Mr. White (Hastings-Frontenac):

Don't

worry; he will be here when the vote is taken.

When will that be?

Mr. White (Hastings-Frontenac):

Don't be alarmed about that.

Mr. Lennard:

Two or three weeks from now.

Speak to the amendment.

Mr. White (Haslings-Fronlenac):

The hon. member will have plenty of time to speak. I have not heard him speak for a long time, and we will all be waiting with interest to hear what he has to say. I was saying that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal is so reasonable that it is hard to understand why the minister or the government will not accept it. The position we take on this side of the house is simply that we have no objection to the department being made permanent, but we do feel there should be in the act a time limit over those powers.

It seems rather absurd to say, as suggested by the Prime Minister that a private member could introduce a bill to review this act and the government would facilitate the discussion of that bill. Surely parliament should have the right at a future date to examine this bill, to -debate it, to criticize it and to decide what powers are necessary to be extended for a further period. Let the government proceed in a really democratic way and give the elected representatives a proper opportunity in the future to fulfil the duties which they were elected to fulfil and which they were sent here to fulfil. That procedure has been followed in the past, so why should it not be followed at the present time?

If it should turn out that this bill is forced through by the government, it would then be placed on the statute books of Canada and there would be no limit to these drastic and sweeping powers. I wonder if this is the type of democracy or the parliamentary procedure for which many thousands of young Canadians gave their lives in two world wars. Is this the type of freedom that young Canadians want, or will they have to accept a parliamentary procedure that would by-pass parliament? If there is to be no opportunity to review this bill in the future, then I say the supremacy of parliament is being delegated to the Minister of Defence Production.

Hon. members have referred to different editorials and press comments across the country, and it has been pointed out that many Canadian people are becoming rather uneasy and somewhat worried over taking away the right of parliament to have a periodic review and renewal of these powers. It appears that it is rather pleasant for some hon. members who sit opposite to ridicule the argument of the members of the opposition when they refer to and speak in support of the supremacy of parliament, the rights of parliament and the rule of law.

Defence Production Act

I say that when parliament is asked to grant powers as sweeping as these, and for an indefinite period, the minister and all hon. members of the house should scrupulously abide by the rules of parliament. It is my intention to vote for the amendment.

Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have taken part in this debate, and I do so tonight not with the idea of participating in a filibuster but as an elected representative who desires to give voice to his opinion and conviction regarding this legislation. I am surprised at the small number of government members who have participated in this debate. As I was not actively engaged in the debate and was more or less sitting on the sidelines, I was able to pass an opinion on the legislation and on the actions of hon. members on both sides of the house.

I was rather glad yesterday when two of the youngest members of this house rose to take part in the debate, and I wondered why they did so. I felt that they wanted to justify their position supporting the government, and I wondered also if there were not some twitterings of conscience in the speeches they made. But it became quite clear that either some pressure had been placed on them in their ridings or that they had been influenced by the press when they made their speeches in justification of the position they were taking. It brought to my mind a story of a woman charged with smoking in bed and starting a fire in a hotel room. When she was brought up before the magistrate she complained that the bed was on fire before she got into it.

I recall quite well the speech made by the hon. member for Spadina. I do not always agree with the speeches of the hon. member for Spadina, but I always felt that when he spoke he stated his position clearly and concisely. But there was one thing in his speech to which I should like to refer. I looked it up because I felt it would be interesting. It will be found on page 5005 of Hansard of June 20. He made this statement:

In so far as the people of Canada are concerned, they could not care less about this present issue, because there is no real issue.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Spadina that he is badly mistaken. I was in touch with my constituents over the last two Saturdays, and one of the last of the people with whom I talked on Monday morning said to me as I left, "This is a bad act; try to influence the government so it will not pass". I have met with that sentiment several times during the last few Saturdays in my own riding and I might say it comes from all parties and all political complexions.

' Defence Production Act

Not only are the people concerned about this matter; the press have also taken it up. I am not going to quote at length, because statements have been quoted from many papers across Canada; but I draw to your attention two editorials appearing in the Ottawa papers, one last week in the Ottawa Citizen and one last night in the Ottawa Journal. These two papers are in close touch with things on parliament hill. They are two papers of very high standing and their editorial writers have been rather fearless and consistent in their criticisms.

I was much concerned about the editorial in the Journal last night. I am not quoting this editorial but I shall paraphrase it. The thing that struck me in the very first line was the fact that the opposition are not fighting an emergency act, that the Defence Production Act is not an emergency act. They pointed out that nobody pretends-not even the minister or the Prime Minister-* that this is an emergency act. But they point out that this act is being passed in peacetime when there is not a shot being fired around the world, and when statesmen are gathering together to try to work out peace throughout the world and prospects are looking fairly bright at the present time.

They point out that on the eve of this meeting, the eve of a conference which we have high hopes will bring world settlement, the demand is being made that parliament should surrender to the government powers that are extraordinary, that are undefined and indefinite. This act, they point out, is in peacetime, non-emergency legislation, asking for cabinet powers which traditionally and historically belong to parliament alone.

Then comes the remainder of the sentence which actually caused me grave concern, coming as it does from a reputable paper and a high-class editorial writer. Speaking about those powers he states:

. . . powers . . . which should be yielded by parliament only under state of mortal peril.

Could anything in the nature of an editorial be stronger than that, coming from those very close to the scene of government? I repeat that phrase, "only under state of mortal peril".

I have given you the idea of the people with whom I have come in contact and the position of the press. But in the speeches I have heard here praising this bill or supporting the bill there is a term that has been consistently used; I refer to "trust parliament". I find that very difficult to accept. As I have said, I have sat on the sidelines listening to this debate, and the way that this has been twisted around has to me been rather amazing, or at least it seems amazing.

This thought comes to me. Can parliament not be trusted if the act is again brought before parliament with a time limit? You say now, "trust parliament". That is part of the argument. But if a year or two years from now this act were brought before parliament, we could trust parliament adequately to deal with it. I have therefore been rather amazed that this expression should be used so frequently in this debate.

So far as parliament is concerned, and the retention of power by parliament, this afternoon when I was trying to get some notes ready for the purpose of speaking tonight, there came to me something that was said to me by an old clergyman with regard to an argument, or a matter we were discussing. The question came up about cutting corners. I have never forgotten what that old gentleman said to me. He said, "You can never accomplish good by first doing wrong".

That seems to be the argument here. By those who have intervened in this debate we are told how necessary it is to have an act of this type. But we are doing wrong in the way the act is introduced, in the clauses in the act and in the fact that the matter is being taken out of the hands of parliament. You cannot accomplish good by first doing wrong. This thing has a wrong beginning. Parliament should be recognized in the beginning. As long as parliament is not recognized you are making a wrong start. Therefore, with a start like that, certainly no good could be accomplished.

I remember very well,-as will many of the older members of the house, the late T. L. Church, the former member for Broadview. He was a beloved character in this house. As a younger member I used to listen to his speeches. In dealing with a subject like this he had one quotation he often used, and you will recognize it, Mr. Speaker. He used to say, "Woe to the lawyers". I never was too sure where the quotation came from. It may have been biblical, but I am not just too sure of its source. If T. L. Church were present in this house today certainly we would hear that quotation, "Woe to the lawyers".

Why do I say that? The other day somebody said we had some 70 lawyers in the house. A large proportion of those lawyers are on the government side. I cannot picture lawyers ever agreeing to this type of legislation. I cannot understand the Prime Minister, one of the most distinguished jurists in this country and a former president of the Canadian Bar Association, doing so. I cannot understand his position because of what he had consistently said previously. As a lawyer in the high office that he holds, he should recognize that this is not a good bill. As Prime

Minister he should be the custodian of the rights of parliament. Yet the bill is introduced in his name.

Unfortunately he was not present when the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) spoke. I jotted down something he said about one of the sections in this act. It was on section 29, subsection 3. It is something I consider to be most dangerous. I read only the first part of it, "may allow counsel". I agree with the argument he has made when we reach a state in this country where counsel is not permitted. Even on a preliminary investigation, and a preliminary investigation of this type does seem in the nature of an examination for discovery-I think that is the legal term-they should have the benefit of counsel. Later, when the case goes to court, there is some reference to their being allowed counsel.

I congratulate the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac on bringing before the house the fact that such a thing is in the act. I did not know it was there until he brought out in his speech that counsel may be allowed. We did not like the act, and after having heard what was said by the hon. member I like the act less than ever before. But my point is that if you prate about trusting parliament, why not trust parliament with a time limit? This is the same parliament and always will be the parliament of Canada.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

I hope not.

Mr. Blair:

Somebody said last night that this was a suspension of the constitution. I have come to believe it is. The minister mentioned guided missiles and supersonic planes. I could not believe he was trying to frighten us. In reading about advances in science we have become accustomed in some degree to discussions about these things; nevertheless we should be prepared for an emergency. I wonder why the government has not taken action. I would not be concerned about the amount of money voted to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) for his civil defence program, or money spent to help the municipalities carry out such a program.

I maintain that if we are facing an emergency the real emergency lies in the terms of the act. This is an act that is entirely foreign to our way of thinking. May I say to those on the other side that this is not Liberalism. This is not the policy of freedom as I have always understood it. Neither is it democracy. Again I wonder why the Prime Minister has not spoken in this debate and given us the real reason why he supports legislation of this type. As far as the act is concerned parliament, if I may say so, is

Defence Production Act threatened by a large majority; and if the opposition should give in on this measure parliament will thereby be weakened. I am concerned about the position of parliament.

As far as members on the other side of the house are concerned, I would diagnose their position in this way. They have placed their trust in the minister, but the minister will not always be in office. It is all right for the rooting section to say, "Good old C. D.; he will never get us into any trouble." What I am concerned about is that the minister should agree to recognize the supremacy of parliament and come back and consult parliament about the legislation. Then everything would be well.

That brings up the question why this measure is being brought forward now. The act does not expire for another year, and if necessary it can be renewed by succeeding parliaments. Certainly you can trust parliament to renew the legislation whenever it is necessary. But what I fear is that the government is trying to pass the bill without a time limit so it will be the law in perpetuity. I was not at all impressed by the offer made by the Prime Minister when he stated that any private member could bring in a bill the discussion of which would be facilitated by the government. He said he would see that a private bill having to do with this matter would get a real chance for discussion.

This matter must be settled now. The supremacy of parliament and the right of parliament to deal with this question must be established. We have heard quotations from Shakespeare and quotations from history all proving our point. I am not going to give any quotations of that type, but I do ask hon, members to recall a poem we all studied in high school. It is by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, entitled, "You ask me Why", the title being the first line of the poem. He is setting forth why he lives in England, his native land, and in giving reasons why he loves his native land and approves of the government of that country he says:

A land of settled government,

A land of just and old renown.

Where Freedom slowly broadens down From precedent to precedent.

I am concerned about the question of precedents, because a precedent is one of the most dangerous things that can be enacted by any parliament. Those learned in the legal profession know that a precedent set forth in a judgment becomes law. If you attend sessions of the supreme court you will notice that a lawyer will sometimes refer to the case of so and so. The learned judge will ask for the reference and will look up the precedent. It is a dangerous precedent

Defence Production Act we are creating in parliament at the present time. 1 have told you that I have tried to adopt a non-committal attitude. I have found it interesting to watch my own party and the government on this question.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

You must have been horrified.

Mr. Blair:

It was not horrible, it was interesting. It was horrifying to see some of the actions and hear some of the speeches in justification of the measure. If the minister wants any horrid examples I can give them to him. As I say, it was interesting to listen to the debate. I have been out of the house. I lost contact with the affairs of the house. Certainly I would normally support my own party. I fancy I can hear somebody say that I would vote Conservative anyway. Let us acknowledge that; but in my position one has to be fair and I have tried to adopt that attitude in order to get an explanation. I wondered what was behind this measure. Surely it is not a question of not trusting parliament with a time limit in the act.

I ask the minister whether there is anything else. I would hate to say that I suspect ulterior motives, but I feel there is something more behind this measure that has not been brought out in the house, as to why the minister not only wants these powers but wants them for an unspecified time. No time limit has been set. I am afraid of precedents of that kind in the House of Commons. That is what is bothering me. There is a dangerous precedent involved, one that has been pointed out to me not only by people across Canada but by the press of Canada. We must recognize that the press fulfil a duty in moulding public opinion and are very often conscious of public opinion before we are.

Therefore I shall support the amendment. I support it for the reason that I am very much afraid something dangerous is happening to parliament, and again I say I cannot understand why. I come back to this point. If you can trust parliament-and we have heard that so much from the other side of the house-why not trust parliament with regard to a time limit in this act? Bad and all as some of the features of the act may be, if you prate about trusting parliament then there should be a time limit in the bill.

Mr. H. W. Mitchell (London!: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a speech delivered to the house with such conviction that it could only have been born of a sincere and earnest belief in the cause which we espouse. Earlier in the debate I attempted in my imperfect and perhaps inadequate way to suggest that the government and the minister in particular had missed the point of the argument we have

TMr. Blair.]

been presenting. Others on this side of the house have presented the same point of view and the same argument in a much clearer way than I can.

This same difference in point of view, the same argument, in the interim has been presented to the Canadian people from coast to coast. While I do not propose to quote from any of the press of Canada, I can only say that a summary of the press reports in most particulars would be a fairly accurate summary Of the arguments we have been presenting. The minister and the government, I submit, have refused to see the point. I can only say that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

What is that point? It has been expressed by myself and by others from this side of the house. As I indicated before, it has been presented in many different ways, but it is all the one point. Though it goes farther than I would be prepared to go, I submit that this is a fair summary of those arguments. No one objects to wide powers for the Minister of Defence Production, or even to an extension for a considerable period. The objection is to an indefinite delegation of the power of parliament.

As I previously indicated, that goes further than I am prepared to go. I would submit that the word "considerable" should be changed to the word "definite". What I have said before would then read; no one objects to wide powers for the Minister of Defence Production or even to their extension for a definite period. The objection is to an indefinite delegation of the power of parliament.

Since the last time I took part in the debate on this bill I have listened with complete attention and have carefully read the two speeches and the hundreds of interjections made by the minister. I have seen nothing and I have heard nothing which has caused me to change the conviction which I expressed some two weeks ago. If we accept a free press as being qualified to express public opinion and act as a mirror, then I suggest to the government it is time they looked over their shoulder. They have taken a peek, and it was a pretty small and ineffective peek that went over the left shoulder. I suggest to the minister it is high time they looked around. I suggest it is high time they realized what is going on, and what the reaction is to this bill.

As evidence of that I should like to refer to Dawson's book, "The Government of Canada", and quote a short paragraph.

The initiation of cabinet policies is undoubtedly related in a democracy to trends in public opinion.

but the connection is never constant and cannot be readily defined by any clear principles. Certainly the cabinet does not produce a succession of new ideas which it then tries to persuade the nation to accept; nor. on the other hand, does the cabinet wait until popular clamour is unmistakable before advocating a particular measure. The process tends to be something between the two, an interplay of forces among many pressure groups and interests throughout the country with political parties and their leaders and the representatives in parliament playing the most important parts.

Then there is this significant statement:

"A government," says Professor Jennings, "must perpetually look over its shoulder to see whether it is being followed. If it is not, it may alter direction." ... A cabinet will inevitably be forced to compromise on many issues; but its position is usually so strong and dominant in both party and parliament that it will be able to secure the adoption of the measures on which it has finally secured agreement.

There have been many suggestions advanced from this side of the house which, if adopted by the government, would be acceptable to the official opposition. That is not a new thing, Mr. Speaker. It has happened before, and Professor Dawson refers to two or three occasions:

But occasions will arise when the cabinet may outstrip public opinion to its own grave danger, and it may be compelled to make substantial concessions or even withdraw proposals entirely in order to save its face. Thus in 1945, the King government dropped certain projected changes in the tariff because they had been proved to be exceptionally unpopular. A most unusual case occurred in 1906 when the pressure of public opinion induced the Laurier government to introduce a bill to repeal an act which granted pensions to cabinet ministers, . . .

I cannot help but look once again to the cabinet ranks. I referred to some speeches the Prime Minister had made previously in his capacity as president of the Canadian Bar Association. I could not have agreed more wholeheartedly with the contents of those speeches. They expressed, much more adequately than I could, my feeling about the rule of law and the supremacy of parliament. I have heard speeches by other distinguished lawyers in the cabinet ranks. I look at the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who is a distinguished lawyer and an outstanding student of international law. Yet I have not heard one word from this student of the law and of the supremacy of parliament in defence of this indefensible act.

Mr. Knowles:

He is waiting to make a speech on health insurance.

Mr. Mitchell (London):

I wish he would get up and make a speech on this bill. I would be delighted to hear him.

Hear. hear.

Defence Production Act

Mr. Mitchell (London):

Perhaps he is played out. I can see other distinguished members of the learned profession sitting opposite, among whom is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). Yet not one word comes from these men, who on public platforms on other occasions have extolled the supremacy of the law and the supremacy of this house. I come with some regret to the feeling that there must be a number of Doctor Jekylls and Mr. Hydes on the government benches.

I have no intention of imputing any false motives, Mr. Speaker, nor shall I; but I cannot help feeling that some of the speeches which have been delivered in various forums by distinguished members of the legal profession who sit opposite have been delivered with their tongues in their cheeks, and suited only to the particular occasion on which they spoke. They are now completely silent.

I turn now to a problem which has crept into this debate, and which has beclouded the issue. I refer to statements we have heard that this is or is not emergency legislation. Let us forget the word "emergency". This is not and cannot be emergency legislation. There is no preamble to this act reciting any state of emergency; and I know that members of the government opposite will agree with me that in most cases-not in every case, but in most cases-where emergency legislation is brought before the house there is a preamble reciting the fact of such emergency. But there is no preamble here. Let us then wipe that clear of our minds and accept the fact that this is not emergency legislation. This is permanent, ordinary, everyday legislation which the government desires to place on the statute books for all time to come.

I would ask who is next? Where do we go from the Department of Defence Production? What about the Minister of Finance? Does he want additional and extraordinary powers? Perhaps he has enough now. But what about the other members of the government? What about the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters)? I cannot think of any department that might be able to use more effectively such powers as are now being given to the Minister of Defence Production.

I referred previously to the unemployment and farm relief act of 1931, and at that time the minister interjected in his usual fashion, with perhaps one of his brighter statements, at page 5028:

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend would like to amplify a little. I do not recognize the legislation. Was that the blank cheque legislation?

Defence Production Act

Then the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), in one of his pithy statements, is recorded as having said, "Yes".

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

You said "Yes" as well, I think.

Mr. Mitchell (London):

I shall go on. I said further:

The Minister of Defence Production can refer to it in any way he prefers. I have heard that same language used before.

Referring to blank cheques, what could be more of a blank cheque than this present legislation? And so far as I can see it is not even dated. What could be more of a blank cheque than what we are now asked to present to the minister.

I have not been sitting on any bench communing with nature, but I have thought during the last two or three days that perhaps it would have been helpful if some of the ministers had been communing with somebody on a bench at Kingsmere. I am sure such communion would have been not only interesting but profitable. We are told that the late owner of that estate was the founder of modern Liberalism. I think he would resent that, because while in many ways he was a Liberal, sometimes I find that the similarity between so-called traditional Liberalism and that which is being practised by hon. gentlemen opposite is not very marked.

What about the so-called blank cheque to which the minister refers? Let me remind him that it was a blank cheque with a time limit, a blank cheque which would expire in less than a year, a blank cheque to the governor in council-not to a minister-and a blank cheque which authorized expenditures of money for a definite purpose recited in the preamble and to meet a national emergency.

What would the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King have thought of a blank cheque giving unabridged powers to one man over every business enterprise and natural resource in Canada? Bearing these points in mind, bearing in mind the time limit, bearing in mind the fact that there was a national emergency, bearing in mind that the governor in council was the body which was to act, not the Minister of Defence Production, I would ask hon. members to go back with me to the session of 1931. There we shall do a little communing on our own. I find at page 4282, volume IV of Hansard for that session, the

Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, speaking at the resolution stage on July 29, 1931, said:

My right hon. friend-

He was referring to Mr. Bennett.

-has spoken of the cabinet as a board of directors and he says that in this resolution he is asking the house to give to that board of directors absolute powers in dealing with the problem of unemployment relief. May I say to him that it is not the cabinet, of which he is Prime Minister, that is the board of directors of the nation; it is this House of Commons. Hon. members sitting on both sides of the house are the board of directors who have been sent from the different constituencies in Canada to represent the people of the country, to discuss questions of importance with respect to the economic and other affairs of Canada, and to make laws to aid in the solution of those problems. The cabinet is a committee of the House of Commons; any power it has is derived from the members who sit in this house. It is an executive committee. But the committee of the nation constituting the board of directors is, I submit, this House of Commons. That leads me to direct again a very strong criticism against my right hon. friend. The criticism is this: that with regard to this all-important question he has ignored altogether the board of directors of the nation and has taken it into the hands of a small committee, which derives its authority from this board of directors, to deal with the question in an absolute way.

I cannot help thinking what Mr. King would have said of legislation in this form which delegates powers, not to the governor in council but to one minister. Again in Hansard for July 29, 1931, I find this, at page 4285, where Mr. Mackenzie King said:

We are not going to object to the moneys that may be needed for unemployment and farm relief so long as parliament, the board of directors representing the people of this country, has its control and its say with respect to the expenditure. But we will object as strongly as we possibly can to increasing the powers of the governor in council in the matter of giving them unlimited authority with respect to public funds.

There again, Mr. Speaker, is a condemnation of the delegation of powers to the governor in council. But how much further would Mr. King have gone if he had been asked to delegate powers to the Minister of Defence Production? Once again, on the same date, at page 4287 of Hansard-and here we get back to the blank cheque to which the Minister of Defence Production has been pleased to refer-I find this:

My right hon. friend has predicted a criticism, which he must know is inevitable, when he asks for powers such as those sought in this resolution. He himself has said that they may be described, euphoniously, I think, as giving a blank cheque to the administration.

Mr. Bennett:

I said that they "had been"

described.

Mr. Mackenzie King:

Yes, that they had been described. Let us drop the word "euphoniously" altogether and view in a clear and direct manner the simple fact that the government is asking this parliament to give it a blank cheque to deal with unemployment relief in such a manner as it may think wise.

And again at page 4288 Mr. Mackenzie King said:

Now, may I say this to him? So far as the opposition is concerned, we will be prepared to allow him to make any estimate he likes, so long as it is an estimate based on good judgment, and we will not question that estimate, we will allow him to have the amount he asks for. But we do assert, if it is only for the sake of maintaining what is the most fundamental of all obligations of the commons, namely, its control over expenditure, that he should not ask us to give him a blank cheque to borrow as much as he pleases to deal with this particular matter.

I can almost hear Mr. King speaking in a debate such as this where the powers granted are in no way limited as to time. How much more smartly would he have dealt with this particular bill than the bill which was then being debated by the House of Commons? The closing remarks by Mr. King at the resolution stage are found at page 4290 of Hansard:

But we cannot completely surrender the rights of this House of Commons and of parliament with respect to its control over expenditures for any purpose that may be named, and we cannot accord him our approval of the resolution in the form in which it has been brought down.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring ourselves forward to the debate on second reading of that act, which commenced on July 31, 1931. Mr. King's remarks are found at page 4413 of Hansard:

It seems to me this bill disregards parliament altogether; it is a complete usurpation of the rights of parliament.

And further down the page:

I do not think it is possible to emphasize too strongly how serious is the departure which the government is making in asking this house, no matter what the reason may be, to give it unlimited powers of the kind.

This is exactly the same type of legislation which Mr. King condemned so strongly in 1931. Again, at page 4415 of Hansard, we find Mr. King saying:

If this measure were dealt with as it deserves to be, it would be the duty of this House of Commons to remain in session until the measure was withdrawn. That is the only way in which I believe a free parliament could in the circumstances be expected to maintain the rights of a free people.

I heartily endorse those words referring to the duty of this house to remain in session until either the measure is withdrawn or some more suitable measure is presented to us in line with the arguments we have presented.

Hon. Ernest Lapointe also entered that debate on second reading on July 31, 1931, and some of his remarks are most enlightening. I quote from page 4419 of Hansard:

I say that even then there were abuses, but in this measure there is no limitation as far as amounts of money are concerned-

Defence Production Act

Here I interject that in this case there is no limitation as far as time is concerned.

-there is no limitation as to the destination of those moneys or the use to which they may be put. I have been reading a book which my right hon. friend quoted many times when sitting on this side of the house but which he seems to have forgotten since he has been on the other side; I refer to that famous book written by Lord Hewart, chief justice of England, entitled The New Despotism. In that book Lord Hewart relates the story of an Anglo-Indian civil servant who returned to England on leave after an absence of many years. On arriving in London and while travelling between Victoria and Charing Cross stations he asked the man with him, "What are those buildings?" The man said, "Well, those are the parliament buildings; that is Westminster". The Anglo-Indian said, "What, does that rubbish still go on?" That was the attitude of mind of that gentleman, and if we agree to this bill in its present form I really believe we will be entering on a path fraught with grave danger. Surely someone will say, sometime, "Does this rubbish still go on at Ottawa, the parliament of Canada?"

Now I should like to refer to the speech made by the Minister of Defence Production on June 28, 1955, and in particular to one or two remarks he made. The first is at page 5376 of Hansard: "I feel that I am living in another world." When I read that remark I had visions of Alice in Wonderland, I had visions of Charlemagne, and I had visions of many other characters in ancient history. I could just imagine the right hon. minister charging into battle with his pike held high and saying, "What I want I will have." At page 5377 of Hansard the minister had this to say:

The departmental act, and the act of any department, sets out the duties and obligations of the department and the authority under which the department carries out those duties and obligations. To say that the Department of Defence Production can be made permanent without a permanent Defence Production Act is to say that the Department of Public Works can be a permanent department even though the Public Works Act is temporary in nature, or that the Department of National Revenue can be a permanent department if the Department of National Revenue Act is a temporary act, or that the post office can be a permanent department if the Post Office Act is a temporary act.

There is the typical case of a blind and wilful refusal to see the argument or to try to understand the argument which has been presented from this side of the house. The argument is simply this. The argument is that we want the Defence Production Act. Let us not hear any more of these foolish remarks coming from the other side of the house. We want this act, but we want this act either in a reduced form as to the scope of its powers or with a limitation placed on the life of those exceptional powers.

5798 HOUSE OF

Defence Production Act

Third, I should like to quote the minister's words from page 5377 of Hansard, and this touches one:

Industry is familiar with these controls. It has been working under them for 16 years, and as far as I know it is quite happy to work under them indefinitely. Of all the complaints that have been heard since this debate started I have not heard one single complaint from the people affected, namely, the people who are actually doing the defence production work in this country.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you; would anybody in his right senses who is under the thumb of the minister and who is producing for the minister for one minute dare to complain to the all-powerful Minister of Defence Production? That is the kind of argument that has been advanced in these speeches which have been delivered from the government side of the house. In the following paragraph the minister is shown as saying:

We have seen many legitimate objections-

The minister later said that what he had said was:

We have seen any legitimate objections to the bill drowned in a torrent of exaggeration.

The subtraction of the letter "m" did not help the minister a bit because, by inference at least, he admits that there are some objections. At page 5379 and again at page 5380 of Hansard we hear this from the minister:

After we had got Involved for $30 or $40 million it was quite obvious that the management of that day was not likely to produce what we required. The top management of A.V. Roe was resident in England. The men on the job just did not have the experience necessary to carry out the work, and that became obvious to all concerned.

The minister said he shuddered to think of the problems of development. As a taxpayer of this country I shudder to think that the Minister of Defence Production can spend $30 or $40 million on one project before he finds out that the management of that project is inefficient. I shudder.

One of the most masterful exhibitions of smug, self-satisfied complacency that I have ever heard in any form is that beautiful phrase at the end of the minister's speech:

I am working on the side of the angels.

I wonder if the minister has forgotten the full text from which he clipped that little gem. I wonder if he has forgotten that it came from a speech delivered at the Oxford diocesan conference in 1864. Just to remind the minister I propose to place the full quotation on the record in order to complete his own quotation. It is:

What is the question now placed before society with the glib assurance which to me is most astonishing? That question Is this: Is man an

ape or an angel? I, my lord, I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and ahborrence these new-fangled theories.

If there ever was a new-fangled theory introduced into this house, the one which is sponsored by the Prime Minister in the interests of the Minister of Defence Production is it. We can come to only one conclusion, that the Minister of Defence Production is not the angel he claims to be. Speaking of angels-and they are interesting people to talk about-I wonder also if the Minister of Defence Production in his inquiry into the attributes and uses to which angels may be put has ever run across this quotation which I am sure he will recognize:

But man, proud man,

Drest in a little brief authority,

Most ignorant of what he's most assured,

His glassy essence, like an angry ape,

Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven

As make the angels weep.

We make the angels weep. I quote once again from page 5379 of Hansard:

I may say that industry co-operated to the full, and, as I said before, I have never known Canadian industry to see the Department of Defence Production in a jam without being willing to do whatever was needed to make their contribution to solving the dilemma.

And from page 5378:

An hon. member asks why it is necessary to have these powers, since we have a good munitions industry in this country. I say "Amen" to that. No country in the world has a stronger and more devoted munitions industry than Canada.

Yet in almost the same breath, shortly after these two statements in which he gives the munitions industry credit for a job well done, the minister comes out and says that without the Defence Production Act behind him he certainly would not have been able to deal with a situation of that kind.

We have heard many illustrations of the blowing of hot and cold air by the same person at the same time in this house, but that is the pay-off. Here we have the minister praising industry in one breath and then saying that he just cannot get along without full powers, without this thumb right on top of industry, defence or otherwise.

Once again, ape or angel, I do not know which is which on which side of the house, but if one is an angel the other is an ape. I can only say that it is not we who are producing the new-fangled theories referred to in the quotation from the Oxford diocesan conference. In conclusion I repeat that we on this side weep lest we lose democracy.

Mr. Speaker:

In his introductory remarks the hon. member for London (Mr. Mitchell) referred to Liberal lawyers who had taken part in debate as speaking with their tongues in their cheeks. I did not want to intervene

immediately after I heard the expression, but I asked that a transcript of his remarks be delivered to me in order that I might be sure I was not quoting the hon. member incorrectly. This expression was used at about twenty-five minutes to ten, and unfortunately the transcript is not available at this moment. I think this expression might be regarded as charging insincerity; and since the reference was to members of the legal profession who sit to my right they could easily be identified. If my remarks do not meet with serious objection, I do not suppose the hon. member would object to saying that that sentence should not be repeated.