October 2, 1945

LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am sorry to interrupt

the hon. member, but as the time allotted for the discussion of government measures has expired, the house must resume where it left off at six o'clock.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Permalink

WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION

PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA


The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley that the house go into committee to consider a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war. Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess at six o'clock I was endeavouring to explain what had been done with the report presented in 1944 to the Canadian Bar Association. I have just one further word on that to complete the matter. The motion that had been made contained three recommendations, which are found on page 52 of the report of the annual meeting. He then added: I therefore move the three last-named recommendations. And as to the rest of the report I move that the report be tabled, received and discussed either here or by the executive committee, to implement what is therein contained. There was considerable discussion, and finally Mr. James E. Day said this, which is found at the foot of page 59: Let the committee continue and put the recommendations in concrete form, seventeen suggestions, let these be put in printed form, and let the whole matter of their consideration come up on Friday.


LIB

William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The Chairman:

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the amendment.

The amendment was then put to the meeting and on a standing vote was declared lost.

The motion was put to the meeting and on a standing vote was declared carried.

The matter came up again at a meeting of the council of the Canadian Bar Association which was held on the last day of August, 1945. There was no meeting of the association itself, because it would have been

contrary to the orders of the controller of transport to have held the meeting.

The report was again taken up and the chairman of the committee proceeded to make the following remarks:

Our committee has also given additional consideration to some of the topics of the main report, and we wish to submit the following for attention:

1. Continuation of controls after the war. There appear to be many who believe that some measure of control, specially in relation to ceiling prices, should be had and continued for some time after the war as a transit and adjustment period policy. Otherwise prices might jump suddenly to extreme limits, and bring a chaotic situation.

2. Should the necessary controls be continued under the War Measures Act?

It is expected by some, feared by others, that the federal government, for such controls as may appear necessary to maintain, will continue to rely on the authority of the War Measures Act.

Now that the war is over, such a course would raise a very serious problem of constitutional law, as to controlling civil and property rights which. are in relation to civil law, and fall normally, under the constitution within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the provinces.

Authorities are cited to show that it is well established that circumstances, very serious in nature, and amounting to a national emergency, such as a great war or other similarly wide and calamitous circumstances, would justify the federal power, by legislation, adequately to control the liberties, civil rights and property in the provinces.

We then come to the recommendations which are as follows:

Your committee recommend that the proclamation declaring that the war no longer exists be issued as soon as the war with the enemy is really at an end according to the established principles of international law.

Let us make the distinction here between the war emergency itself, which is the fact of a state of war, and an economic emergency, which, though a consequence following the war, is not the war emergency. It may be an economic emergency. The calamity against which we have to protect the nation is not the war itself, or a consequential defeat of our arms, or the invasion by the enemy, but is an economic state of affairs that may be most serious, and that may, or may not be adequately coped with by the provinces. If the federal administration feel that, after the war, and in relation to such economic conditions of the country, a state of emergency exists, of a most serious character, and national in scope, let them face the issue directly and submit to parliament a new law affirming the existence or the apprehension and determining the exact nature of the new emergency.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I appreciate the "hear, hear" from the other side of the house. As a

War and Demobilization

matter of fact, the speech from the throne had been drafted before anything of this became public, and if the hon. members will refer to it as printed on page 8 of Hansard they will find the following:

It is the intention of the government to abolish war restrictions in progressive steps as rapidly as that can be accomplished without occasioning inflation or other economic disturbances. Such controls as are essential to the welfare of our people will be continued for as long as they are necessary.

You will be asked to approve a measure to extend certain specified emergency powers to meet emergency conditions in the period of reconstruction.

As a matter of fact, I have before me a bill with that intent, which was printed evidently before August 28, because the stamp from my office bears the date of August 28, and just as soon as there is an opportunity that bill will be introduced and parliament will be asked to take its responsibility, because it will be a considerable responsibility. It would be a considerable responsibility for anyone to take to sweep out with one fell stroke those controls which have been so effective in preventing inflation in this country. In making that statement I am not departing from principles which were enunciated by the leader of the Progressive Conservative party in a speech he made in Montreal on April 23, 1945, in which he said this:

In thus referring to our war-time controls I do not suggest that these have been bad, or that they were an unnecessary product of autocratic power. Their necessity must be as clear to you as it is to me; but I insist that in assessing their virtues we should think of those controls in terms of the job they were intended to do. If we do that, then I am sure you will not find it contradictory for me to say that existing controls cannot be dropped willy-nilly the instant the job of making war is done. Certainly we must be rid of them as soon as possible, but in some cases they will have to be unwound very carefully and slowly and there will have to be planning to accomplish the unwinding.

That is not my language; that is the opinion of the leader of the opposition; and we find ourselves in company with the privy council in the Fort Frances case in which the following is stated at page 706 of the report.

No authority other than the central government is in a position to deal with a problem which is essentially one of statesmanship. It may be that it has become clear that the crisis which arose is wholly at an end, and that there is no justification for the continued exercise of an exceptional interference which becomes ultra vires when it is no longer called for. In such a case the law as laid down for distribution of powers in the ruling instrument would have to be invoked.

The question of determining at what time it will be proper to put an end to the validity of orders made under the War Measures Act is a matter of statesmanship. We do not pretend that we are the only statesmen in this house. The intention of the government, as stated in the speech from the throne, is to ask all the statesmen in this house to take their responsibility as to the proper time for putting an end to these controls. The matter will be gone into quite fully when the bill comes before the house.

I do not want to take the time at this moment when we are dealing with an appropriation of money that is necessary for purposes directly connected with the war, to discuss the reasons for the continuation of controls which will have to be discussed when the bill announced in the speech from the throne comes properly before the house for consideration; but I would refer hon. members to the reference book on economic controls which was put before the members of the dominion-provincial conference. Once again this is a matter where emergency conditions enlarge the powers of the dominion at the expense of those normally exercised by provincial authorities. The reasons given or suggested for it being necessary to continue that state of the legislation for a time were summarized in this reference book compiled under the direction of the committee on economic controls, of which F. P. Varcoe was chairman and C. Stein, secretary. This book contains submissions from the wartime prices and trade board, the war industries control board and the Department of Labour. The purpose of this material is-

. . . to describe the situation which brought various war-time economic controls into being and to outline the kind of problems which probably will continue to exist in these fields during the transition period.

This summary contains some thirty pages of double column print, to show why some, thinking they were taking the position of statesmen, suggested that careful consideration ought to be given to the possible consequences of too rapidly proceeding with decontrol. The policy the government of Canada submitted to the representatives of the governments of the provinces in that regard is set out on page 9 of the proposals of the government of Canada, which were put before that conference. There hon. members will find a long statement of the methods which the dominion government proposed as being best suited to the progressive elimination of these controls.

Another question which was put and which quite logically follows this portion of my remarks is: have the defence of Canada regula-

War and Demobilization

tiona been repealed? Practically all the defence of Canada regulations which were of substance have been repealed by two orders in council which were published in the war orders and regulations. One was passed on August 16, the day after we heard of the intention of the Japanese government to surrender to the allied powers, and it did away with practically all those provisions of the defence of Canada regulations which interfered with the ordinary liberties of the individuals. The second was passed on September 14, 1945, and was published in the September 24 issue of war orders and regulations. It removed many of the other regulations, leaving subsisting practically only those dealing with protected places or areas, which were necessary because of very important works going on, as for instance at Chalk river, in plants belonging to the government. Other provisions were retained because of our international obligations with respect to the control of tonnage, and the provisions which give special authority for the placing of ships in harbours were also retained. It was felt necessary to retain those provisions for the safety of the men being brought back from overseas. They were passed subsequently to the list of orders in council which were tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at the opening of the session, which brought the tabling down to June 30, and I would ask leave to table those orders in council now.

Another question which arose and about which I am sure there is much unsatisfied curiosity in my own mind as well as in the minds of others is the date which will be fixed as that from which will run the two years for the refunding of the compulsory savings portion of the income tax, and the refundable portion of the excess profits tax. My understanding is that this date will be announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in presenting his budget proposals. Likewise many of the previous controls which were found to be no longer absolutely necessary have been eliminated.

Is there anyone in this house who would have taken the responsibility, either on August 15 or on August 16, or on September 1 or on September 2, of saying the war was at an end, and that everything in our system of controls on which we depended to combat inflation would then come to an end? I do not think a single member of this house would have said at that time, or would say at this time, that it was proper to bring that system down without taking some means to substitute other authority for the maintenance of those controls. That is the manner in which the law officer has advised his colleagues; that

fMr. St. Laurent.]

is a matter the responsibility for which will be placed before this house as soon as it is possible to introduce and deal with the bill thus forecast in the speech from the throne.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
PC

Thomas Langton Church

Progressive Conservative

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, it would have been well if the minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who is also Attorney General of Canada, had given this opinion on September 11, the day I raised this question here. Notwithstanding that he read from some correspondence, it is a legal opinion. Ever since confederation it has been the rule in this parliament that the Minister of Justice, who is also Attorney General of Canada, should not give legal opinions in this house, even when he is asked for them. That question has come up on many occasions. The rule I mention has been followed since about 1886, and there are good reasons for it. In this country the courts are subservient to the legislature. One of the principles I have always enunciated is this. The Minister of Justice appoints the judges. One of the cardinal principles of our constitution is that we must have impartial justice and a judiciary free from any interference on the part of the executive. That has been the reason for the rule I just mentioned.

I brought this matter to the attention of the house on September 11 when, in reference to this resolution, in view of the fact that the war was over, I asked if the government did not consider that the War Measures Act had been automatically repealed and annulled, that it had expired through the effluxion of time; and I still believe that is the correct view. At that time I was not brushed aside, as some newspapers said. I am not in the habit of being treated in that way, because I know the facts of the case. At that time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) replied to me:

It is the opinion of the Minister of Justice that it is within the constitutional power of this parliament to pass this bill. Moreover, this bill, as I say, follows the precedent of the Demobilization Appropriation Act passed in June of 1919.

This war is totally different from the last one. Such an act as that passed in 1919 is not relevant in the house at the present time. I call the attention of hon. members to the statements made by the Canadian Bar Association, where they have given some opinions which the Minister of Finance has said were only matters of policy. I say they were not They were legal opinions on the whole question

Let us follow this to its logical conclusion In view of what the Minister of Justice said to-night, the whole control system is still in effect, despite the fact that the war is over. The war may be over in London and over in

War and Demobilization

Washington, but apparently it is not over here. They have taken action in Washington in connection with their controls. They have loosened them up, and have given large and small businessmen a chance. Let us follow their example.

Sometimes these controls need rationing. If they are continued large numbers of people will be summoned to law courts across this dominion. We know that many summonses have been issued already, and chiefly in the Toronto district. The charges and fines there seem to be about ten to one, so far as numbers are concerned, when compared with what they are in other cities. There is no equality of treatment at all. When these cases are before the courts the question will be raised whether this parliament has power, in view of the war being over, and the War Measures Act annulled, to follow the practice which it has followed of bringing in resolutions of this kind, followed by bills.

I referred to this matter the night war broke out in September, 1939. I referred to the very same principle which is now involved, and which has been discussed this evening by the Minister of Justice. I pointed out that when Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war, and that when Great Britain is no longer at war, Canada is no longer at war.

Then, on the matter of status, I say we were not at war, although war was declared on September 3, 1939. However, it was not until September 10 of that year that this House of Commons enacted legislation. On September 4 the Athenia was sunk, and I called attention of the house to the fact that we were bound by what had been, done, and were at war on September 3, 1939. As a result of that we found out afterwards that under our new system of status we had to wait until September 10, for seven days, and all that kind of thing, before Canada declared war.

All I am saying is this, that no matter what we say or do in this house, this matter will come up in the law courts of the country. It will come before the courts the very moment it is proposed after the war to enforce these controls. The jurisdiction of parliament will be challenged, so far as its legislation in this respect is concerned.

Fines will be imposed and1 appeals will be lodged. In my view they should be taken right to the supreme court; that is where this matter should go. Under the Supreme Court Act the government of the day, on recommendation of the attorney general, can recommend submission to the Supreme Court of Canada of points such as those raised by me

on September 11 and a few days ago in the speech of the very able hon.. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).

In view of what has been said to-night by the Minister of Justice, surely a clear case has been made out, if there ever was a case made out for reference to the supreme court under the Supreme Court Act. If ever there was such a case, it is this one now before us. The whole question of the system of controls as they are to be permitted in Canada after the war is over should be looked into.

I shall refer to one or two further points, and then I shall have concluded. My first point has to do with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the resolution now before us. We have seen the result of our system of controls in Canada. As I said the other day:

All kinds of bodies, over the head of parliament, are spending money like water. Every principle for which the British nation struggled in the old land since the seventeenth century has been surrendered to the political caucuses. Parliament itself, which came into being to ensure that taxes shall be voted only by those who have to pay them, has become the institution through which those who do not pay them impose them on others.

I want to emphasize to the committee that powers of legislation older even than the right of taxpayers to determine the national expenditure have been surrendered, and if we are to continue this sort of thing the power of parliament will be gone forever. Whole spheres of activity, involving the livelihood of every man, woman and child in this country, have been removed from the jurisdiction of the law and of parliament and reserved for the determination of tribunals, irresponsible, irremovable, governed by no control and subject to no appeal.

That is all I object to. If parliament is to be supreme we should observe its rights and privileges. Before going into committee we are told by the various ministers about the succes sof this system of control. In addition to that, some controllers are going across Canada making speeches about which, quite probably, the ministers know nothing. This is done over the head of parliament and while it is in session.

There was some legislation passed after the last war, when parliament was meeting, to require the submission of all these matters to the House of Commons. This has not been done. In addition to that, I contended at the time this war started, during the first ten days of the special session, that we did not need any proclamation or order in council; that war was on from September 3, 1939. We did not need any orders in council such as were passed by parliament on September 10, 1939. We did not need them, because when Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war, and when she is not, Canada is not.

War and Demobilization

I know it is in the public interest to have the removal of these government controls. There is no business, large or small, in Canada that is not suffering from them. Large business, wholesale business, retail business-all kinds of business have been suffering from these irksome controls.

I should like to draw to the attention of the house what has been done in the United States, because throughout the war it would seem that we followed Washington to a considerable extent. This pamphlet sets out the policy of the federal government in that country, and the measures taken by federal agencies. This booklet, which is issued monthly by the National City bank of New York city, in its September issue sets out what is being done at Washington. This is the action taken by the President of the United States on the advice of his officers, and particularly Mr. Snyder, director of the office of war mobilization and reconversion. It also contains suggestions by Mr. Krug, chairman of the war production board. These men occupy positions which would be the equivalent of positions in our Department of Munitions and Supply.

Perhaps I might say in passing, and before reading from the report, that our parliament might well follow what has been done at Washington in connection with the elimination of these controls and in respect of reconversion. In other countries the test of the ability to recover from a war and to return to a state of prosperity has been found in the capacity to produce goods and to supply them to the population. There is no other measuring stick than that found in the ability to produce, distribute and consume goods and services. If production is insufficient, then the distribution of money, whether in the form of international loans or relief, would be involved. Many industries do not have to reconvert at all, and those that do make their preparations well in advance. Industrial leaders throughout the United States generally know what they are doing and what they are going to do. They are moving forward, in a sense of public responsibility, and because they see vast markets awaiting their products.

Returning to the report of the National City bank, I find this, with respect to the removal of government controls, in the report of Mr. Snyder, approved in August by President Truman:

Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the policies of the federal government and the measures taken by the federal agencies imply in general that reliance for rapid reconversion is being placed upon the ingenuity and resourcefulness of business men themselves, and not upon schemes for government direction and control. Nothing was more to be feared, either ['Mr. Church.]

for the transition period or the longer future, than regulations subjecting every major decision of business to the approval of Washington, with the certain result of confusion, delay, mistakes and injustices. But the moves since the surrender have shown that the policy is to free business of interferences with production

in some respects at once and in others gradually

and put it on its own. The first step was to cancel war contracts promptly, in order to cut the cost and stop the waste of war, reduce the inflation danger, free materials, machines and labour for peace time goods, and clear the decks for a fresh start.

In a short paragraph, the policy of the director at Washington is set out, and this was reported to the president on August 15. It is as follows:

Nor will we continue the manufacture of useless armaments for as much as one day to c ishion the shock. We will not manufacture a single shell, nor a single piece of equipment above absolute minimum military needs, for the purpose of reducing the shock of terminating war work. We will not keep a single soldier or sailor in uniform longer than he is needed by the army or navy, in order to hold down the totals of temporary unemployment. This is the policy laid down by the congress, wholeheartedly carried out by this administration, and backed by the American people.

And again:

The second step was to remove most of the war-time limitations on production and on the use of materials. Mr. Krug, chairman of the war production board, has moved rapidly, rescinding limitation orders except in the case of certain critically short items, and in general freeing the industries to go ahead without having, as the Truman committe report in 1944 said, "to go to Washington with hat in hand."

This man occupies somewhat the same position as our Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe), and this is what he said:

It is necessary to get rid of regulations and production limitations as quickly as possible. They^ automatically put ceilings on initiative, imagination and r'-esourcefulness, the very qualities the country will need most if we are to have a resilient and rapidly expanding economy after the defeat of Japan.

The danger confronting us, as I see it, is that we will overlook the natural resilience of the economy-the capacity of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to readapt themselves to changed conditions and hence quickly to utilize the resources released from munitions production. If we were to attempt in Washington to see that every manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer got his exact share of released manpower or materials, we should be lost in a myriad of rules and regulations. We should get in the way of reconversion rather than speed it. -

And again:

As long as the policies of government are in harmony with these principles, the energies, abilities and experience of millions of business men will be at work, each on his own problems, to get factories retooled and speed production of civilian goods. No other forces that could be exerted in the situation could possibly be as effective.

War and Demobilization

And again:

The allegation that there has been a "lack of planning" does not stand analysis. Probably there has never been a time when planning, at the level where it counts most, has been as widespread and as ably done.

And further down:

The overwhelming majority of the American people, however, believe that detailed regulation of business in peace time would be wholly impracticable and disastrous in its consequences upon production and employment.

If we are to avoid widespread unemployment the government must release some of these controls and leave large and small businesses free to carry on. I notice in the newspapers that estimates are being made of unemployment. One made by the president of the C.I.O. in the United States is as high as 10,000,000. The same predictions were made at the end of the last war. I notice it is estimated that there will be 500,000 unemployed in Canada. These are rot, and some restraint should prevent the circulation of such predictions. I believe, with the experience gained in the war, the reconversion of industry in Canada will be carried on more rapidly than was the case in the last war. If private business is allowed to function free of control, as is the case at Washington reconversion will be much shorter.

If there is to be any danger of the suffering which occurred in this country after the last war during the first winter occurring now that this war is over, the government should be ready to look after those who may suffer because of lack of shelter, food or fuel.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house at any great length, but there are one or two things I should like to say. One point was mentioned in the debate and another deals in a general way with the war appropriation. First, I should like to refer to the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I do not want the hon. member to feel that I am criticizing him except to say that I think the statement he made this afternoon was unwise, no matter how fundamentally true he may consider it to be.

Because of the gravity of the international situation, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) left the country while parliament was in session. I do not believe we should say anything here that will add to the difficulties of the situation. We all must feel disturbed about the general international situation today. The hon. member for Macleod said that a Christian democracy could not cooperate with a totalitarian state, and then he went on to make it quite clear to which country

he was referring. His statement sums up to this: Canada, which I assume is a Christian democracy, Great Britain, the United States and perhaps a number of other countries cannot cooperate with the Soviet Union.

I might pause here to say that if there is anyone in this country whom the people who set themselves as the friends of the Soviet union hate, it is myself. Consequently I cannot be accused of appeasing the Soviet Union. The implication in the statement of the hon. member is that we cannot cooperate. If we cannot cooperate, then there is noncooperation. If there is non-cooperation, that in my opinion, will lead inevitably to another conflict. We have no recourse but to cooperate. Cooperating is not the same as appeasing.

I think we all admired the minister for external affairs of Australia, the Hon. II. V. Evatt, for setting out, at both San Francisco and London, what he considers to be the rights of the Australian nation, of the Canadian nation and of many other small nations. But I want to go a little farther than that and point out that we found ways to cooperate in war. It was through the cooperation of the Soviet Union with the Christian democracies, if you want to use that word-I have known of Christian totalitarianism-that we were able to defeat our enemies and achieve peace, at least peace in its negative form, namely, the absence of war. Should we say now that we cannot cooperate and bring that peace to the full fruition that we expected? I believe that we should at least try. We certainly should not do anything at the present time that would interfere with that desired end.

I concede to my hoh. friend the right to criticize to his heart's content in this free parliament, but while democracy gives freedom, it does something else; it puts the onus of what we say upon ourselves; we must consider what effect our words will have on our country's affairs. I am afraid that in dealing with this, perhaps the last war appropriation, we may run into some difficulty. I have no fear that the appropriation as placed before parliament will not carry, but I believe that a good deal of harm has already been done by the public press and by various individuals both in the government and in different groups in the house in urging that the war is over now and that we should get rid of controls at once. I should like to tell hon. members again that the war is not over and will not be over until we have achieved those things for which we went to war. Those things were: freedom from fear; freedom from war itself; freedom from want. Those things have not been achieved in their full measure or achieved

War and Demobilization

so that we know of a certainty that we have them, and in my opinion those are the things for which the young men of Canada fought and died. Either they died for those things or we lied to them. Let me say again that those things will not have been achieved until we have restored the countries we have liberated. We gave our young men in liberation of those countries; we poured into them our wealth, and now there is a danger that we are going to quibble over the small amount that it will take to help those people to restore their strength and build up their own economy so that they can get on their feet once more and perhaps pay us back, if not in material things, at least in the return to this earth of peace and order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I -would just warn the house and, if I may presume to do so, the country that our help is needed now just as much as it has been during the last five years.

There was a point raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) in connection with orders in council, and the discussion was carried on from another angle by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). I am now an old member of this house, and I have observed over the years how it conducts its business. When I heard the Minister of Justice in his eloquent peroration just a few moments ago I was almost prepared to call myself not an old member of the house but an elder statesman, but I decided that that probably would be going over the verge of modesty and so I will not say it.

I have listened to statements that we have government by order in council, that parliament has ceased to function, and similar phrases. I would just like to tell the members that we must do one of two things. We must either stream-line the procedure of this house, or the government will have no alternative than to legislate by order in council. In the British parliament at Westminster, where the business moves much faster than it does here because they have improved their procedure, they are beginning to realize that there must be a further stream-lining of procedure. We here are faced with the alternative of parliament becoming simply a word factory if we do not stream-line the procedure.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
PC

Douglas Gooderham Ross

Progressive Conservative

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

You are to blame for the word "factory" quite a bit.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. MacINNIS:

I admit that, and I am not blaming anyone any more than I blame myself. But I am caught as it were, like the rest of us, in a sort of machine-

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
PC

Douglas Gooderham Ross

Progressive Conservative

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Lots of us are not in that boat.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. MacINNIS:

*-so long as we have the present procedure, and I do not think I would be doing my duty either to this house or to my constituents or to the country if I just let my hon. friend talk and out of my wisdom did not reply.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
PC

Douglas Gooderham Ross

Progressive Conservative

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Perhaps what I say is more sensible than what you say.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. MacINNIS:

That is a matter of judgment, and I would not doubt at all that my hon. friend's judgment is as good as mine. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should give thought to organizing the procedure of this house so that when the government does stop legislating by order in council it may legislate through an improved procedure. That is all I have to say, and I hope that I have not taken up too much time.

Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead)" Mr. Speaker, we have all listened with interest and with respect to the words that have recently been pronounced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). He has told us many things which we know. He has failed to tell us that which we want to know; that is, when the government is going to declare the war at an end. The government is now acting under legislation which permits it to govern by orders in council. The words of the enabling statute are: "by reason of the existence of a real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection." The house is interested in knowing when the government is going to declare under section 6 of the War Measures Act that the war is at an end.

The reason for this query is not mere vulgar curiosity. It is one that affects every member of the house; it is one that affects the entire population. If government is to be carried on by order in council, if parliament is to be denied its elementary function until it suits some hon. gentleman to say that the war is at an end, it is as well that we should know that is part of government policy.

We are told on the highest authority that emergencies may arise that justify the transfer to the dominion of powers which ordinarily reside in the provinces. The reason and the only reason under the statute which is relied upon to enact these orders in council is the "existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection." I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no existing war or any apprehension of war, invasion or insurrection, and that in consequence the right of the government to enact by order in council legislation which affects the whole country and which stultifies and annihilates parliament has ceased.

War and Demobilization

The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) has relied upon the Fort Frances case, and he has told parliament that there is a case in which valid orders in council were enacted after the cessation of hostilities, and that in consequence it is a precedent for the conduct of the government. I have read, somewhat hurriedly I must admit, the decision of the privy council in that case. I do not find that the question now at issue was raised directly. I do find that the law lord who rendered the judgment in that case did say that it was not the function of a court of justice to say, under section 6 of the War Measures Act, when the war had come to an end; I quote now from page 706 of "Law Reports, Appeal Cases (1923)," in which Lord Haldane said:

It may be that it has become clear that the eiisis which arose is wholly at an end and that there is no justification for the continued exercise of an exceptional interference which becomes ultra vires when it is no longer called for. In such a case the law as laid down for distribution of powers in the ruling instrument would have to be invoked. But very clear evidence that the crisis had wholly passed away would be required to justify the judiciary, even when the question raised was one of ultra vires which it had to decide, in overruling the decision of the government that exceptional measures were still requisite.

Therefore, if I have correctly interpreted the words of Lord Haldane, he went no farther than to say that it was not the function of the courts to say when the war was at an end. It was the duty of the government to say when the war was at an end. It is because we believe that that is the duty of the government, that we ask the government to state definitely what everybody knows to be a fact, namely, that there is no longer any reason to fear the "existence of a real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection."

There may be dozens of crises. There may be an economic crisis; there may be a financial crisis, there may be a social crisis. Such crises may be reasons to introduce other legislation. I would say to the Minister of Justice that it is not very consoling to hon. gentlemen who have come here to take a part, and a full part, in the enactment of legislation, to be told day after day that somebody or some body other than parliament is legislating for the country.

The effort which the opposition is putting forth is toward a return to normal conditions. I am willing to admit with the Minister of Justice that it might have been imprudent to abolish all controls at one fell swoop. There is the widest divergence between such an act and the course that wisdom would suggest and what the law requires, namely

that legislation be brought down stating that an emergency other than the existence of war, real or apprehended, or of invasion or insurrection, is to be relied upon for the enactment of further orders in council. I do not think extravagant language makes a case any better than it really is, but does anybody in the country doubt for a moment that the war is at an end? Does anybody question that hostilities have ceased? Under the statute the government was authorized to rule by order in council only so long as there was an existing war. If other emergencies are to be met, let it be stated in a bill submitted to the house what the emergency is; I know of no tribunal more competent and more willing to pass upon that issue than parliament. Parliament after all had a function. It has lost it. For the last six years it has been a mere looker-on. Until a declaration comes from the administration that the war is at an end, and until new legislation is enacted warranting further orders in council, I submit with great deference that the government is acting outside the law, and that there is nothing in the decision of the privy council in the Fort Frances case which runs counter to that statement. Every day we are told that orders in council are passed, which in the normal course of events could only be enacted by parliament. Nothing is more tenacious than the lust for power. Once a man has tasted the blood which enables him to make his wish law to a great number, he becomes inebriated by the draught and finds it most difficult to recede into the position which is properly his. I suggest to hon. members opposite that they should cease making orders in council under the War Measures Act. I make the suggestion with full knowledge of the difficulties of government at the present time. Everybody, whether he sits to the right or to the left of the Speaker, knows that government is now a difficult task, and in so far as I am able to interpret the sentiment of those who sit to your left. Mr. Speaker, they realize the difficulties of government and they do not wish to resort to any petty means to improve their political position. But that being admitted, they feel that it is their duty to insist that the rights of parliament be restored to parliament; that the electorate of Canada, in so far as it has found representation in the house, be allowed to express itself, and that when a measure is about to be enacted it should be subjected to the criticism, and to the betterment which inevitably follows the criticism of parliament.

That sums up my commentary on the statement of the Minister of Justice. His statement was clear but it did not answer the ques-

War and Demobilization

tion. His statement was truthful, but it did not give any enlightenment as to the time that the government intends to rehabilitate parliament and do away with the method of government which is one of the ills of war, to which we bowed as a necessity of war, and from which we wish to be relieved now that the war is over.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
CCF

Harry Grenfell Archibald

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the matter of controls. This subject has always interested me more from the point of view of historical processes than anything else. I have listened to the various speakers. For instance, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) mentioned the other evening that-

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
LIB

William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I would inform the hon. member that he cannot refer to debates which have previously taken place during the present session.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
CCF

Harry Grenfell Archibald

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. ARCHIBALD:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It has been mentioned here at various times that Manchesterian Liberalism would solve the problem, and to-night we have the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) advancing the position that he did not know when these controls would be lifted, but that they were necessary at the present time. Controls are the very opposite of Manchesterian Liberalism. Manchesterian Liberalism is the right to buy and sell freely before the law. Now we have the state entering into the very keynote of production; government orders regulating trade. The tendency is to increase rather than decrease as the years go by.

The opposition is criticizing the government for maintaining these controls. Yet the former leader of that party, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, was the first in this country "to advance a planned economy from the point of view of the old-line parties. The process that we see will end up with the state ultimately becoming the sole capitalist. That is advanced by such men as Frederic Engels and Karl Marx. It is bound to come about. The necessity for state control came through the war. The government recognizes that a crisis is still with us and this crisis will continue with us as the years go by; therefore we are going to see the absolute continuation of government control within private industry.

It is interesting to me to see what is happening to the social groupings because of those price controls. For example, I have received letters from small meat-packing concerns claiming that under the quota system they cannot get into the export market, and they cannot sell sufficient on the home' market to make it pay because they cannot get the meat.

This means that they are dissolved, that they are being wiped out and that the big meatpacking concerns are taking the whole business. The individual commodity is losing all 7alue, and more and more commodities have to be exported in order to make any profit whatsoever. Therefore on the home market we are facing a scarcity and we have the quota system as it is applied in the meat markets. It is applied there by government law,, but actually it is in effect to-day in nearly all industry because they cannot get the material. Clothing stores are under the quota system to all intents and purposes. They cannot sell enough to maintain their position; therefore they go out of business. Consequently we are seeing the liquidation of the small trading class. It is interesting to note the effects that this is having on the political arena. Such groups as can be seen to the left, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit party, are an expression of protest from the small middle blass, such as the small working class. This tendency will go on and we shall gain more and more support from that small middle class. Therefore at the present time the government is cutting the ground from under its feet because it is wiping out the very support by which it maintains itself. From the point of view of a socialist I would say, more power to the government, because it is hoisting itself with its own petard.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
PC

George Randolph Pearkes

Progressive Conservative

Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make any address such as "Praise God and pass the ammunition" or to enter into any discussion regarding controls. But while the government- is considering the questions which have been put to them to-day, I should like to raise one point. I have no desire whatever to be provocative or anything but constructive.

We have just come to the victorious conclusion of campaigns in northwest Europe and in the Pacific. Perhaps I use the word "campaigns" advisedly, because I must admit I am a little confused as to whether or not the war is over. One of the principal lessons we have learned from those victorious campaigns is that it has been essential that there should be coordinated effort between the navies, armies and air forces of the allied nations. A few weeks ago we had the privilege of seeing the models and films of "Mulberry", which was the development of .the ports for landing on the coast of France on V-day. I think everyone who saw and studied those models must have been convinced that a vast amount of skilful and detailed planning -had been carried out beforehand in order to ensure the success of the men who were fighting on the

War and Demobilization

beaches, because without that forethought no amount of gallantry would have been of any avail. From the earliest inception of these plans soldiers, sailors and airmen worked together as one staff, closeted in rooms, considering every detail of the parts which those three services should play when the great day came. I may say equally that this practice was followed in the great amphibian operations which were carried out in the Pacific theatte of war.

I submit that we are in the planning stage now when we come to consider the estimates of the three defence services, the planning stage in order that we may preserve the hard-won peace during the next two or three years. I know that is referred to as an interim period; I am not suggesting that the planning is going any farther than this interim period, but I suggest that this is an important period and quite possibly a dangerous one. Therefore I would plead that we do not lose sight of the great lesson we learned during the war, that there must be proper cooperation between the navy, the army and the air force as a prerequisite to any success. I do not believe the ministers of the government and their executive officers have been working in water-tight compartments during the preparation of the estimates they are about to submit for this interim period. I am sure they must have progressed beyond those unhappy days when service estimates were prepared behind closed doors, with the greatest secrecy, because one service was competing against the others for what defence funds the government of the day were prepared to make available.

I do not wish to retard the business of this house. On the contrary I believe that the estimates of the services would be considered more efficiently and dealt with more expeditiously if, before we take up these estimates in committee, some member of the government would give us the results of their deliberations and tell us the over-all picture, so that before we consider each individual service estimate we can see what is the defensive policy of the government and make sure that the three services are coordinated. Otherwise we shall be arguing in the dark, discussing this service and that service without having an over-all picture.

Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): In the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you upon the honour which has been bestowed upon you in your appointment to the position you now hold.

At a time like this, after a period during which conditions have been so disturbed, and when we find the Big Five having a great deal of difficulty, I think we should consider for a few moments what should be the position of Canada. My ancestors, like those of many others in this house, came to this country years ago. People of many nationalities came to Canada, and they came here because of the British traditions which are followed in this country. They wanted to be free; and when you read the history of Canada you find that all our institutions are founded on the freedom of man and on democracy, based on British traditions. For more than a year Britain stood alone against the whole of Europe. No country helped her except the nations of the commonwealth; and, thank God, Canada was one of those nations. I think it is now about time we supported her in the difficult position in which she finds herself to-day. Everything we have that is good, everything that means freedom, comes to us from those traditions which we have had handed down to us and for which our forefathers shed their blood. They are not new; they are old, the foundation of democracy as we have it to-day, and I think the least we can do is to give Great Britain our support in these difficult times.

The world to-day depends on Great Britain and the United States, a country which has followed our traditions. Let us support Great Britain as one of the members of the Big Five. Let us see to it that we support Great Britain and the United States in their fight for freedom.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
PC

John Bracken (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the Minister of Finance explained the reasons why he is now bringing forward a proposal to ask for SI,365 million-

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order, this is a rather important point of order, as the hon. member has already spoken in this debate.

Topic:   WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OP $1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ET CETERA
Permalink

October 2, 1945