What a farce.

Mr. Drew:

Here you have the mechanism of dictatorship right in front of you.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Drew:

Here you have men drunk with power, and of course I am not referring now to the Canada Temperance Act.

Cocktail bars.

Mr. Drew:

Here you have men so convinced of their own rightness that they simply say that the war was over four years ago, but you must not suggest for a moment that anybody should be told what the emergency is as to any of these particular subjects.

Mr. Williams:

You have had a chance to do that for two days.

Mr. Drew:

Then when you have placed before the house an argument which is in keeping with what every real Liberal would have asserted, and asserted most vigorously, in the past, you have nothing but empty laughter from the government benches. Last evening the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) quoted from a judgment of Lord Wright in one of the more recent and leading cases on this subject, and referred to what has been also accepted generally in other cases. He quoted these words:

The rule of law as to the distribution of powers between the parliament of the dominion and the parliaments of the provinces comes into play, but

very clear evidence that an emergency has not arisen, or that the emergency no longer exists, is required to justify the judiciary, even though the question is one of ultra vires, in overruling the decision of the parliament of the dominion that exceptional measures were required or were still required.

The important words in that quotation from Lord Wright were "in overruling the decision of the parliament of the dominion". This matter is now before the House of Commons, as the first stage in obtaining a decision of parliament as to whether in fact there is an emergency now; and the very wording of that quotation from the judgment of Lord Wright emphasizes the fact that everyone here is being called upon to make that important decision of fact. No hon. member has a right to make that important decision unless he knows there is a general emergency which will justify an omnibus bill of this kind as distinguished from a specific bill dealing with an important subject.

Those who are not in this house-of course I am not referring to those who are here, because they have heard this before-may be unaware that the government was urged to introduce specific bills dealing with the particular subjects they wish this house to consider, and in those bills to define the rights of the people, to make it possible for the people to properly assert their position before the courts and to bring an end to this sort of arbitrary power in the hands of controllers, priority officers and others who are utterly irresponsible under these orders which are still being brought forward. The powers conferred by these orders were granted at a time when this country was in the midst of war; when the energies of the people were directed to the war, and when the activities of the government were concentrated upon that consideration. Even though sound arguments were advanced then against the extent of some of the orders that were adopted; even though very proper considerations were put forward as to why there should be some restraint on many of these controllers and officials who in turn are given power to delegate their authority to anyone without protection for those affected in the conduct of their affairs; nevertheless it was indicative of the spirit of this country at that time that the people were prepared to grant even the widest powers during the period of the war so that the actual conduct of the war effort might not be limited or impaired in any way.

In every country one of the greatest problems arising since the war has been to remove those measures and powers which, even if they can be justified in war, can only be justified under such extreme emergency. Once again I urge every hon. member to read those

orders that have been in effect under the omnibus bill which has been law and which by this resolution the government seeks to continue in an amended form. They will find powers conferred on individuals which are absolutely contrary to our ideas of a parliamentary system under which the elected representatives of the people determine the rights of the people by laws which the people themselves can understand.

Rent controls have not been effective in helping the tenants, any more than they have been effective in dealing with the housing situation. One reason that is so is that these orders relating to rentals are loose and undefined, and it is extremely difficult for anyone to know exactly what his rights really are under these orders. I said before and I repeat that the government still has the opportunity to deal with this in the parliamentary way. Bring before this house a rent control bill that will really deal, with the rights of tenants and the rights of landlords, and really establish the rights of our people generally; and the government will find support from every part of this house.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

What about provincial rights? How could we pass that? You said we did not have the authority.

Mr. Drew:

Apparently the hon. gentleman is quite ignorant of what has been said. Doubtless he was out while some of the statements were made. I have just said, and for his benefit I repeat, that there has been no question at any time but that there is power in this parliament to deal with a specific emergency if it can be established that there is a specific emergency. That was settled in law long ago. I have already referred to the Canada Temperance Act, which has been interpreted over and over again. If the hon. member will read the decisions under that act he will find that the law was established many years ago and has been confirmed through the years since.

I see the Minister of Finance is leaving.

Mr. Abbott:

Your repetitive argument is too good; I cannot take it again.

Mr. Drew:

My hon. friend could not understand it, anyway, so perhaps it is just as well that he goes out.

This bill seeks to carry forward the wide emergency powers relating to a whole field of subjects in respect of which no pretence of emergency has been asserted by the government; and any hon. member who tries to convey the impression that, because anyone in this chamber opposes these wide omnibus powers, he is opposing any specific power, is dishonest and untruthful in that assertion.

Transitional Measures Act

Mr. Lesage:

Would the hon. gentleman allow a question? Does the leader of the opposition agree that there is now an emergency arising out of the war?

Mr. Drew:

I most certainly do not agree that there is a general emergency arising out of the last war, and that is exactly the point every hon. member should understand. There is a great difference between a general emergency and a specific emergency, and that is precisely what was under consideration in the case decided in Manitoba last Thursday. If hon. members will examine that judgment, no matter whether or not the dominion government intends to appeal the case, they will find some very illuminating explanations of the difference between specific emergencies and general emergencies.

Mr. Lesage:

May I ask another question, and it will be the last one. I am asking the permission of the hon. member, and if he does not wish to give it to me, I will sit down, but I believe he does. If there is no emergency arising out of the last war, how can the leader of the opposition have any constitutional ground for asserting that this parliament should pass a law for rent control?

Mr. Drew:

Obviously, the member was not in the house when I was speaking earlier.

Mr. Berirand (Prescott):

The hon. member was here.

Mr. Drew:

I regret that the hon. member-*

The Chairman:

Order.

Mr. Drew:

I regret that the hon. member failed to appreciate the distinction between a specific emergency and a general emergency. The distinction has been drawn very clearly.