July 6, 1955

?

Some hon. Members:

Three minutes to go.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
PC

William Marvin Howe

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron):

The article

goes on:

In an effort to cut down those effects after the current heat wave, Dr. Pequegnat approved these beat-the-heat hints:

Wear light, loose clothes.

I do not know whether that would refer to the men or ladies in the house, but that is the advice of this medical officer of health.

Increase consumption of basic fluids-beverages normally indulged in.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Six o'clock.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):

I continue:

Eat well-balanced but moderate meals concentrating on cool-looking foods such as cereals, fruits, vegetables and salads.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink

AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock.


LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):

Mr. Speaker, it was with great anticipation that I entered this house for the first time back in November of 1953, because here was a place where the destiny of our country was being shaped by men whose names were conjured with by people throughout the country. I might mention the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the Leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) and many of the ministers. But particularly I was interested in seeing in action the man who bears the same name I bear, the man whose bill we are debating today.

There were those throughout the country who said that he was a dictator. There were those who said that this Liberal government should be called the Howe government. I have yet to find that out, Mr. Speaker. After all, the Howe name is quite illustrious down through history. There are many people who have carried that name with great distinction. To mention a few of them, there was the man who invented that homely piece of household equipment, the sewing machine; his name was Elias Howe. Then we have that great Canadian statesman from Nova Scotia, Joseph Howe, who fought so hard and with such great distinction for the common people; to such an extent was he successful that he was able to bring constitutional government to his province. He fought for the rights of the press and many other things that we hold supreme in this country of ours. Then among those who carried the name of Howe we have a great many men who were generals, who won distinction on the field of battle. We have the lady, Julia Ward Howe, who wrote "The Battle Hymn of the Republic".

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must have lost track of things here. Are we now on the address 50433-366

Defence Production Act in reply to the speech from the throne for next session or to what is the hon. member speaking?

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Oh, sit down.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):

I am speaking of the people of distinction, as 1 say, who have carried the name that I so proudly carry. Now we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). As I have indicated, he also bears this illustrious name. After all the wealth of praise and the plaudits that have been heaped on his shoulders during this debate by members of his own party and others, in the phrase we have heard used in this house before, he would appear to be as a knight in shining armour. However, I sometimes wonder whether the knights in shining armour, when they took their oath to protect the weak and the rights of the people, would uphold the principle that is brought out in this bill, namely the principle that we give to this government and the minister such great powers for an unlimited length of time.

Perhaps it may be that that armour is getting a little tarnished and that there are a few chinks in the armour. Probably the Minister of Trade and Commerce finds that he has a little too much to do. I have been amazed at all the things he has to do and all the departments he has to look after. I sometimes wonder whether part of the reason for this bill is not that he hopes to delegate to someone else this portfolio of defence production.

As the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) interjected yesterday, we do not know what is in the minister's mind. He may have in his mind some other member of the government. He may have in mind someone he can bring in from outside to be Minister of Defence Production. Who knows? Here in this house we have had an illustration of what might happen, in connection with the new C.N.R. hotel in Montreal, where they had to import somebody to operate it. So, Mr. Speaker, this great desire for power, this great desire to overthrow some of the things for which our ancestors of whom I spoke fought so hard, probably indicates that some of the brightness is wearing off. After all, is not that the real reason for this debate? Has not this debate been brought on because of the provision in this bill that would continue the act for an indefinite length of time?

This is a debate which has been carried on for many days. It is a debate in which many intelligent and capable people have taken part. It is a debate which has aroused the interest of the people of this country as no other debate has done for many years. Last

Defence Production Act week end when I was home for probably the first time since this parliament opened I heard more comments about our debate and about the things we were fighting for than I have ever head in my short time in this house. It is a debate as to which many favourable comments have been made in the press.

I should like to quote just a few words from a couple of these press reports. The first is from the London Free Press of June 30. It is entitled "Principle Bad in Defence Production Bill". I shall not read all of this article. I shall read just this part:

No one objects to wide powers for the Minister of Defence Production, or even to their extension over a considerable period.

The objection is to an indefinite delegation of the power of parliament.

Then here is another news report, one which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, June 16. It is entitled "The Men of Parliament must speak for Parliament". I shall quote just one or two portions of this editorial:

They fight the permanent right being given a minister, among other things, to requisition defence supplies, and appoint controllers to operate businesses.

They fight everlasting authority to the governor in council to designate essential services of any kind and make them subject to the minister. . . . The issue is the power of parliament. ... If the bill is passed parliament is deprived of powers that should belong to it unless emergency exists, and the government has not proved there is an emergency.

Sometimes I wonder what manner of minister this is who can listen to all these outstanding and intelligent speeches, all this argument requesting a simple little thing like putting a time limit in the bill, and who can say as found at page 5377 of Hansard:

We have seen any legitimate objections to the bill drowned in a torrent of exaggeration, and the corpses of the arguments are now floating around in a vast ocean of words.

I sometimes wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this is not history repeating itself. We heard the minister intimate the other day that ever since this debate began he has felt that he is living in another world. Could it be a world of ghosts and mystics? Is it a supernatural world to which he refers? Probably that is where he goes during his sleepless nights, a world in which he depends upon the ghosts of the past to lead him through this vale of tears.

He also made another statement which he corrected, and as corrected it is to the effect that he has not seen any legitimate objections to the bill. Does he mean to say that after -many days and innumerable speeches of exhortation, pleading and coaxing by people who are his equals in the house inasmuch as they have been elected to parliament by the wish of the people of their constituencies, the

[Mr. Howe (WelUngton-Huron.1

people for whom they are speaking, he has not heard any legitimate objections? I am sure that is not the way the people in our constituencies will feel about the matter.

I sometimes think if the minister is going into that supernatural world he had better be careful, because he will find there many men who have fought for the things that might be destroyed by this bill. He may find there some of the fathers of confederation, who fought so hard to prepare our constitution and bring this country into confederation. In that supernatural world they will probably fight just as hard as they did when they were here on earth.

This debate could have been finished yesterday, but instead the Prime Minister made one of his platitudinous speeches about always doing something for the people of Canada and giving them what they want. He also intimated that the government intended to be back. What a wonderful weapon a bill like this could be in returning the government to office. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister could have ended the debate by indicating that the government was not an immovable body, that it was willing to listen to reason, that it was willing to listen to all the pleading and exhortation of members on this side of the house and agree to place a time limit in the bill. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this could have been done in just a few minutes.

The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) spoke on June 20, and as found at page 5005 of Hansard he said:

Whether we can afford to drop our guard, whether we can afford to relax, is a serious decision to make.

No one on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, has intimated that we should relax or that the period of tension is over. We sincerely hope and pray that the time will come when we can relax, but none of us has intimated that the powers and the work of the defence production organization should be lessened or that there is not still reason for us to keep up our defences and carry them forward in just as capable and efficient a way as possible. No, Mr. Speaker, no one on this side of the house has intimated anything of the kind.

Later in his speech the hon. member for Spadina went on to say:

In the light of all this can we afford to be unprepared? The opposition says that everybody is prepared to vote powers in an emergency, but if a greater emergency comes upon us it will be too late for those powers.

We do not quarrel with the powers that have been given. All we quarrel with is the lack of a time limit. All we quarrel with is that these powers are going to be carried on

almost forever under the bill now before us. We have not intimated that these powers should be relaxed, but we do say that to carry on the powers contained in the legislation for an indefinite period of time is against the principles, rights and other things for which we have fought so dearly, and for which our forefathers worked so hard.

With reference to our constitution and government, the things that we on this side of the house have been talking about, the things that are important, I have in my hand a book entitled "Canada 1954". It is supposed to be the official handbook of present conditions and recent progress, and is published by the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). These are some of the things it has to say about our constitution and government:

The Canadian constitution and its present day practice in the arts of democratic government are the product of complex and diverse forces and events^ that have shaped the evolutionary growth of political institutions in British North America during the past 190 years and witnessed its development from colony to nation.

In his speech this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition indicated how these conflicts and diverse forces have played their part in bringing about our constitution. I continue:

Despite the manifold complex problems inherent in the cultural and local loyalties of the populace, in the diverse regional structure of the economy, and in the application of British political inheritance to the new world environment, there has been a marked continuity in institutional democratic development from the several colonial legislatures of the latter part of the eighteenth century to the national parliament of the present day.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been a great evolution. Are we going back? Are we going to follow the terms of this bill or are we, as this book would intimate, going to carry on our constitutional government as it has been evolved down through the ages?

A few days ago when the minister was speaking he intimated-and I shall not repeat too much of what has been said-that he had heard no word of dissent from any of the people who were working on defence contracts. How about the farmers of this country? What are they going to say about this bill? Think of those who sweated and worked during the war years under controls of all kinds. Their prices were frozen, and then when supply had caught up with demand and there was a surplus of farm products, the controls were removed. Other people made a lot of money out of that, but not the farmers. However, in regard to this dissension that has not been heard, would you expect people who are being fed by defence contracts to bite the hand that feeds them?

50433-366i

Defence Production Act

What has been the experience of the Department of Defence Production when they call for tenders for contracts? Do they not find a great many manufacturers and distributors in this country lobbying in parliament to get those defence contracts, in an effort to keep factories busy that would otherwise be idle, to keep workers happy and to promote the economy of this country? No, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that this bill, which will continue these powers for an indefinite time, should go through.

In so far as the minister and his attitude toward this debate are concerned, I might mention a little story I heard the other day about a man who was down in that southern district where they have great floods. In the evening when he went to bed everything was calm and serene. During the night there was a terrific rainstorm and a flash flood came up. In the morning when he looked out the window the whole country was covered with water. But there was one phenomenon he could not understand. There was a straw hat moving up and down across the face of this great ocean of water. He went to the people of the house and said, "There is something I cannot understand. You had a terrific flood last night, but what is that straw hat going up and down?" They said, "That is just grandpappy. Before he went to bed last night he said, 'tomorrow morning, come hell or high water, I am going to cut the lawn'. "

I sometimes feel that is the attitude displayed here by the minister. He feels, and he has intimated to this house, that if we have to sit all summer the bill has to pass. That is the attitude; come hell or high water, he is going to have his way.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
PC

George Stanley White

Progressive Conservative

Mr. G. S. White (Hastings-Fronienac):

rise to take part in this debate to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), which is found at page 5376 of Hansard. This afternoon when my leader was speaking I could not help but think of the plea he made to the Minister of Defence Production to accept this amendment and thus end this debate. The amendment is so reasonable in every way. As has been stated time and time again from this side of the house, the opposition does not object to this department being made permanent, nor does it object to certain powers being made permanent. But it does object io certain of the powers set out in the Defence Production Act being made permanent.

This amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal sets out a simple procedure whereby the bill could be referred to the banking and commerce committee, where there would be ample time and opportunity for the minister and his advisers to appear.

Defence Production Act Then, away from the stress and strain of the house, the committee could decide what powers in the act would be made permanent and what powers would be granted for a certain length of time, subject to renewal by parliament. Naturally such a committee would have on it members from all parties in the house, but there would be a majority of government members.

Apparently the minister has no intention of accepting the amendment. Is it because the minister may feel that he and his departmental officials would not be able to convince the members of that committee that it is necessary to have these sweeping and drastic powers for an indefinite period?

As has been pointed out, it is likely there will be another session of parliament before this act expires on July 31, 1956. As yet I have not heard the minister or any member on the opposite side of the house give any reasonable explanation why the bill could not be referred to the banking and commerce committee or why the whole matter could not stand until next session.

As was so well pointed out this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition, great results may flow from the meeting to be held at Geneva in the near future. At the next session of parliament the picture may be entirely different from what it is today. In fact, only this morning the Prime Minister indicated, quite frankly and in a forceful manner, that he could foresee no major conflict during the next twelve months. All hon. members in this house know that during the first world war, the second world war and the Korean conflict, parliament did not hesitate to delegate to the minister and the government whatever extra powers they needed to deal with the emergency. But as yet neither the minister nor the Prime Minister has advanced any reason or shown the house that there is an emergency at the present time which would require the granting of these extraordinary powers.

All hon. members will agree that in both world wars Canadian labour and industry co-operated in every way and did a splendid job. There is no reason to doubt that if the occasion should arise again, Canadian labour and industry would do another fine job. Canadians are a type of people who do not like threats, restrictions or clubs held over their heads. For that reason I wish the minister, before the debate ends, would give the house in plain and simple language the reasons why he feels his department needs these most sweeping and drastic powers for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason I can find in the minister's speech is that found at page 5382 of Hansard, where he says:

The situation has reached the point where the government must insist that this legislation be passed.

Does that mean the minister has made that decision, that the Prime Minister has made the decision, that it has been made by the government, or that the whole Liberal caucus has decided that this legislation must be passed? It has been said during the course of this debate that parliament can trust the minister. Why then cannot the minister, members of the cabinet and all other Liberal members trust parliament?

As I said before, the record shows that in the past, in times of emergency, parliament has never hesitated to grant whatever powers were needed. Yet the minister and the Prime Minister have not yet explained the type of emergency that exists today that would warrant the granting of these powers to one minister. Surely the Minister of Defence Production or the Prime Minister will not suggest for one moment that the parliament of Canada is not still supreme and that the rule of law must not govern. On the other hand one wonders why the Minister of Defence Production does not want parliament at any future date to review the activities carried on under the powers of this act.

I believe it would be most beneficial to all members if the Minister of Justice would either give his opinion or have a legal opinion prepared as to the supremacy of parliament, and also a legal opinion on the words of the minister at page 5378, where he said:

Other provisions of the act affect property, but there is no provision in the Defence Production Act that affects the freedom of any person. It gives the government the right, if required for the defence of Canada, to take over the production facilities of certain defence manufacturers. That is the sole effect of the balance of the act. When people rant about the freedom of the individual, I defy anyone to show me one section in the act which affects the freedom of the individual.

It would be interesting if the Minister of Justice were to give a legal opinion on that statement, read in conjunction with certain provisions set out in section 32 of the act, of which subsection 3 states:

Every person guilty of an offence under this act, other than an offence mentioned in subsection (2), is liable upon summary conviction or conviction upon indictment to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or to both fine and imprisonment.

Subsection 2 also makes provision for a fine, upon summary conviction, not to exceed $500. Perhaps the Minister of Justice could

tell us whether in his opinion that is something affecting the freedom of the individual. If the Minister of Justice were good enough to give the house the benefit of his legal opinion on the sections I have mentioned, it would be interesting and enlightening to members if he would also give a legal opinion on section 29 of the act, which states:

The minister may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause an inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter relating to or incidental to or arising out of a defence contract or any group or series of defence contracts or any dealings in or with defence supplies, and may appoint a person or persons by whom the inquiry shall be conducted.

Then subsection 2 says that such person would have the powers conferred under the Inquiries Act. Subsection 3 goes on to say:

An investigator may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this act, and shall allow any person against whom a charge is made in the course of such inquiry, to be represented by counsel.

I would like to know when it became the law in Canada that an individual appointed by the minister under this act would have the right to say whether or not an individual who is being investigated would have the right to be represented by counsel. We note that the subsection contains the words-

-and shall allow any person against whom a charge is made in the course of such inquiry to be represented by counsel.

It has always been my understanding that that was a right enjoyed by every British subject. Why in the world should it be necessary in this year of 1955 to place in the Defence Production Act a provision stating that an investigator may allow a person to be represented by counsel, or that he shall allow representation if a charge is laid?

After all, the house is entitled to some opinion from the Minister of Justice as to the very drastic provisions of the act. In Ontario, and I presume in other provinces, we have a system today whereby an individual, no matter how poor he may be, through an arrangement with the law society is entitled to free advice from qualified solicitors, whether he be involved in a civil or criminal matter. Yet in this act, in respect of a person being investigated and who may be subject to a fine of $5,000 or imprisonment up to two years, it is stated that an investigator may permit such person to be represented by counsel.

Surely the time has not come in Canada when we are going to revert to barbarian practices, and when we are not going to uphold the fundamental principles of British justice that were referred to by the Leader of the Opposition when he read Magna Carta.

Defence Production Act If you are going to throw Magna Carta and habeas corpus into the wastepaper basket and have sections such as that, how can you expect the Canadian people to have proper respect for law and order?

The Prime Minister in his day was one of the most distinguished counsel at the Canadian bar, a member of the bar who has taken a most active part and interest in the workings of the Canadian Bar Association. I wonder what the Prime Minister thinks of section 29 of the Defence Production Act? During the last two or three years, as we all know, the Minister of Justice has been amending the Criminal Code, and parts of it are still under consideration. Quite properly, it has taken a long time. I notice that time and again before the committee the minister has been so careful in every way to preserve all the rights to which an accused is entitled. It has always been one of our recognized principles that the individual is innocent until he is proved guilty, but not so under this act. Subsection 5 of section 32, which deals with offences and penalties, reads as follows:

Where a corporation is guilty of an offence under this act, any officer or director of the corporation is a party to and guilty of the offence if it was committed with his knowledge unless he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence: and in any proceeding against a

person who was a director or officer of a corporation when the corporation committed an offence under this act for being a party to and guilty of such an offence, the burden of proving his absence of such knowledge or the exercise of such due diligence by him is upon the accused.

The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon read various articles from well-known and well-recognized journals which dealt with the burden of proof and the right of every citizen to be adjudged innocent until proved guilty. It seems to me that there are many things in this act which are contrary to what we lawyers regard as the usual procedure and the usual rights to which every British citizen is entitled.

Perhaps I might recall that with regard to these people who may be appointed under this act, there is nothing in the act to say what their qualifications shall be. There is nothing to guarantee that any investigator or controller appointed under this act will have a knowledge of the law or anything of that nature. Yet he will have the right to investigate individuals and the right to crossexamine. That investigator would have the right to say whether or not an individual would be represented by counsel. Not only that, but under section 29-whenever the hon. member finishes it will be quite all right.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Go ahead.

Defence Production Act

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Any interruption kills time, you know.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. Knowles:

Time is not of the essence.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
PC

George Stanley White

Progressive Conservative

Mr. While (Haslings-Fronlenac):

An investigator may, in writing, with the approval of a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada or of the supreme or superior court or a county court of any province, obtain an order whereby he may enter and search, if necessary by force, any building, receptacle or place for books, records, documents or things that may contain or give information required for the purposes of an inquiry under this section and seize any books, records, documents or things and carry them before the investigator or such other person as the investigator may direct, to be held at the discretion of the investigator for the purposes of the inquiry.

That is just another very extreme procedure. We found in this country during the war, under the regulations and rules of the wartime prices and trade board, that department employed a whole army of investigators who invaded every corner and country store. People who were charged with a little authority became autocratic and petty tyrants, something that always follows when authority is delegated to some people. An examination of this act, which grants powers so broad that it is perhaps impossible to define them, indicates that the minister has almost unlimited powers in many things. For instance, the interpretation section under paragraph (i) defines essential service as meaning the carrying on of any commercial activity. Surely that is very broad. It states:

Any commercial activity including the generation or distribution of electrical energy, designated by the governor in council under section 30 as an essential service.

Under section 5 of the act-

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Four.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
PC

George Stanley White

Progressive Conservative

Mr. While (Haslings-Fronlenac):

I do not

know if the hon. member who says "four" has ever read the act, but I suggest he do so. I do not know who made the comment. I would suggest he read the act, and then have the guts to get up in the house and say whether or not he approves of that act and whether he is willing to go back to his constituents and tell them exactly the terms of that act. If he wants to do that, let him go ahead.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
LIB

André Gauthier

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):

He was paging the Leader of the Opposition.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe (Pori Arlhur):

Keep your blood pressure down.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
PC

George Stanley White

Progressive Conservative

Mr. While (Haslings-Fronlenac):

Under section 5 the minister may authorize any person

(Mr. White (Hastings-Frontenac).]

on his behalf and under his control and direction to do any act or thing or to exercise any power that the minister may do or exercise under this act. There is no safeguard as to whom the minister may appoint. He may appoint any person, whether or not he is qualified and whether or not he is capable of carrying on the business or whatever it may be. This is just another example of the very wide powers given to the minister under this act.

Under section 19 the minister has still wider powers. He can cancel any contract. Apparently contracts mean very little, because section 19 provides:

No person is entitled to damages, compensation or other allowance for loss of profit, direct or indirect, arising out of the rescission or termination of a defence contract at any time before it is fully performed if it is rescinded or terminated pursuant to a power contained in the contract or pursuant to a power conferred by or under an act of the parliament of Canada.

Under section 27 which gives the minister the power to appoint controllers, subsection 2 contains this rather peculiar provision:

Where a controller has been appointed to carry on a business or a part thereof, he shall be deemed to be the agent of the owner thereof for the purpose of carrying on the business or that part thereof, except that the owner shall not have any right to control the business or that part thereof-

And so on. It would seem to me that here the controller is being made the legal agent of the owner, and there might be a question as to whether the controller could not make the owner liable in a civil action for the acts of the controller. Section 28, which is very broad, reads:

The governor in council may. by order, direct that a person shall not be bound by any obligation, restriction or limitation imposed on that person by or under any statute, order, rule, regulation, by-law, or contract with respect to such matters as may be specified in the order affecting the entry into or performance of a defence contract by that person or the carrying out of an order made by the minister under this act.

It could easily happen that this could interfere with certain municipal and provincial rights, but again under the very broad powers given to the governor in council and the minister under the present act they would be relieved of any liability. As I said at the beginning, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal-

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Where is he?

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Permalink

July 6, 1955