The requirements and duration of this emergency cannot be defined in advance; they must be continuously examined and dealt with in the light of conditions as they develop.
These last words are very important and must be borne in mind in any discussion of the means of going back to a normal economic life. The conditions must be continuously examined and dealt with in the light of conditions as they develop. That is to say, during the period of reconversion some organization must be set up and given the necessary power
National Emergency

to examine constantly and speedily deal with the requirements of any emergency. Before examining what that organization should be let us go further into detail with respect to the economic situation.
Every member of this house will admit that the danger of economic disturbances and especially of inflation has not disappeared with the defeat of the axis powers. Our prices have been fixed during the war on a basis which is called "the basic period prices". Should the price control be removed suddenly, we would witness an immediate upward surge in prices. The supply of goods is not sufficient; deferred needs have piled up and the accumulated demands would bear a terrible pressure on prices, a pressure which would be even greater than during the war.
Higher prices in other countries are also a threat to our own price level. If the price control were suddenly removed, the prices of imported goods would rise immediately, and a lot of commodities that we export would either disappear from the domestic market altogether or be so dear as to be out of reach of the people.
We must not minimize the terrible pressure on prices caused by the tremendous purchasing power at present held by Canadians. The relaxation of personal income tax announced by the Minister of Finance, together with the gratuities paid to veterans, have also increased the buying power within this country. We have to admit that the danger of inflation is even greater than during the war. Let us remember that it was after the first world war, in 1919 and 1920, that inflation was the strongest and highest.
I have here some interesting figures showing the extent to which retail food prices increased after the armistice in 1918. These figures are taken from a publication of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics entitled: "Living Costs in Canada-1913-August 1939". The price of one hundred pounds of flour in July, 1914, was $3.30; in November, 1918, $6.90; and in the spring of 1920, $8.40. One hundred pounds of sugar'cost in July, 1914, $6.50; in November, 1918, $12.30; and in the spring of 1920, $25. Similar increases occurred in the prices of butter, bacon, milk, coffee, eggs and potatoes. For example, one peck of potatoes in July, 1914, cost 25 cents; the same price in November, 1918, and in the spring of 1920, $1.08.
Are, we ready to take responsibility before the people for letting the same thing happen from 1945 to 1947? If we have inflation, the value of our dollar will decrease. What will be the reaction of the worker if the buying

power of his $100 victory bond decreases to the extent that it will buy only from sixty to six^y-five dollars' worth of the one hundred dollars' worth of the same goods and services that it would have bought at the time he purchased his $100 bond?
And what about our returned men?. Is it not out duty to prepare for them a Canada which is worth living in? According to the booklet published by the wartime information board, entitled "Canada at War", the July issue, 1945, the total number of persons in the armed forces as at December 31, 1944, was 759,879. As of March 31, 1945, a total of 1,800,033 men had at one time or another been in the armed forces. This does not include more than 40,000 women. A large proportion of these have returned or are returning to civilian life as speedily as possible. This means an increased demand for goods of all sorts and for housing. It means an increased drain on domestic food supplies, although it must be admitted that the personnel of the armed forces were largely fed with Canadian food. The effect is much more striking in the case of clothing. Every man knows how difficult it has been during the last year or so to obtain men's clothing. Let us as-sume that, one-third of the population of Canada consists of adult males. Let us assume also that 700,000 discharged men require clothing. This means a sudden increase of from twenty to twenty-five per cent in the demand. Unless price controls are maintained, it requires little imagination to see the possible effect.
By the same token there is' a great increase in the pressure on housing. Many returned men will wish to marry immediately anid set up homes. Many will wish to build homes with their discharge benefits provided for that purpose. Many whose wives lived with parents during the war will now wish to set up separate establishments. Again realizing that not more than onenthird of the population are wage earners and probably not more than one-fourth of the population are actually tenants or occupiers of housing accommodation, the discharge of service men means a sudden increase in the demand of probably close to twenty per cent, and this means increased pressure on rentals, on new houses, on building materials and on furniture.
The control of prices, including the rentals, must be kept in force, otherwise we go directly to inflation, and we, who have the responsibility of legislating for the people as a whole, will be responsible for an economic chaos.

National Emergency
la preventing economic disturbances we have the primary duty to see that the essential needs of the population are satisfied. A sufficient quantity of essential goods has to be either produced or imported and then equitably distributed. Even at present, now that the war is over, some domestic and imported materials are in very short supply, and will be for a time which is impossible to determine. It is understood that large quantities of raw materials will be released and made available as component parts for civilian industries, but the need of the public for such important items as automobiles, electric stoves, refrigerators, et cetera is so widespread that we should see that they were equitably distributed. On the other hand, the shortage of certain imported materials, as fats, oils, tin, rubber, sugar, textiles, will be continued for an undetermined period of time, and will be made worse by the terrible needs of the liberated countries for such supplies. In a considerable number of cases the imports are subject to international agreements. As long as bulk purchasing is necessary on the international markets, purchases have to be made by government agencies.
The same is true of exports. Owing to the higher prices outside Canada it is necessary to regulate all exports in order that some essential goods are not exported to the detriment of internal needs. For example, in normal times Canada does not export textiles to the United States. At the present time their export is controlled. Canadian prices are, however, definitely lower than United States prices. If the export controls were removed, the small quantity of textiles we have would disappear over the border very quickly. Exactly the same thing applies to meat, poultry, timber, charcoal, et cetera. That is why I think, Mr. Speaker, that the words "exports and imports" should remain in any other draft of the bill.
Exports and imports, however, are only one aspect of the problem. Domestic production has to be directed towards the needs of the population, and that means centra! production directions as long as the supply of goods and services in Canada has not reached the level of the demand. Rationing and priorities are still necessary, and will be as long as essential consumer goods are in short supply. It is tiie only way of ensuring their fair distribution.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that I have mentioned a few facts rvhich demonstrate that there is still, and for at least one year to come, a national and economic emergency. It is essential for the security, defence, peace, order, welfare and good government of
Canada that all practical measures should be taken to prevent economic dislocation, hardship and suffering to Canada as a whole until such national dangers as the risk of inflation, of shortages, and national maldistribution of essential goods and services have passed. That is why I am going to vote on second reading for the principle of the bill.
As suggested by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), we shall have the opportunity of discussing the extent of the powers needed when we study the bill in committee. I repeat now w'hat I said at the beginning, that during the period of reconversion some organization must have the power to examine constantly and speedily deal with the requirements of an emergency. What should be the organization?
The British North America Act distributes the legislative powers between parliament and the provincial legislatures. The British North America Act is a bilateral contract, and one party to it cannot ask the other to surrender some of his rights for a certain period of time unless he is ready to do the same when it is necessary for the good of the other party. In certain exceptional circumstances it has to be done, either by one party or the other for the benefit of all. I am a strong believer in the confederation pact, and I hold that neither party should be asked at any time to surrender some of its rights in the political field, but I am ready to admit that under certain emergency situations, one party may ask from the others the surrender of certain rights and privileges in the economic and social fields. It is in virtue of that principle, which acts reciprocally, I repeat, that some of the provincial legislative powers on given matters have to be surrendered to the dominion parliament in a time of emergency to attain, through central laws and regulations, economic stability for our country as a whole. Unless such ..laws or regulations are uniform and enforced in a uniform way throughout Canada, there will be chaos similar to that which we should suffer without any control at all. No one will pretend that such uniformity could be attained now through all the provincial legislatures or governments.
If the power to fix maximum prices on all commodities were left to the provinces, I submit there would possibly and even probably be unrestricted competition between provinces. For instance, the automobile industry is exclusively located in Ontario. Nothing could prevent the legislature in Toronto, or the provincial government, from raising the prices of automobiles and trucks for the benefit of local industries or to permit such industries to raise wages of workers in order to avoid strikes, for example. Let us admit that
National Emergency

at least the temptation would be great. What would happen in Ontario would normally carry reactions and retaliation from other provinces on the commodities they produce; and any control of prices would be tom to pieces. But let us admit for one moment that it would be possible for all the provinces to reach an understanding in order to keep prices down. It would be at the cost of nine different price administrations and enforcement offices, at the cost of constant interprovincial conferences held by hundreds and thousands of representatives, even if there were' only one for each field of commodities, everyone trying to get the most for his own province. I am drawing in my mind a picture of these thousands of representatives meeting together somewhere in a large room, and I ask hon. members of this house to picture for themselves what a Capharnaum it would be. But price control is. not all. Let us suppose that the provinces reach uniformity of price control. What about supply and distribution? The normal course for each province would be to try to satisfy the province's demands before selling elsewhere in Canada. Butter, which is in short supply, is produced mostly in the west. If the prairie provinces satisfied all their people's needs before selling elsewhere, some people in Canada would be completely deprived of all commodities.
The same is true for maple syrup produced only in Quebec. It is true also for the automobile industry located exclusively in Ontario. How would the citizens of the rest of Canada like to look at our friends from Ontario driving beautiful and brand-new cars while they themselves would be walking? These things would certainly happen if the control of supply and distribution were provincial. The provinces might try to reach some agreement and we would witness between them the bargaining which has caused the ruin in the Balkan states, not to mention that the procedure would be so slow that the shortages would be over when the agreements were reached.
Our economy is a complete national whole and any control of it has to be one and must apply to Canada as a whole. Uniform economic control by the provinces is a Utopia. I am a strong advocate of provincial autonomy; I am not a centralizer; but I have to be practical. I would ask Ihose who hypocritically shout about provincial autonomy in everything whether they are ready, before the people of their own province or even of their own riding, to take the responsibility for economic chaos. The constitution provides for the temporary transfer of rights in a time of national emergency and the present emergency

is as serious for Canada's economic structure as the emergency of war was for its political structure. If the emergency regulations are to be enacted by the federal authority I now ask the question, are they to be enacted by parliament.
The British North America Act gives the legislative power to parliament and executive powers to the governor in council. In law it would be the right of parliament to enact all regulations on prices, imports, exports, supply, production, distribution and so on. But from a practical point of view, how could parliament, with its slow and complicated procedure, enact the hundreds of orders which would be necessary in the period of one year provided in the bill? How could parliament be ready at every moment of every day to face any economic emergency which is apt to arise at any moment?
Since the creation of the wartime prices and trade board there have been almost six hundred formal orders issued by the board and almost 1,800 administrative orders issued on behalf of the board. It is true that at the present moment there are only a few hundred basic orders in effect. The number that has been enacted in the past, however, illustrates the complexity of controls generally and the need of continued revision and change as conditions change. One has only to look at a few orders and regulations of the past years to realize the amount of detail involved in control legislation, and consequently the impossibility of parliament itself handling controls by ordinary statutes.
Nothing is dearer to my heart than the sovereignty and the rights of parliament, but is it not our duty under the emergency circumstances to delegate part of our legislative rights to the government and those boards which are in -a better position than we are to deal with the matters mentioned in the bill? As has been said by the member for Chicoutimi the government and its agencies have successfully maintained the Canadian economy during the emergency of war. The wartime prices and trade board, for example, has accomplished a tremendous and wonderful job. Canada stands first in the world for its record in the struggle against inflation. Who wants now a programme of free competition which would, under the present conditions of lack of supply, lead us directly to high self-pricefixing by monopolies and cartels?
The only practical and possible solution at this moment is to surrender to the government part of our legislative powers. Let us not exaggerate. After all, the government is always responsible to parliament for all its acts and those of its boards, agents and con-

National Emergency
(rollers. Whenever parliament is not satisfied with the government's actions, it may reverse the government at any time.
I have already said that I am going to vote for the bill because I deem it essential that we surrender our legislative powers to 'the government in certain definite maters, but I do not feel that I have the right to do more than give the government such legislative powers as are necessary to meet the emergency situation. I do not feel that the people of my constituency gave me a mandate merely to pass that mandate over to the government.
I eannot accept without explanation section 5 of the bill introduced in the house on October 5-section 4 in the new proposed bill which will be studied in the committee has the same meaning. In that respect I am not far from the opinion expressed on Friday, November 23, by the hon. member for Lake Centre, which I quote at page 2457 of Hansard:
That section means that all the orders in council that have been passed since 1939 will, on the day that this bill becomes law, be deemed to have been enacted by parliament and to be thereafter in effect.
The hon. member went on to say:
Section 5 ratifies everything that the government has done under the War Measures Act and all the orders in council in effect on the date when this hill becomes law.
Further on the same page the hon. member said:
I repeat, under section 5 parliament^ is asked * to give approval to orders in council passed under the War Measures Act, sight unseen, in some cases unheard of by parliament.
Further on in his speech the hon. member said:
Under the guise of giving support to certain controls we are asked to stand up manfully in this parliament and say to the government: We place our approval on everything that your controllers and ex-controllers, your boards, agencies or commissions have done under the War Measures Act whether we know of their existence or not.
I understand it is necessary, in order to avoid chaos, that the orders now in effect remain in force. But if the governor in council has taken the responsibility of enacting them, he should also take the responsibility of reenacting them under this bill.
Is section 5 necessary? Could not the governor in council renew the now existing orders on January 1, 1946, or even issue only one order in council which would state that all orders issued under the War Measures Act are reenacted? Could not the governor in council do it under a paragraph which could be drafted as follows-I understand that I have not the right to say that it is paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of section 2 of the new bill:
Continuing, and discontinuing in an orderly manner as the emergency permits, measures adopted during and by reason of the war.
There is another point to which I should like to draw the attention of the house, namely, the possibility of the existence in the bill of a section under which the senate alone could jeopardize the whole economic structure of the country without the consent of this house. It might be argued that under this bill the government will be passing legislation which in ordinary times would necessitate the consent of both houses, and that consequently the withdrawal of the consent of one house only should be necessary to annul any legislation so passed. But it may be answered that if both houses in adopting this bill consent to surrender some legislative powers to the government, only both houses can withdraw such consent, even if it is on one specific matter.
If there is an emergency situation, and I believe there is one, can we take any risk even with the senate? I will go further and say that we cannot take the risk that any order enacted under this legislation after serious study by the cabinet and men of the trade concerned should be pdvoked by the senate, which is not a body responsible to the people, to the detriment of our economy. No order should be repealed without the consent of both houses and after thorough study. There are some means of assuring such an end, and at the same time of safeguarding at least in part the sovereignty of parliament. A joint committee of both houses could be set up which could examine, through subcommittees if necessary, the regulations and orders of the governor in council and the boards, and promote a gradual and yet as speedy decontrol as is wise in the national interest.
Decontrol is going to be a difficult job as far as prices are concerned. Let me quote from page 15 of the reference book on economic controls:
The decontrol of prices will involve some risks. This is particularly true of retail or "final purchaser" ceilings since these represent the ultimate line of defence. It is not easy to judge when price control over a single commodity can be safely removed-the appearance of some unforeseen obstacle to the expansion of production or some unexpected increase in demand, possibly resulting from a shortage of another commodity used for similar purposes-might result in a substantial price increase. Moreover, the removal of price control over a particular article is likely to lead to prompt demands for freedom of bargaining on the part of producers of similar or competitive .articles, which would obviously become very strong if the price of the released article rose above its former ceiling while manufacturers of competitive products were still held
National Emergency

to their ceilings. Even if there were no significant price increase for the released article, the freedom to rearrange the price structure concerned, untrammelled by basic period prices, would be regarded by many manufacturers still subject to price control as a very real advantage. There is the further difficulty that ceilings once removed would be extremely difficult to reimpose both from an administrative and public relations standpoint.
It is true, however, that on all procedures of decontrol in all fields parliament should have something to say, and the proposed committee could safely do the work through subcommittees for the various kinds of controls. Why not have, as in the United States, a special committee on economic planning and policy? Such a committee, given the necessary powers to report on government and board regulations and orders, and procedure of decontrol, could at the same time assemble further material for the preparation of still more definite plans for Canada's economic future under normal conditions.
Let me say that we cannot dive into the future, into the dark of the unknown and risk the obligation of finding expedients when a sudden storm arises as we sail on the sea of laissez-faire. Wre cannot go blindfolded to a return of the economic conditions of 1930-39. Some planning has to be done.
If I am for individual freedom, I am against the abuse of it. I am against the unavoidable disappearance of economic and social freedom and security in a world of laissez-faire. I do not mean that government controls should remain when supply and demand are normal. I do not mean that the provinces should not get back their complete autonomy and parliament its complete sovereignty. But parliament has the responsibility of looking ahead to normal times. It has the duty of planning Canadian economy and enacting laws to avoid the errors and faults of a regime which many hypocritically call free enterprise, but which due to such errors and faults is apt to bring about a real enslavement of the people through monopolistic and cartel methods.
To conclude in a few words, Mr. Speaker, we need government economic control for the period of reconversion. We need planning for the future in order to attain two main objectives for the people of Canada: one, the establishment and maintenance of world and interior peace; and two, the provision of a higher standard of living and of economic and social security for all Canadians.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, to repel the onslaught of totalitarian peoples, Canada found it necessary to adopt their methods. At this moment we are en-

deavouring to extricate ourselves from the situation created by these methods. May we hurriedly review the situation? When war came, the dominion government invaded the provincial field, and the cabinet took over the law-making for the dominion. The invasion of the provincial field by the dominion was carried out under an interpretation of the constitution. It was held that in the emergency of war the dominion had power over matters which normally fall within the provincial field; and under the War Measures Act the cabinet assumed powers which ordinarily reside in parliament to legislate for the people of Canada.
The war is over. During the emergency of war the War Measures Act gave powers which are mentioned in sections 3, 4 and 5 of that act; but the emergency came to an end when the war was over; the validity of all orders in council enacted since the end of the war may be properly questioned under section 6 of the War Measures Act, which says that the act shall avail only as long as the state of war exists. If anyone doubts this proposition he has but to turn to the preamble of bill No. 15, where it is so stated in terms.
What is to be done to get the Canadian people back to normal methods of government? Bill No. 15 has been brought down. It declares frankly that an emergency exists other than an emergency arising from war. There has been brought into this house and distributed to hon. members another bill No. 15, which I will style the second edition. It has been stated that it is not competent to hon. members to discuss the second edition of this bill until it has been introduced. I doubt very much if that be the government's wish. It is quite apparent that the government found that for reasons good or bad it could not maintain the position it took in bill No. 15, first edition, so that it caused to be distributed bill No. 15, second edition, as an intimation of its intentions. I assume-that it was to preclude the necessity for two debates that bill No. 15, second edition, was made available to hon. members, in order that they might direct their remarks to the legislation the government intends to enact, provided that the second edition of the bill does not meet with the same sorry fate that was meted out to the first edition.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, we need be very much disturbed in discussing the secqnd edition because, with the exception of section 3(g) of bill No. 15, first edition, which is something in the nature of a combination of a naturalization act, an immigration act and an extradition treaty which would confer

National Emergency
upon the executive power to deal in stringent fashion with people in the country as well as those who wish to come into it, the terms of the second bill in the result are identical with those of the first. Possibly with this exception, that bill No. 15, first edition, is clear; everyone understands what it means. Bill No. 15, second edition, is confusing; it has succeeded in confusing everyone a little.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Not everyone. Speak
for yourself.


John Thomas Hackett: Possibly the minister
has had more experience with confusion than I have had, and I will let him speak to that point. But I would ask him to listen for just a moment, and perhaps he may have an opportunity later on to explain what this means. In bill No. 15, first edition, we find there is an emergency; here is the language: ... the War Measures Act be continued in force and that the governor in council be authorized to do and authorize during the said period such further acts and things and make such further orders and regulations as he may by reason of the national emergency resulting from the war deem necessary or advisable . . .
The second edition is not quite so clear. It is in these terms:
. . . and certain orders and Regulations made under the War Measures Act be continued in force and that the governor in council be authorized to do and authorize such further acts and things and make such further orders and regulations as he may deem necessary or advisable by reason of the emergency and for the purpose of the discontinuance, in an orderly manner as the emergency permits, of measures adopted during and by reason of the emergency . . .
Now that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has composed some of the great difficulties with which he has been confronted, I wish he would turn a few moments of his leisure when opportunity offers to the paragraph which I have just read and enlighten the house as to its meaning. There are a few of us who are perplexed by this multiemergency, which seems actually to mean that there is and there is not an emergency. If I grasp the significance of the terminology, it means that there was an emergency, that there is not an emergency now, but to retreat from the emergency we must have emergency powers. That is what I believe the bill means.
If there be an emergency, it is not a war emergency. If there be an emergency, it is an emergency which arises from the totalitarian legislation which we enacted to fight and defeat a totalitarian people. That distinction is important. A system of controls can be effective only in so far as it is allembracing. We have it on the high authority
of the minister who said at page 2452 of Hansard: "That the whole of these controls are integrated, and each part is necessary to the harmonious functioning of the whole system." If it be necessary to maintain all the controls in, order that they may function and we have an emergency arising out of the operation of these controls, I submit that it is futile to perpetuate controls for the purpose of releasing ourselves from controls. It does not make sense.
I do not criticize those who had the responsibility of enacting the legislation that brought these controls about. They were anxious to win the war. They had but one aim in view, and they have achieved that aim. But to achieve it they paid a price. I say to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Lesage) that the Canadian people paid a price which is spelled out in liberty and freedom and that a price in that coinage is too high to pay for anything but life itself. When we come to consider our present situa-ton and determne what course we should follow, we cannot hope to get back to normal without going through some turbulence, without experiencing some inconvenience. Anybody who takes a stimulant, anybody who develops artificial energy within himself must pay a price and Canada just cannot afford to taper off in a matter of this kind.
I submit that the emergency which confronts Canada to-day is not a war emergency ; it is an emergency which arises out of the legislation which we enacted to win the war. We cannot ease ourselves out of it, because that is impossible. You cannot dam half a river; a dam to be effective has to go all the way across. I would draw to the attention of the house the fact that bill No. 15, whether it be edition No. 1 or edition No. 2, goes farther than the War Measures Act. It reenacts everything that was passed under the War Measures Act and it adds everything that was forgotten or omitted in framing the War Measures Act. We are told that this is being done for the purpose of maintaining order.
Somebody has threatened us with terrible trouble, with great evils, unless these controls be continued. What are these great perils? The hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet tells us that flour went up, that sugar went up in price. Supposing it did; supposing it goes up again. Is that to be weighed on the same scales with the intolerable situation in which the Canadian people find themselves now that the war is over? I submit that the control of prices is the first step in the first mile toward a situation which makes of a
National Emergency

whole people so many vassals. That may sound somewhat extravagant, but anybody who is inclined to examine the situation, anyone who is inclined to find out just what it means to curtail the freedom of buying and selling, just what it means to those who are subjected to it, will not question the accuracy of that statement.' If you control prices, of necessity you control wages. When you control prices and wages, you determine where men are to work. When you determine where men are to work, you tell them that they are to leave the province of Quebec to go to another province to earn their bread. They are no longer free; they are bound to accept dictation; they are bound to accept the rule of some master. Who he may be matters little; it is an infringement upon liberty and upon the right of the individual to make his own selection and live his own life.
Not infrequently we hear it said in the house that this is done in Great Britain, that something else is done in the United States. I do not think such instances are very helpful, because conditions are entirely different in Great Britain and in the United States. In Britain the area is much smaller; the British are a homogeneous people, and they have but one legislature. The Americans have a different form of government. We forget that we have in this country nine legislatures with definite' functions, nine legislatures that came into existence to meet the needs of this country. When we are told that some ogre is going to pounce upon the Canadian people and squeeze its life-blood from it if these controls be not reenacted, if cabinet controls be not continued, I wonder whether one has thought that there are competent and going legislative bodies in each province across this country which can look after, as it is their duty to do, the welfare of the people in their respective provinces. Are rental controls required in Prince Edward Island? I do not know. Are they required in Saskatchewan?' I do not know. But I venture to say that the rental situation may not be as acute or as difficult in Prince Edward Island or in Saskatchewan as it is in Ontario and Quebec. Ontario and Quebec have legislatures competent and well able to deal with these situations. I for one think they should not only be permitted but be obliged to deal with them. Let the provinces take up their duties. That is the scheme under which the dominion came into existence. It is well that we should decentralize the power which has gradually been concentrated and kept in the dominion cabinet.

If a man should come back to parliament after having been out of Canada, say on an extended trip to Mars, for fifteen or* twenty years, and witness the degradation, the desuetude, the complete abnegation of parliamentary functions, he would be amazed and wonder what had happened to the Canadian people.
Gradually and because of the existence of war parliament has entrusted its lot to the cabinet. The cabinet has enacted something like one hundred thousand orders in council. But we are not dealing only with the cabinet. I doubt if there is a cabinet member in the house to-day who could put up his hand and say that he had not been embarrassed by the autocrats who have drafted orders in council that he has not had time to read and have enacted laws of which he knows little or nothing. There has grown up in this country, in this city I might say, a body of autocrats who are making legislation for the people and who are telling the harried members of the government opposite: Oh, if you relax these controls even the least little bit, great and irreparable damage will be done to the country, find there will be no remedy because we shall all be swept into the gulf-of oblivion possibly. I for one do not believe that. I am of those who think we took the right course during the war. But as Francis Thompson has said:
Nothing begins, and nothing ends;
That is not paid with moan,
For we are born in other's pain,
And perish in our own.
We shall perish in the anguish that is-brought upon us, not by the war, but by the measures to which we resorted in order to win the war, unless we exhibit that measure of energy which enabled us to win the war to rid ourselves of the shackles that are fastened upon us at the present time.
I cannot do more than point out to the house that these emergencies do. not come from the war. They are indirectly incidental to it. There is no hope of getting away from them, because they cannot be effective unless they are all maintained, and we are only deluding ourselves if we perpetuate this type of government.
Power does something to people. It does something to good people. It does something to decent people. I do not know that I can describe exactly what it does to them, but it certainly warps their point of view. It certainly raises themselves vastly in their own esteem, and it certainly has a tendency to diminish any appreciation of their own fallibility. We have consented that we be governed

National Emergency
for the period of the war with absolutely blind confidence in the righteousness and virtue of those upon whom power was conferred. That was the proper thing to do. But just as it was the proper thing to do then, it is just as much our duty now to react against the philosophy and doctrine of those who preach that Canada will disintegrate and crumble if the We shall perish in the anguish that is brought upon us, not by the war, but by the measures to which we resorted in order to win the war, unless we exhibit that measure of energy whicn enabled us to win the war to rid ourselves of the shackles that are fastened upon us at the price of flour goes to $6 a barrel or if the price of sugar is raised. There are some things that are not measured, as I said earlier in my remarks, in terms of the market. We did not compute our position in that way at Dieppe. We did not compute in dollars and cents our position through the whole period of the war, and I submit that at the present time it is folly to endeavour to do so. I consider that many members of the government, who are just as much devoted to Canada as men can be, are being led astray by the whisperings of those on whom they had to rely during the past five or six years.
We have heard a lot about democracy of one kind and another. It has been described as an especially European form of government. Until recently it was assumed to be the form of government best suited to all civilized peoples, and there was an implicit belief that it was destined' ultimately to triumph over all other forms of government and become itself the vehicle of the permanent golden age. But recent experience and the long story of history go to prove, on the contrary, that democracy is an unstable and impermanent system of government.
Thirty years ago a dictatorship was thought to be merely a passing unpleasantness and anarchy a brief catastrophe. The truth, which is now more evident, shows that dictatorship has been the most lasting of all methods of ruling civilized people and that if the history of anarchy were written it would be shown to have existed for much longer periods than democracy itself. Like the highest and most effective type of citizenship, democracy is a delicate flower of short life. The reason for this comparative impermanence of democracy is plain enough. Like civilization, demopracy is a difficult enterprise, a complex and subtle way of life. Autocracy, the way of the order in council, on the contrary is the easiest and safest way for humanity when the high and more dangerous form of government has broken down. It is a short-cut for civilization to rescue itself from anarchy.
Mr. Speaker, what we require here, what Canada requires is not more legislation continuing controls. What Canada requires is an energetic government, a government with nerve enough to remove controls and give Canada back to democracy and democratic institutions.
Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauhamois-
Laprairie) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, we are called upon to vote the second reading of bill No. 15, as submitted to the house by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), on November 23 last, and to scrutinize the reasons he enumerated in support of the measure. Indeed, as mentioned a while ago by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), there has been a second edition. However, whether we consider the first or the second versions, we have to draw the same conclusions, for the difference is in form rather than substance.
The object of this bill seems evident. Since the outbreak of war, the government, under a statute known as the War Measures Act, may, by orders in council, be entrusted with powers which, in peace time, come under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament or the provincial legislatures.
Now that the war is over, the government wish to be entrusted, in peace time, with the same powers, under a different formula. To my mind, this measure has a dual aspect, both dictatorial and constitutional, and it is from these two viewpoints that I intend to consider it.
First, the dictatorial aspect: as I have already pointed out, due to the war, the government has assumed the functions of parliament and governed by orders in council. For six years we have been under a real dictatorship. We had reasons to believe that the war being over this system would come to an end. But no, it is intended that it will be maintained. One has only to read this bill to be convinced of this. It is truly an attempt to establish dictatorship in peace time, in spite of the constitution. It is a flagrant denial of responsible government.
I do not claim that, in certain cases, a measure of control may not be resorted to for a time, but then, let the government ask us to consider a legislation covering specific cases, let them prove to us the necessity of taking such a course, let them demonstrate that these powers are not devolved on the provinces, or that they are unable to exercise them; then we shall be in a position to decide with full knowledge of facts. But we are asked at the present time to give a blank cheque without being shown sufficient reasons for doing it.
National Emergency

However, we know how the government intend to exercise these powers. We all remember that, a short time ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) who was then acting prime minister told us, in support of his refusal to table orders in council, that it was up to the minister to decide whether it was in the public interest to supply these orders to the house and that the house had to be governed by his decisions.
Never had such an autocratic and dictatorial pronouncement been uttered in this house.
Just imagine, Mr. Speaker! While parliament is in session, the cabinet legislates by order in council, and the assembled representatives of the people are not even entitled to information about this legislation which belongs to parliament. If that is not dictatorship, I do not know the meaning of the word.
Never in peace time has a more antidemocratic measure been introduced in parliament.
After a six year war which proved tremendously costly in life and wealth and which was waged, we were told over and over again, to overthrow dictatorship and to defend democracy in Europe, the most anti-democratic measure one could possibly devise is introduced. What a joke!
What is even more astounding is that such a bill should be introduced by a Liberal government, headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King).
On August 2, 1935, before the general election held the same year, the Prime Minister expounding the Liberal philosophy in a broadcast speech to the Canadian people in which he criticized the legislation put through by the Bennett government during what were perhaps the most critical years in our history- unemployment at that time endangered the economic future of the country-spoke as follows:
Restoration of Responsible Government
The Liberal party believes that the present crisis has been made an excuse for the usurpation of the rights of parliament, and the assumption of autocratic powers by the executive. Liberalism stands, as always for the principle of a free parliament, and for the supremacy of parliament. To this end it would repeal the legislation enacted by the present administration, which deprives parliament of its control over expenditures and taxation, and invests the executive with unwarranted arbitrary powers, as for example:
(1)	legislation permitting the executive to enact measures by order in council for peace, order and good government, and
(2)	legislation providing the executive with [DOT] "blank cheque" for expenditure of any kind.

What the government alleged to be emergency measures, to aid in the relief of the unemployed, have turned out to be a part of a deliberate policy, directed -towards accustoming the public mind to the framework of the fascist state. We cannot too soon, once more, subject the executive to the control of parliament, if we are longer to have responsible government in Canada.
No better qualification could be applied to this bill or help us weigh its merits. These words I commend to the consideration of the house.
Some of the absolute powers the government seeks come under dominion jurisdiction while others are provincial prerogatives.
Let us first look into those which may be delegated by the dominion parliament. We will then discuss the others in relation to the constitutional aspect of the bill.
What reason has the Minister of Justice alleged to justify the section of the act which deals with the powers of the federal government? None whatever.
Of course, he said, without proving it, however, that a state of national emergency prevailed, but that was mainly to justify the government's encroachment upon provincial rights.
Parliament was assembled on September 6 to pass the legislation needed to meet present conditions.
The speech from the throne stated that everything had been foreseen and that, accordingly, plans had been prepared and were already in operation. I quote the following excerpt from the speech from the throne:
So far as the future could be foreseen, my ministers had taken steps to see that -Canada was prepared to meet the very difficult situations which would arise when victory had been won.
We were told that everything had been foreseen.
Preparations for the demobilization, -rehabilitation and reestablishment in civil life of the men -and women in' the armed forces were well under pray when Germany surrendered. The same is true of -measures foT the reconversion of the economic life of our country from a war-time to a peace-time basis, and for the maintenance of -a high level of employment and national income. The plans thus developed to meet the requirements of the period of transition are now being put into full operation.
In view of those official statements, I do not see any justification for parliament delegating its powers to the governor in council.
More than that, we have been sitting since September 6, ready to pass any* necessary legislation to meet any emergency and I am still endeavouring without success to find any justification for Parliament delegating its powers to the government.

National Emergency
What are the exceptional measures submitted by the government since this session began or since September 6, to meet an emergency?
Certainly not that dealing with a national flag bearing the union jack as advocated by [DOT] the Minister of Justice.
Certainly not that dealing with British nationality under the camouflaged name of Canadian citizenship.
The Housing Act was amended but it was already on the statute books. A special act has been passed to provide for the welfare of returned soldiers.
If other measures were necessary, why have they not been introduced?
There has been a strike in Windsor for the last three months. But when some hon. members brought up the matter in the house claiming that it was urgent, it was held that it was not sufficiently urgent to warrant discussion at that time and the strike is still going on. I wonder what the government is doing with its dictatorial powers to settle the condition prevailing at Windsor?
In short why are we here? In what respects has parliament been unable to cope with the situation? This has not been shown.
But the bill goes farther than that and encroaches on the prerogatives of the legislatures, which is more serious, and that is what induces me to discuss the constitutional aspect of the bill.
If one refers to the bill, he finds that several of the powers specially requested fall under section 92 of the B.N.A. Act and therefore come under the sole jurisdiction of the provinces.
When the government requests the authorization to take over those prerogatives from the provincial legislatures they violate the* constitution.
To justify its actions the government invoke, as it appears from the preamble of the first edition of bill No. 15, a "National Emergency", stating that the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada ate at stake, while in the second edition of the same bill the words "peace, order and welfare of Canada" have been deleted.
I do not know whether unusual changes have taken place since November 23; but what evidently was the basis of bill No. 15 on November 23 last is apparently no longer the basis of bill No. 15 on December 4, that is ten days later.
The "national emergency" invoked in the bill is not proven and we are entitled to ask the Minister of Justice how Canada's national
existence is endangered and what is meant by a "national emergency"; in addition it must be shown that the provincial legislatures are unable to cope with the situation.
Clause 91 of the constitution which formed the basis of the first edition of the bill, expressly states:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
Now that the honourable the Minister of Justice has deleted the words "peace, order and good government" from the preamble of the bill, I do not know on what grounds he will seek to prove that his bill is constitutional.
I think I can summarize as follows the arguments advanced by the Minister of Justice in support of this bill on November 23 last:
He claims three grounds; first he considers as a legal principle the decision which the Privy Council gave in 1923 in the Fort Frances case; the legislation passed by the United Kingdom for the purpose of conferring certain special powers on His Majesty's government sirjce the cessation of hostilities; the fact that from November, 1918, at which time the first great war came to an end, to May and July, 1920, the cost of living and wholesale prices indices rose considerably, a thing which might occur again and would constitute a national emergency.
Let us examine the first argument, of a legal character, based on section 91 of the B.N.A. Act and on the Fort Frances case.
(a)	It should first be noted that the above mentioned case related to control powers on the supply of paper, that is one commodity only, which is entirely different from the present case in which the provinces are to be deprived of most of their prerogatives.
Thus, in paragraph _(c) of section 2 of the reprinted copy of bill No. 15, which corresponds to paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of section 3 of the original bill, mention is made of a number of matters, besides the others that are included in the other paragraphs of the same section.


Jean Lesage: Does not the hon. member think that this is necessary, from an economic standpoint?


Mr. RAYMOND:: It is up to the minister to prove that, and that is why I am discussing the reasons which the Minister of Justice has put forward in support of his measure. If the hon. member will kindly wait, I shall come to that later when dealing with the third reason
National Emergency

which the Minister of Justice has adduced jn order to show that a special emergency existed. I am now discussing his first legal argument, namely his reference to the Fort Frances case.
(b)	Besides, the Fort Frances case more especially related to the validity of the war measures act, which has nothing to do with this discussion.
(c)	As regards the principle expounded in :.he above mentioned decision, to the effect that parliament is in a better position than the tribunal to determine the special circumstances creating a national emergency, I may say that the privy council did not hesitate to declare ultra vires certain acts that had been passed by parliament under section 91 of the B.N.A. Act, on the grounds of peace, order and good government, especially in 1921 and 1925 in connection with the Board of Commerce Act, 1919, and the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919, as well as in the Snider case. I shall quote from the decision given in 1925 in the Snider case. It was then ruled:
The act could not be justified under the general power in section 91 to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, as it was not established that there existed in the matter, any emergency which put -the national life of Canada in unanticipated peril.
We have there the proof that parliament can decide one way while at the same time the privy council can take an opposite stand. Therefore the legal authority of the Minister of Justice, based on the Fort Frances case, no longer applies, because not only in 1925 but even in 1937, as the Minister of Justice is aware, since he was representing the [DOT] government, the privy council put aside parliament's conception of a national emergency when it invalidated the social legislation passed under the Bennett government in 1934 and 1935 on the grounds of "peace, order and good government".
But I would add, in connection with the Snider case, Justice Duff's remarks, when he declared that "social legislation" ultra vires:
The legislation in question there was framed for the purpose of dealing with industrial disputes and authorized the Minister of Labour to take steps to convene, in the case of such a dispute, a board composed of a representative of the workmen, a representative of the employer. and a third person, to be nominated by the Minister of Labour himself. The act prohibited a strike or lockout pending the consideration of a dispute by the board. The importance of the matters dealt with by the statute, the fact that the statute was making a provision for meeting a condition which prevailed throughout the whole of Canada, and for dealing with industrial disputes which, in many and, indeed, most cases, would affect people in more than one province, the fact that the

machinery provided had proved to be a valuable instrument in the interests of industrial peace, were not disputed . . .
Nevertheless, the board negatived the existence of the general principle that the mere fact that dominion legislation is for the general advantage of Canada, or is such that it will meet a mere want which is felt throughout the dominion, renders it competent if it cannot be brought within the heads enumerated specifically in section 91.
As I have just said, as recently as 1937, the Privy Council ruled ultra vires the laws enacted by parliament in 1934 and 1935 under the Bennett government, at a time when unemployment was at its height.
At all events, that principle does not exempt the government from proving the existence at the present time of "a national emergency" endangering the "security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada."
Then, the minister mentioned the United Kingdom legislation.
We cannot compare things that do not suffer comparison. Not only does Great Britain's legislation apply to questions of limited import, when compared with those covered by bill No. 15, but conditions are different over there, as the hon. member for Stanstead has just remarked. In Great Britain there is not, as in Canada, a division of powers between a central parliament and provincial legislatures, and for this reason, there is no jurisdictional conflict nor constitutional issue involved.
Moreover, Great Britain, is in Europe, Canada is in America. The disorders which prevail in Europe are inexisteat in this country. In Canada, famine is unknown while it is more or less prevalent in the United Kingdom which depends upon our exports to live
Thirdly, the minister, as reported in Hansard of November 23, mentioned as a condition of national emergency, the possible increase of the cost of living-and this is the only condition he has mentioned-recalling that, after the end of the first great war, that is from November, 1918 to July, 1920, the cost of living index had shown an increase of thirty-eight per cent, while the wholesale price index had risen by fifty-five per cent from November, 1918 to May, 1920.
I shall be content to point out to the Minister of Justice that the Privy Council has decided that such circumstances did not warrant the central authority to encroach on provincial prerogatives. I refer him to the case relating to the Board of Commerce Act, 1919 and the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919, heard in November, 1921. This is a direct answer to the allegations of the hon. minister.

National Emergency
I quote the judgment and a few notes reported in 1 App. C. 1922, pages 191, 197, 198 and 200:
The Combines and Fair Prices Act, enacted by the parliament of Canada, in 1919, authorized the board of commerce, created by another statute of that year, to restrain and prohibit the formation and operation of such trade combinations for production and distribution in the provinces as that board might consider to be detrimental to the public interest; the board might also restrict accumulation of food, clothing, and fuel beyond the amount reasonably required, in the case of a private person for his household, and in the case of a trader for his business, and required the surplus to be offered for sale at fair prices; and the board could attach criminal consequences to any breach of the act which it determined to be improper:
Held, that the acts were ultra vires the dominion legislature, since they interfered seriously with "property and civil rights in the provinces," a subject reserved exclusively to the provincial legislatures by section 92. head 2, of the British North America Act, 1867, and were not passed in any highly exceptional circumstances, such as war or famine, which conceiv- , ably might render trade combinations and hoarding subjects outside the heads of section 92 and within the general power given by section 91.
Now I am going to quote the notes of the privy council:
It is to the legislatures of the provinces that the regulation and restriction of their civil rights have in general been exclusively confided, and as to these the provincial legislatures possess quasi-sovereign authority. It can, therefore, be only under necessity in highly exceptional circumstances, such as cannot be assumed to exist in the present ease, that the liberty of the inhabitants of the provinces may be restricted by the parliament of Canada, and that the dominion can intervene in the interests of Canada as a whole in questions such as the present one. . .
And further on:
It has already been observed that circumstances are conceivable, such as those of war or famine, when the peace, order and good government of the dominion might be imperilled of a character in reality beyond anything provided for by the enumerated heads in either section 92 or section 91 itself. Such a case, if it were to arise would have to be considered closely before the conclusion could properly be reached that it was one which could not be treated as falling under any of the heads enumerated.
Mr. Justice Duff, rendering judgment in the cases to which I have already referred, concerning the act enacted by parliament in 1934 and 1935 under the Bennett government, said:
In the board of commerce case the judicial committee had to consider legislation by which a dominion board was constituted and empowered, broadly speaking, to inquire into, and prohibit, profiteering and practices in connection therewith in dealings in the necessaries of life. In particular, the board had authority to regulate the price of such necessaries of life.
The question arose upon a case stated as to the validity of an order made by the board regulating the prices of ready-made clothing in
certain establishments in Ottawa. The validity of the order was attacked by the association of manufacturers concerned and was supported by counsel on behalf of the board and of the dominion. The litigation raised the concrete question inter partes as to the legality of the particular order; and the answer to that question turned upon the answer to the question concerning the validity of the legislation, which it was, therefore, essential to determine. The statute was supported on various grounds and, among others, on the ground that in the year 1919, when it was enacted, the evils of hoarding and high prices in respect of the necessaries of life had attained such dimensions "as to affect the body politic of Canada." Nobody denied the existence of the evil. Nobody denied that it was general throughout Canada. Nobody denied the importance of suppressing it. Nobody _ denied that it prejudiced and seriously prejudiced the well being of the people of Canada as a whole, or that in a loose popular sense of the words it "affected the body politic of Canada." Nevertheless, it was held that these facts did not constitute a sufficient basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the dominion parliament under the introductory clause in the manner attempted.
This, I believe, is a direct answer to the facts put forward by the Minister of Justice to justify the existence of a national emergency.
After the first world war, ended in November, 1918, the cost of living, as the Minister of Justice pointed out, went up considerably with the increase in wholesale prices. The government adopted an act to control prices, thereby assuming a right which in peace time belongs to the provincial legislative bodies.
The Privy Council decided those were not sufficient grounds to disregard section 92 of the B.N.A. Act. More recently the measures enacted by parliament under the Bennett administration in 1934 and 1935 on the plea of a national emergency were declared ultra vires by the Privy Council because they infringed upon the rights of the provinces, which alone have the power to pass legislation regarding labour agreements, wages and working hours.
The Minister of Justice has not substantiated the preamble of the bill, that is, "the national emergency" which might endanger the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada. That was essential. According to the Privy Council only in an emergency such as war or famine would the federal government be justified to deprive the provinces of their powers.
Well, the war is over and there is no famine. According to the Prime Minister we export "nearly half of all our inspected meat."
In peace time the provinces have the exclusive right to legislate in regard to property and civil rights, in matters of labour or other
National Emergency

contracts and to fix the quality and prices of goods and services. And as the privy council ruled in 1937'
The _ apportionment of powers as between the dominion and the provincial legislatures is one of the most essential conditions, and very likely the most essential one, of the interprovineial pact to which the B.X.A. Act gives effect.
If controls are necessary, they should be exercised under the authority of the dominion or of the provincial legislatures, as the case may be, but within their own jurisdiction. I am afraid that this legislation is a further step leading to the centralization of powers, in order to gradually deprive the provinces of their powers. I am opposed to that.
Let us respect provincial autonomy.


Jean Lesage: And invite economic chaos.


Donat Raymond: I say that it is an encroachment on the part of the dominion upon the rights of the provinces. This legislation is null and void and ultra vires. I call the attention of the house to section 9 of the original bill which reads as follows:
This Act shall come into force on a day fixed by proclamation of the governor in council and on and after that day the present war shall for the purposes of the War Measures Act, be deemed no longer to exist.
Well, should this bill be passed and subsequently be declared ultra vires, what would be the consequences? It would cease to be in force. More than that, it would be con-.sidered as never having been in force, as it would be null and void ab initio. And all the consequences of the act would disappear at the same time. As section 9 says that, for the purposes of 'the War Measures Act, war shall be deemed no longer to exist from the day that this act shall come into force, the War Measures Act would have continued and would continue to be in force.
Whether this bill is ultra vires or not, we are asked thereby to grant dictatorial powers to the government, and to strip the provinces of their rights.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, an act to confer certain powers upon the governor in council during the national emergency following the war, is nothing more or less than an extension for another year of the powers of the cabinet which they enjoyed under the War Measures Act. The proposed act will authorize the governor in council to continue

legislating by order in council, as has been the case during the war. The system proved to be a very useful and convenient instrument in the hands of the government in legislating as it pleased whether parliament was sitting or not. The question before us now is, should this power of the government be extended for another year? My personal view is that it is essential at this time that the governor in council should have a certain amount of power but only to the extent necessary to enable the government' to deal with ordinary routine matters and matters which are truly emergency matters; but unlimited power of the government should definitely be curbed.
I have personal knowledge of the manner in which many of the various controls operate, and I might as well say frankly that there is altogether too much red tape in their administration. I shall give only one illustration, which is a good example of maladministration called the control. Some of these controlling agencies have simply gone the limit. Their chief aim seems to be to control for the sake of controlling and nothing else.
Several months ago I referred to the construction controller the case of a farmer who, by the way, lives in the constituency of my hon. friend the member for Athabaska. This man applied for a permit to build a small hall and a candy store at a country resort. The value of the building was to be in the neighbourhood of S300. The farmer had his own lumber, which was exposed at all times to country fires, and being an amateur carpenter he was going to build the hall himself in his spare time. He owns one or two boats which he hires out, and manages to keep and clothe his family on the income he receives from that source. The construction controller could not see his way clear to grant him a permit "at the present time".
I submit that in- that case there was absolutely no excuse for refusing the permit. The farmer had the lumber and he was going to do the work himself. But no; the controller was on the job controlling for the sake of controlling. I could recite many other cases where similar things have been done. In view of my experience with the various controllers, therefore, I can .only come to the conclusion that many of them control for the sake of controlling only.
Nevertheless I am in favour of some of the essential controls. I cannot, however, subscribe to all these controls being maintained in a wholesale manner, especially when I know the extent to which this power has been abused even during the war. Does one need to mention the various orders in, council

National Emergency
which were passed while the house was sitting? It might as well be said that altogether too many of these orders in council have remained a government secret far too long. True, the ministers try to justify every action of the government, but the fact remains that these numerous orders in council and controls have placed this nation in a strait-jacket, which is an unhealthy condition for an individual or for a nation to be in.
It must be remembered that all this maladministration and abuse took place during the war. But now that the war is over, the people of this democratic nation resent the undemocratic and unreasonable controls. In other words, the Canadian people demand that parliament exercise some control over the controllers.
I did not rise, however, to discuss merely the administrative inefficiencies of the various controls. I rose chiefly to discuss an important principle. I have in mind the unjustifiable [DOT]disregard of the rights of some of our citizens. Apparently bill No. 15, as originally presented, has been or will be withdrawn and with it section 3(1)(g), and I was wondering whether the amendments which the government will propose will cover the objective of section 3(1) (g). I want it clearly understood that I am not objecting to the granting of some power to the governor in council to deal with what are emergency matters and matters of merely routine significance. But we must draw a line somewhere when we deal with naturalized or Canadian-born citizens. Let me point out what I mean.
At the beginning of the war the government under the War Measures Act passed what is known as the defence of Canada regulations. Under section 26A it was directed that all unnaturalized persons born in territories which were under the sovereignty or control of enemy countries on the dates on which Canada declared war on those countries must register with the police and report from time to time to the police as ordered. It is my personal view that persons who were not British subjects and who were nationals of enemy countries should have registered in the interests of the safety of our country. But persons who were born in countries which fell under the pressure of the enemy were wronged when they were ordered to register as enemy aliens. The original order in council revealed that those who framed it had little knowledge of the history and geography of Europe. For instance, former Czechoslovakian citizens were asked to register as enemy aliens after Czechoslovakia was given away to the nazis at Munich in 1938 against the will of its inhabitants. Having thrown them into the clutches of
the nazis we then proceeded to ask persons who originally came from that country and resided in Canada to register as enemy aliens. Whoever conceived that bright idea certainly made us look ridiculous in the eyes of the nations of the world. Eventually representations were made to a committee of this house by Czechoslovakian representatives in Canada, and the Canadian government amended section 26A of the defence of Canada regulations by passing, on February 7, 1941, order in council P.C. 2420. Other representations were made on behalf of other nationals who found themselves in similar circumstances, and eventually all of them were exempted from this registration.
I might mention at this point that the officials who interpreted these regulations did not even know the difference between Austria as it existed before the first great war and Austria as it existed before this war. For that reason, any person whose naturalization certificate showed that he came from the Austro-Hungarian empire was asked to register if he had taken out his naturalization certificate after September 1, 1922.
But that was not by any means the worst thing the government did. The defence of Canada regulations as originally framed applied only to enemy aliens, but later section 26B was enacted by order in council which brought under.these regulations even some British subjects, namely those persons who were naturalized since September 1, 1922, and who were born in territories which were under the sovereignty or control of enemy countries on the dates on which Canada declared war on them. That is the point to which I wish to draw attention in particular.
I also wish to say at this point that it is time we made up our minds whether we are going to trust naturalized British subjects or not after we have granted them naturalization certificates. We cannot continue to suspect and hold responsible every naturalized Canadian citizen for everything which happens in the country from which he came. I certainly object to the idea of permitting anyone to push around any of our citizens, regardless of where they may have come from originally. Should any one break the law, we have the courts of justice to deal with offenders, whether they are of Canadian or any other origin.
I maintain that nothing positive can be accomplished by such orders as those to which I have referred. On the contrary, they can do us a lot of harm, especially when we assist in promoting suspicion against our own citizens. As I have already remarked', if an individual among a group of naturalized Canadians should break any of our laws, whether in time of war or in time of peace, such individual
National Emergency

should be brought before the courts of justice and dealt with as an individual. I maintain that once we grant a person the status of Canadian citizen he must be regarded as a Canadian. We must do everything possible to help our naturalized citizens to feel completely that they are a part of our nation. When we shall have eliminated suspicion and distrust from our midst we shall then have a truly strong and united Canada.
I should like to place on record a paragraph or so from an order in council which was passed by the governor in council on November 2, 1940, amending the defence of Canada regulations. I am placing these paragraphs on record to show what a ridiculous stand was taken and how little we know about our own people. On November 2, 1940, order in council P.C. 6150 was passed. This is the first paragraph :
Whereas the Minister of Justice reports that it has been reported by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that certain persons who are guilty of technical offences of not registering in accordance with the provisions of the defence of Canada regulations relating to enemy aliens, have been ordered interned under the provisions of paragraph (9) of regulation 25 of the said regulations.
Further down in the order in council I find this paragraph:
That in view of the' fact that certain persons who were not required to register under the original regulations were under .the impression that they were not affected by the subsequent regulation due to the fact that they were naturalized, some of them have been guilty of the offence of failing to register.
In substance, this order in council goes so far as to offer another opportunity to these Canadians, who had been naturalized since September. 1, 1922, to register as enemy aliens, and therefore paragraph 9 of regulation 25 was revoked, and another paragraph 9 was substituted so that these persons -might register within one month after the notice. It further states:
. . . or if he refuse or fail to answer truly any of the questions put by the registrar, or if being registered he fail to report as hereinbefore required or to observe any of the conditions upon which he is permitted to be at liberty, he may in addition to any other penalty to which he may therefor by law be liable, be interned as a prisoner of war on the order of the Minister of Justice or the registrar general of enemy aliens.
As I have stated, the reason I wished to place these two or three paragraphs on record was to show to what extent the government may go in legislating by way of orders in council. It seems to me that, had this matter been brought before the house, the house surely would not have approved any such legislation. I wish to emphasize as strongly 
, as I can that, when we deal with this particular phase of the problem concerning persons who do not happen to have been born in this country, once such persons become, naturalized citizens of Canada we must not entertain any idea of deporting them wholesale, no matter who they may be; because to-day it may be one group of people, and in a year's time or five years' time it may be another group and so forth.
I wish to read from an article that was published in Toronto in News of November 24, 1945. It is not very often that I agree with Mr. Elmore Philpott, because he is inclined to be pinkish, but on this occasion I consider that he has hit the nail on the head. I quote:
When a person acquires Canadian citizenship, either by birth or due process of law, possession of that right should be absolute and inviolable. It might be argued that for certain offences nationality should be revoked from people who have shown themselves unworthy of it. I doubt even that. But, if so, the power should be conferred only on judicial tribunals where the subject would have all the customary protections of British law. It is nothing short of an outrage to propose that the cabinet be given power to discuss in secret session cases involving revocation of nationality. That is nothing more nor less than the *writing into the laws of Canada of one most outrageous feature of the nazi system.
Surely we all recall the dark days of the depression of the thirties when, through no fault of their own, scores of thousands of immigrants to this country were unemployed, the government of Canada arbitrarily deported whole shiploads of them.
If at that time there -had been on the statute books of Canada the arbitrary and outrageous powers now asked in Bill 15, every foreign-born person would have been made liable to secret revocation of citizenship-and deportation without even so much -as the right to say good-bye to friends or even close km.
Bill 15, subsection (G) of section 3, is the most outrageous proposal ever introduced into the parliament of Canada. It should be stamped on and killed so emphatically that all the world will know that the Canadian people want no thin edge of the nazi doctrine wedged into our most sacred laws.
I agree with that view' wholeheartedly, and having chosen to touch upon this very aspect of our legislation, I might say that we have_ too long entertained the view that if a person does not behave we must brand all other individuals of the same race or the same background as being disloyal t-o the country. I hold that once a person obtains his citizenship certificate and becomes a Canadian citizen we should not even dream of revocation. If a man commits a crime he should be punished, but I see no justification for holding a stick over the heads of all those people who do not happen to have been bom

National Emergency
in this country. The governor in council, by passing these various orders in council, has been wielding this stick altogether too long, and for that reason I am bringing this matter to the attention of the house. I am sure the present Minister of Justice will take my remarks into consideration, and I believe that in the future he will avoid the recurrence of similar action on the part of the government.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: The bill that was presented to us this afternoon differs in some respect from the bill that was introduced in this house on October 5 last. While it limits to some extent the powers which the government sought under the former bill, nevertheless, if it is passed by the house in its present dress, which is somewhat more modest than the dress it previously wore, it will give the government powers which in my opinion no government should possess in the days of peace.
I wish to place myself on record as opposed to the bill. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in this house yesterday that he understood no exception was likely to be taken to the principle of the bill. Well, if the principle underlying it was that the government have authority for a period of one year to make orders and regulations, when this house was not sitting, to meet any national emergency that might suddenly arise in consequence of the war I would not find it objectionable. But as I read the bill that is not its principle.
As I read this bill the prineipje that underlies it is, that the government shall have dictatorial powers for a period, which is not altogether definite, to carry on a great part of the business of the country by order in council and by regulations when, how and as it sees fit; or, to put it in another way, the principle that underlies the bill is, not to provide for emergencies in peace time but to provide means of continuing government dictatorship now that the war is over.
I am opposed to the government having such dictatorial powers, and unconstitutional powers in times of peace. The War Measures Act gave the government dictatorial powers [DOT]during the war. It gave the government power to do what it thought was necessary for the security and the defence of Canada. It took away the functions of parliament, or a great many of them. It deprived the provinces of many of the rights given to them by the British North America Act.
I do not find fault with the government having such great powers in times of war; there are good reasons why they should have them. But the war is over now and government orders in council and government regulations are not going to help us win the peace, nor are they going to help us maintain freedom, justice and democracy in this country.
I do not suggest for one moment that all controls should be taken away immediately. I believe it is essential that some controls be maintained for a time, but there is a right way and a wrong way of establishing them.
The wrong way, the unconstitutional way, the undemocratic way, is by government orders in council and regulations.
The right way, the constitutional way, the democratic way is by legislation properly introduced into this house, and after it has been discussed and considered by the elected representatives of the people and by the senate, passed by parliament.
Now that the war is over, are there any good reasons why parliament should surrender one of its most important functions, that of legislating, and let the government legislate by orders in council and by regulations on all subjects set out in section 2 of this bill? If there are any good reasons I have not heard them; if there are such reasons I think the members of this house should be made acquainted with them by the government before this bill is passed.
What is a national emergency? It is not defined in the bill and we have not been told by the government what it is. We should be told that; there should be some definition of a national emergency in this bill before we give the government the great power for which it asks.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: What does Drew say?


Douglas King Hazen: The function of this house-


George Alexander Cruickshank: I asked what Drew said.


Douglas King Hazen: The hon. member should tell us; I do not know.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member is reading every word of what Drew said.


Douglas King Hazen: The function of this house to enact legislation-


George Alexander Cruickshank: What did Drew say?


James Horace King: Order. When an hon. member has the floor no interruption should take place without his permission.


Douglas King Hazen: The function of this house to enact legislation will be abrogated to a
National Emergency

great extent if we pass this bill in its present form. The Minister of Finance said recently in this house:
There is danger that the House of Commons may be losing sight of its real functions, which are to vote supply, control expenditures and to enact legislation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is the second page.


Douglas King Hazen: If this bill becomes law in its present form our function to enact legislation will be lost to a great extent and for a considerable time. Let us not lose sight of that danger. We should insist that legislation by government orders and regulations be brought to an end, and that the people's representatives in this house, who are much more familiar with conditions in their constituencies than are members of the cabinet or deputy ministers or civil servants, make the law of the dominion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


James Horace King: Order.
M.r. HAZEN: Under our constitution and under our democratic form of government the men and women whom the electors of this country send to parliament to represent them and to whom they are responsible at the next election, are supposed to make the laws.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is going to be tough for some of us.


Douglas King Hazen: And independent judges have the duties of administering those laws.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member said all that before.


James Horace King: Order. For the second time I would ask the hon. member not to interrupt the hon. gentleman who has the floor.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, according to the rules an hon. member is not- allowed to read his speech. The hon. member is reading every word.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, he is, every
word he is saying.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: The hon. member is
just in a haze.


Douglas King Hazen: Mr. Speaker, as I said-and
I propose to repeat it now-under our constitution and under our democratic form of government the men and women who are elected to this house by the people throughout the country are supposed to make the laws, and independent judges have the duties of administering those laws.

That, sir, is a principle that should not be lost sight of; it is a principle that should be carefully observed; it is a principle that should be guarded jealously by the members of this house and should not be surrendered in times of peace if we are to have government by, of and for the people.
Every person in this house was elected by the voters of his constituency to make the laws or to assist in making the laws of the dominion. As I say, we are responsible to them at the next election for what we do here. In my opinion we do not keep faith with them or with parliamentary institutions, nor are we true to the principles of British justice, if we fail in our duty in this respect on the ground of expediency or convenience or national emergency, call it what you will, and let the government make orders and regulations which have the force of law and impose fines and penalties for their violation, which directly affect the lives of the people throughout the dominion.
The people of this country are becoming alarmed at government by order in council. They are losing patience with controls and regulations. They are becoming fed up with "bureaucracy, and they have good reason to be.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has given instances of how some orders in council have overridden the fundamental rights of the people of Canada by depriving them of the rlgnt to counsel when investigations are being carried on by officers of the crown.*
He has rendered a service to the dominion by bringing those orders, in council into the light of day; he has rendered a service to freedom and to justice in bringing them to the attention of the house and the country, and yet by this bill we are asked to approve all orders in council which have been, passed under the War Measures Act. Under section 2, subsection 3 of the bill, we have no right to look into those orders in council or to have them annulled, as is provided for other orders in council.
There are always some people about, and present company is not altogether excepted, who hold the view that the underlying principles of British justice and of our constitution are very fine principles indeed, so long as they do not interfere with their plans or activities, or prevent them from taking short-cuts to achieve the ends they have in view. No matter how good their intentions may be or how earnest they may be in their endeavours, such persons are a menace to the state if they have the power to override those principles.

National Emergency
A chief justice of England once said that "high capacity and ardent zeal never need to be more carefully watched than when they appear to have entered with all their might upon a wrong course."
In this connection I am reminded of a letter that Lord Disraeli, when Prime Minister of Great Britain, wrote to Queen Victoria who wanted a certain gentleman appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. He said:	"The Bishop of London sympathizes
with everything that is earnest, but what is earnest is not always true. On the contrary, error is often more earnest, than true."
It seems to me, sir, that the government of the dominion, in bringing this bill into the house, has proceeded upon a wrong course, very earnestly and no doubt very sincerely, but on a course that violates constitutional principles and, I may add, the principles of British justice.
I propose . to give one or two illustrations that have come to my notice to show how government orders and regulations affect men's lives, interfere with their means of livelihood and violate their fundamental rights.
Early this year a young man showed me a letter he had received from a government department. He was a carpenter in a very small way, and in 1942 had taken a contract to construct some small buildings, an undertaking with which he was not very familiar. Neither was he familiar with government regulations, but he made an honest effort to comply with them. When he paid the men who worked for him he deducted the tax from their wages, as required. A year or so after he had finished the contract, government officials inspected his books and sent him the letter to which I have just referred. In that letter he was informed that he was short about S10 of the amount he should have deducted from his workmen for taxes in 1942, and about $60 short of the amount he should have deducted in 1943. The letter went on to say in effect that, as he was just getting started in business and was not familiar with the regulations he would be fined only $25.
What is British justice coming to when a thing like that can happen in this country? Do hon. members realize what it means? It is a fundamental principle of law, which is subject to some exceptions, that a man is not guilty of a crime if he commits an innocent mistake. But the most shocking feature of the case is that under these regulations, government officials have the right to act as complainant, prosecutor, judge and jury, and impose a fine on a man without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
I say that this kind of thing must stop if we are to remain a free people.
Let me give another example, this time under selective service. A man who was a vulcanizer by trade had been ill fcfr about six months. When he was well enough to go to work he looked about for a job and found a vulcanizing firm in the city in which he lived, engaged in essential war work, which required his services. He knew the boss of this plant and wanted to work for him. He went to the selective service office, told them he was a vulcanizer and said he would like to work for this particular firm which required his services. Selective service officers, after looking through their cards, ordered him to go to work with another vulcanizing firm. He said he wanted to work with the man he knew, and an argument ensued. He noticed the card stated that the wages would be $140 a month, but he was told the wages would be $120 a month. This led to another argument, but in the end he was forced to go where he was ordered.	.
It is only natural that he did not go in a very good state of mind, and it followed that he and his boss did not get along very well. Finally he said to the boss, "This is not fair to you and it is not fair to me," and the boss who was fed up with him by this time, no doubt for very good reasons, called up selective service who said to send the man in. Before he went, however, a discharge card had to be filled out. Under the heading, "Reason for release" the boss wrote the words, "Claims to be sick," and this card was signed by both employer and employee.
When the workman went back to the selective service office with this card, though there was a shortage of vulcanizers in the town he was ordered to go to work for a certain company as a carpenter. He said that he was not a carpenter; that he had done carpentering work at one time but had sold his tools years ago, and that he was a vulcanizer. He was told, "Well, you can either go to work as a carpenter or you can go to work as a labourer."
Apparently selective service officials thought they had the right to punish him because he had the effrontery to speak up for himself in the belief that he had some rights as a Canadian citizen.
When he came to look at the card he had brought to the office, which both he and his employer had signed, he found that some official there had scratched out the words "Claims to be sick" and had written in their place "Unreliable." This, of course, was an out-and-out forgeYy and could not be justified on any grounds whatever.
National Emergency

This story gives us an example of how men are treated when they are governed by bureaucracy established through government orders in council and government regulations, and I %ay it must stop.
Now let me give another example of the way in which bureaucracy is carried on under national selective service. A man who conducted a restaurant business and rendered service to men engaged in heavy work by providing them with substantial meals had difficulty in obtaining waitresses. Selective service could not supply them. On one occasion after a long search he engaged a girl and drove her to the selective service office to have the necessary forms completed. When she came out of the office and got into his car he looked at her card and found that she had been directed to go to work for another restaurant.
Now let me give an example of a different kind. A man who had a service station and repair shop on the outskirts of a city went into the used car business in a small way in 1941. Last year he was notified that he must get a permit from the government to carry on a used car business. He filled out the form and received a permit.
This year he applied again to the government authorities for a permit, and received a letter in reply informing him that his application was refused on the ground that he had not adequate facilities to deal in second-hand cars. He had a service station, a repair garage and a good-sized lot adjoining it on which to park cars, but evidently this was not sufficient for some reason or another and a licence was refused. Not only was it refused, but he was ordered to sell the cars he had on hand and report to the government department when the sales had been made.
These are only a few instances that have come to my notice. I could cite many others, and no doubt many hon. members could cite a great many more of how affairs in this country are being carried on under government orders in council and government regulations rather than by acts of parliament.
In conclusion, may I quote again from Lord Hewart, who said:
Writers on the constitution have for a long time taught that its two leading features are the sovereignty of parliament and the rule of law. To tamper with one of them was, it might be thought, a sufficiently serious undertaking. But how more attractive to the ingenious and adventurous mind to employ the one to defeat the other, and to establish despotism on the ruins of both.
The government by this bill is attempting to defeat the functions of parliament and the
[Mr. Hazen.l
rule of law and by means of orders in council and regulations to establish a new despotism in time of peace.
The great national emergency that exists in Canada to-day is the attempt that the government is making to maintain a dictatorship now that the war is over.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to enter into this learned discussion on controls; but as a member since the beginning of the war of the government which has been administering the affairs of Canada, possibly I should reply to some of the statements which have been made in the discussion up to this time, more particularly those which were made this afternoon by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Before doing so, I should like to say that I do not think there is anyone in this House of Commons or in Canada who is more opposed to controls of any kind than . I. Liberalism has always taught me to have objection to controls in so far as they are not necessary to preserve the rights of others. Naturally those of us who have been brought up in that belief have objection to the infliction of controls of any kind upon the people of the country to which we belong which are not absolutely necessary to the welfare of all of us.
But I think those of us who have had the privilege, unfortunate or otherwise, to have lived in this generation, we have all learned through the experience of time. We certainly have had an opportunity, equal to that of any generation that has ever lived, to understand the necessity for controls at a time when our nation is being attacked by the enemy. On two occasions within the lifetime of those of us who are gathered here democratic countries have found it necessary to defend democratic institutions. On each occasion that we have found it necessary to do so, it has been natural that we have had to utilize instruments in which we did not personally believe.
Anyone who believes in the freedom of democracy does not believe in war. But anyone who believes in the freedom of democracy knows that when democracy is attacked by those who believe in force, there is only one way in which that force can be effectively met, and that is by force. We all realize, too, that when we are placed in the position where we must of necessity use force, we must use instruments which are not the common instruments of a nation which is free. So that under those circumstances we have control.
I object to those who consider themselves radicals, who looking at the effectiveness of controls during war time advocate their main-

National Emergency
tenance during a time of peace. My reason for opposing that is very much the same reason as was given expression to a few moments ago by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Hazen); my reason for opposing that is the same reason as was given this afternoon by the hon. member for Stan-stead, namely, that if the application of controls is continued long enough we shall be afflicted by the same kind of totalitarian state and totalitarian institutions against which we are compelled to fight when we defend democracy against those_ totalitarian institutions. I am as anxious as any one in this house to get rid of controls. I am sure I have in agreement with me, not only every member of the government but every member who sits on this side of the house. We always have wished to get rid of controls.
After having made that statement, I should like to say that there is a middle course between wishing to rid ourselves of controls overnight, and' wishing to maintain those controls for an exceptionally long period of time which may eventually land this country in a position where we would be threatened with a totalitarian form of government. That middle course is not necessarily expressed by Liberals, nor is it necessarily expressed by those who would take the course of totalitarianism. However, it is often expressed by people by whom we would least expect it to be expressed; it is expressed by businessmen; it is expressed by the people on the street; it is expressed by the leaders of finance. I should like to quote to the house an expression of opinion, given by one with whom many of us on this side of the house do not always agree, one with whom some hon. members on the other side of house never agree. Mr. Spinney of the bank of Montreal is reported in the Montreal Daily Star of December 3, 1945, as follows:
At the same time, Mr. Spinney said, there must be a realization that for many months to come there still would be a need for some of the controls introduced during the war years.
"It is quite evident that inflationary pressures are now, if anything, more intense and more fraught with potential danger than at any time during the years of actual conflict.
In consequence, the need for continuance of the war-time pattern of voluntary restraint, and for intelligent acceptance of appropriate stabilization controls still remains as a challenge to $he good sense of the Canadian people.
The manner in which we meet that challenge will determine whether we tackle the tasks of reconstruction against a background of stable monetary conditions or in the turbulent atmosphere of inflationary boom and subsequent collapse.
With that statement which appears in the press of yesterday I think most members of the house will agree, particularly the latter part of it which says that if we took off overnight all controls at the end of a war such as we have just passed through, the result would be the subsequent collapse of our institutions. All one needs to do to be persuaded of that is to read the history of the period immediately following the last war, when countries which followed that course brought upon themselves great difficulties from which they had greater difficulty in extricating themselves. With that statement of the president of the bank of Montreal before us together with the experience of other countries following the last war, may I now refer to some of the remarks that were made this afternoon?
The hon. member for Stanstead took the position that this bill was most confusing, and in order to prove his point he read from the preamble of the bill to show that it was most confusing. I should like to read part of the preamble to the bill, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the intention of the government could not be set out more plainly than it appears in the preamble. The preamble says:
And whereas the national emergency .arising out of the war has continued since the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan and is still continuing; and whereas it is essential in the national interest that certain transitional powers continue to be exercisable by the governor in council during the continuation of the exceptional conditions brought about by the war and it is preferable that such transitional powers be exercised hereafter under special authority in that behalf conferred by parliament instead of being exercised under the War Measures Act; -and whereas in the existing circumstances it is essential that certain acts and things done and authorized and certain orders and regulations1 made under the War Measures Act be continued in force and that the governor in council be authorized to do and authorize such further acts .and things and make such further orders and regulations as he may deem necessary or advisable by Teason of the emergency .and for the purpose of the discontinuance, in an orderly manner .as the emergency permits, of measures adopted during and by reason of the emergency: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the .Senate and House of 'Commons of Canada, enacts as follows
That language seems to me to be perfectly plain; there is no confusion in it at all.


Mr. FLEMING:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister is reading, not from the preamble to bill No. 15, but from the preamble to the bill which has been circulated since yesterday and which will not be introduced until the house is in committee of the whole.

National Emergency


James Garfield Gardiner: That, of course, is the bill which is to be submitted to the committee for consideration. That is the bill I am speaking to. For bill No. 15 which was before the house, another bill is being substituted which expresses very clearly the position. May I say that I am only replying to the hon. member for Stanstead, who this afternoon read part of the preamble from the original bill and part of the preamble from the second bill and indicated that the preamble of the second bill was confusing. I am simply reading from the preamble of the second bill to indicate that it is not confusing; that it is perfectly plain.
In the speeches to which I have just listened the statement has been made over and over again that we are asking the members of this house to permit the government to pass legislation over which this parliament will have no control. The members who make that statement have not read the bill. The bill definitely says that what we are doing is just what the preamble outlines, namely, asking the house to permit the government to continue in existence the orders in council which were passed during the war and which it is necessary to have continued for a few months after the war. The bill goes on to provide that within a certain period of time the government must place on the table of the house any order that it passes and, further, that either the House of Commons or the Senate can take action to make that particular order inoperative. There is nothing in the bill which says that but for more than a few days the government has authority to legislate without that legislation having been given consideration by the membership of the house and the senate as well, and the bill contains the further extraordinary provision, one that I never heard of before in any bill, that in order to protect the rights of the members of this house and of the members of the senate, either house may prevent such an order from becoming the law of this country. With such a provision in the bill I cannot understand why all this discussion is taking place at this time. It must be because certain members of the opposition have in their minds ideas which I am sure are not in the minds of the great mass of the people of this country, and in order to make plain what the hon. member for Stanstead did have in his mind this afternoon, I should -like to read some of the statements he made, bringing them a little closer together than they appear in the long.legal argument that he put before the house.

In the first place I read this:
If I grasp the significance of the terminology, it means that there was an emergency, that there is not an emergency now, but to retreat from the emergency we must have emergency powers. That is what I believe the hill means.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if anything could be more confusing than that particular statement except confusion itself I do not know what it is. After having read part of the preamble into the records of this house the hon. member immediately proceeded to state that this part of the preamble means exactly the opposite of what it does mean. Then he went on to say:
If there he an emergency, it is not a war emergency. If there be an emergency, it is an emergency which arises from the totalitarian legislation which we enacted to fight and defeat a totalitarian people.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if it was legislation enacted to. fight and defeat a totalitarian people, surely it is legislation which has arisen out of the war to cover emergency acts of this government done for the very purpose of assisting in fighting and defeating a totalitarian people; and this legislation arises out of the fact that we have been at war and that there are continuing results from that
war.	He goes on to say:
I do not criticize those who had the responsibility of enacting the legislation that brought these controls -about. They were anxious to win the war. They had but one aim in view, and they have achieved that aim. But to achieve it they paid a price.
Mr. Speaker, I do not look for any higher eulogy of the government of the Dominion of Canada which carried on during the war than that which was made by the hon. member for Stanstead in his criticism of the government. Let me read it again:
I do not criticize those who had the responsibility of enacting the legislation that brought these controls about. They were anxious to win the war. They had but one aim in view and they have -achieved that -aim.
But to achieve it they paid the price.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Not the members of the government paid the price, particularly. The people of the Dominion of Canada paid the price. The people of all the democratic nations of the world fighting against the totalitarian form of government paid the price, but I do not know that I am in agreement with the hon. member for Stanstead in all that he said in regard to what that price
was.	He does go on to say this:
When we come to consider our present situation and determine what course we should follow, we cannot hope to get back to normal without going through some turbulence, without experiencing some inconvenience. Anybody

National Emergency
who takes a stimulant, anybody who develops artificial energy within himself must pay a price, and Canada just cannot afford to taper off in a matter of this kind.
May I call attention to the fact that my hon. friend believes that we cannot get away from this war without turbulence. We, the members of the government, believe that by acting sensibly we can get away from this war, in Canada, without turbulence, and we intend to try so to conduct the affairs of Canada, in getting ourselves from the war into a period of established peace, that turbulence will not be necessary within the dominion. Of course I think he is correct when he says that we cannot get away from it without experiencing some inconvenience; and this inconvenience the people of Canada are prepared to meet, even the inconvenience of the continuation of those controls which are necessary to bridge us over from the period of war into the period of peace. The hon. member goes on to say:
I submit that the emergency which confronts Canada to-day is not a war emergency; it is an emergency which arises out of the legislation which we enacted to win the war. We cannot ease ourselves out of it, because that is impossible.
The inference from that is that we should go out with one jump. We must not ease ourselves out; we must take one leap right out of the war and into peace, and in doing so avoid the necessity of having legislation of this kind. That not only would be most ridiculous, but would have an effect upon the people of this country such as nothing which has been done up to date, either by the government or by any of those who are attempting to hinder what is being done by the government, to bring turbulence; it would have an effect more detrimental to the people of this country than anything else which I can conceive of. He says:
Somebody has threatened us with terrible trouble, with great evils, unless these controls be continued. What are these great perils? The hon. member . . . tells us that flour went up, that sugar went up in price

I assume, at the end of the last war.
Supposing it did; supposing it goes up again. Is that to be weighed on the same scales with the intolerable situation in which the Canadian people find themselves now that the war is over?
Well, there may have been some questioning during war time when price controls were imposed as to whether all those price controls were necessary. But when an hon. member in one breath says that controls were necessary in war time-


Mr. COCKERAM:: Why do you say that?


James Garfield Gardiner: He said that in what I read a moment ago, and if the hon. member 47696-185}
reads his speech to-morrow he will find it there. The remarks he made were definitely to that effect.


Alan Cockeram: But the minister puts
on the emphasis.


James Garfield Gardiner: I put emphasis on in my speeches. Some people do not emphasize theirs at all; they just get up and recite from a piece of written paper. The hon. member continued:
Is that to be weighed on the same scales with the intolerable situation in which the Canadian people find themselves now that the war is
over ?


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder, please. '


James Garfield Gardiner: If I had made as many speeches as my hon. friend has made since the war was over I would not need to be explaining anything. Listen to this one on top of that one:


James Arthur Ross: The minister is reading a good speech pretty closely now.


James Garfield Gardiner: He says:
If you control prices, of necessity you control wages.
I may say for the benefit of the hon. member for Souris and his friends that when I do not read their remarks very carefully they accuse me of misquoting them.


James Arthur Ross: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member says:
If you control prices, of necessity you control wages.
I think I should read something' which comes even before that; it is very interesting:
I submit that the control of prices is the first step in the first mile, toward a situation which makes of a whole people so many vassals. That may sound extravagant.
I do not think I am a radical. I know I am not a C.C.F.'er.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: And certainly not a
Tory.


James Garfield Gardiner: But when some people
talk about controlling prices I am tempted to express some of my own views with regard to that. I doubt if there has ever been a time in my lifetime-I believe I could go back much further than that-when there has not been somebody controlling prices; and I do not know that they have ever been controlled to the advantage of the farmers and of the great mass of labouring people in this country when the government did not take a hand in it. I suggest that, if there is to be any control of prices and any control of wages,
National Emergency

the one authority which ought to have that control in Canada is the government of Canada and not some other organization. We are having built up in this country, on the one hand, organizations which some people call cartels and which tiy to control prices. We have organizations on the other hand which are called by various names and which are trying to control wages. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if all the people of this country are to be dealt with in the manner in which they should be dealt, with, the proper authority to deal ' with such matters, if they must be dealt with, is the parliament of this country and particularly acting through the members of this government. So that I am not so much afraid of what my hon. friend speaks of here when he says:
I submit that the control of prices is the first step in the first mile toward a situation which makes of a whole people so many vassals.
If we have democratic government in this country, if we have elected representatives to this House of Commons, and if they speak their mind here as they should speak it and as they do speak it in order to get votes in the country, we do not need to worry about people becoming vassals.


Mr. HARKNESS:: What about the price of hogs?


James Horace King: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend is talking about hogs. . \rou will find more, people over there who are experts on hogology than I am.
If you control prices, of necessity you control wages. When you control prices and wages, you determine where men are to work.
I think we did all that during the war. We controlled prices and we controlled wages. We said, as my hon. friend remarked, where men were to work. Even sometimes we said whom they were to work for; and I may say there was not any group in this house which advocated more strenuously and more continuously that we ought to tell them where to go than hon. members who sit in that part of the house. They were insistent upon that throughout the whole period of the war. They wanted everybody to be told what they were to do, how many hogs they ought to produce, how many cows they ought to milk, how many bushels of wheat they ought to grow, and so on.


An hon. MEMBER:: And everybody told them how many Germans they ought to kill.


James Garfield Gardiner: Now, when we suggest that for a few months longer, until we tide over the period between all these controls
[Mr. Gardiner.J
and the period of peace when we can get along without them, we ought to have a bill to make that possible and thus ease off from what we have been doing to what we all desire to have, it is called tapering off and it is said that we do not require that. I am not an expert on tapering off, so that I cannot discuss that question at any length.
The speech which is before me, however, has some other remarks which I should like to bring to the attention of the house. Here is one:
I cannot do more than point out to the house that these emergencies do not come from the war. They are indirectly incidental to it.
Well, when I started out in the hope that some day I might be a lawyer-I did not arrive there; I arrived somewhere else

I was taught to believe that a man should be very careful about his statments and that he should not make a statement in one sentence which he denies in the next, particularly if hei is before a careful judge, and this house ought to be a careful judge. The hon. gentleman says: "I cannot do more than point out to the house that these emergencies do not come from the war", and then he says in the next sentence: "They are indirectly incidental to it. There is no hope of getting away from them because they cannot be effective unless they are all maintained, and we are only deluding ourselves if we perpetuate this type of government." Then he goes on to show that these controls will ultimately lead to the totalitarian state, and in the last sentence he has the gem of it all. After telling us that these controls were necessary to the conduct of the war, that they were essential to the , defeat of the totalitarian states, that they were used by the government of Canada-and he even gives us credit for having used them so effectively as to have won the war-something we would not claim for ourselves-after-having done all this, then he says that this condition which we have now is not brought about by war, this emergency condition. He says it is only indirectly incidental to it. And he makes this statement:
Mr. Speaker, what we require here, what Canada requires is not more legislation continuing control*.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says "hear, hear". He goes on:
What 'Canada requires is an energetic government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, listen to this:
-a government with nerve enough to remove controls and give Canada back to democracy and democratic institutions.

National Emergency
Well, my hon. friends do not say "hear, hear" to that. What does that mean? The whole argument of this speech is to the effect that we needed controls during the war, that the emergency that has existed following the war is indirectly at least incidental to the war, and then he goes on to say that we do not need these controls, that if we do keep these controls we are going to have ultimately the totalitarian state. Then he says that we should not taper off but that we should jump right out of the frying-pan into the fire and ease ourselves off in that way. Finally he says that what we want is a government with nerve enough to do that.
I submit that that is not what we want at all. What we want is a government with the same kind of nerve that was exercised during the war, the same kind of nerve which this government exercised during the early part of the war when our hon. friends opposite said to .us, "You are never going to get a higher production of hogs. The man-power policy of this government, the policies enunciated by the Department of Agriculture are not going to yield a greater and greater production of hogs." They kept that cry up for two years. They did not even have the information which made it possible for them to stop until they found themselves under such an avalanche of hogs coming across Canada and going to Britain that they just closed up and said nothing more about the matter.
What we want is the same kind of nerve which, in spite of the fact that they talked about main-power in season and out of season, results in the Dominion of Canada being recognized to-day as one of the allied1 countries that did its utmost during the war not only in the production of necessary food1 and the production of necessary munitions and machines of war, but in sending men to the front line in all the services in greater numbers than any other policy that could1 have been conceived of by any other government in Canada would have put them there. That is admitted to-day by everyone-	*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: -except a few.


An hon. MEMBER:: Were you there?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was about as near
there as you were. I was in Britain when it was bombed' every night, and) my hon. friend was about as close as that. Not only do we require that kind1 of nerve but we require the kind of nerve, in the present period, which was exercised at all times. No matter what criticism, may have been made of the
policy of the government, that policy brought about the results which we knew it would achieve; and after we have had these experiences during the war period, now that we have come into the period which is the transition between war and peace, we want a government with the same kind of nerve which this administration had ini the last session before the election when we brought down the family allowances bill. When it was first brought down my hon. friends opposite sent their leaders out into the country to condemn it; but when it was finally voted on in this house, you could not find a single member in his seat who had enough nerve to stand up for what had been advocated by his leaders. The only man who had the nerve to do so was the hon. doctor sitting over there who appeared) the next day and registered his abjection to what had been done by his own bed fellows the day before.
That is the kind of nerve which is wanted. I even prefer the nerve of the hon. member who came back and stayed with the position that had been taken by some of his leaders outside the house. To-night we are asking the house to permit this government, which has shown nerve, which has exercised that nejve to get results, to put this measure through the house. Those results have caused the chief critic of this particular legislation to get up and1 say:	Yes, every bit of it
was legislation that was necessary to win the war against the totalitarian states;' I admit that every part of it had to be enaetedi; I admit that all, these controls were necessary. And1 yet all he1 can say about it now is that if we are to go on from here we must kick it all overboard overnight and start off from a fresh point. I do not think we can do that at all. What we ought to do is what is proposed1 in this bill. As a House of Commons and as a parliament we ought to give the government of Canada the authority to go ahead and) handle this position during the period of transition, and bring us from that period of transition toward peace. I hope that it has to be enacted only once, as does every hon.- member. The terms of the bill state that it will remain in1 force for only one year if parliament meets in November or December of that year, and if parliament does not meet during those months, fifteen days after the commencement of the ensuing session. It must be reconsidered, at that session, and I hope it will never require to be reenacted. I can assure hon. gentlemen that it would' only be reenacted if it is essential to carry on our activities which would bridge us over the .period of war into
National Emergency

the period1 of peace. With that idea before us and the suggestions I made a few moments ago that this bill has safeguards which no other bill has ever had which was introduced into this house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What are they?


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the bill and you will find out. I see that .you have not read the bill. This bill has safeguards such as were never in any other bill introduced into this house by any other government.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Who put the safeguards there?


James Garfield Gardiner: Those safeguards are put there in order to preserve the rights of the people and of the representatives of the people of Canada. My hon. friend asks who put them there? The government of this country takes-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: The premiers of the provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: The government of this country takes the responsibility for anything that is put in any bill which is brought into this house by the government. We take the responsibility for this legislation. We are not such hidebound Tories that we never take information or advice from anybody. The only people who will not listen to advice die in their tracks. We -sometimes listen to it-


An hon. MEMBER:: You are already dead.


James Garfield Gardiner: We hope that this measure meets not only with the approval of the premiers of the provinces and the members of this house, but with the approval of the great majority of the people of Canada. I am sure it does, and therefore I support the second reading of the bill.


Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to answer in detail the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). He spent his whole time in discussing nerves and controls. His whole speech demonstrated nerve without control. It was amazing to sit and listen to the speech of the spokesman of the government in power in which he tried to illustrate to the house the necessity of controls and nerves without attempting to portray the role of members of parliament in the situation.
In his opening speech on Bill No. 15 in its original form the Minister of Justice (Mr. St, Laurent) pointed to two main questions before the- house. He said that this bill required two distinct things, a declaration of a post-war emergency and the delegation of the powers of parliament to the government of

Canada. There is nobody in Canada who does not realize that in war time stringent controls are necessary in many aspects of human life. Nobody will disagree with the government when they say in the bill, as amended, that the war-time condition will stop on the first day of January, 1946. We all agree with the government when they say that because of war our social, economic, trade and home conditions have been upset. We all agree with certain measures which the government brought in during the war. By this bill the government seeks to extend and increase them to meet a different emergency in post-war days. The emergency we have now is not that of war entirely; it is the coo-[DOT] sequence of our war-time economy and a consequence of the present government's wartime controls, by order in council and administrative regulations.
After listening to the speech made by the minister to-night, in which he emphasized his viewpoint and, I believe, the viewpoint of the government, one would almost be compelled to come to the conclusion that there was nobody but Hitler who could govern. There is nobody but the little autocrat who spoke to-night who has sole power and who wants to increase that power, who can better exemplify the autocracy he wants to extend.


Mr. ABBOTT:: Explain.


George Russell Boucher: No explanation of mine could be better than the demonstration already given by the previous speaker.
The War Measures Act, which was passed at the beginning of the war, declared that because a state of war existed certain powers must be vested in parliament and that parliament must delegate certain of those powers to the government. Then we find that the government has delegated to the executive of the government, the cabinet, the privy council, the right to carry on by order in council the hitherto unknown and undemocratic policy of legislating to the extent of abrogating statutes and interfering with civil and property rights, of interfering with the privilege of carrying on your trade, of marketing your own produce, of living your own life as you might see it. I agree that to an extent many of those policies were necessary. We now find that after the war is over, so far as combat is concerned, the government are coming back to parliament and telling us that they are going to declare it over within a few short days and asking us to approve everything the order in council government did up to that date and to grant them the power to extend their regulations. In other words, it definitely illustrates, as did the minister's

National Emergency
speech to-night, the total forgetfulness of this government or of the cabinet of the government of any legislating power in Canada other than the King cabinet. I hope that all hon. members do not agree with this. The government is forgetful of the fact that there are provincial legislatures and municipal institutions which can take the burden off this government of displacing the war-tom economy of Canada and of helping it to restore peace-time conditions. The minister did not refer to that; it did not occur to him that anybody but a little secret council, a little cabinet, an executive committee, could handle the situation which the law and the constitution of the country requires to be handled by other than the parliament of Canada, except in an emergency.
I say to him and to hon. members that certain controls are necessary. During war time, and because of a war economy, government action must be centred more in the federal parliament than in peace time, and to a degree parliament must place more confidence ' and more power in the executive or the privy council.
As Mark Antony said, Caesar was ambitious when he tried to turn autocracy into tyranny and lost his life. He illustrated for all time the lust of those in power for greater power, and the unwillingness of those with power to surrender that power. That has been further demonstrated not only by this bill, not only by this cabinet but, to the umpteenth degree, by the remarks of the minister who preceded me.
What does this bill do? For a while I thought we were to speak only on the original bill, that bill No. 2 was only a suggestion as to what the government might do at a future date if we gave our blessing to bill No. 1. However, the minister took the liberty to discuss bill No. 2, and emphasized the wording of the preamble where in three or four places it stated that the situation to-day required certain transitional powers to be given by parliament to the executive, that it asked that certain things should be done and that certain orders and regulations under the War Measures Act should be continued. The bill contains very little that is certain. Let me read the powers which are sought:
(a)	providing for and maintaining the armed forces of Canada during the occupation of enemy territory and demobilization and providing for the rehabilitation of members thereof . . .
Power to do every bit of that, with the possible exception of some rehabilitation measures, is already in the hands of the cabinet; but as far as the army is concerned, how could they ask for more outright and absolute power? Then the next paragraph states:
(b)	facilitating the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace . . .
To what community, may I ask? Is it the community of the hon. gentleman who just spoke, the Minister of Agriculture, or is it some other little community within our country? Is it the community of the cabinet, as someone suggests? Perhaps that is the meaning we should take from it. They want power to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace. Perhaps it is the world community. What does that not cover? It covers anything the government-not the government, but the executive committee of the government-may hereafter think will tend to facilitate the readjustment of the war-torn world. Could one get any broader power than that? Then the next clause goes on:
(c)	maintaining, controlling and regulating supplies and services, prices, transportation, use and occupation of property-
They should have put "real and personal" there, so that we would know there was no property they could not control.
-rentals, employment, or salaries and wages
I wonder why they did not include the control of going to church. That is about the only thing I can think of that they have omitted.	.
(d)	assisting 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 the war . . .
Does that not mean every place where distress may exist, in the minds of the executive committee of this house? Then:
(e)	continuing and discontinuing in an orderly manner, as the- emergency permits-
It does not say as the war emergency permits, but any emergency.
-measures adopted during and by reason of the war.
The first bill No. 15 had something that was specific, something that was certain; but in the second bill No. 15 the only certainty was the word "certain" used in the preamble. Does this bill represent the government's intention to^give back the powers which under the constitution heretofore belonged to the parliament of Canada. It does not purport to give any powers to parliament but gives them directly to the executive committee. It is a case of all power to the privy council and no power to parliament. Does it favour the legislatures of our provinces reassuming any of their pre-war privileges and obligations? It does not. It seems to represent the
National Emergency

very opposite. Does it diminish the powers of the nomelective boards and commissions? No. This bill as now drafted wants the parliament of Canada, the legislatures of Canada, the municipal councils of Canada, the people of Canada, the government of the day and all members of this house to delegate to the cabinet not only the power to legislate but the power to delegate to other men and other boards, who have never been elected by the exercise of any franchise, power to abrogate statutes and make orders arid regulations having the force of law. That is not democracy. I say that the time has come when, parliament should not delegate any powers it has to men who have not been appointed to their positions by the democratic franchise. To me that is the important thing about this bill. It does not by any means limit, curtail or show any desire to stop the order in council government that has been so obnoxious to the Canadian people. Under the amended bill the powers are so general and so all-inclusive that I cannot conceive of anjThing being more all-embracing. Surely we in Canada, having beaten the totalitarian states, must work against totalitarianism within our own state. The people now desire to see a return to pre-war privileges, to peace-time prosperity and happiness, to the privileges of British and Canadian citizenship and freedom, to the use of their property without having the government take control of all property rights, without submitting its orders even to the members of the House of Commons until long after they have been passed.
The minister said that ample provision is made for these orders in council to be tabled in the house and for hon. members to pass upon them. I ask hon. gentlemen how practical it is to place a resolution on the order paper and have it discussed, with the government taking precedence for its business as it has for the last five years. How will that be worked out? I do not want to go through all the provisions of the bill in detail, but let us see when it may be terminated. Section 6 of the amended bill states:
Subject as hereinafter provided, this act shall expire on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and forty-six, if parliament meets during November or December, one thousand nine hundred and forty-six-
The Prime Minister or the cabinet, who heretofore have not called parliament to meet to sanction their orders in council, are not likely to change their ways and call a meeting of parliament next November or December for the sole purpose of submitting to the members of the House of Commons the

products of their imagination and those of their dollar-a-year men, unless they have a complete change of policy. But it goes on: -but if parliament does not so meet it shall expire on the fifteenth day after parliament first meets during the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven-
It does not say when it will meet, because it may be postponed until the next fall. We have been running a year late now in our parliamentary sessions, so that we do not know whether it will be called until November or December, 194S. The section continues:

provided that, if at any time while this act is in force, addresses are presented to the governor general by the Senate and House of Commons respectively, praying that this act should be continued in force for a further period, not in any case exceeding one year, from the time at which it would otherwise expire and the governor in council so orders, this act shall continue in force for that further period.
As the Minister of Agriculture has shown so well to-night, we can well imagine a continuation of order in council government without even the possibility of calling parliament to let members have an opportunity of seeing these matters, whether the government ever lets them come to a discussion or not. Under those circumstances we have to look at this bill, not as a declaration of the necessity of controls, but as a declaration iby the cabinet of contempt for parliament, of contempt for the legislators, of contempt for democracy and of contempt for the people. I see nothing in it to indicate in any way any desire, hope, wish or possibility of returning to the democratic and freedom loving people of Canada privilege of having their elected representatives make and sustain their own laws.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think at this stage of the debate it is necessary to pause and take stock of this situation. We have had presented to us bill No. 15, the original bill, by which we had understood until a few moments ago that we were bound and circumscribed in this debate. Then, after certain significant events of recent days we have had held out an enticing bit of bait in the form of a revised bill. Notwithstanding what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said a few minutes ago, the bill before the house at the moment is the original bill No. 15 and when this house votes on the second reading it is voting for the second reading of the original bill. In the meantime the government is holding out a little bit beyond our grasp this bait in the form of a revised bill which cannot be put before this house until we are in committee of the whole. There is the issue before this house on the second reading of the Original bill No.

National Emergency
15. What is the principle of that bill? I say that the principle of that bill is such that no self-respecting parliament in this month of December, 1945, could possibly consider it. There has been introduced a bit of windowdressing, a bit of bait, but .parliament is faced with the stark reality of bill No. 15.
Since this bill was first introduced and since this debate first began a week ago last Friday, several mysteries about it have perhaps been cleared up. But one mystery has not been cleared up. The veil of secrecy still enshrouds the author of the bill. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), in his masterly address in this chamber a week ago last Friday challenged the government to declare who was the author and draftsman of this bill. That challenge has not been met and secrecy still surrounds the authorship of the bill. But if one will look for a moment at the substitute bill which is being dangled just out of the grasp of this chamber, he will perhaps see a familiar hand in the authorship and draftsmanship, a hand -which apparently was not present in this country when the original bill No. 15 was drafted.
Let us face certain simple facts which I fear have been lost sight of somewhat, certainly in the speech to-night by the Minister of Agriculture. In passing, I wish to pay the Minister of Agriculture a compliment. When the government get deep into a hole they always call upon the Minister of Agriculture to pull them out. We need no further proof of the fact that in this debate the government are in a hole, a deep hole, than the fact that they have called upon the Minister of Agriculture to come to the rescue.
It has been said that the constitutional position is such that in a time of national peril the authority to enact extraordinary measures to meet extraordinary situations is vested -in the governor in council. Of course that is absolute nonsense. All that the privy council has ever said is that in times of great national emergency, where the whole nation is in dire peril, the classes of subjects enumerated in sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act take on new aspects. Under the peace, order and good government clause extraordinary powers are vested, not in the governor in council but in parliament, to take the measures required to ipeet such situations.
Those powers rest, not in the governor in council but in the members of parliament, the elected representatives of the people. Are we to discharge our responsibility at this time by saying, "Well, we are content to go on and adopt what the nineteenth parliament did in 47696-186
time of war, even though we have now come to a time of peace." That is the responsibility which faces this house at the present time.
Section 5 of this bill means this: The government is seeking to get out from under its responsibility, the responsibility for that teeming mass of orders in council and treasury minutes which now number close to 100,000. The government is asking this parliament to adopt a whole mass of orders in council and treasury minutes, in many cases sight unseen. Are we, the twentieth parliament, elected in a time of peace, elected to restore parliament to its proper function, prepared now to abdicate so completely that we not only transfer to the governor in council the powers that we possess but assume the whole load of responsibility for everything the government has done by order in council, by regulation and by treasury minute since the War Measures Act came into effect in September, 1939?
Can any self-respecting parliament in December, 1945, take on that responsibility? I say it cannot.
In the three months that I have sat in this chamber I have been impressed with the care which has been exercised on many occasions in scrutinizing the particular form of the legislation placed before the house and the committees. That is most commendable; that is parliament doing its duty. It should scrutinize every letter and- word placed before it in the form of bills and resolutions. But what does this government ask of us? It asks that without so much as seeing the contents of many of these orders in council we simply adopt them and take full responsibility for them. In time to come, when we find out what we have done in our folly they will say to us, "Oh, that is not our act, you took that over; you took the responsibility and it is your responsibility, the responsibility of the twentieth parliament of Canada."
There is no escape from that position. Does the new bill make any improvement in that respect? It does not. Look at section 2, subsection 1 (e) and section 4 of this bill, and you will see that the position under the new bill is precisely the same as the position under the original bill. Parliament is asked to accept all responsibility for what has been going on in this country since September, 1939, by order in council, by government regulation and by treasury minute. I see no improvement in the new bill in that regard.
I say further that the effect of section 3 of the bill is that parliament abdicates, and abdicates completely, its functions. It does not matter apparently that peace has come. No; the war complex still remains with the

National Emergency

government because with the war goes power, and that is the complex of the government which has conceived and presented this bill to parliament.
Let no one be misled by the provision requiring tabling of the orders in council. The old bill, by section 3, subsection 4, provided for the tabling of orders in council as soon as might be. Section 4 of the new bill expands that provision to some extent. But what is the situation in fact? Suppose the orders in council are tabled-not the old orders in council because there is no obligation on the government under either of these bills that the governor in council shall table the old orders in council. Not one of those orders does the governor in council have to table, only orders passed in the future. Then the government tells you that if parliament does not like these orders, parliament can annul them; but what is involved in that? It means that a private member's resolution must be presented and carried through both houses of parliament. If there is one thing that all the new members of parliament have learned it is this, that private members' resolutions have no hope whatever of getting to a vote. How many private members' resolutions have come to a vote this session, although we spent many days and evenings in discussing them? Only one, and that because it apparently happened to suit the government. There is no safeguard whatsoever of the rights of parliament in that provision.
Some hon. members on the other side of the house speak as though this were the only legislature in the land. It is a convenient view for the government to take. As a matter of fact, if the government goes on pursuing the course which it has pursued since September, 1939, this parliament will become in fact the only legislature in Canada, because the rights of the provincial legislatures have been constantly trampled and trespassed upon by this government without regard to the rights of the provinces. There has been no indication whatever of a change of heart or a repentant attitude on the part of the government in this regard, and so we can go on expecting the same disregard of provincial rights. Our system of government is not a unitary system but a federal system. We have legislatures which are capable of assuming responsibility for property and civil rights in the provinces, and this government is not required to adopt extraordinary measures to meet problems which can be coped with by legislatures acting within the scope of their constitutional powers.
In the impassioned contribution which was made to this debate this evening by the Min-

ister of Agriculture, he put a glowing picture before us. I am paraphrasing the gist of his remarks. It may be, he said, that this bill gives the government extraordinary powers but, after all, you can trust us because we are not the kind of people to use extraordinary powers in an arbitrary way. Look at us, he said; we won the war.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the government did not win the war. The boys who fought on the battlefields, the labourers working in the factories and munition plants, the farmers toiling in the fields, the people of Canada won the war. The government takes a great deal of credit for winning the war, credit which is not theirs.
Let us see what we can expect from this government. Can one find a better test of what one might expect in the exercise of the extraordinary powers the government is asking parliament to confer than to look at what the government has been doing under the powers conferred upon it by the War Measures Act? We do not need to go back very far, not farther than the 6th of September, 1945. 'What has been happening while parliament has been in session? I do not need to weary the house by an enumeration of the occasions upon which the government denied parliament essential information for which it asked. It became monotonous, these denials of information which parliament sought. We remember what happened about the Canadian information service. The government at one fell swoop, while parliament was in session, without consulting it at all, did away with the wartime information board and by order in council placed the appropriations which parliament had provided for the wartime information board at the disposal of the government's new creation, the Canadian information service, and when we asked for the minutes to be tabled we were told: "Oh, no; that is a privileged document. We cannot trust parliament with that information. Only the government is capable of treating that information as it ought to be treated."
''The last hon. member who spoke in this debate spoke truly when he said that this government has treated parliament with contempt. I go farther and say that it has treated parliament with studied contempt.
I refer to the situation with regard to appropriations. As long as government by order in council continues, parliament will be asked to vote blindly tremendous sums of money to be expended in any way the governor in council sees fit, without any effective restraint, restriction or control by parliament. We have put hundreds of millions of dollars at the disposal of the governor in council.

National Emergency
Have we had any proper accounting? Hon. members know that the money was spent before we were ever asked to vote it. You know, Mr. Speaker, that we were not. offered any details of the items of expenditure in the estimates. Frequently they were brought in with apologies. Are we to continue that situation in time of peace? It would be an abdication of the functions of parliament, and I say that no self-respecting parliament dare do such a thing.
We know perfectly well that as long as this bureaucratic system continues, the power is not exercised by hon. gentlemen sitting on the treasury benches opposite but by controllers. administering policies that daily affect the lives of all our people. Very often when we wanted to know what great policies were in the making we had to wait for some public pronouncement by one of these bureaucrats. We did not get it from the government; we did not get it in parliament. We had to wait until the bureaucrats announced it publicly.
Is that democracy? Never. In this new bill we have the very same thing. The governor in council may continue to legislate by order in council while parliament is still in session. That alone is enough to condemn the bill. Let every hon. member understand that if he votes for the second reading he is voting in support of legislation to provide that the governor in council may continue to legislate by order in council even while the representatives of the people are assembled in session in parliament.
The situation would not have been so bad as it is if, along with the power which the government has enjoyed, there had been a proper appreciation of and a rising to its responsibilities, but we have had a deplorable situation revealed in this house. Although all aspects of labour relations were vested in the federal government under the extraordinary powers conferred by the War Measures Act, when the Ford strike took place at Windsor the members of the house asked what this government was going to do about it, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) rose in his place and said in 'effect: We wash our hands of this; it is not a matter for us because the responsibility rests on the provincial government. Although this government had deprived the provincial governments of jurisdiction in these matters, this government said that the responsibility still rested on the provinces even though the power was vested in the dominion. I say that was a denial of this government's responsibility even while they possessed the power.
47696-186J
We have not been offered in this debate what every member had a right to expect, and that was an undertaking by the government when they brought in this bill that they would bring in at the same time a programme for the demobilization of the bureaucracy with which this country has become enmeshed. We have not had laid before us a properly integrated or comprehensive programme of demobilization of controls. They have not told us what, if any, objectives they are aiming at in connection with doing away with these wartime controls. No; we have waited in vain for that, and apparently we are not to be told. Are we told that there is any hope of easing the pressure of ceilings on wages and salaries? No; we have not been told that. Has there been any indication of any attempt on the part of the government to eliminate the inequalities which have existed with respect to wages, where people engaged in civilian production have not been paid on a scale commensurate with that paid to people engaged in war-time production? No; there has been no word of that. Has any hope at all been held out for the salaried workers, the white-collared people upon whom these controls have rested so oppressively during the war? No. There is not one ray of hope in anything which has fallen from the mouth of a member of the government during this debate-not one word. It is an amazing exhibition of bankruptcy of policy and lack of vision on the part of this government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hon. members opposite can treat this as a matter for laughter and levity. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not so regarded by the people of this country who elected us to sit in this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They elected us too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They expected something higher and better from us than to treat this issue with levity.
What is the significance of this bill? I have said that there is in section 3 a complete abdication by parliament. That is what is involved. We may prate about the supremacy of parliament; but if this bill passes, the so-called supremacy of parliament becomes nothing but a snare and a delusion, a shell and a sham. Parliament is invited by this measure to turn its supremacy into a sham, because real power will rest not with parliament but with the governor in council, and it will be based on the abdication by parliament of its proper constitutional function.
Something like three hundred years ago a man strode into the parliament hall at WesU
National Emergency

minster and, pointing to the mace which rested on the table, said, "Take away that bauble." The government of the day is not saying to this parliament, "Take away that bauble", but, "Hand that bauble over to us." we might as well see in fact that mace preceding a procession to the executive council chamber, because that is where the effective . legislative power of this country will rest if bill No. 15 is passed.
I said something about judging this government on its recent record. We do not need to go back very far to find enough wherewith to answer the question, "Can the leopard change its spots?" with an emphatic "no". I refer back to the twelfth day of November, when the then Acting Prime Minister dropped on this chamber an atomic bomb. His statement, which is to be found on page 2020 of Hansard, is unquestionably the most amazing which we shall have in this session. I daresay it will be many a year, and many a parliament will come and go in this country, before a more remarkable, a more astounding statement will be made in this chamber, certainly by a minister of the crown. There are two or three sentences of it which ought to be impressed by now indelibly on the minds of hon. members. The Acting Prime Minister said this:
There is danger that the House of Commons may be losing sight of its real functions, which are to vote supply, to control expenditure and to enact legislation.
Look at those three things: vote supply, control expenditure, enact legislation. Compare them with this bill, and what do we see? Voting of supply? _ Yes; voting in the dark. Certainly we can go on voting money in the dark. That is the situation to-day. Second, to control expenditure. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, what' effective control over expenditure exists so long as government by order in council can be continued, so long as they can go on spending the money in advance and come back to parliament later and ask parliament to vote the money, not to vote it according to proper estimates, but to vote it in the dark. "Trust the government"! Is parliament prepare^ to trust the government to the extent that it is ready to abdicate? I hope not. The third function is to enact legislation; and we as a parliament are asked non' to abdicate in favour of the governor in council this last of our remaining powers and responsibilities, the enactment of legislation. Yes; turn all these functions over to the government. And to a government with what conception of its relationship and re-

sponsibility to parliament? A government which measures its responsibility in these terms: Hansard, page 2020:
The authority of the government is not delegated by the House of Commons; the authority of the government is received from the crown.
I want to put alongside of that amazing statement a more orthodox statement. It is this:
It is impossible to imagine that the people of Canada will consent to pay the enormous sums which they are being called upon to provide by way of taxation . . . and will sit silent under the government's refusal to give them any information as to how their money has been spent.
That is the exact situation we have to-day, where we are not given information to which we are entitled. These last words I have quoted are those of the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister of this country; they were uttered in this house in 1921, and reported in Hansard of that year, at page 1292.
What has already happened as a result of the introduction of this bill? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the whole cause of interprovincial cooperation, of cooperation between the dominion and the provinces, of constitutional reform, has been set back a long distance by the introduction of this bill, which plainly shows the hand of the government. It is a good thing that the provincial premiers met last week while parliament still had this bill before it. You know what happened. The voice of the provincial governments was heard speaking emphatically and unanimously in demanding that this bill be withdrawn, because inherent in it is the denial of the constitutional rights of the provinces. If this parliament should pass this bill it will have gone a long way toward rewriting the British North America Act to the infinite disadvantage of the provincial legislatures.
Another result which has followed the introduction of this bill in the house has been the most widespread expression of an outraged public opinion. That is one reason why the government to-day is holding out that bait in the form of a revised bill, which still is just beyond the grasp of parliament. I say to you that we are witnessing, in the step which the government has taken this week in dangling this new bill before us, an abject, even if a strategic, retreat on their part. There has Been no more complete vindication of the stand of an opposition at any time in the history of this land than has been seen in the vindication of the stand of the opposition on this bill since its attitude was shown in this chamber a week ago last Friday. We have seen the most widespread expressions of con-

National Emergency
demnation from all sections of the Canadian public, a denunciation of the arbitrary measures and arbitrary intent on the part of this government; and if I may say so, I feel sorry for hon. members opposite, who were put in the humiliating position of having to choose between support of the government and the course which they know they ought to follow on this bill; that is, the putting aside of arbitrary measures.
Many hon. members opposite have taken a firm public stand on many an occasion against any trespass upon the rights of the provincial legislatures. But here, without so much as consulting the provincial legislatures, the government has undertaken to trample upon and ride roughshod over the sacred constitutional rights of these legislatures. It is interesting to note that the public has rebuked the government. It is not only the opposition that has rebuked the government but the public. The provincial premiers have rebuked the government, and now the government appears to be accepting the rebuke. At least it. would have us think so.
Let the government learn its lesson out of this: That this parliament has no intention of abdicating its functions in favour of an arbitrary government. Look-at these bills. Time does not permit an exhaustive analysis, but I say that every power the government sought under the original bill it has under the new bill, and those vaunted safeguards that the Minister of Agriculture boasted about to-night do not amount to a snap of the fingers. Those safeguards are a sham. They are a snare and a delusion.
I said at the outset that we have to face the question whether in this approaching vote we as a House of Commons will give support to the principle of the bill. The principal of the bill is the abdication of the functions of parliament in favour of a cabinet which shows it does not regard itself as responsible to parliament. That is the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is the right to go on legislating by order in council while parliament is in session, the right to prevent parliament. from having any effective means of bringing those orders in council under review even when we are called into session. Here we are told that the emergency is so great that we cannot wait until the next session of parliament, a scant two and a half months away, and that the government must have all these powers they had under the War Measures Act, and the powers sought under the original bill No. 15. The government has shown its hand, a greedy hand, reaching out for power. The complex that has dominated
this government in time of war dominates it to-day. That is the principle of the bill and there is no escape from it.
Is parliament going to permit itself to be reduced to a rubber stamp? I offer this quotation to the house, and I give it as precisely fitting the situation that is facing this country to-day.
. . . the government has proceeded, in practically everything it has done, as if it were .an executive wholly independent of the House of Commens, rather than an executive which derives its powers from and is responsible to the House of Commons. Indeed, the House of Commons has come to be, in the phrase used by the Prime Minister himself not so long ago, a sort of rubber- stamp for what the ministry may choose to do, regardless of how its own wishes and desires may be expressed, and regardless of how much those wishes and desires may represent the wishes and desires of the people at large.
That quotation is taken from a speech delivered in this house by the present Prime Minister and is to be found in Hansard of 1934, at page 42.
If the government really meant to show a change of heart in that phantom bill which is not before us yet officially, but which is dangled before us, what course would they have followed? Certainly not the course they have actually followed. The course they would have followed, the manly course, would have been to come to the house and say, "We wish to withdraw this bill; we made a blunder, we frankly confess it; we know we have outraged public opinion and are in the wrong and therefore we wish to withdraw this bill and introduce a new one." That is what they ought to have done but it is what they did not do. They would have brought before us a comprehensive programme for the demobilization of this bureaucracy that oppresses us. They would have shown us the objects at which they should be aiming and toward which they should be bending every effort.. But they did not do that. They had not the courage to do it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't get mad.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not get mad, Mr. Speaker, but I believe in calling a spade a spade, and I denounce the lack of courage shown by the government when, they did not withdraw bill No. 15 and bring in whatever modest measure may be required to meet tire admitted exigencies of the situation. We know we have to have some measure of price control; no one has denied that. But we wish to see that measure couched in terms no wider than are necessary and commensurate with the needs of the moment. We wish to see what the objective of the govern-
294S
National Emergency

ment is- what it aims at, so that it can give the promise of restoration of constitutional equilibrium in this country in terms of the British North America Act.
The record of this government in the debate has been a record of retreat, surrender, confusion and confession. In the face of that, no self-respecting parliament could support the principle of the bill.


Major James William Coldwell: When this bill was originally introduced we saw some of the objectionable features of it, and we followed, I think, the course that should have been followed by any critics of the bill. We appointed a committee to look into the bill and suggest certain amendments to it which we thought might bring it more info line with what was required, with the result that the hon. member for Kindersley, a week ago last Friday, presented to the house amendments which we thought would make the bill more acceptable to the house and the country. I am very glad to note that in the amendments to the bill which the government have now brought down, most of these objections have been met and most of the amendments have been accepted by the government.
I suggest that we have to consider a bill of this description from the point of view of what one would do if one were in power and faced with the situation that now confronts the country. I have no sympathy with those who stand up and denounce the powers which a bill gives to a government when on occasion, from time to time, the party that makes these criticisms has adopted similar measures under certain circumstances. I have before me at the moment a bill that was assented to on August 3, 1931, when the Conservatives were in power, and I would remind hon. gentlemen to my right of what that bill contains.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Lest we forget.


Major James William Coldwell: Let us look at it:.
Whereas it is in the national interest that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and other bodies in such ways as the governor in council may deem expedient-
Not as this parliament may deem expedient but as the governor in council may deem expedient.	-
-and for that purpose should vest in the governor in council the powers necessary to insure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of all relief measures and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada.


James Arthur Ross: What was the stand of the official opposition at that time?


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment. Nothing more comprehensive has ever been introduced in this house than an act of parliament which was passed by the government of my hon. friends to the right. The way I am inclined to look at this measure to-night, is, what do we need to cope with the situation with which we are confronted in this country? I cannot understand the official opposition speaking at this time of getting rid of controls and telling us in the next breath that we need controls, as the last speaker has said, in order to see that the people of Canada who have to rent homes are not victimized in the renting of those homes, in order to see that the people who need clothing and food are not victimized by interests who would victimize them in the prices of those products if there were no controls.
I thirik the government is ill-advised and wrong in bringing down the amendments as they have been brought down. It would have been far better from the point of view of every hon. member who has to cast a vote if the government had withdrawn the original bill and brought down the bill which is now actually before us in the form of amendments to the original bill. It makes it difficult for hon. members to vote for the principle, which we believe is sound at this time, that the government must have power to do those things which are in the interest of the people of Canada and will protect them. I would prefer to have seen a new bill brought in, but when we cast a vote on this bill now before us we shall cast a vote for the principle, the principle being that in the circumstances which now exist this parliament must give to the government the right to exercise certain controls in the public interest. If the government exceeds that power, then this house must discipline the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is then too late.


Major James William Coldwell: Too late, we are told. My hon. friends well know that in three months this parliament will meet again. Let me say that the composition of this house is such to-day that if the government exceeds its power and adopts measures or institutes orders in council which are not in the interests of the people of Canada, public opinion alone will see to it that a sufficient number of members vote that government out of office.


James Arthur Ross: They have not done so yet.


Alan Cockeram: It has not been done yet.

-	National Emergency


Mr. COLD  WELL@: We are in a position to-day that we were not in in previous parliaments where the government had an overwhelming majority. To-day the government has to pay attention to the state of public opinion as represented on all sides of this house.


James Arthur Ross: They pay more attention to the whip than to the public.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: We are told now that they pay more attention to the whip than to the public.


Alan Cockeram: They do.


Major James William Coldwell: That may be so; but let me point out, as the interjection came from this side of the house, that there was a time when my hon. friends who are interrupting paid attention to the will of one man in this country and placed Canada under as firm a dictatorship as this country was ever under or likely to be under. Peace, order and good government! Let me remind my hon. friends-


Mr. POULIOT:: The governor in council was then R. B. alone.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The leopard does not change his spots.


James Arthur Ross: Neither do you.


Major James William Coldwell: Let me remind my hon. friends that that was used not only to give assistance to the provinces in providing relief, but in using the mounted police of this country in cities, where they had no right to enter without direct instructions from the provincial governments, to cause conditions in those cities which I think everyone who lives in them regrets to-day. I am thinking of Regina on July 1, 1935, when the boys who were asking for bread were fed tear-gas bombs. I know something about these things, and I am going to remind the house of them tonight.
Let us take another look at this act, which reads as follows:
This Act may be cited as the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931.
There may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund such moneys as the governor in council in his discretion may deem expedient to expend for relieving distress, providing employment, and maintaining within the competence of parliament peace, order and good government throughout Canada.
The widest possible powers which could be conferred by parliament upon any government were conferred by this act to which I am giving some attention; and then without-


Humphrey Mitchell: Was that not after the statement: "I will cure unemployment or perish in the attempt!"


Alan Cockeram: Was it at the time of "not a cent to Ontario"?


James Arthur Ross: "Not a five-cent piece".


Major James William Coldwell: Section 3 reads:
Without restricting the generality of the terms of the next preceding section hereof, and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law, the governor in council may . . .
There is no stronger language contained in any measure which was ever adopted by any parliament than what is contained in this particular measure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Shocking!


Major James William Coldwell: I repeat:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law, the governor in council may-


An hon. MEMBER:: Do what?


Major James William Coldwell: Do a number of things. -provide for the construction, extension or improvement of public works, buildings, undertakings, railways, highways, subways, bridges and canals, harbours and wharves, and any other works and undertakings of any nature or kind whatsoever.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Build public works.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: To help unemployment.


Alan Cockeram: He does not believe in helping unemployment.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friends do not like this. I am reminding them of this because I am a little bit tired of this debate. I think any party in this house that rises to criticize should not be guilty of doing the thing it criticizes. Any party that rises in this house-


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What are you doing now?


Major James William Coldwell: -to suggest anything ought to ask itself this question: What would we do if we were in a similar position to that of the government and had to ask for powers to do things?


Alan Cockeram: We know what your party would do.


Major James William Coldwell: I have no hesitation in saying that if my hon. friends were in power-


An hon. MEMBER:: Heaven forbid.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, heaven forbid.


James Arthur Ross: Take him over with you and put him to work.
National Emergency

. Mr. COLD WELL: If my hon. friends were in power they would probably use the language of this act to which I have referred, which indicates-


Alan Cockeram: You would do worse.


Major James William Coldwell: -that they could do anything regardless of any statute whatsoever, and I say that if we were in power at this time-


An hon. MEMBER:: Heaven forbid.


Major James William Coldwell: All right. We would have to do what every other government in the British commonwealth of nations has done in similar circumstances, namely, to ask for the power to meet a situation which has'arisen. I am not forgetting when I am speaking to-night that a government with which I sympathize very deeply, the British labour government, has had to extend its powers for five years in order to do the things which are necessary to be done in Great Britain.


An hon. MEMBER:: We will do it in one year.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to two very fine election speeches to night, taking us back over a considerable portion of the history of this country. It is not necessary to say whose they were; I think hon. members will know to whom I am referring. Before I proceed to address myself to the principle of this bill, I should like to correct what I feel was one error in the very fine address delivered by the hon. gentleman who is my deskmate, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: One error?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend said that
when the government is in difficulty it always calls upon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to pull it out. I am not quite certain he was absolutely correct, or perhaps I should say he did not tell the whole story, because sometimes they seem to call upon the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) for the same purpose.

National Emergency


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a question of
privilege. At no time has the government called on the leader of the C.C.F. to do anything for it. The leader of the C.C.F. speaks for himself and his group when he speaks.


James Horace King: Order. I should like to
direct the attention of some hon. members to standing order 12, which requires hon. members not to interrupt any hon. gentleman who has the floor, without his permission. They will see that it is the duty of the Speaker to maintain order and decorum in the house, and also to preserve freedom of speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I may be permitted to
say so, Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with what you have said, but I hope w'e shall not depart too much from the freedom of exchange and discussion which is characterizing the debate at the moment. Possibly the leader of the C.C.F. party was not called upon by the government, but hon. members cannot fail to have remarked how, on measures of this sort, the government and the C.C.F., by accident as it were, seem to find themselves almost at one. It is notable that the applause from the government benches was rather louder than the applause from the C.C.F. party itself. Perhaps it is not going too far to suggest that some slight reason for that was that, this is a bill which seeks to introduce the principle of control into this country, and there ie no bill which would be more welcome to hon. members who sit to my left.
We have heard criticism, or what purported to be criticism, of this party based upon something that took place in 1931, fourteen years ago.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Before your time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the point, and I
entirely agree; before my time and before the time of a good many of us here in this house. I am surprised to find that my friends of the C.C.F., which claims to be a new party, should have such a very long memory for certain things which are past history. As I was saying, the criticism was directed toward something that took place in 1931, when a measure of control was sought to be introduced into this country under new circumstances, when we had a depression such as the world has never seen before.
That brings up the question of the attitude of this group, and I am talking of the group that is in this house to-day. The Progressive Conservative party in this house represents the Progressive Conservative party in Canada to-day and I should like to define to some extent our stand on this matter of control.
It has been said several times in this house that we agree that a certain amount of control is necessary for the orderly transition from war-time to peace-time conditions. That was said by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) when the war expenditures appropriation came up at the beginning of the session. It was said by myself on that occasion. It has been said in the past-not in the dim and distant past but in the spring of this year-by the leader of this party. It was said again a week ago last Friday by the hon. member for Lake Centre. That is our position, and we have no hesitation in avowing it. We realize that a certain measure of control is necessary for the orderly transition from war-time to peace-time economy. That, then, is what we believe with regard to the principle of control; that only a limited control is necessary, and that it should be maintained only for the period of the emergency. There is no inconsistency as between our belief and our stand on this bill.
While we believe in the principle of that ' limited control for that limited period, wTe also believe in those principles of our constitution which guarantee to the subject his full liberty and the preseryation of his initiative and enterprise. Because we. believe in the principles of our constitution; because we believe that this bill infringes those principles; because it infringes the liberty of the subject in an unwarranted and unjustified and unnecessary manner, we oppose this bill.
This bill should have 'been a new one, not, as the hon. member for Eglinton has said, a sort of bait dangled just out of our reach.
I am glad to find that the leader of the C.C.F. is in agreement on that point. I do not just know where we stand here, whether this is a new draft of a proposed bill or whether we should be discussing the original bill. However, let us say that we are considering the new bill which will be submitted when we get into committee. It still goes too far. It attempts to grant powers which are unnecessary to cope with the emergency, but chiefly it is objectionable because it seeks to grant in the transitional peace-time period powers which were sought and used for war purposes. That is what we object to. We have it from the government's own statement that the powers which they needed during the war are not necessary in peace. They cannot understand why we criticize them for seeking to extend those powers.
In this connection I should like to refer to the speech made in this house this evening by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). While the minister was making his speech, I could not help thinking that he
National Emergency

should have been a lawyer, and I was not surprised to hear him say during the course of his remarks that at one time he had studied for the _ law. At the commencement of his remarks he outlined his absolute detestation of controls; he said that he could not get rid of them too quickly, and then we heard him say in his speech that he was a pretty good controller. As I listened to him announce his detestation of controls, I was reminded of a story which attaches to a famous lawyer.
When confronted with a troublesome piece of evidence a friend-said to this lawyer, "You cannot use that piece of evidence on appeal because it will destroy your case if you mention it.." This famous lawyer replied, "No; that will not be any trouble. I will read the evidence through once; I will repeat it again with comments on each sentence; I will repeat it again the third) time and contrast it with the evidence on the other side. Then, when my learned friend gets up to deal with his case the court will say to him, 'Oh, we have heard enough about that; we cannot be bothered to go into it.' " As the minister dealt with the extent of his detestation of control, I could not avoid being reminded of that story.
Hon. members will recall that not much later in his speech the minister proceeded to tell us just how much had been accomplished by controls, just how good the controls were and how good he was as a controller. He told us of the avalanche of hogs he had finally sent over to England, or something like that. There is really no doubt as to the attitude of mind of the ministers who sit on the government benches. They like controls. They have done what they regard1 as a good job by means of controls and they are reluctant to part with them now in time of peace.
We detest controls as much as the minister. What we are saying in effect is that we think the controls can be got rid of a great deal faster than they are being. But the government is asking for war-time controls and a further extension of them. If controls are inherently bad, there should be mo objection when we criticize this bill. The government should have gone farther; they should have thrown out the old bill and brought in a new bill so that we would not have been presented with this sort of strip-tease bill, half undressed and half clothed and then when we are just going to grasp it, it is suddenly fully clothed in its old garments-it is the old bill.
One further point before I come to the actual subject-matter of the principle of this bill. The Minister of Agriculture read the

preamble of the new bill, so that I assume I shall be forgiven if I deal briefly with that preamble. He said that it was very certain and very specific. I will not argue that point; I will accept his words on it. Referring to the measures taken under the War Measures Act, the preamble says:
And whereas in the existing circumstances it is essential that certain acts and things done and authorized and certain orders and regulations made under the War Measures Act be continued in force . . .
That is the preamble. We are told that it is only those acts and measures which are necessary for limited control that will be continued over the transitional period, but when we come to section 4 of the new bill t we find:
The orders and regulations made under the War Measures Act or pursuant to authority created under the said act in force immediately before the day this act comes into force shall, while this act is in force, continue in full force and effect . . .
Everything that was done under the War Measures Act is being continued under the provisions of this bill. We find that this burlesque, this strip-tease show is resolving itself into a simple farce and illusion and we are back again dealing with the original bill 'No. 15.
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, December 5, 1945.