Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

In replying to my hon. friend I can reply at the same time to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.

Mr. MANION:

Then perhaps the right

hon. gentleman would defer answering until I have finished the few remarks I wish to make.

I do not of course know what the answer to that question is. I hope at all events that these powers are not more extensive than those that were taken by Mr. Lloyd George. At any rate they are most extraordinary powers to give to any minister. While, as I have said before, I do not want to be put in the position of criticizing at a time when we have no desire to criticize unnecessarily, I do ask myself, and I think the government should ask themselves, if it is advisable to give to any one man such powers as this bill seeks to confer. We have stated that we are fighting

this war to do away with Hitlerism. I should not like to do away with Hitlerism in Europe and establish it in Canada. I do think it might be well to give a little thought to these extraordinary powers.

Glancing over the bill, and that is all we have had time to do, it would seem that the minister could take control of almost any business in Canada, force anybody to store what he chooses to have stored, and go almost to the length of completely nationalizing the business of the country. I say that without meaning to criticize at all, but if I understand the somewhat confused and devious language that lawyers use in drafting a bill of this kind, all these powers are to be conferred upon the minister if and when he is appointed to administer this measure. I rose largely to emphasize the very wide powers to be granted to the minister if and when he is appointed, and to suggest to the government, with all respect, that before this statute is proclaimed and a minister appointed to carry it out, they should give very serious consideration indeed to the powers sought by this bill and consider perhaps putting some limitation on those powers. But if, on the other hand, they have decided finally that it is in the interest of our participation in this war to proclaim this statute and appoint a minister, then certainly I hope that they will appoint a man of exceptionally high ability and of fine character to such an all-powerful position if he is to be given these extraordinary powers to carry out the terms of the statute.

Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

The

Prime Minister stated that pending the proclamation of this statute, a supply board would be set up. May I ask whether it wall take the place of the defence purchasing board? Provision was made in setting up that board, first, for calling for tenders, and, second, a limitation was put on profits where tenders were not called for. When the Prime Minister rises to reply, perhaps he would state whether there will be any restrictions of that kind with reference to the supply board that may be set up pending the proclamation of this statute.

Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):

Before the Prime Minister replies, I should like to make one or two observations. This bill is to set up a board; and if the board does not prove itself effective, a ministry of munitions will be set up. Why not proceed at once directly to the issue and set up a ministry of munitions such as was set up in England, and as I feel will have to be set up in Canada within a very short time. I do not see the

Department of Munitions and Supply

necessity of a bill to set up a board which may prove a failure, and then to have to make provision for a ministry following that failure.

Mr. STIRLING:

This bill does not set up a board.

Mr. WALSH:

I was referring to the setting up of a board under the War Measures Act. I would prefer to see a ministry of munitions set up to function immediately, and not wait until a board has first been set up under the War Measures Act. I feel there is a necessity to appoint a ministry of munitions.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING {Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I might say first of all that this bill, the second reading of which has just been moved, is based on the bill which was passed by the British House of Commons as recently as the eighth of June of the present year, a bill providing for a ministry of supply. That bill was based on the Lloyd George bill, if I may so call it, which was enacted in 1915 at the time of the great war. All of the experience that had been gained under the Lloyd George measure was before those who were drafting the measure which was passed in June of this year; and, having regard to conditions in time of war being much the same in one country as in another, our administration felt that we could not be on safer ground in instituting the ministry for a similar purpose than by following as closely as we could the British enactment. Hon. members will, I think, agree with me that there is.no parliament in the world which strives more earnestly to preserve freedom and prevent anything in the nature of the development of dictatorship than the British House of Commons; but, as has been pointed out time and again, measures which are suitable for a time of peace are not adequate for a time of war, and we are at present in a time of war, a very serious war indeed.

The British minister of munitions, Mr. Burgin, in speaking upon the very subject to which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) and the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) have referred, namely the very extensive powers which are given in the bill to the ministry, made the following statement to the British House of Commons, and I will repeat to our House of Commons his words in reference to this measure. They will be found in the British Hansard, parliamentary debates, House of Commons, June 8, 1939:

The house, with its experience of past debates on the subject, will recognize at once that if you take the decision to appoint a minister of supply and set up a department, you must give to it powers adequate for the purposes that you intend to be served by that department.

Those powers must be wide and drastic. It is of the very essence of a supply department for a defence service that wide and drastic powers should be obtained. Of course, those powers are only to be used compulsorily if your voluntary system fails to deliver what is required. Hitherto, the voluntary system has been sufficient to meet the demand. We are now, however, in an emergency condition. We seem destined to live in an emergency condition. Therefore, something of the magnitude of the task must be appreciated in order to justify the wide powers that are granted by this bill.

I doubt if there is any hon. member who likes less than myself to entrust a ministry with too extensive powers. I have felt very strongly, as all hon. members know, on giving a ministry extreme powers to exercise at will, and I think that the very temperament which has caused me to feel as strongly as I have in that regal'd will enable me to watch with extra, zeal to see that these powers are not availed of in excess of what the situation may demand.

As regards the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), perhaps he would wait until the bill is in committee; the question he has asked will come up naturally there.

With regard to the comment of the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) as to the war supply board possibly being a failure and requiring a substitute later, I would say that I think the government, in taking the lesser step at the outset and taking it under the direction of one so experienced in military affairs and in financial affairs as the present Minister of Finance, is taking a very wise course. If it becomes necessary to

establish the department in full before parliament reassembles or when parliament does reassemble, it will only be because it is desirable to have more extensive authority than it is contemplated to take under the board which will be appointed under the War Measures Act. But the War Measures Act board will, we hope, enable the government to introduce this new branch of administration in a way which will effect economies at the outset and add to efficiency in the long run.

Mr. MANION:

I am sorry, but I hardly think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) answered my question quite directly. He read from British Hansard and pointed out that dictatorial powers were taken under the Lloyd George act. What I asked him was if the terms of this bill are based on the Lloyd George act and if they go any further than that act.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I have not myself read the Lloyd George act, but I am informed by my colleague, who has, that they

178 COMMONS

Department oj Munitions and Supply

go about the same length as the Lloyd George act did. But as I mentioned, the present act in Britain on which this measure is based is itself based on the Lloyd George act.

I should have said, in reply to the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George, that I think he was right in suggesting that the order in council appointing this board under the War Measures Act should be given publicity at once, and I would think it should appear in the Canada Gazette.

With respect to regulations which can be made public, they will be made public. There may be some which it would not be in the public interest to publish, but any such might be communicated to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion).

Mr. CAHAN:

And such should be given the force and effect of law, I think, by the express terms of the statute.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I have no doubt that my hon. friend is correct in that. The legislation as drafted will, I believe, cover what my hon. friend has in mind.

Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to and bill read the second time.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

If the Speaker will allow me, I will put the motion with

respect to adjournment. Under the standing order, the house would adjourn at eleven o'clock. I should like to ask that the present debate be suspended, and move that this house be not adjourned at eleven this evening.

Mr. MacNICOL:

I should like to ask a question with reference to paragraph (e). In the twenty-third line are the words "in the event of war." whereas in sections 5 and 7 are

the words "during or respecting the present war." Should not the same words be used in each case?

Mr. POWER:

I rather imagine that was copied from the British act. The British act was passed in the month of June, before war was declared. If my hon. friend has any objections the words "in the event of war," I should be glad to strike them out, because war is here.

Mr: MacNICOL: Should it not read, "during or respecting the present war"?

Mr. POWER:

I move, seconded by Mr. Rogers, that the words "in the event of war" in line 24 be struck out and the words "in the present war" be substituted therefor.