Sybil BENNETT

BENNETT, Sybil, Q.C.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Halton (Ontario)
Birth Date
February 7, 1904
Deceased Date
November 12, 1956
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_Bennett
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=f46ba586-f308-401f-bdf1-ced850c24b6d&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

August 10, 1953 - November 12, 1956
PC
  Halton (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 3)


May 28, 1956

Miss Sybil Bennett (Halton):

Mr. Speaker, may I have just a few minutes of the time of the house to thank the Prime Minister for his most kind and gracious words. It is a very warm welcome that is given me today, and I am most happy to be back. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if it had not been for the indulgence and kindness of my own constituents, the very many messages of good cheer and encouragement that I received from both sides of the house, and the faith and prayers of those around me, I fear I would not be back today. I am very happy to be with you.

Topic:   WELCOME TO HON. MEMBER FOR HALTON ON HER RETURN FOLLOWING ILLNESS
Full View Permalink

July 7, 1955

Miss Bennett:

At the time that we arrived at the noon recess, Mr. Speaker, I had begun to make some remarks regarding the economic

Defence Production Act situation in this country, having in mind its future development. At the same time I was referring to and revealing what the minister had to say about this act in his speech on June 28. The minister said that this act had been in operation for 16 years, and that apparently it had operated very well; that industry, knowing the rules, had come into line. They had lived up to the rules; there were no complaints at all; things had worked very well. This would mean that industry in the last 16 years has been under a form of compulsion, a form of surveillance. Perhaps this may be a little extreme, but they have been under somewhat of a dictatorship. Naturally those concerns, who over the years have benefited and have been making munitions and various instruments of war for the government, were in this position. It would be very strange that one should want to bite the hand that feeds it; it would be very strange for them to make complaints. So far as I know, these same industries and these same people have made no complaint about our debating this matter, about debating the powers of this bill and the question of its termination.

One thing that comes to my mind is this. So far as our commercial and economic advancement are concerned, we in this country are greatly dependent on the industrial life and the development over a broad phase of the industrial life of this nation. I am just wondering how, over a period of 16 years, these contracts were let for the goods supplied. How have they been allotted to the various industries? I would take it from what the minister said that on the whole the government allots those contracts; they hand them out. If the contracts are not handled in the way required, the minister, under the powers that are conceded to him under the act, can step in and provide proper management. I am wondering how, over the period of years, these contracts have been allotted. How does industry obtain those contracts?

One might go a little farther and ask the question, have they been divided well over this country? Have industries from every part of the nation received a like number of orders? Have they been able to benefit? Have they been able to advance themselves by this type of work? Has there been any tendency to concentrate these contracts in very narrow channels, and perhaps concentrate them in a small number of industries? In fact, that is one thing I do not understand. I am wondering why my hon. friends to my left have not raised that very point, because after all they set themselves up as the champions of men working in industry, of labour and labour unions.

I sometimes wonder how many millionaires have been made in this country over the 16 years by the contracts they have received from this government. I also wonder how many small businesses may have gone out of business, having been unable to operate, owing to the fact that they could not meet the competition coming from larger industries which are getting government contracts. I remember very well during the last election campaign talking to a very small manufacturer. I said to him: "This is a fine little industry you have here; it is a fine little manufacturing establishment that you are carrying on, and you are doing very well." He was employing around 12 men. He said to me: "Well, I have met with a great deal of misfortune. Up to a few months ago I had quite a thriving industry. I started in a very small way. We started with one man. I finally got up to where I was employing 25 men. You know what happened to me was this. I was making locks. I found I had no steel, and all of a sudden I was told that there was not enough steel." The controller of steel said: "You cannot use steel for making locks. We have to have this steel; we have to have it for something else. We have to have it for more important industries."

That is very right, Mr. Speaker. We understand it is required in an emergency in this country. But after all is said and done, we have to remember that this whole industrial and economic life that we have, the very fact that in this nation we enjoy the highest standards of living-I think we can say quite honestly that we have the highest standard of living of any country in the world-has come about through the years because we have had unfettered, untrammelled private enterprise through the last 50 years, men and women of initiative and of vision and of outlook. Men and women of enterprise and of courage have been able to go out in this country. There has been nothing to stop them. They have been able to go out into their little industries. They have been able to build those industries. They have competed together. In that way, the brain power, the ability and the personalities of this great nation have entered into the industrial life, and have produced an outstanding economic situation, the free and full life that we have today.

You know, Mr. Speaker, a very good example of this thing came about in the last war. I remember very well it being said that it was the free nations of the world, people like ourselves, who went out and in the fullness of this freedom, with the desire to protect the same, in thankfulness for what we had acquired for generations past in this nation, went into industries and manned

them. We worked and we produced. It was the free peoples of the world, the free nations who supplied the materials. We were able to send the things that were required, munitions, food and everything else, to Russia at the time when she needed those very things. It was by virtue of that that she was able to take her stand and turn back Hitler and all the forces. All those things were combined against her at the time, but because we were a free people, because we were producing for our freedom, because we were ready and willing and anxious to move to preserve those things that we have had in this nation for generations, we were able to help her.

I do not think that this is a thoroughly bad bill. The party to which I belong appreciates that there can be circumstances when there should be legislation of this kind. But this thing means so much and is so vital to the economic life of this country, the development of the economic life, that industry should be given a free hand. When we talk about industry we do not just mean the managerial side, we do not mean the people at the top, we mean those men and women who go to form part of industry. They should not be faced with any compulsion or any dictation, because after all we have fought for the freedom to go into enterprise, for the right to compete.

For that very reason alone and in order to substantiate and uphold and preserve the economic life of this country it would seem to me that the minister, who is a man of business, who is a man of wide experience, would be one person who would be glad, who would be anxious-a tremendous responsibility is laid on his shoulders-to come back to this parliament, and to go back to the people of this country, and review what has happened in the years. Why should he not come back and tell us what the development of this nation has been? He says to us that there are tremendous developments ahead as far as defence is concerned.

We have to learn in this country that we have to combine these things. Not only is there a need for defence; the fact is that this Defence Production Act should be geared, should be drawn, to meet the future situation of this country. In fact I think the whole thing should be reviewed each time, the whole approach to industry in this nation, our whole attitude and approach to the development of this country. After all, every part of this country must be developed. The maritimes require development as well as the western provinces. My hon. friends to my left who come from there have been asking that industry should be moved out

Defence Production Act into those provinces so that they may be developed. That is what should be done.

The time has come actually when we should consider not only this act but a whole review of the defence and civil development and the economic development of this country. Those two things must go hand in hand. As I said before, and I come back to it, with his experience, having dealt with these matters for 16 years, knowing the difficulties with which we are faced in this nation, knowing the keen competition that exists, knowing that industry must be built up, knowing that industry must be given opportunities, knowing that industry must be encouraged, I should think the minister would be glad to welcome the opportunities to do the very thing we ask, the thing which is at the root of all this argument, and come back to this house in a stated period of time and review what has been done, review the situation, civil and defence in this country, and make suggestions to us. We are glad to have these suggestions and we are glad to follow them.

It is very strange and I for one cannot understand why the minister should object to coming back to this parliament and giving the representatives of the people of this country the information to which they are entitled. He should come back and tell us what is going on, what progress is being made, what is required, and so on. If we are living in such dangerous times, surely, if as has been said, there is some emergency, is not that the time of all times that the problems of production, the problems of defence production, should be shared? Is it not time that those problems should be shared with parliament, should be shared with the representatives of the people of this country?

I am certain that the minister knows that never at any time over the years has he been refused powers or rights to carry on until this particular time. Speaking the other day the minister told us what he had accomplished, and there is no question about that; we have never at any time under any circumstances tried to detract from that. He told us that never over the years was he unable to produce what he had been required to produce in munitions, that he had been able to produce those things within a reasonable time.

Sometimes when I hear these things I become a little confused as to just what is the true over-all position. Every hon. member sitting in this house today should remember what we owe to the men and women who put forth great efforts during the second world war. If it had not been for the efforts

Uejence Production Act that they made; if it had not been that they were willing to sacrifice their homes, their positions and their jobs and everything they had to go out and fight for us; if industry itself had not been willing to co-operate and to support those men and women who were out on the fronts fighting for us; if management and every last man and woman in industry had not been willing to give their best, to give everything they had, to do everything they could-I am quite sure that no one would be more ready than the minister to say that he would not have been able to accomplish what he did if he had not had the full, free and magnanimous co-operation of every service man and service woman in this country, of every head of industry and of every man who was working and doing his job in the industrial life of Canada.

We desire to preserve our freedom. We are ready to go along and co-operate and work together in building a magnificent future so that we may give the world leadership that is required of a nation of this kind. We cannot help but be reminded, as I said the other day, that these things come very gradually and subtly. There is no thought as far as the minister is concerned that there would be any question of a dictatorship, but I want to say to you today that many nations, many big states, many great people throughout the history of the world right down to our present time were conquered from within rather than conquered from without. Those principles that form the basis of our freedom and the background of our free institutions are the reasons why I and the other hon. members of my party have taken our stand and have risen in this house on this great occasion to add a word of warning for the protection of the future of this nation.

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

July 7, 1955

Miss Sybil Bennett (Halton):

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I think I should tell you of a suggestion which was

Defence Production Act made to me by one of the members from across the floor of the house when I was walking up to the house this morning. He said to me, "When you stand up to speak, you suggest to Mr. Speaker that this house take 40 minutes of very profound silence." I do not know whether or not the hon. member was discriminating against me and meant that he did not want to hear me speak. But we should be quite willing to take into consideration 40 minutes-and I must say that I should be extremely glad if that 40 minutes came at this moment-of profound silence if at the end of that 40 minutes we felt that there would be any change, that any good might come of it, that there might be any developments, or that the members across the way and those to my left might really see the light in this matter in the way in which we have seen it.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a protracted and long-drawn-out debate. But this debate has produced some fine and good things in this country. One thing it has produced is proof that democracy in Canada is very much alive. While we have hon. members in this house standing up to defend our constitution and our parliamentary rights, there is no question that we in this country and in this house are cognizant of the rights, privileges and freedoms that we enjoy under our constitution and under our institutions.

I think it is a most unfortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, that all the members of this house on this occasion have not risen to express their opinion. If their opinions are opposed to ours with regard to what is the proper thing to do and if they are favouring this bill, by all means hon. members on the opposite side of the house should rise in their places and express their opinions, as should hon. members on all sides. The people of this country should know why they think this bill should be enacted. The people of this country should know why they think these powers should be extended indefinitely. The people of this country expect that kind of thing. They expect it of their various members coming, as they do, from the various constituencies all across this country. I want to say this. I think every hon. member across the floor of the house, as well as those to my left, will thoroughly agree that this debate that is taking place in this distinguished house has had a great impact on the people of this nation.

Now, this fact is evidenced in the editorials that we see in the newspapers across this country. It is to be noted that these editorials are coming, in many instances, from newspapers that are and have always been entirely friendly to, and have always supported, the

Defence Production Act party-in power in this house. The press has always held a very honourable and a very rightful position in this nation. They are the ones who give guidance. They are the ones who, to a great extent, interpret what is being said in this house; what is being felt across this country. Therefore, when we see these editorials appearing, we cannot help but feel that the people of this country are listening to this debate. They are interested in this debate. They realize the grave issues, and they are grave issues. Let us make no mistake about it. They realize that issues are at hand, issues are being discussed and principles are at stake.

These principles have arisen out of our attitude of mind over a period of years. We cannot help but assimilate some of the attitudes of mind that are prevalent in the world today. This very discussion that we are having in this house actually has arisen out of an assimilation by the people of Canada and their representatives of these new feelings and these new philosophies that are abroad, and which have come to us from other parts of the world. Not only do we see these editorials, not only do we know that the press is voicing its opinion and saying what it thinks is right, but many members who go to their constituencies over the week end are hearing expressions of opinion. Some of us who have these smaller constituencies and have the privilege of walking down village streets, town streets and even cities, of visiting on the back concession lines, find the people are asking questions.

They say, what are you doing down there in Ottawa? What is taking place? What is this debate about, and what is this question of extending this Defence Production Act? What is this question about giving these great undefined powers, for actually they are undefined. We do not know how far they may impinge upon the economic life of this nation. They are asking why, what is this all about? They say, we think the minister has gone too far this time. We do not believe these things should be. This thing is not right. We are living in a free country. A government should not have these powers now that we have moved over into something approaching peacetime. I do not say for one moment that we do not live in dangerous times, because we do. As I said before, dangerous times have become normal. Really, we have to consider the whole thing from that standpoint. They say we do not want anything that has the appearance of compulsion. We do not want anything that leads us to ultimately arrive at any form of dictatorship in any phase of our lives.

So the people in the cities, in the towns, in the villages and along the concession lines have come to know the problem. There is no need to go into all these points that have been argued. They have been argued with great brilliance. Yesterday they were argued by my leader in a most able, magnificent and monumental manner. The whole principle relating to this act was explicitly set out and dealt with. The people of this country know full well what the issues are. Let us make no mistake about that. I venture to say that those members sitting opposite, who have not risen to say anything about this principle but only interject at various times, are deeply concerned about this thing. I have no doubt they are deeply concerned because they go home to their constituencies. They are cognizant of what is being said, and the thoughts that are being expressed. I am sure that if we could get an expression of opinion such as we should have-because if they think this thing is right they should explain to the people of this country why this thing is right-then we would be able to make our decisions and the people of this country would be able to make their decisions. The very fact that they remain silent about the whole thing is almost certain evidence that they cannot go along and do not approve of the extreme powers that are being asked in this act by the minister.

If we are to honestly decide about this act, if we are to honestly review it from every standpoint, if we are to consider and know whether it is a good act or a bad act, a proper act or one that should be on the statute books of this country, we have to look back to the source from which this act comes. We have to look back to the type of thinking that has been forthcoming during the years, and the type of thinking that would propound and introduce such an act at this particular time. It is easy to understand that when we are in an actual war or an emergency, an act of this kind should be passed. We have no quarrel with that. We still believe in that. We are still willing to give these great powers if they are needed, and if they are necessary.

But what is the background? What is the type of thinking on the part of the government that they would introduce this bill and ask that these powers be extended indefinitely? Over the years a great change has been taking place in this country, and it has been evidenced by the party in power. They have been in power a great many years. Right here in this house we have seen the rise of the power of the ministry; we have seen the rise in the power of the cabinet, and analogous to it we have seen a recession in the

power of the members and the members of the government party. They have become docile with the urge to follow. They are under the dictation of the ministers, and those who sit in seats of authority. It has not been difficult for supporters of the government party to assume that parliament feels the same way, or for them to reach the assumption that parliament is something that is very unreal, that parliament cannot act quickly, or that in parliament there is too much discussion and too much debate. We have seen this taking place in the House of Commons on those many occasions when the government party has been unwilling to give us the information we want.

They go ahead with the management of the country and, of course, they have been given the authority to do so. But in what they have done there has been a growing tendency to disregard the functions of parliament, to disregard the rights and precepts and the institution of parliament. And with this going on it has required only a step farther to disregard the rights of the people. In bringing in this measure one cannot help feeling that there has been this lack of regard. It has been brought in at a time when, it is agreed, there is no great or immediate emergency or one likely to arise. It is agreed, of course, that we are living in dangerous times, in times when we must take measures to protect ourselves, build our defences to the level they should be, and keep them there.

But this whole idea of bringing in a bill so vast, so sweeping, so undetermined in its terms and meaning, a bill that reaches far down into the economic life of the people, is something to which parliament must give serious thought. It is something we must discuss. And, in addition to all these sweeping powers, it is indicated that the minister wants to make the legislation permanent, so that these things can be done at all times and under all circumstances.

That we are reaching a normal state of life is borne out by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). It is clear that we are moving into better times; and the fact that we are in a more conciliatory mood toward other parts of the world, and that they regard us in a similar fashion, is borne out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).

But despite all this, despite the economic set-up in the country and in industry, the government insists upon retaining these powers, and that it retain compulsion and dictatorship, if I may use that expression, over industry itself. That is the issue we are debating and that we must consider.

Defence Production Act

I shall not discuss the bill in detail, because there has been considerable discussion as to its provisions, involving the right of law and the extent to which it goes. But I would like to speak briefly and to take the long view as to the far-reaching effects of the bill on the economic life of the people in this country. I would like to point out how the bill affects industry and its rights, and how it affects its future development.

The more I read the speech of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) on June 28, the more I read into the meaning of this bill, and how ominous might be its effects. If one looks into the minister's explanation on June 28, when he discussed the bill in an explanatory fashion, and pointed out what he wanted and what he considered was necessary, that portion of his remarks which impressed me-and I am sure every other hon. member-was his statement that when he listened to the debate, and to what opposition members have to say about the bill, he felt himself in another world.

It is clear from what the minister has said that when we have been debating the freedom of parliament, the rights of parliament, the question of whether or not the representatives of the people should have the right to say what is taking place in the country, and when we have been debating the very principles of our constitution, involving our rights and privileges in parliament, and the rights of members sent here by their constituents to take part in debate, the right hon. minister says that he thinks we are in another world. It sounds to him as though we are debating the problems of another world, problems that, to his mind, are entirely irrelevant. He suggests that we are talking about subjects beyond the provisions in the bill and that do not affect the issue before the house.

If the minister feels that in this debate we have been in another world, then I must say we feel he has been in another world, particularly when he brings in a bill of this kind asking for powers so extensive, so far-reaching and so deeply affecting the economic life of the country. Not only does it affect the economic life but it also affects the social and every other phase of our life, because these cannot be divided.

Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?

At one o'clock the house took recess.

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

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

July 7, 1955

Mr. Bennett:

1 and 2.

31-3-54 ; 31-3-55

No. Annual Liab. No. Veterans, Sec. 3 Annual Liab.2,072 $1,533,992 2,191 Veterans, Sec. 4 $1,635,08512 6,773 13 Widows 7,649590 364,813 659 406,852Orphans (accounts) 12 8,793 13 9,4652,686 $1,914,371 2,876 $2,059,051LOBSTER CATCH, ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Topic:   WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES, NOVA SCOTIA
Full View Permalink

June 28, 1955

Miss Sybil Bennett (Halton):

Mr. Speaker, the minister will have to wait a few minutes yet. I have listened to this debate. I know a great deal has been said. A great deal has been said in reiteration, but, Mr. Speaker, the reason I want to join in this debate is that the issue before us, the very principle of this bill, goes to the very heart, to the very root, to the very being of our constitution and of our free parliamentary system. I want to say this to you, Mr. Speaker: Every man and woman elected to this house under our free parliamentary system should be speaking, should be raising their voices and should have something to say in the defence of our constitution and of our parliamentary system which we have had for long years, in fact for centuries. It was only about 300 or 400 years ago, which is a very short time actually in our history, that our forefathers stood in the mother of parliaments and fought this particular issue, the very principles that we are considering in this bill today. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that every hon. member elected by the free will and the free vote of the people of this nation should be speaking to uphold and to extend the bulwarks of the free and magnificent institutions that we have enjoyed for centuries.

It is not a matter of the minister, nor is it a matter so much of this bill and other bills. This bill is similar to other bills. Every bill that comes before this house does to a certain extent give wide powers. This particular bill however gives the minister in charge the widest powers possible, the widest powers to go into every phase and every department of the economic and social life of this country.

In addition to giving these very wide powers, Mr. Speaker, there is no limitation upon the time during which the minister has these powers. It has been said by the minister and by other hon. members that it is very necessary to protect the country, it is very necessary to protect this nation because we live in a state of emergency, we live in a state of upheaval, we live in a state of uncertainty, and naturally we must be able to move quickly and with dexterity. Naturally, we must be able to pass laws to

manage the country, to bring forth its greatest manpower and obtain their great services.

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, we are not in an emergency. Any suggestion that we are in an emergency today is foolish and ludicrous. We know we are living in serious times, and we shall continue in that way, but actually serious times have almost become normal. Furthermore, we have passed through two great wars, the first world war, the second world war and the Korean war. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the house that at that time we were able to rally together, we were able to bring all our forces together, and we fought those wars to a proper, a complete and a victorious conclusion. We are not in a different situation today. I will go farther than that and say that I am not so sure emergency powers of this kind should be granted even for a limited time, because we live in a day and age when transportation is speedy. Parliament can be called together quickly. We can come here from every part of this nation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in the last three days I have covered 3,800 miles in this country.

Considering that, it is abundantly evident that in a very short time, if an emergency arose, we could be brought together, we could consider these matters. Never once in our history, not during the first war, the second war or the Korean war did this parliament, the representatives of the people, refuse to vote anything that was required for defence or the necessities or emergency of this nation. Therefore I am not so sure that these emergency rights should be given under our constitution, under our freedom, under our rights, under the very reasons why we are sent down here. And why do the people of the country send us here? They send us down here and they pay us a salary to be here, to consider these things, to go into these matters and, if it is necessary, to give these very wide powers where they are required and where they can be properly handled and properly contained.

I want to tell you that the very great danger in this thing is that there is a new philosophy abroad in this country. As a matter of fact, there is a philosophy abroad in the world to which many countries have fallen prey. It has come about in a very subtle way and in a way that one hardly thinks about. If you look at the totalitarian states under dictatorships, how did the powers first come to those dictators? How did they come in Italy? How did they come in Germany? How did they come in Russia? How did they come in other parts of the world? They came about by the slow means of giving powers, by slowly giving extraordinary powers to

Defence Production Act one man, to a group of men or to a coterie of men. We are living in a day and age where one man or a group of men or a coterie of men want power. They want it so that they may be able to handle things, as someone said to me, in a much more streamlined and speedier way. I want to tell you that that is the very beginning, that is the very basis, that is the very essence, that is the very start of this taking over of power. It may be very subtle, it may be very hidden, but actually it is laying the foundation and preparing the way to much greater and broader powers to be given to one man or to a group and it finally ends in a dictatorship.

It is not a case of the minister in question. It is not a case so much of this bill but of the-principle of this bill. It is not only just this bill; we know that there will be something else. Larger and broader and wider powers will be asked for. As I say, it is a very dangerous philosophy that is growing in the world and is taking root subtly but surely and gradually, and very definitely it is taking root in this country and in this parliament of Canada.

I remember a very prominent person in this country, a man of ability, a man of good quality thinking, once saying to me that the day and age of parliamentary debate and parliamentary argument had come to an end, that we could not have it because we have not the time. It was argued that we have too much work to do in this country, that we have too much business to do in this country, that we must streamline our business and give it over to a few experts. It is argued that there is no need for this discussion and this debate on this bill.

I want to say to you and to all members of this house that after all this is not what we have lived and fought for, this is not what our ancestors fought for for hundreds of years.. We are advocating the retaining of those very principles. Call it a filibuster if you like;: I am glad to be in a filibuster if its purpose-is to guard those principles of democracy and! our democratic institutions. Those are what we want to uphold in the years to come.

When I look across at the minister I cannot help remembering that on a great many occasions he has been more than good to me. I regard him most highly; I have the highest respect for him. But my sense of constitutional right, my sense of parliamentary right, my sense of parliamentary freedom must always override any personal feelings that I may have.

I think the minister himself, and surely hon. members sitting opposite when looking: over this bill, must realize that in giving themselves these very wide powers they are-

5370 HOUSE OF

Defence Production Act taking on a tremendous responsibility, so great that I would hardly think any one minister or any one group would want to take it on. These powers are very wide. As a matter of fact, if this bill passes and these powers are granted for an indefinite period certain phases of our parliamentary government will have passed away, will be gone entirely.

The minister could go out and take over any business in this country that he wished to take over. He could take over the railroads, he could take over the hydroelectric power facilities, he could take over any private industry. He could take over the press, and I should think they would be greatly alarmed about that because after all they have been the great proponents of freedom in this nation. We welcome that, and that is what it should always be. But these things can be done. In addition to that he can order any person that he should choose, not he himself with his particular and peculiar ability but anyone he chooses to go into any industry to manage that industry. But the dreadful part of it all is that that person will not be responsible to the former owner and would not be responsible actually to anyone. Certainly he would not be responsible to the people or to their elected representatives.

To my mind that sets a very bad example. It sets a very bad example to Canadian business and to Canadian institutions in the method of carrying on our institutions. I suppose it will be said that recourse could be taken to the courts in an action against the crown, but every hon. member here, particularly those who adhere to the law profession, know how foolish and how impossible it is to take action against the crown. You do not get very far in any action against the crown.

Then I say with the greatest deference that the minister and the whole government would be laid open to pressure from different groups. After all we are only human beings and this pressure possibility is one of the dangerous aspects of this bill. Somebody might want more steel or something else and he would come to the controller or the person in control to get his steel. Then of course he would feel that he must make a large return at certain times. Human nature being what it is, that is the sort of thing which makes our parliamentary practices corrupt and improper. We are here in this democratic country today with our democratic institutions and we should be able to show the world that we are able to .carry on, that we are able to move through

free enterprise, through the freedom of man, to think and to do and to give of our very best.

I want to take issue at this moment with those to the left of me. It is improper and unfair to make any suggestions that in the Korean war or in the first and second great wars any part of this country was sabotaged by any groups or persons. That is not true. We know that leaders of industry and men working in industry, from the very top to the very bottom, gave the very best of everything they had to the winning of this war and supported the men and women who went out and fought on the fronts for us, who fought for that particular freedom for which I am speaking in this house today.

I should like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every hon. member of this house, and to the people of Canada, that I do not intend to go home to my constituency and tell the people, some 55,000 people, that I for one moment allowed myself to give in in any way, to procrastinate, or to have any doubts as to where I stand, because I stand for the free parliamentary institutions of this nation. They have been with us for hundreds of years and it is my pride that I can play some part in maintaining them. I intend to vote for them to be with us for many more sessions. For that reason I cannot and will not be found supporting a bill of this kind.

Topic:   S3S8 HOUSE OF
Full View Permalink