[...] assured that representations have been made
to me in this regard by members of the house,
members of the press gallery and visitors to
this house. I would be very pleased if a
system could be found which would give
satisfaction. I think it is my duty, though,
to call the attention of the hon. leader of the
opposition to the fact that one of the diffi—
culties in adopting the method used in the
French house or the Italian house or even in
the congress of the United States is the fact
that in most of these places the members
speak from a rostrum. This means only one
microphone need be connected to the loud
speaker.
Here, the problem is quite different, but
the hon. members may be assured that they
have all my sympathy. The Speaker exper—
iences considerable difficulty in hearing what
is going on in the house. I will do everything possible to give you satisfaction,
though
I consider it my duty not to recommend an
expensive installation which would not give
satisfaction. You may depend upon it, how—
ever, that I will do my very best, in consultation with the proper officials, to make
a
recommendation satisfactory to all hon. members as soon as possible.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
PRECEDENCE of GOVERNMENT BUSINESS—
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, to FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 18
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister) moved:
That on and after Monday, January 31, 1949, and
every sitting day thereafter until and including
Friday, February 11, 1949, government notices of
motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except
introduction
of bills.
He said: In referring to this motion yesterday I stated that if I had the consent
of
the house I would ask that there be substituted, for the dates January 31 and February
11, respectively, the dates February 7 and
February 18. On referring to the rules, however, I find that the regular way to handle
the
matter is not by amending my own motion
but by presenting it in its present form and
leaving it to some other hon. member to propose the proper amendment, if he sees fit
to
do so.
That the motion be amended by replacing in the
first line thereof the words "January 31" by the
words "February 7," and by replacing in the second
line thereof the words "February 11" by the words
"February 18".
Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, before any remarks
are made in connection with this motion, I
think the house should have some indication
of the reasons why there is any cause to consider it at the present time. I would
point out
that yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister
said that in any event it was the intention of
the government to proceed during the coming
week with the debate on the address in reply
to the speech from the throne. For that reason there is no evidence of any necessity
for
30 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Business of the House
the consideration of this motion this afternoon. Certainly nothing has been put before
the house which would suggest any reason
for supporting such a motion.
Mr. St. Laurent: The reason for making the
motion is to determine now that on February
7 we may proceed with the resolutions and
legislation necessary to implement the agreement for the union of Newfoundland with
Canada. It is an express term of that agreement for union that it will come into force
and bring about the union if there is assented
to, by His Majesty, a bill of the parliament
of the United Kingdom confirming legislation
passed by this parliament and by the government of Newfoundland ratifying the terms
of
that agreement. That procedure requires that
there be in this house first of all a resolution,
the one that was mentioned first under the
heading "government notices of motions" today. That resolution is necessary before
any
bill can be introduced, because a bill to confirm the agreement will impose charges
upon
the consolidated revenue fund. Then the bill
itself must run the gauntlet of the usual
stages of procedure in this house and in the
other place before it can become the law of
the land. It is felt that it would be undesirable to have the matter dealt with at
all by
the parliament of the United Kingdom until
the parliament of Canada has expressed the
views of the people of Canada with respect
to the union. Before the parliament of the
United Kingdom will attempt to deal with
the matter at all, in order to comply with the
terms of the statute of Westminster there will
be required a joint address of this house and
of the senate asking His Majesty to lay before
the parliament of the United Kingdom a bill
embodying the proper legislation.
When I was over in London some months
ago I had some discussion on this subject with
members of the government of the United
Kingdom, and I was told that they would like
to have not less than three weeks to deal with
the legislation in their houses of parliament
after the proceedings had been completed
here. It is therefore urgent, I think, that we
reach this matter and ascertain, at as early a
date as possible, the views of the parliament
of Canada upon the terms of union that were
signed last December. It was for that reason
that, when I announced to the gentlemen of
the press the date that was fixed for the
session, I explained to them that we were
calling parliament together on a Wednesday
instead of a Thursday, as had been done in
several previous years, so that there might
be a couple of days of debate on the address
before we asked parliament to suspend the
debate and deal with the matters concerning
Newfoundland, as it had been our intention
to ask parliament to do at the time specified
in the motion as printed on the order paper.
When notice of this motion was given I
found that there were many members of parliament on both sides of the house who felt
that it was not necessary to commence on
January 31 in order to have the Newfoundland proceedings properly dealt with in time,
and that they wished to have at least another
full week of debate on the address before
adjourning it.
It is my view that we do generally make
better progress in dealing with the substantive business of parliament if we do not
have
too many disputes over matters of procedure,
and I would take it for granted that we would
be probably just as far advanced with the
Newfoundland matter after a week or two if
we met the wishes of hon. members who wish
to have an additional week to debate the
address.
The reason for bringing the motion forward
is to have it fixed, that we will start on this
matter on February 7, and to inform the law
officers of the United Kingdom of this change,
which we hope will not necessarily mean that
we shall be delaying them in putting before
them, if parliament approves of the agreement, the required material so that it can
be
dealt with in orderly fashion in the United
Kingdom parliament.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, first of all may I assure
the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and hon.
members that on any procedural matters that
will facilitate the business of this house he
will find the full concurrence of myself as
leader of the opposition and those associated
with me; but that concurrence does not
extend to the point of departing from well
established practices, for which departure no
substantial reason can be offered. The reasons
now presented by the Prime Minister offer no
justification whatever for presenting this
motion today. I would point out that throughout the whole record of the House of Commons,
not only in this chamber but in other
chambers in early buildings since confederation, in the majority of occasions on which
the debate on the speech from the throne has
proceeded without interruption it has actually
been completed within the time which would
elapse between now and next Friday.
Mr. Drew: Some hon. members, of course,
are basing their views on recent experience,
which is not traditionally the experience of
this house, if they examine the record.
[Interruption.]
JANUARY 28, 1949 Business of the House
31
I do not wonder that hon. members at the
other end of the chamber have difficulty in
hearing the debate when it seems so difficult
for some hon. members to keep their own
thoughts inaudible.
The motion that is before the house at the
present time is one which has the effect of
terminating the debate on the address before
anyone in the house knows whether in fact
it will still be going on next Friday. It is a
very easy matter to examine the record of
Hansard and to ascertain that postponing the
debate and then reviving it, and thereby bringing back the subject matter that was
under
consideration, inevitably prolongs the whole
debate. But there are other reasons why
this motion should not be accepted by hon.
members without a great deal more explanation than has been offered. The date on which
agreement was called for between the parliament of Canada and the representatives
of
Newfoundland, described in the agreement
as the government of Newfoundland, was
March 31. That date was decided on before
the government had fixed the date of the
session. If there was any reason to believe
that additional time was needed it would
have been very easy to have fixed an earlier
date for the opening of the session so that
the debate on the speech from the throne
could have proceeded in an orderly way to
its customary termination without interruption, such as is now suggested.
It is difficult to imagine what the urgency
is which suggests that it is necessary to have
this bill considered a week from Monday,
particularly when more than two months will
still elapse between the date on which agreement is required and today. After all,
there
is no reason to suggest that any extended
delay will be involved in presenting the views
of this house to Westminster, because it is
inconceivable that the government of Canada
has not already presented all the facts to the
government of the United Kingdom other
than the appropriate indication of such decision as may be reached by this parliament.
That being so, the time that is suggested as
being necessary for these proceedings seems
to bear no relationship whatever to any
reasonable requirements to deal with this
matter in the ordinary way.
There is of course another and very much
more cogent reason why this motion should
not be accepted by hon. members. The rules
of this house are not different from the rules
of any other house. Please do not think for
one moment that I am unaware of the tactics
that can be employed in delaying the consideration of a debate on the speech from
the
throne, because if it is delayed the government finds an opportunity to introduce
a
number of extraneous subject matters which
in their opinion will divert public attention
from the inadequacy of the statements in the
speech from the throne and from the weaknesses in the position of the government.
I
am certainly convinced that this is the reason
the adjournment is sought, rather than the
reason that has been suggested in the house
today. It will of course be very convenient
if the striking omissions from the speech from
the throne are supplemented by appropriate
statements from day to day by various ministers who will make those bright promises
which the minister of reconstruction does
not think are as useful as they once were.
But these can go on from day to day in the
intervening period. And of course it would
appear that the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Abbott) holds a similar view. These can go on
indefinitely—and this is nothing new. I think
the hon. members of this house not only on
the opposition side but on the government
side should seek to have an explanation on
the one hand in regard to certain statements,
which are extremely vague, in the speech
from the throne and—
Mr. Drew: I will debate it on the appropriate occasion.
Mr. Howe: Are you speaking on the speech
from the throne?
Mr. Drew: I think it is very obvious that
a number of motions can be padded out with
various statements that can be introduced on
the one hand by presentation to the house,
and on the other hand by those interesting
pieces of information which appear in the
press throughout Canada, without any names
attached to them, stating that the press is
authoritatively informed from someone very
close to the minister that such and such a
thing is going to be done.
There is of course a still further reason,
and one which, it seems to me, is very difficult
for some hon. members opposite to dispute:
that is, that the debate on the speech from
the throne is no mere formality, as some
people seem to suggest from time to time.
It is in fact the most important debate in
many cases which will take place in any
legislative assembly. Because, under the
practice established here, as in every other
parliament or legislature within the commonwealth, the debate on the speech from the
throne offers an opportunity to the house to
say by its vote whether the government still
commands the confidence of the House of
Commons. It may be a comfortable assumption on the part of the government that they
32
Business of the House
HOUSE OF COMMONS
can look at the list of members and count
every vote according to the places where
they seat themselves in the house. But if
any house of commons or legislative assembly
reduces itself to a position where individual
discretion, intelligence and conscience mean
nothing, then there might just as well be no
recorded vote at all, and the vote might just
as well be taken from the printed sheet.
The fact is that members of this House of
Commons and other legislative bodies in the
country have demonstrated that measure of
independence which is the hallmark of free
parliaments. There is no reason on this or
any other occasion to assume that merely
because of the tag on which a member was
elected he is simply to become a servile digit
to be named by the leader of his group, without any respect for his own conscience,
when
some subject is before the house.
The practice is very well established, and
on this occasion I think it would be well if
I were to place before the house the opinion
of a member whose virtues have been loudly
extolled by a number of hon. members opposite as one who understands the real meaning
of parliament, and of this parliament
particularly. I would quote the words of the
right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King). It is true that we have not
always agreed on every subject; but in this instance surely I can offer to hon. members
opposite no better advice than that of the man for whom they have shown such unreserved
respect in these past few days and for whose opinion they have the highest regard.
Therefore I should like to read what the
right hon. member for Glengarry said in
1921, as it is reported at page 151, volume I
of Hansard for that year. These words, it
seems to me, set forth the very core of the
consideration that should be in our minds. I
shall quote his words, and these will be his
words until I have indicated that the quotation is ended:
We take the position that without the confidence
of this house and of the country they are not entitled to introduce a bill or to spend
a dollar; and
unless my right hon. friend can show us some precedent for adjourning the debate on
a motion of
want of confidence in the government to take up
another matter, we would be justified I think in
adhering to the position which we have taken from
the outset, namely that the government lacks the
confidence of the country, and therefore is not entitled to proceed with any legislation.
There the quotation ends.
The mere fact that the want of confidence
motion has not yet been moved varies in no
way the effectiveness of this statement—
because the only reason there is no want of
confidence motion before the house is that
this motion has been introduced before the
debate has been resumed. The view put
forth there by the right hon. gentleman is
one in which I think all hon. members might
well concur; because if for any reason members in the house do not support the government,
then the government may well have
committed itself to a course with which it had
no right to proceed, unless that confidence
has once been established.
There may of course be varying reasons.
We would simply not recognize reality if we
were to say that there could be no occasion
upon which some emergency situation might
arise where a motion of this kind might be
called for, if the debate were to be unreasonably protracted. But no such situation
arises
now. The debate is going on next week, by
decision of the Prime Minister (Mr. St.
Laurent) and his colleagues. That being so,
until there is any indication whatever that an
emergency actually presents itself, and the
debate is in fact proceeding next Friday,
there is no reason whatever to support the
motion. It should be opposed in principle in
any event. But even without that, the motion
is wholly unnecessary, and therefore it is
opposed.
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar): Mr.
Speaker, when the proposal was first made
that the debate should be interrupted from
today, my colleagues felt the request was one
we could not approve. The government, however, has compromised to this extent, that
next week the debate on the address will continue, and that at the end of next week
we
shall take up the matter of union with
Newfoundland.
I think it is unfortunate that this debate
must be interrupted, but my experience in the
twelve years I have been here is that normally the debate on the address lasts anywhere
from three to six weeks. I realize that
there is great urgency in connection with the
Newfoundland agreement, but that urgency
arises because of a situation not in our own
country or in our own parliament but in the
British parliament. May I say that that is
the reason why we shall support the amended
resolution that has been introduced this afternoon. At the moment the British house
is
engaged in many important matters dealing
not only with their own grave domestic situation but with the international situation
as
well. I think we owe it to them, if they
require at least three weeks to deal with this
matter, to see that they have ample time in
which to consider this agreement, which
according to newspaper reports will be
opposed by some members of the opposition
in the British House of Commons.
While we dislike these interruptions of the
debate on the address, on this occasion we
think that the government has a better reason
JANUARY 28, 1949 Business of the House33
for asking for an interruption than it has had
on any other occasion I can remember. When
we first saw the request made by the government we felt, particularly in view of the
experience of last year, that we should hesitate and consider carefully whether we
should
consent to such an interruption. From time
to time, however, it is necessary that those
of us who are in opposition should view matters of government convenience, particularly
when they involve courtesy to another parliament, in a broad way. I repeat that we
have
decided to support this amended resolution.
I would remind hon. members that many
weeks ago, in the autumn, we asked that parliament be called to deal with matters
of
urgency, and of course this has become one
of the matters that could have been dealt
with had parliament been called before
Christmas or earlier this month. This is the
criticism I make of the government at the
moment—that the session should have been
called earlier. But it was not called earlier,
and we are now faced with the necessity of
giving consideration to union with Newfoundland. After all, this is a most important
event in the history of this country—the
addition of a new province, something which
was contemplated by the fathers of confederation as long ago as 1867 and, in relation
to
what will be the tenth province, is about to
be consummated in 1949.
I say again that we dislike interruptions to
the debate on the address. We believe that
this interruption could have been avoided by
calling parliament earlier. But since parliament was not called, since the union of
Newfoundland with Canada is an important
matter which should be dealt with, and since
we should give the British parliament ample
time in which to deal with it and to plan its
work, we will support the amended resolution.
Mr. Roland Beaudry (St. James): Following
the words of the hon. member for Rosetown-
Biggar I should like to ask the hon. member
for Carleton (Mr. Drew) if he suggested
earlier that parliament should have been
convened sooner, for instance at a time when
it was impossible for the leader of the opposition to have a seat in this house?
Mr. Graydon: The hon. member did not
make history with that remark.
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened to the explanation of
the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and to
the arguments advanced by the leader of the
C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell). I agree with the hon.
member that everything should be done to
enable consideration at the earliest possible
day of the resolution with regard to the
admission of Newfoundland into confedera
tion. With him I agree also that that event
will represent a step forward in the completion of the destiny of this dominion. In
that regard I am in agreement with him;
but he failed to answer the argument advanced, and the government has as yet not
answered the argument of the leader of the
opposition (Mr. Drew), that first and foremost the government of this country must
have the confidence of the House of Commons.
This resolution carries out an old plan;
there is nothing new about it. Parliament
could have been called three weeks ago, if
not before, and this matter could have been
determined.
Mr. Diefenbaker: I cannot hear the interruptions, so I shall not say anything in reply.
It was most interesting to hear the interrupters on the other side of the house when
my
leader said that the debate on the address in
reply to the speech from the throne might be
determined within a week. They ridiculed
that statement; they jeered.
Mr. Diefenbaker: My hon. friend the leader
of the C.C.F. says that it will take anywhere
from three to six weeks to complete that
debate. Having regard to the fact that an
election is not too far away, I have no doubt
that this debate will take a considerable time.
If so, the responsibility rests upon the Prime
Minister for failing to call parliament together
early enough to have this matter determined.
Mr. Graydon: You will get plenty of him
before you are through.
Mr. Diefenbaker: During the days of the
war we in the opposition co-operated with
the government at all times.
An hon. Member: Explain.
Mr. Diefenbaker: In relation to anything
having to do with our war effort, the words
of the hon. member for Carleton were to that
effect. During the war there were invasions
of the rights of a free parliament, but we of
the opposition intend to be assured that they
shall not be continued in the days of peace.
More than anything else the people of this
country are asking that parliament be restored
to the prestige that it enjoyed in the years
prior to the war. They are asking that parliament shall not continue in living stagnation
while government by bureaucracy continues
in this country. They are asking to have restored the right of the people's representatives
34
Business of the House
HOUSE OF COMMONS
to preserve the rights of the people and to
represent all the people in this country. I
congratulate my right hon. friend upon becoming Prime Minister, but I say to him that
his duty as the leader of this government,
with the reshuffling of the cards that has
taken place and the addition of certain members to the cabinet, is to demand at the
first
opportunity a vote of confidence, thus giving
to hon members the opportunity to determine the question once and for all.
I do not want to be over-critical—
Mr. Diefenbaker: I said over-critical; but I
do say to my right hon. friend that in the last
couple of days the government has shown an
uncertainty, a lack of unity, and a failure to
realize in what direction it is going except in
the direction of an election. We have the
right to know whether my right hon. friend
and those associated with him have the confidence of this house. The people want the
members of this parliament to have an opportunity to let the government know that
its
taxation policy is wrong, that its income tax
is unjust. When I say this I speak for the
farmers. The government says it has the
confidence of the people. The farmers want
an opportunity of having their lack of confidence in this government placed before
this
house, because that lack of confidence extends
from one end of the country to the other.
My hon. leader says members of parliament are not mere digits to be pushed about,
to be directed. Not since the end of the war
was there a finer declaration of the principles
of parliament and what it stands for than was
contained in the words of my hon. leader
this afternoon when he pointed out that,
regardless of our position, we in this house
have a responsibility which can be discharged
only when each of us individually votes on
the question of confidence or non-confidence
in the government. I say to my right hon.
friend that he should give the members of
this house an opportunity of saying to him
and to those associated with him—and I
should think they would want it—whether
this house has any confidence in them, before
they proceed with notices of motions and
resolutions calling for the expenditure of
millions of dollars. On one occasion the right
hon. member for Carleton expressed similar
views.
Mr. Diefenbaker: Glengarry has been represented so often by leaders of the opposition
and prime ministers that it is easy to understand the mistake I just made. I say,
sir,
that the house should be given the opportunity of declaring whether or not it has
confidence in this government. My right hon.
friend should not translate into the days of
peace the conduct of parliament in the days
of war, which all too often was contrary to
the highest principles of constitutional government. We on this side intend to do
our
utmost to see that the invasions of parliamentary rights, which were pathways in the
days of war, do not become permanent highways of peace.
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad hon. members opposite
are beginning to show some evidence of
awakening from their normal lethargy, and
I trust that this degree of awakening will
extend also to the rights of this house which
are placed in jeopardy by the motion now
under debate. It would be a happy day indeed
if we could see on the part of hon. members
to your right, Mr. Speaker, some degree of
concern for constitutional practices and the
preservation of the rights and responsibilities
of a free parliament.
Let no one underestimate the importance of
the subject now under discussion. It is not a
mere question of procedure for today or procedure for Monday. What is at issue here
goes far deeper than that. It is procedure
measured in terms of the duties and responsibilities of the executive branch of government
to this house. Is the government supreme? If so, it matters little what happens
here, and certainly the motion should pass.
If, however, the house is supreme, then it is
the house that should determine the order
in which business shall be taken up; and
above all things, before this government is
permitted to lay any business before the
house, it must establish, in the recognized
constitutional manner, that it possesses the
confidence of the house. Under conditions
now obtaining in this house and this country
the government has no right to lay before
this chamber one item of government business
calling for a decision without having established that it does possess the confidence
of
the house.
Consider exactly what it means if this
motion is adopted. In the first place, it means
the government has asserted that the time of
this house must be rationed. It means that
the government asserts its right to sidetrack
the important debate on the address in
favour of a measure it proposes to introduce.
It means also, in effect, that the government
does not owe a primary responsibility to the
house. It is time this house, out of self-respect,
out of a sense of responsibility for the maintenance of its constitutional position
in the
interests of freedom in this country, asserted
its right to determine the kind of government
that should occupy the seats of office; and
that can be determined under present circumstances only by a vote in this house which
JANUARY 28, 1949 Business of the House 35
will show the confidence hon. members are
prepared to extend to or withhold from the
government.
At no time in the life of this parliament was
it more important that the debate on the
address should proceed without interruption
until it was established whether or not the
government held the confidence of the house.
Hon. members opposite seem to forget that,
technically at least, there has been a change
of government with the change of prime
ministers, that there has been a change in
portfolios, though in most cases the same
ministers were reappointed. It is in that
sense a different government; and it has not
established in any particular that it possesses
the confidence of the house.
Perhaps I should not have been amazed,
but I must confess to some degree of surprise
that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar
(Mr. Coldwell) should have submitted so
weakly this afternoon in the face of the
government's steam roller. That is evidence
of an altogether too friendly association
between Liberal members and the C.C.F.
party in this house. If that is to be an
example of the way in which that group is to
function in opposition, then I suggest it come
out in its true colours and proclaim itself as
simply a wing of the government party. If
we are to have a continuation of that attitude
the criticism of government policy we may
expect from the C.C.F. party during this
session will be a very friendly, mild and
ladylike kind of criticism.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been an
attempt on the other side to ridicule the
importance of this debate. The reason is
perfectly obvious, Mr. Speaker. The fact of
the matter is that the debate on the address
gives the members of the opposition, yes,
and such other private members of the house
as choose to assert their freedom and responsibility as members of the house, an opportunity
to stand in their places and criticize
the government on its past record, on its
policy, on the contents of the speech from
the throne, and on the omissions from it.
Not only is this a duty; it is a responsibility
which every member of the house must
exercise according to his rights if he would
do his duty by those whom he represents.
Necessarily, any government characterized
by such flaws in its record affords very great
opportunity for criticism. If this debate is
not throttled, or sidetracked by the government steam roller, there will be plenty
of
criticism of the government in this chamber
during the course of this debate. Is it any
wonder, Mr. Speaker, that a government
which has shown itself so impatient of
criticism would desire in this way to throttle
criticism? That is precisely the issue which
is before the house today. Shall criticism
have a free voice in a free parliament? It
is that issue that will be determined in the
vote on this resolution today.
This resolution means precisely what it
says. It signifies that the government is not
prepared to permit parliament, in the
ordinary way, to proceed in freedom to
express criticism of government policy. The
reason becomes all the more obvious in the
light of what has been said of late—supposedly emanating from government circles
or sources close to the government, and
referred to by my esteemed leader— about
the possibility of a general election. What
could better suit the purposes of a government, such as the one in office today, than,
on the eve of an election, to throttle criticism
in this house, and this at a time when much
criticism is being heard from the people of
this country. That is the measure of the
government's sense of responsibility to those
to whom it owes responsibility, that, at this
above all times, it should seek to stifle
criticism.
In this house the day before yesterday,
Mr. Speaker, we went through a form which
is followed on the opening day in every
parliament which stems from the mother of
parliaments. In the measure which has
been traditionally introduced respecting the
administration of the oaths of office, the
house asserts its right to proceed with business of its choosing without first having
to
take up the program laid down before it in
the speech from the throne. Is that an empty
formality? Is it simply a reminder that in
days gone by a free parliament found itself
at odds with a monarch?
It goes a good deal further than that, Mr.
Speaker. It amounts to the assertion, if this
house has the courage to assert what it
should, of the right of the house to proceed
with its business in the proper way. In this
instance no business can be taken up, if that
constitutional position is to be preserved,
until the government has established that it
possesses the confidence of the house.
The same old mentality dominates this government as dominated the one which it succeeded
last fall. There is the same old complex; the same old bureaucratic approach to
all of these problems; the same contempt for
parliament; the same irresponsibility in its
attitude towards the elected representatives
of the people in this house. If this is a new
govermnent, Mr. Speaker, it has learned its
constitutional practice from the government
which preceded it, and that was a poor way
to learn sound constitutional practice. It was
a very good way to learn oligarchic practice.
36
Business of the House
HOUSE OF COMMONS
If this is a new government, it is not yet a
reformed government, since it has the same
old mentality that imposed taxation by radio
and in many ways heaped contempt upon
parliament.
Let me turn for a moment to a high
authority, to no less a person than the hon.
member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Concerning this government and its attitude to
such matters, he spoke words from which
hon. members opposite would do well to
profit. I will quote, Mr. Speaker, from a
speech of the hon. and esteemed member for
Quebec South, as reported in the Ottawa
Journal of August 9, 1948. It happens that
this speech was delivered before the national
convention of the Liberal party. In reviewing some of the things to which I have
alluded, the bureaucratic complex of this
government and its tyrannical and irresponsible attitude towards the House of Commons,
he said this:
Without the existence of an almost all-powerful
bureaucracy, it is unlikely that we would have had
budget by radio, restraint of trade by embargoes
and prohibitions, bungling of freight rates, and a
snarling of interprovincial relations.
Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, that is just
what this government has attempted to do.
He says further:
But to me loss of individual freedom through irresponsible bureaucracy is too high
a price to pay
even for security.
I ask hon. members of all parties of this
house to weigh well the memorable words
uttered by the member for Quebec South on
that occasion, when he said:
Since the beginning of this convention there have
been hints that from high places from now on all
would be well; that things would be different in the
future; that we would mend our ways. The pride
that could flout a parliamentary caucus or a house
of commons quailed before a national convention.
But tonight the delegates will be gone, the old pride
will return.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, the old pride has
returned. We have proof of it in this government resolution today.
The old plea of urgency has, of course, been
trotted out. I think we have had enough in
what the Prime Minister has said to completely disprove this allegation of urgency
with respect to the Newfoundland measure.
Where is the sense in the government
seriously saying it is imperative that the
throne speech debate should not be permitted
to proceed—it would probably last two or
three weeks—because there would not be time
to pass this Newfoundland legislation? Why
could not the house have been called two
weeks ago? No reason has been given—no
reason whatever.
But the Prime Minister was not satisfied
with that. When we met here on Wednesday
there was tremendous urgency about this
Newfoundland business. It was so urgent
that it had to be proceeded with on Monday
next. The most this government was prepared to permit, by way of rationed time in
this chamber to speak in this debate, was
Thursday and Friday. Two days to air the
grievances of a nation in a parliament in
which the new government has not yet proven
it possesses the confidence of the house! Two
whole days for the assertion of the rights of
democracy in this House of Commons before
the government steam roller begins to put
legislation before the house and sidetrack
other forms of discussion!
Suddenly, Mr. Speaker, that urgency began
to fade somewhat in View of the snarl into
which the government had gotten itself by
its attempt to dictate to the house. The Prime
Minister then decided that the house might
have another week to discuss it. Today he
says, and I recall his words, that we would be
as far ahead after a week or two of debate on
the speech from the throne. Then, why confine the debate on the address to one week
if
we would be as far ahead after a week or
two?
The way in which democracy is functioning
in free parliaments and legislatures the world
over today is being watched by many people
as the race narrows down between the true
democratic way of life and the communist
totalitarian method. There never was a time
when it was so much the duty of members
of a free parliament to assert the rights of
all its members, if they would value their
freedom and the constitutional processes they
were elected not only to carry out but to
defend.
What would be your attitude, Mr. Speaker,
if you were one of those detestable communists, after seeing what was being attempted
by the government in this House of Commons
today, after hearing the talk about the rights
of parliament, about parliament being a place
where the grievances of the people are being
aired, and where criticism can be leveled at
the government without fear of individual
retaliation, and then government comes along
and decides that it will ration freedom of
speech in this chamber? What would be your
attitude, Mr. Speaker, if you were a communist? You would say, Is that not a fine
sample of democracy? You would say, If that
is democracy, then, after all, what is the fundamental difference between it and the
totalitarian method?
This is no way for any government to
expedite the business of the session. If they
want to do that, let them first give this house
a free opportunity to express an opinion as
to whether or not they possess its confidence.
JANUARY 28, 1948
Business of the House
37
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River): Mr.
Speaker, I think it has become apparent that
we are not getting anywhere. If we have
just a little bit of time in which to think this
whole matter over, I believe we shall be able
to come to a decision much more amicably
than we perhaps would today. For that
reason I am asking leave to adjourn this
debate.
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver South):
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you and to the other
members of the house that a serious question
is raised by this debate, and I trust that you
will bear with me for a few minutes while I
try to analyse it in what I hope will be a
nonpartisan way.
Mr. Green: I realize that at times we all
must show certain partisanship in this house,
but I meant what I said when I indicated
that I planned to try to analyze this question
in an unbiased way. The question is whether
or not the members of the government are
taking the right attitude towards the debate
on the address in reply to the speech from
the throne. Let me direct the minds of hon.
members back to the announcements made in
the press about this session. In Vancouver
I read that the speech from the throne would
be considered for only a day or two and that
we would then go on to discuss this proposed
union with Newfoundland. In other words,
the Prime Minister and the cabinet from the
start have had the idea that this throne speech
debate would last for a matter of only a few
hours and then would be adjourned, or in
effect would be pushed aside and used as a
filler between other items of government
business. The result must inevitably be that
the debate on the speech from the throne will
be of little use to the members of this house
or to the country.
We saw this same attitude taken at the
opening of the last session. Back in December 1947 we were all surprised to learn,
again from the press, that the house was to be
called into session a few days before Christmas, and that the reason it was being
called
was to deal with the Geneva trade treaties.
I may be wrong in that, but I think that was
the main reason given for calling the house
in December. Mention may also have been
made of the austerity program. In any
event, I came east then believing that the
main reason for calling that session was to
consider the Geneva treaties. When we came
here we were met with exactly the same plan
that is being attempted at this session. The
speech from the throne was to be dealt with
for a day or two, and then we were to go on
with this emergency business. As it turned
out, the debate on the Geneva treaties lasted
for two days, and then was adjourned until
after Christmas, when it was again adjourned.
The treaties were sent to a committee and
the committee made a report, but the house
never dealt with it or with the treaties; they
have not been approved to this day. They are
to come up again at this present session. On
that former occasion the same attitude that is
being taken today was taken by the cabinet
towards parliament and towards the debate
on the speech from the throne.
I submit that there are some serious objections to that attitude; in fact, there are
grave
dangers in the government of Canada adopting that attitude. First of all, the Prime
Minister and his colleagues have placed far
too little importance on this throne speech
debate, which can only mean that they place
far too little importance on parliament itself,
on the private members of this house, whether
they be in the opposition or on the government side, and on the people represented
in
this house by the private members. The
keystone of our democratic system of government is parliament, not the cabinet. Parliament
is composed of men and women
entrusted by their constituencies with the
responsibility of leading the nation. Under
our system the leadership of this nation
should not come from the cabinet; in the
final analysis it should come from parliament.
The cabinet is only the executive of
parliament.
At the opening of each session the private
members gather here from all over Canada,
fresh from contacts with the people. They
know the problems that are worrying the
people and the action that the people want to
have taken by parliament. We who come
here as private members are certainly much
closer to the people than any member of the
cabinet can possibly be. He is here in Ottawa
practically all the time; he has many other
things to do and cannot be in such close
touch with the people as a private member.
If the debate on the speech from the throne
is held immediately after the opening of parliament it gives the private members a
chance
to bring the views of their constituents
directly to the attention of the cabinet. That
is important, because it can, or it should,
influence the legislation that will be brought
JANUARY 28, 1949
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
63
to deter any aggressor who might otherwise
feel disposed to repudiate the solemn undertaking he signed at San Francisco.
There is no use deceiving ourselves or
mincing words. We know that the people
of the North American continent, that the
people of the democracies of western Europe,
fear there may be an aggression from this
great power which was allied with us in the
last war but which professes an ideology that
would necessarily exclude the civilization
under which our institutions have been established. We fear that those totalitarians
who
direct that great mass of human beings might
attempt, by force, to impose their ideology
upon the rest of the world. But we believe
they are realistic, and we believe that, if we
can negotiate with them from strength, they
will be apt to feel there would be considerable risk in starting any war. We believe
they will not start any war they are not confident they can win.
We believe that those we mentioned as the
likely signatories of this North Atlantic pact
have the potential strength, manpower,
industrial know-how, material, the courage
and desire to remain free men which would
make it very doubtful that any aggressor
could overcome them. We are forming or
hope to form the alliance not for the purpose
of having to fight together—of course we
will if it is imposed upon us, but it is not for
that purpose. Primarily, it is being formed
for the purpose of doing that for which the
charter of the united nations was signed at
San Francisco in 1945.
It seems to me that any free man in any
of our countries should have no greater
hesitation in having his country become a
party to that North Atlantic security pact
than he had in having his country become a
signatory to the San Francisco charter.
Now, that is the matter in the international
field which His Excellency says, in the speech
from the throne, is the first concern of his
government. The second paragraph reports
that, in spite of the unsettled and disruptive
activities of international communism, the
nations of western Europe are making progress towards recovery, and that North
America is contributing substantially to the
restoration of economic activity, thereby
increasing their own power to resist aggression, either within or from outside. I
think
that is a statement which needs no development here. We all know that has been happening,
and we know how effective it has
been. From the elections that were held in
Italy, we know what a partial restoration of
economic activity in that country was able
to do in repelling aggression from within.
It is said that an offensive for peace is now
being pushed by the eastern powers. This
has been mentioned by the communist leader
in Italy as well as by the communist leader
in France. If it is anything but a sham,
those leaders have a wonderful opportunity,
as Mr. Lippmann pointed out in an article
which I think was in yesterday's newspaper,
of demonstrating their sincerity. If they will
instruct their fellows to help rather than
resist the restoration of economic activity in
their respective countries, then we may be
able to believe that this peace offensive is
more than a sham, and that it is the
expression of some desire by the rulers of
these totalitarian states to put an end to this
enervating cold war that has been having
such serious effects throughout the world.
At home the situation is one that the speech
comments upon as being a cause for rejoicing
and satisfaction. Just let me put three or four
sets of figures on record in that connection. We
say that the economy of the country is buoyant. Last year the gross national production,
according to the best available statistics, was
$15,500,000,000 as compared with something
of the order of $5 billion or $6 billion in the
years which preceded the war. The present
estimates for 1949 are $16,550,000,000. The
salaries, wages and supplementary labour
income for 1948, or the amounts distributed
to wage earners and salary earners, totalled
$7,135,000,000. The estimate for 1949 is
$7,810,000.000. The number employed in 1948
in civilian employments was 4,890,000 and,
in the armed forces, 35,000. The estimate
for 1949 is 4,966,000 in civilian employments
and 42,000 in the armed forces. Those are
figures which are significant of the activity
which is prevailing in this country and they
are, I think, a justification for the further
statement that progress towards social justice
for all in any country is an effective safeguard against the effect and influence
of subversive doctrines.
The next matter dealt with in the speech
from the throne is the union between Newfoundland and Canada. I think all hon. members
in this house look upon that as an
achievement, not an achievement of mine or
of any one of our colleagues, but rather an
achievement of the Canadian people in bringing about a situation where the people
of
Newfoundland desire to become associated
with us as one nation. It is a matter whic
should be consummated by March 31. This
afternoon I indicated what were the steps
which must be completed before the union
could become effective, and what would happen if those steps were not completed by
March 31. I think there are quite a number
of people in Canada and perhaps quite a
number who are not yet Canadians but who,
under this arrangement, will become Canadians, who will have noted the attitude of
the
64
The Address—Mr. St. Laurent
HOUSE OF COMMONS
various parties in this house this afternoon
upon this question of the union of Newfoundland with Canada.
It was suggested that, if there was any
reason why any more time were required
than would be available until March 31, after
the discussion on the speech from the throne
of all the various matters that were referred
to by the hon. gentlemen who addressed you
this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and the other
matters which you or the Deputy Speaker,
who sat in your chair, found it would not be
in order to discuss at this time, parliament
should have been called together earlier.
I would remind hon. members that the
terms of union which have been tabled and
which will be submitted to this house for its
consideration—and, if it sees fit, for its
approval—were not arrived at in one or two
days. Long and protracted negotiations took
place in order to settle those terms. Those
terms had been preceded by a fairly full proposal arrived at after months of deliberation
last year. After the proposal had been
approved by a majority vote of the people of
Newfoundland in a referendum, the precise
terms were under discussion here for
upwards of two months, and the terms were
not finally signed until December 11. I was
the chairman of the Canadian committee that
had to do with the negotiations with the
representatives from Newfoundland; and I
regarded the completion of that undertaking
as something of consequence to the people of
Canada, yes, and possibly of consequence to
the people of the world. I felt that, so long
as there was any hope that we could get that
agreement into shape to have it for submission at this fifth session of the twentieth
parliament, it was worth while working at it.
We worked at it until December 11, and on
that date we put our signatures to the document, subject of course to ratification
by
parliament.
After December 11 it would have been
rather difficult, and not very convenient for
the members of this house, if an attempt had
been made to get them down here before
Christmas. They might have arrived two or
three days before Christmas; but I do not
believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are very
many of them who would have felt at all
kindly towards a government that brought
them down here at that time.
Mr. St. Laurent: The hon. member for Peel
(Mr. Graydon) has been here for some time.
He knows that parliament is not called to
meet the day after the proclamation is issued.
He knows that a reasonable time must elapse
between the issuing of the proclamation and
the meeting of the house. Between December
11 and Christmas there were just fourteen
days, or two weeks; and it would not have
been possible to bring hon. gentlemen down
here at that time. While the negotiations
were going on, the attention of many members
of the cabinet was devoted almost exclusively
to the discussion of these terms of union.
Mr. St. Laurent: I think the hon. member
should try to be a little bit more serious in
the interruptions he sees fit to make.
Mr. St. Laurent: We are discussing a matter
which has concerned the Canadian people
ever since confederation was mooted more
than eighty-one years ago, and it has now
reached the stage where it will be the responsibility of the hon. member who is making
these interruptions, among others, to say
whether it should be completed or not. It is
my responsibility. I will not Shirk it, and I
will not blush for the way in which I discharged it, in recommending to my colleagues
the date for the opening of parliament. I
submit that the course I followed was a
reasonable one, and I am quite prepared at
any time to leave it to the public of Canada
to determine whether or not it was reasonable
under those circumstances.
Mr. St. Laurent: The next paragraph in
the speech from the throne deals with amendments to the Supreme Court Act to make
the
Supreme Court of Canada the court of last
resort for Canadians.
There have been suggestions that this is
something which constitutes a threat to the
autonomy or liberty of the provincial governments. I had a compilation made of what
has been happening in that regard for the
last ten years. I asked for ten years but I
got it for eleven. It is given from the year
1938 to 1948 both inclusive, and, unless my
counting is wrong, that is eleven years. There
were fifty-five cases in which appeals were
asserted, or sought to be asserted, from judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In
one case the appeal was withdrawn. In five
the appeals were allowed. In forty-nine cases
the appeals were dismissed and the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada were
affirmed. In no one of the five cases in which
the appeals were allowed was there any
constitutional issue between the dominion
and the provinces. That is the record for the
last eleven years in these fifty-five times
194
Â
The Address—Mr. Bradette
HOUSE OF COMMONS
freer trade between Great Britain and the
rest of the world, Great Britain and Canada and Great Britain and the United States,
and in fact between all nations.
I should like to say a few words about what
I hope will be our new sister province—Newfoundland. There is something fine in this
possibility, something great. It is expected
that within a few months there will be integrated into the Canadian federation that
fine,
old colony located in the gulf of St. Lawrence.
In my youth, which was a long time ago,
when I was attending a small rural school I
was always baffled that Newfoundland, which
was so close to the American continent, geographically speaking, and which was so
close
to the Canadian mainland, was not a part of
Canada. To me the gulf of St. Lawrence
seemed to have opened its mouth deliberately
so that Newfoundland could come into
Canada.
It was a proud day for us and no doubt a
proud day for Newfoundland when by a
majority vote they decided to come into the
Canadian confederation. They have problems of their own and in my view it is the
duty of every Canadian worthy of the name to
study their problems, to try to know them,
to sympathize with them and to help them
in arriving at a solution. I believe that the
Newfoundlanders will fully realize what it
means to come into the great Canadian
federation.
When this is accomplished, when Newfoundland does come into the Canadian federation,
I hope that they will send some of
their fine sons and daughters to Canada to
explain to us their aspirations, their struggles
in the past, their love, their culture and what
they expect of the future. Then in turn
Canada should send some of her prominent
sons and daughters to sell and make better
known this country to that great strategic
island which in the future may mean so
much to the peace of the world.
I make that suggestion in all sincerity. I
wonder how many Canadians know the fine
qualities of the Newfoundlander? How many
of us know their loyalty to British traditions?
Perhaps the same thing could be said,
although perhaps not as forcibly, of many
Newfoundlanders who have never had an
opportunity to know Canada.
It would not be just a matter of selling one
to the other; it would be a matter of interesting our population and making them realize
what a wonderful asset there is in having
that fine sentinel between Greenland, Europe,
and the Canadian mainland—a sentinel to
guard us against things that may happen in
the future, which have never happened in
the past.
I make this plea very sincerely. This is
not just a political question; it is bigger than
that. I hope that the moment Newfoundland
comes into confederation Canada will choose
half a dozen of her sons and daughters who
are well qualified, and that Newfoundland
will do the same. There are in each country
many intelligent men and women—who will
visit the other to tell them of their own. We
love these people already because they belong
to the British family of nations. We want
them to come here to tell us of their aspirations, of their problems, of the things
that
they expect from the Canadian confederation.
It is true they will have to make sacrifices
in order to enter confederation, but the same
will also apply to us. We must be ready and
willing to try to understand them, and to
have respect for their traditions and ideals.
Let us not get away from the fact that in the
past Newfoundland has been a real sentinel
of the British empire on this continent, and
will remain faithful in its loyalty in the
future.
I want to say a word or two about the
St. Lawrence waterway. As a person who
represents a section of Canada that, geographically speaking, is really central, I
may say
that we are open-minded as far as the St.
Lawrence waterway is concerned. The potential hydro power is needed at the present
time in the province of Ontario. I do not say
that in a critical way. It is because of the
progress that industry has made. in the province. There are also the factors of immigration
and transportation. I feel somewhat
reticent about discussing the problem because,
under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a national rail link
was built between the maritimes and Winnipeg out of the federal treasury. Today,
west of the town of Hearst, with one of the
finest roadbeds on the North American continent, the rails are practically rusty.
We
are in favour of the development of the St.
Lawrence waterway because it is a necessity.
The United States and Canada are friendly
nations and we should have no difficulty on
that project. But, in saying that, I want to
protest against a situation which has been
allowed to exist for many years in regard to
that fine national link between Quebec city
and Winnipeg. It is practically unused at the
present time. You have there a potential
that should be used winter and summer. Why
it is not is past my comprehension. It is true
that when the national transcontinental line
was built north from Quebec, and out through
the wilds of northern Quebec and northern
Ontario, they thought that there was nothing
but muskeg. Then they found the area contained the finest natural resources, and today
it is the real treasure house of Canada. From
Quebec city to fifty miles west of the town [...]
This individual participated in:
