HOUSE OF COMMONS
POST OFFICE—DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNIST
NEWSPAPER
Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix- Saguenay):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. A few days ago many members,
and I was one of them, received through the post office of the House
of Commons a copy of the communist newspaper
Combat. The envelopes containing that paper, like the one I
hold in my hand, did not bear any post office mark, contrary to section 275
of the post office regulations, which reads as follows-
Mr. SPEAKER: Order. I would ask the hon. member to state
his question of privilege.
Mr. DORION: I am about to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I
submit that on a question of privilege we are entitled to explain why we
raise the question. The section to which I refer reads:
Postmasters should be careful to postmark
distinctly all letters, registered or ordinary,
posted or received at their offices, and to
effectually cancel all stamps thereon.
As the envelopes we received did not bear
any postmark as required by the rules, we
cannot identify the post office they were mailed
at or where they came from.
It is stated in that newspaper that it was
published in Montreal, but we cannot ascertain
where it was mailed.
My point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that
our mail boxes are not rubbish cans and that
they should be used only in accordance with
the post ofice regulations.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF REFERENDUM ON FUTURE
FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I might give the house immediately the
statement to which my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External
Affairs has just referred.
We have been advised by the United Kingdom government that a statement is to be
issued today in Newfoundland announcing
that the people of Newfoundland will be given
the opportunity shortly to vote in a referendum on their future form of government.
Three questions will be submitted to the
people: continuation of commission government for a five-year period; restoration
of
responsible government as it existed in 1933
prior to the establishment of commission of
2096
Newfoundland
COMMONS
government; and confederation with Canada.
If no form of government receives an absolute
majority, a second vote will be held some
time later on the two forms receiving the
largest support.
I think it would be useful were I to remind
the house of the recent steps preceding the
present announcement. It will be recalled
that last summer a delegation from the
national convention visited Ottawa to ascertain what fair and equitable basis might
exist
for federal union of Newfoundland and
Canada. A committee of the cabinet was
appointed to meet with the Newfoundland
delegation. Several meetings were held during the summer for the exchange of information
and exploration of the many issues that
would be involved in union. At the close of
these meetings a comprehensive report was
issued, copies of which were tabled early in
the present session of parliament.
After due deliberation the government sent
the governor of Newfoundland, for transmission to the national convention, a statement
of terms believed to constitute a fair
and equitable basis of union of Newfoundland
with Canada should the people of Newfoundland so desire. In a covering letter under
date of October 29 last to the governor, I
said in part:
I feel I must emphasize that as far as the
financial aspects of the proposed arrangements
for union are concerned, the government of
Canada believes that the arrangements go as
far as the government can go under the circumstances. The government could not readily
contemplate any change in these arrangements
which would impose larger financial burdens on
Canada. On the other hand, with respect to
those matters which are primarily of provincial
concern, such as education, the government of
Canada would not wish to set down any rigid
conditions, and it would be prepared to give
reasonable consideration to suggestions for modification or addition.
The statement of terms transmitted by the
Canadian government was discussed at length
by the national convention in Newfoundland.
The convention, however, voted 29 to 16
against recommending the inclusion of confederation on the referendum ballot. Subsequently
many telegrams, bearing the names,
it is said, of some 50,000 voters, were sent to
members of the convention for transmission
to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth
Relations requesting that the people be permitted to vote on the question.
The national convention was only empowered to make recommendations regarding
the questions to be included on the referendum ballot, decision on the matter remaining with the United Kingdom government.
The dispatch from the United Kingdom government made public today in Newfoundland
explains that-
—the terms offered by the Canadian government
represent the result of long discussion with a
body of Nevwfoundlanders who were elected to
the convention and the issues involved appear
to have been sufficiently clarified to enable the
people of Newfoundland to express an opinion
as to whether confederation with Canada would
commend itself to them. In these circumstances
and having regard to the number of members
of the convention who supported the inclusion
of confederation with Canada in the ballot
paper, His Majesty's government have come to
the conclusion that it would not be right that
the people of Newfoundland should be deprived
of an opportunity to considering the issue.
The decision to include confederation on the
ballot having been taken by the United Kingdom government, the outcome will be watched
with deep interest by the people of Canada.
The question as to their future form of government is, of course, one for the people
of
Newfoundland alone to decide. Neither the
government nor the people of Canada would
wish to influence in any way their decision.
Should the people of Newfoundland express
clearly their will that Newfoundland should
enter confederation, I am sure that the people
of Canada, will welcome them as partners in
a larger Canada. Should they decide otherwise, this decision, I am no less sure, will
be
received with understanding and respect by
the people of Canada.
Mr. DORION: Will the proposed arrangement
addressed by the Canadian government to Newfoundland be submitted to this
house before any agreement is concluded, in case the result of the
referendum in Newfoundland is favourable to its entry into confederation?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING: The answer is yes. That is part of
the terms we are prepared to recommend.
PRIVATE BILLS
FIRST READINGS—SENATE BILLS
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Joseph Onfroy
Pilon.——Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Thelma May
Heggie May.—Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Molly Renetta
Fry Bist.—Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Patricia Potter
Parker.—Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Helen May
Smith Saunders.—Mr. Maybank.
This individual participated in: