Mr. Wrighi:

Yes, I am coming to that. But this is what I want to point out. This year our farm expenses are $1,092 million, which is more than our gross farm income was for thirteen out of the last twenty-five years. As farmers, we know that when these expenses go up, they do not go down as quickly as do the prices of the things we have to sell. That is one reason why the farmers of this country feel nervous at this time. Their expenses have gone up. When the war was over in 1945 the ceilings were taken off, and the cost of everything we have to buy has gone up to such a point that today we are in the position that, if prices drop, we shall be in an extremely serious situation indeed.

Of course we have floor-price legislation, the minister said. But that floor-price legislation has no formula in it as to what those floor prices will be. When a serious position obtains with regard to any particular agricultural product, nobody knows what the floor will be that the minister may see fit to put under that product.

Or not at all.

Mr. Wright:

I think in some cases they will put some floor there; whether that floor is at a level that will give us our expenses or whether it is down in the cellar, no one can tell. Certainly there is no formula in our present floor-price legislation to suggest where it will be. We have a floor price under coarse grains. It is 61J cents a bushel on oats and 90 cents a bushel on barley. Those floors are out of line with what we are selling wheat for today. What will be the result of that? The result undoubtedly will be that in western Canada in this crop year we shall have a much too large acreage placed in wheat because of the difference there is between the present floors on coarse grains and the price of wheat. This year we have no floor under either rape or flax. The result will be that there will be little of those crops sown. It is only natural that the farmers will not sow those crops when they know there is a surplus of them already in hand, and that there is no floor under them.

One of the ministers stated today that we did not have many surpluses in Canada. In reply I would say that we have a surplus of quite a few products in Canada. We have a surplus of flax, rapeseed, salmon, apples, honey and other kinds of fish besides salmon. There are quite a few things that we are coming into a surplus position on in Canada today. As a means of finding markets for them, I say that this legislation is entirely inadequate. We in this group will support this bill because it at least does something. But as far as we are concerned, it is not a

satisfactory piece of legislation with which to meet the needs of the farmers in this country at this time.

Mr. John T. Hackett (Siansiead):

Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about this type of legislation. For a moment I should like to say to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) that I am not debating whether or not relief should be granted to the class he represents so acceptably in the House of Commons. The point to which I wish to direct attention, and it is one which is becoming a little threadbare, I admit, is disrespect for the constitution.

Mr. Williams:

Not threadbare; it is naked.

Mr. Hackett:

Hon. gentlemen are entitled to their points of view. But sometimes I think if they knew a little more about the subject matter of the debate they would not be quite so glib in their comments. I listen with great respect to gentlemen who speak of matters concerning which they have knowledge. I listen with patience to other gentlemen who claim unpossessed knowledge even though I cannot take their comments seriously.

I was about to inform the hon. member for Melfort that I am not going to debate the desirability of fixed prices on farm produce. I merely say that in the submission of some of us on this side of the house the method of doing it chosen by the government is entirely wrong. And while I talk about method, I am going to ask the hon. member for Melfort not to be impatient, because if this type of legislation be tolerated, then it will work a hardship on the whole people.

As a people we believe in honest dealings. We believe in the sanctity of contracts. We all believe that. Now, the constitution is a document in which has been set forth the understanding of our forefathers; and had not that understanding assumed its present form there could have been no Canada, no confederation.

Those gentlemen in the years preceding 1867 were not mere dreamers; they were not visionaries; they were not given to speculation. They were men of affairs, men of experience, trained in the hard facts of life. They entered into an agreement that they would come together in a union upon the condition that certain powers should be wielded by the provinces, certain powers by the dominion, and that certain rights should vest in the individual.

I believe we all admit that. Now, what has happened? We are asked to depart from that understanding, disrespect the agreement. The right hon. the Minister of Agriculture, to whom I always listen with intense interest

when he talks about agriculture, and with even greater interest when he talks of politics -and not entirely without interest when he talks about the constitution; because whatever may be our appreciation of the conclusion at which he arrives, his presentation is always clear and forceful-the right hon. gentleman, I say, admits that this constitution exists. He admits that certain rights vest in the individual. He admits that certain rights vest in the provinces; and he admits of course that certain other rights vest in the dominion. And he says that this understanding arrived at ninety years ago, or nearly that, may not be violated. It must stand as written. Times do not change contracts. The intention of the parties as expressed at the time they made their agreement is that which must permeate the document and enlighten its interpretation. He admits all that.

But he says the agreement, the constitution of 1867, is not binding now, because there is an emergency-a national emergency. And that brings us to the point: What is a national emergency? The right hon. gentleman has mentioned, with all the skill which is his, that it is well that we should give back to the farmers some of that which would have been theirs, had they not been forced during the war to part with their property for less than its true worth. He puts that forward as one reason for a national emergency.

Let me say right here that that is probably a rather telling argument when one is talking to farmers. But farmers are not unfair; above all, farmers are not gullible. And I question whether farmers are going to consider that that is a reason to break a contract, a reason to violate the constitution.

If we attempt to make whole everyone who has suffered during the war, what are we going to do with those men who lost their health while working in munition plants ten, fifteen or twenty hours a day? What are we going to do with people who have been taxed out of their savings? What are we going to do with the man who has lost a limb? What are we going to do with the man who has lost his sight? What are we going to do with the widow or mother who has lost a husband or son overseas?

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there are losses which occur to a nation as a result of war for which no remedial legislation can compensate or offset. I also submit that nothing in that category constitutes a national emergency. There is nothing which justifies the suspension of that contract which brought the Canadian provinces into confederation, that abiding thing which caused them to come into union, and without which-and without a

Agricultural Products Act firm belief in its permanence-they never would have consented to constitute Canada.

I bow to the advocacy of the right hon. gentleman. Indeed sometimes I think the bar lost an ornament when he disdained its call to take up the high vocation of cultivating the land. But he had spare moments and many talents; and he has turned those spare moments to good purpose.

In his advocacy he says, "What about the British? They are hungry."

I will yield to no one in my admiration for the gallantry of the people of those heroic isles; I will yield to no one in my respect for their spirit, for their tenacity, for their capacity to bear uncomplainingly the heavy burdens which weigh them down. But whatever may be the lot of any people beyond our confines of Canada does not and cannot constitute a national emergency in Canada. If it did, what would be the result? There would not have been a day since confederation, there has not been a month or a year since 1867 that there have not been starving masses somewhere: in seething India, in teeming China, on the steppes of Russia and wherever the plea "give us this day our daily bread" has not been heard.

It comes to this. A national emergency is a catastrophe of such proportions that the integrity and life of our beloved country is at stake. It must be something that threatens the existence of the nation. It means something the happening of which would almost obliterate us as a people, would work irretrievable wrong and cast a blight on our children. I submit to you that no such dire spectre has appeared on the horizon of Canada since the moment hostilities ceased.

It may be that there is a political crisis, but there is a vast difference between a political crisis and a national emergency. If every time a party which represents a majority in this chamber finds itself embarrassed by promises it has made or by a mistake it has committed, it is going to decree a national emergency in which the rights of the individual may be invaded and the rights of the provinces suspended, then we are approaching an era in which the individual will no longer have any security.

The other day it was held in the Nolan case that the action should be dismissed because the expropriation of private property by the state without provision for proper compensation is so alien to Canadians that it almost raises the presumption that neither parliament nor the governor in council intended that it should be attempted by the order in council. There may be wrongs to be corrected in Saskatchewan and possibly in

1982 HOUSE OF

Agricultural Products Act other provinces; there may be hungry people in Britain and elsewhere; but there are ways by which we can go to their aid if it be the wish of the people and the desire of parliament.

But I do wish to assert with all the vigour that I possess that to declare such an occurrence, an almost daily occurrence, a reason for suspending the constitution is to abolish the constitution. When will the time come when there is not some sector or section of our Canada that is not suffering; when are the coal miners of Nova Scotia going to be free from care; when are the gold miners in northern Ontario to have full employment; when are the butter-makers in the eastern townships going to get back the herds which they lost owing to depressed and controlled butter prices; when and how are they going to be compensated? If such episodes constitute national emergencies, if the government says a lack of dollars and cents constitutes a national emergency, it has misconceived the genesis, the idea and the scope of what really is a national emergency.

Mr. R. R. Knighi (Saskatoon City):

Mr. Speaker, I always stand in admiration and amazement when I hear some of the speeches of my learned and hon. friends. They love to talk about constitutional questions. It appears to me to be a favourite form of amusement. I sometimes think that perhaps they err on the side of quibbling. I cannot see that the last speech that we heard, a delightful speech in many ways, had much to do with the marketing of agricultural products.

Mr. Hackeit:

That is the tragedy of it, you do not see.

Mr. Knighi:

I shall not spend forty minutes rattling the dry bones of tradition. After all, this legislation has to be passed by tomorrow night. I rose to say that personally I am in favour of the extension of the powers given to the minister for one more year. I might qualify that statement by saying that I do not particularly like the method of the legislation.

For instance, I think the minister has too much power. I think the job could be carried out better by a board. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has too much to do. However, I shall support the legislation because I think some agency is necessary to carry on the marketing of agricultural products on an international scale.

I think we in this group would rather have the opportunity of supporting a real natural products act on a national basis, an act which would work toward security and stability of farm life. That is the idea of most of the farmers in western Canada with whom I am

acquainted. I know that the people in the rural part of my constituency and in the other constituencies around feel that way about it, whether it has to do with the marketing of apples, of livestock, of coarse grains, of cheese or whatever other commodity it may be.

I suggest that the act should provide for grower representation, certainly for provincial representation on the boards which may be set up. Those are the people who understand local problems. I have been struck with admiration at the work carried out by the agriculture committees in Britain. Those committees were made up of local men. In this connection I should like to quote Professor Harold Sanders, dean of agriculture, Reading university, England, who I think puts the matter more clearly than I could. He refers to the county committees that were set up in September, 1939. In 1947 an act was passed making them permanent. He went on to say:

The committees consisted almost entirely of farmers, and the National Farmers' Union worked out the details, and co-operated with the government. Farming in Britain was not directed from Whitehall but from the county towns.

There has been some talk about Britain's agriculture being on the down grade and some time ago the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was saying that agriculture in Britain was none too successful. May I say that that is not my impression. My observations led me to draw the opposite conclusion, that the farmers are content and farm labourers likewise. I quote again from the same article as follows:

In 1939 Britain's agriculture produced 30 per cent of the needs; during the war it rose to 40 pet cent; and by 1952 it was expected to be 50 per cent self-supporting.

That, may I say, should be a warning to us in our agricultural marketing, because it is proof that the British are trying to become, and are becoming, more and more selfsustaining. While that is a good thing for them, it will not be very good for our farmers who wish to dispose of their agricultural products in that country. I quote again:

Prices were fixed from eighteen months to two years ahead-

I draw that to the attention of the minister. -so the farmers would know what to expect for their products, and this meant financial security.

I have already said it is not only the farmers who benefit by sound agricultural marketing, but also those people who live in cities like my own city of Saskatoon where the industries depend upon the successful marketing of agricultural products. In that connection I am thinking of institutions such as flour and feed mills, mills for the extraction of oil from flax and rapeseed, packing

houses, and so forth. As I say, the prosperity of the cities, and the employment of workers therein, depend upon successful marketing. In my particular city there are a number of plants to which that is vital.

We have been told at various stages of this debate that the outlook for foreign trade is none too bright. Perhaps the minister can put me right as to the figures; he usually puts us right when we on this side of the house go wrong. According to my calculations, European sales of Canadian goods are off in 1948 over 1947 by approximately $175 million. If it were not for United States dollars which are paid to us for our products that we ship to Great Britain and to Europe, the situation would be even worse. Secondly, if it were not for the Canadian loan, which I understand has been unfrozen at the rate of $10 million a month, we would have a major slump right now, and would be unable to sell our agricultural products at all. As the United States becomes able through surpluses to supply goods which she is now paying us to supply, our exports under ERP will be blocked, and the United States will become, not the country which pays the bills, but rather our rival in the markets of Europe in the sale of agricultural products. We have already the example of flax, which has been declared surplus. The United States will not supply the funds to pay us for that commodity.

I was pleased the other day to hear the minister speak very cordially of the British, and those men with whom he had to negotiate as to our farm products. I rather discredited the press reports when I saw some months ago that the minister was apparently rather annoyed at Great Britain, and with some of the negotiators. I noticed that other members of the house must have had the same idea, because the member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) said at an earlier stage of the debate that he thought the minister had put up the best fight that anyone could with the British authorities. Those are the words of the member for New Westminster. I think that the phraseology was somewhat unfortunate, in that it reminded me of certain blasting into the British markets that was supposed to have been done rather unsuccessfully some years ago. I noticed in that same speech that the hon. member for New Westminster was concerned about Great Britain supplying certain materials to countries behind the iron curtain. I wonder if the hon. member still believes that the profit motive implies either ethics or patriotism. It was not only eggs that British Columbia sent to Japan by the shipload not very many years ago.

I do not think we can blame our European customers too much. Is it reasonable for us

* Agricultural Products Act to expect that the British will continue to buy four times as much from us as we buy from them? They just have not the dollars. Can we expect them to spend dollars on anything that, under those circumstances and considering the state of exchange, they can grow for themselves? They only have the dollars supplied through ERP, the Canadian loan, and those which they earn themselves through their foreign trade. They are setting out to supply their own needs, and I do not think that the producers of this country realize to what extent they are doing so. They have plans in that regard. I have here a pamphlet which shows what one part of the British isles is doing. The British have a four-year plan. I should like to read in part from the Ulster Commentary as follows:

The British four-year plan has a special importance for Ulster farmers because the expansion in the output of British agriculture plays a vital part in the plan. It is proposed to raise output above the highest point reached in the war years. The allocation of the increased output between different parts of the United Kingdom has already been worked out.

The article then proceeds to quote the Ulster minister of agriculture as follows:

In Ulster we are asked to build up production so that in a few years there will be the following increases in our agricultural output compared with 1946-47.

Then he proceeds to quote progressively increasing figures, 8,000 tons more beef,

36,000 tons more pork, 35 million dozen more eggs, and so on. Then he goes on to sayr

Today we are more than ever dependent on America as the principal source of imported food. But to buy food and feeding stuffs in America requires dollars, and it is there that our problem lies. That is why it is necessary for the Ulster farmers to produce more milk, eggs, meat and bacon, and also to grow on their own farms a great part of the food required by their livestock and poultry.

If Great Britain has plans like that, and if she carries them out successfully-and from my observations over the last three or four years I have no doubt that she will be successful-then I think that the Minister of Agriculture and the farmers of Canada should not be thinking of the past but should ask themselves the question, what of the future?

Basically this matter of trade with Great Britain means that we must be prepared to accept more of her goods. I am not sure that the government is taking all the steps necessary to ensure the import of such goods. Have we, for example, revised our tariff regulations to facilitate such imports, imports which would in turn pay for our agricultural exports? I suggest that is one method which might be explored. Some minister is going to tell me that the British cannot supply sufficient goods, and that their prices are too high. I am well aware that the British

Agricultural Products Act only have a certain amount of goods to export. I am aware that in some cases they have to pay prices for raw materials in soft currency countries which preclude them from competing in our hard currency market.

In passing may I say that one very small thing, but something that is important to me, and to the people in my part of the country, is that so far as import into western Canada is concerned we could save ourselves a considerable amount of money by importing some goods on the Hudson Bay railway and via the Hudson bay route. I think if shippers look into that situation they will find that they will be able to make a considerable saving over bringing their goods the long way through the eastern ports.

The basis of all exchange is an actual exchange of physical goods. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was asked the other day, he told us that barter as such has not been considered by this government. Personally I do not believe we in this country have yet reached the stage where actual barter in that way, goods for goods, is necessary; but I think there are methods which amount to barter under which, by bookkeeping arrangements, virtually if not in fact we could have a barter system. I do not want to go into the matter, because I intend to speak for only a minute or two, but there are such things as blocked credits and so on.

A* the situation is now, Britain is being driven willy-nilly into the arms of Poland and Denmark while we sit tight on this highly artificial system of dollar exchange and attempt to make it work. I think that is a bit of commentary on this government's lack of ability to solve what I think is the most pressing problem facing this country today. As I said to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) a short time ago, we fiddle while Rome burns, or rather we rattle the dry bones of tradition while our agriculturists are in worry and the rest of the world is in want.

Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):

Mr. Speaker, long ago it was said that there is nothing new under the sun, but that can be said no longer, after the speech made in this house today by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). Today we heard from the minister something absolutely novel and unprecedented by way of an exposition of the constitution of this country and the duty of parliament with respect to the sanctity of that constitution.

The minister prefaced his remarks by explaining that in entering this debate on an agricultural question he wished to assure the house that he was not an expert an agricultural questions; and then he proceeded to

discuss the constitution. Apparently that was by way of contrast. After what fell from the lips of the hon. gentleman this morning I am quite sure that the next time the doughty Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in casting about on the treasury benches for help, will know better than to follow the course he pursued today, and will choose to interpret the constitution for himself.

Every lawyer has two assets in his armoury when he goes about a case: his facts and his law. Earlier this week we had the opportunity of judging how hopelesly wrong the Minister of Justice can be on his facts, and today we have seen how even more hopelessly wrong he can be in his interpretation of the law and the duties of members of parliament with respect to the constitution.

The doctrine expounded today by the Minister of Justice resolves itself into this, that he stands by the interpretation of the constitution he has given hitherto, in asserting that there exists today a general national emergency and that consequently extraordinary powers, emergency powers, flow to parliament at the expense of the provinces. And he has added the equally startling proposition that in essence members of parliament have no concern with questions relating to the constitution, as applied to legislation coming before parliament for consideration. He has said this: "The function of formulating a

theory as to a general emergency, as to a specific emergency, or as to any other basis for constitutional authority, is not a legislative function, and is not an executive function. It is a judicial function." Then to drive home his point with even greater certainty he goes on to say: "I suggest hon. members here are not concerned with the constitution in the way the members of the Progressive Conservative party have been arguing from time to time, because that is a matter which can safely be left to the only branch of government capable of dealing with it-that is, the courts. What we are concerned with here is the substance, the merits, the prudence, the wisdom of the measure we have before us."

There is an element of truth-a half truth, of course-in what the minister said in the passage I have just quoted. Of course the substance, the merits, the prudence and the wisdom of measures coming before this house are matters of the liveliest concern to the house and all members in it; but that is no ground for an assertion by the Minister of Justice that constitutional questions and the constitutionality of legislation or other measures that parliament is called upon to adopt are no concern of members of this house. I take issue with the proposition laid down by the minister, as squarely as it is

possible to take issue with any false proposition. It is a purely Liberal concept as it has unfolded here in recent years, and as it has found a climax in the expressions that have come from the Minister of Justice in recent days.

This is not the first time the government has shown it considers that the existence of this general national emergency it professes to find when it suits the government, and which it professes to see far removed from Canada, on other occasions, when that suits its purpose, gives rise to these sweeping powers. And they say to those of us who are elected to this house by the people of Canada, "These questions are not for you. You must confine your concern to the wisdom"-by which of course they mean the expediency- "of the legislation before us. Do not concern yourself with whether we are tearing the constitution to shreds". That is the proposition the government is putting before this house. In essence that is the proposition which was placed before us today by the present spokesman of the government on matters pertaining to law and the constitution.

The historic role of parliament, Mr. Speaker, has been that of the custodian of the rights of the people and the champion of freedom. In this country that means freedom with due respect for the constitution, because but for that constitution, as you well know, there would not have been a Canada. That constitution made confederation possible. Respect for that constitution today makes possible the continuation of confederation. Those who insist day in and day out, as the government have been doing of late, on hacking away at the very foundations of the constitution, are doing damage to the whole conception of confederation, damage to the unity of this country that I say is simply irreparable. A very grave responsibility rests upon the Minister of Justice and the government for which he has spoken.

The doctrine advanced by the minister has not been adhered to in this house in times past, nor has it been adhered to by his party in times past, when it suited them to argue otherwise. There have been many debates in this house on the constitutionality of measures submitted for adoption. Many of them were precipitated by the former leader of the Liberal party, the present hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), when he was leader of the opposition.

Now, sir, as to the first branch of the proposition laid down by the Minister of Justice: the position he has taken hitherto he has reaffirmed today, that there does exist a general national emergency. He says that national emergency is of such proportions

Agricultural Products Act that it complies with the standards laid down by the privy council which must be found before there is a transfer to the federal authority of those special and extraordinary powers which are not normally confided in the federal authority under the constitution, and since a national emergency exists it permits the federal authority to invade the normal legislative and governmental area of jurisdiction of the provinces. That, sir, is the inevitable consequence, the logical consequence of the proposition which the Minister of Justice has repeated today and which he has enunciated very clearly on several occasions.

Mr. Speaker, to say then that the constitutionality of the measures before this house is no concern of the members of this house is, I suggest, a monstrous injustice to the intelligence of the members. The Minister of Justice must admit, no matter how much he and I may differ on what is the essence of the constitution, that if a national emergency does exist legislation of this parliament which would in normal times be ultra vires of this parliament because it trenched upon the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces must depend for its existence upon a declaration by parliament of the existence of that emergency. He knows-as a matter of fact he has apparently taken some comfort from the fact-that the courts have said and the privy council has said on at least two leading occasions, that if parliament does declare it is of the opinion that a national emergency exists, the courts will not closely scrutinize that declaration. In other words, the courts are going to require evidence that parliament has seriously erred in that regard before they will treat such legislation as ultra vires because the necessary national emergency is not found to exist.

That being the case, sir, does it lie in the mouth of the Minister of Justice to tell the members of parliament that, when parliament derives this extraordinary authority only where it finds and declares that a national emergency exists, members of parliament must dismiss from their minds and from their consideration any question concerning the constitutionality of the measures laid before them? To do so, Mr. Speaker, invites parliament completely to stultify itself.

Mr. Garson:

I am rising on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The argument which my hon. friend is now advancing, during the course of which he has attributed certain statements and certain arguments to me, wholly distorts what I stated. I shall not press the matter at the moment, but as soon as he resumes his seat I will avail myself of an opportunity in this debate to reiterate what I did say.

Agricultural Products Act

Mr. Fleming:

I may save the hon. gentleman the trouble. I may say to him that his conception of what are points of privilege is just as accurate as his conception of what is the essence of the constitution. I will save the minister the trouble and tell him what he said:

-I suggest hon. members here are not concerned with the constitution in the way the members of the Progressive Conservative party have been arguing frrm time to time, because that is a matter which can safely be left to the only branch of government capable of dealing with it; that is, the courts. What we are concerned with here is the substance, the merits, the prudence, the wisdom of the measure we have before us.

Mr. Garson:

Continue, finish the statement.

Mr. Fleming:

Very well, I shall quote another statement the hon. gentleman made this morning.

In view of that fact the whole function of formulating a theory as to a general emergency, or as to a specific emergency, or as to any other basis for constitutional authority, is not a legislative function, and is not an executive function.

Mr. Speaker, could anything be clearer than that? It is not a legislative function. Those are not my words, thank goodness. I do not have to answer for words like those. Those are the words of the Minister of Justice uttered in this house today.

May I say a word, sir, about the courts. In the face of the statement made by the Minister of Justice and in the face of the conduct of this government-not just now but in relation to its search for excuses for retaining these extraordinary and arbitrary powers on many occasions and in many aspects, as we have seen in our debates upon a variety of measures-we ought to be very thankful that there are courts and that it is the function of the courts to say that measures passed by parliament which are ultra'vires are, in fact, ultra vires.

We ought to be very thankful that the courts have that function and that power. But, sir, is that to absolve parliament of its responsibility with respect to the constitution? Is that to absolve parliament from its responsibility for reviewing every measure brought before it? I say it does not absolve parliament of any responsibility with respect to the constitutionality of measures parliament is called upon to enact. Would this not be a fine example of a parliament, sir, if it simply adhered to the formula laid down by the Minister of Justice and said: "The question of constitutionality is no concern of ours; we will leave that to the courts. We will go blithely forward and legislate without regard to constitutionality because we will leave that to the courts; that is not our concern."

Can you imagine what chaos would result from following a course like that? It is unthinkable. It would have been unthinkable, at least, until the Minister of Justice put forward the proposition today. With all the respect we have for the courts, sir, is it fair to cast this burden upon them? We know very well, as the house was reminded by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his very powerful speech this afternoon, that it takes time to get these questions before the courts. Of the thousands and perhaps millions of citizens affected by measures passed by parliament in excess of its authority, how many are there who are in a position to carry their challenge to such legislation into the courts and to make their challenge effective by carrying appeals to the court of last resort? I say that sort of proposition represents the rankest kind of discrimination against the people of small means who are affected by ultra vires legislation just as much as the people of ample means who may be able to carry such a question to the courts and who may be able to carry their challenge through to the court of last resort.

All such litigation takes time. And what is the result when the courts do make a declaration that legislation enacted by parliament is ultra vires? Immediately, you have a vacuum. Parliament may not be in session. It takes time to deal with these situations which arise suddenly and which, in many cases, give rise to chaos. That is the headlong course upon which the Minister of Justice invites this parliament to embark. I hope this parliament, I am sure this parliament, with its experience, will not accept that invitation to commit suicide.

There are so many aspects of this question, sir, as you well know. Inevitably, ultra vires legislation by parliament involves trenching upon the constitutional rights of the provinces; rights which the provinces are bound to assert on their behalf if there is to be any respect held for the constitution of this country. So long as this government is going to lay down a doctrine of this kind; so long as this government is going to go on insisting on the existence of a national emergency that gives the federal authority the complete constitutional power to trespass upon the normal legislative jurisdiction of the provinces with reference to property and civil rights; so long as they consider it expedient with regard to any item of legislation to do so; then inevitably turmoil and conflict will distinguish the relationships between the dominion and the provinces.

On an earlier occasion, with regard to a kindred subject, I said that this government

has assassinated the constitution. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has apparently succeeded to the role of leader of the burial party that the government has appointed for the interment of the constitution of this country. His advent into this chamber has marked again the determined drive of this government for the centralization of power.

It is not always that the government has been as frank as the Minister of Justice has been. I think perhaps we ought to say a word of commendation of the Minister of Justice in this respect at any rate. While the government hitherto has been doing its utmost to wreck the constitution, to ride roughshod over the rights of the provinces, the government at the same time has been denying that it has been doing so. But of course that attempt has been exposed completely by the Minister of Justice, with the commendable degree of candor which has marked his deliverances in this house on the subject of the constitution-because he has left no doubt about it at all. He has left no doubt at all that it is centralization of power here at Ottawa that is the goal and aim of this government; and it is a goal and aim toward which this government is driving just as determinedly today as it has at any time in the past.

While deploring the doctrine, while saying that we in the Progressive Conservative party will fight as long as there is breath in our bodies against this assassination of the constitution, at the same time we have a word of commendation for the Minister of Justice for his frankness and his candor in contributing to this exposure of the naked centralizing aims of the government.

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):

To the innocent bystanders of this dispute, Mr. Speaker, in many respects I offer my apologies for being obliged to traverse ground that has already been more than adequately covered. But since I entered this house I have been rapidly discovering that my hon. friends in the Progressive Conservative party opposite have a perfect genius for distorting and misrepresenting statements made by members of the house. At the moment I claim to be the immediate victim.

Mr. Knowles:

They were your friends in Manitoba.

Mr. Fulton:

Misquoted again!

Mr. Garson:

When anyone twits another for using a prepared speech, I think he is on rather bad ground; because there is an interval in this house, before the official Hansard comes down in printed form, in which it is possible to get up and make the sort of speech 29087-126

24, 1949 1987

Agricultural Products Act that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has just finished making. The only cure for that situation is to have typewritten out a prepared speech from which contradictions can be read. I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this house whether the sense of the remarks I made this morning was not as follows: I said that under our constitution the question whether or not any particular law of parliament or of a provincial legislature is intra vires and valid or ultra vires and void is a question which, in the last analysis, can be decided only by the courts of this country. I also made the point that, such being the case, there was not any purpose in any government formulating any particular theory of emergent powers or any other kind of theory upon which to base a law which could not later be supported in the courts.

Then, far from indicating that this parliament should have no concern as to the constitutionality of measures which come before it, I not only stated that fact but I spelled it out; and I spelled it out in these terms. I said that when a bill was presented to the house by the government or by any private member, the sponsor-whether a government or a private member-owes a measure of responsibility to see to it that the attention of hon. members is not being drawn to something which is unconstitutional or to something that should not come before parliament. I do not know whether my hon. friend was in the chamber at the time that I made the statement; if he was, then his quotation tonight of my remarks is quite inexcusable in leaving this out. I said that the sponsor should in each case-

Mr. Fleming:

I can assure the hon. gentleman that I was in the house, that I heard his speech throughout, and that I have given accurate quotations from his own remarks.

Mr. Garson:

All right. I should like my hon. friend, when I have finished reviewing the context of these remarks that he has taken bleeding from their context-