NEWFOUNDLAND
APPROVAL OF TERMS OF UNION WITH CANADA
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No.
11, to approve the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.
Mr. John R. MacNicol (Davenport): Mr.
Speaker, during the last fifteen years I have
given a good deal of study to problems affecting Newfoundland; therefore I should
like to
add some comments to what has already been
said with regard to the measure now before
us.
I wish to congratulate all four leaders upon
the splendid addresses they delivered yesterday. I assume it is quite in order that
I
should say a special word about my own
leader (Mr. Drew), who delivered an able and
instructive address.
I first became interested in the question of
Newfoundland through a study of the history
of the Newfoundland regiment which served
in the war of 1812. This study took me on
a trip of over a thousand miles, because the
Newfoundland regiment travelled 2,500 miles
before seeing action in this country in the first
year of that war. The Royal Newfoundland
regiment was not large. The part of it which
served in Canada at that time consisted of
not more than fifty men, but they were fifty
heroes. Having been born in Ontario I am
proud of the part that regiment took in keeping Canada within the empire. I do not
know
what we would have done had they not come
here at that time.
The Newfoundland regiment was brought
here by General Brock. Before the war broke
out, General Brock had been at Quebec city.
Having come from the island of Guernsey, one
of the Channel islands, the former home of
many Newfoundlanders, General Brock
desired a portion of the Newfoundland regiment to go with him to York, now called
Toronto. This they did. Brock took them with
him to what is now called Amherstburg, and
they were not long there before they were in
the thick of the fighting.
When Brock arrived before Detroit—or, as
the English called the area at that time, the
straits—he had with him about fifty of the
Royal Newfoundland regiment. The euphonious French word, Detroit, has been applied
to this place ever since. These fifty men
participated in that great victory, the capture
of Detroit, which helped Brock in the splendid
work he did before his death. After that battle, members of this regiment remained
in
the forces in that part of Canada, in what
was then called the "right division."
I have made an exhaustive study of this
period in our history in connection with the
work I am doing for the restoration of the
site of Moraviantown, in Kent county—Moraviantown was known in those days as Fairfield.
The Royal Newfoundland regiment
remained under Colonel Proctor in the "right
division" and took part in the engagements
on the Maumee. They fought up as far as
Fort Wayne. They also took part in the
attack by Proctor on Fort Meigs. I do not
know whether they were at Fort Stevenson,
Sandusky, but I presume they were. After
the retreat of Proctor, the members of the
Newfoundland regiment retreated with him.
The majority of the party were taken prisoner
east of the present city of Chatham when the
boat in which they were ascending the
Thames river was captured.
Later members of this regiment served in
the vicinity of Toronto, then called York, and
still later in the vicinity of Prescott in the
attack on Ogdensburg. I shall not take the
time of the house to enumerate all the points
in which they served, but history records
that on many fields a portion of the Royal
Newfoundland regiment did a major job in
Upper Canada and aided in preserving this
part of Canada for the British empire.
FEBRUARY 8, 1949
Newfoundland 327
In the pursuit of my inquiries I learned
of course about the battle of Moraviantown—
or, as it is called in American history, the
battle of the Thames—which was fought on
the 5th of October, .1813, about three miles
east of the present town of Thamesville in
Kent county. During the last ten years I
have made extensive studies in that part of
the country, because, Mr. Speaker, in 1950 we
expect to hold an international commemoration service at the site of Moraviantown.
We
hope the President of. the United States will
attend, along with the governors of the states
of Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Michigan. At the battle of Moraviantown the
governor of Michigan was present, Governor
Cass. General Meigs, the governor of Ohio,
was not on the battlefield, but was on his
way there. Many of his troops served in
that battle. Governor Shelby of Kentucky
was on the field. I assume that the present
governors of these states will attend the commemoration service. The American commanding
general at that battle was General
W. H. Harrison, who later became President
of the United States. I expect that President
Truman will attend this service next year;
also the governor of Pennsylvania, from
which state many of the soldiers came, as
well as many of the citizens of Moraviantown.
More than fifteen years ago, in the pursuit
of the studies I was making, I decided to go
to Newfoundland. While there I made an
exhaustive survey of What will soon be our
tenth province. The names of places in Newfoundland are interesting, because the people
are nearly all from the Channel islands, Ireland, or England. Not many of them are
from Scotland. Even in St. John's I could
hardly find a church of my own persuasion
to which I could go on Sunday, because there
are few Scots on the island. Quite a number
of the people there are from France, or from
the northern provinces of Spain, called the
Basque provinces.
The names are beautiful. The first port at
which one lands from Canada is Port aux
Basques—one could hardly find a more attractive name. Then there is a port called
St.
George, and as you go round the coast you
come to a place called Curling. There is
Corner Brook, in which the big paper mills
are situated; and there is Twillingate, from
which so many Newfoundlanders left to come
to Canada. As I said yesterday, perhaps a
thousand of them now live in the riding of
Davenport. I am well acquainted with many
of them and know of their splendid qualities,
their fine character, their ability and their
industry. Naturally I am pleased indeed that
their homeland is to become a province of
Canada.
I could mention other names, such as Grand
Falls, Harbour Grace, Carbonear, Bay
Roberts—I spent some time there; Brigus;
Ferryland, first settled by Lord Baltimore
before he went to what is now the city of
Baltimore in the United States. It is too bad
he did not remain in Newfoundland; perhaps it would have been better for that
country had he done so. All around the
coast of Newfoundland you find these euphonious and beautiful names.
I made a thorough survey of the resources
of the country, of which there are many. I
was greatly interested in the iron mines, having been in the iron smelting business
myself. Canada has bought from Newfoundland as many as several million tons a year
of raw high-grade iron, all of which I believe
went to the furnaces at Sydney, Nova Scotia.
I hope it will continue to go there so that
that great port in Nova Scotia may be kept
prosperous.
After my return home I read an article in
Collier's, the issue of April 12, 1941, which
argued that Newfoundland should become
part of the United States. I always found
Newfoundland to be intensely British and
intensely loyal to British institutions and
traditions. It will be perhaps the most
British province in Canada, and will be a
welcome addition to that sentiment here.
When I spoke on this matter in 1941 I quoted
this paragraph from the article in Collier's
to which I have referred:
The Yanks have come for ninety-nine years.
Maybe they would never leave. Maybe presently
they'd take the whole island over, ship the commission of government back to England,
build roads,
start industries, set up Yankee relief, restore self-
government.
That possibility will exist no longer when
the house passes this bill, as I know it will.
There are one or two statements in this
quotation of which we might take particular
notice. One is "build roads." We must do
that to help them out. I made a careful survey in the south part of the island, and
it
struck me that we would have a golden
opportunity to make the island happy by
building a road directly through from St.
John's to Port aux Basques. I do not believe
you can now motor across the island at all.
But if the road followed the railway it would
have to run away up north from St. John's to
Grand Falls and finally come to Port aux
Basques, a distance of over five hundred
miles. A road straight across from St.
John's to Port aux Basques would shorten
the distance to be traveled and would speed
up transportation between the various parts
of Newfoundland and St. John's, and from
the Avalon peninsula to Canada. The construction of such a road is one thing we
might well keep in mind.
We should welcome these people by doing
everything we can to make them happy. As
328 Newfoundland
HOUSE OF COMMONS
someone said yesterday, there may be differences of opinion, but there are differences
of
opinion about many matters of importance,
and I shall not worry about that. I like the
remarks made by my leader in that regard.
I thought he handled the subject effectively
and satisfactorily, as did the hon. member for
Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis.) We have an
opportunity to do something for these people,
to make them happy after Newfoundland
becomes part of the confederation.
In addition to the roadway I have suggested I would strongly recommend that we
have a new boat for the service between
North Sydney and Port aux Basques. The last
time I went across the strait I remember that
the boat was a small one. It was satisfactory;
I have nothing but compliments for it, but a
new boat should be constructed so that freight
cars as well could be transported. The narrow
gauge railway from Port aux Basques to
St. John's should be widened to standard
gauge. I realize that it would take some time
to do this, but it would make the people of
Newfoundland happy that they had come into
union with Canada. It would result in a
great deal of business to them and to us also.
Let us consider Newfoundland as a tourist
centre. We can say that every province in
Canada is a magnificent tourist centre, and
so it is. Newfoundland is a tourist's paradise.
It has magnificent bays all around the island.
As my leader said yesterday, when John
Cabot and his son first reached Newfoundland
they were so strongly impressed by what
they saw that they called the place Bonavista,
which means "beautiful view", and it certainly
is a beautiful view. That name could be
applied to any of the magnificent bays about
the island. Then up in the north, at the
centre of the island, as those who have been
there know, for two hours before you arrive
you see high projections or peaks which they
call the Topsails. They are named the Foresail, the Mizzen Topsail, the Main Topsail
and
the Gaff Topsail. The view which they present is a topographical wonder, well worth
anyone's trouble and expense to go to see;
and so all over the island. It is a natural
paradise.
Finally, Newfoundland has magnificent
ores, one of which I have mentioned, iron.
Iron ore from that country is the basis on
which the fine city of Sydney has been built.
I hope that every effort will be made to keep
the Sydney plants in operation, using the iron
ore which will now probably come in in
larger quantities. It came in free of duty
anyway. It is obtained at Bell island, not far
from St. John's. I have been there. It is a
very high grade ore, and a resource which
can help to build up eastern Canada. We must
do all we can to build up eastern Canada.
In the addition of seven representatives to
the membership of the House of Commons,
and six in the other place, the union of Newfoundland with Canada will greatly strengthen
the delegation from the maritime provinces.
From the maritimes we now have twenty-six
members in the House of Commons and
twenty-four in the other place. The members
and senators from Newfoundland will be a
welcome addition to the strength of the maritime delegation—and it cannot be too strong.
If the electricity program I announced last
year were carried out in its entirety, the
delegation from there would be doubled. I
am happy to say that at the conclusion of my
speech in 1941 I said that the island would be
entitled to seven members in the House of
Commons and five in the other place.
I am pleased at having had some small part
in creating favourable sentiment towards
union, both in Canada and in Newfoundland.
I have been given some credit for that in the
press in Newfoundland. I created favourable sentiment here, particularly through the
Newfoundlanders in my own riding. I feel
that I have had some small part in bringing
about this sentiment in Canada, in relation
to a project which has been mooted since
1858, as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr.
Drew) said yesterday. I take a good deal
of satisfaction in having had a small part in
the creation of the feeling which has brought
this grand climax to the whole program of
the fathers of confederation, namely, the
bringing in of Newfoundland to form the
tenth province of Canada.
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview): Mr. Speaker,
I was a member of the committee which considered the Labrador case, and I took part
in
the debate regarding that important part of
Newfoundland. As hon. members know,
Labrador was given to Newfoundland by a
decision of the privy council. It had been
under the protection of the British government, you might say; a governor had been
appointed to the territory and Labrador was
given to Newfoundland.
I wish to bring before the house the questions which were before the committee at
that
time. First of all, according to Beauchesne's
Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
The second reading of a bill is that stage when it
is proper to enter into a discussion and propose
a motion relative to the principle of the measure.
According to May, the last edition:
The second reading of a private bill corresponds
with the same stage in other bills. and in agreeing
to it the house affirms the general principle or
expediency of the measure.
The present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was minister of justice at the time this
other matter was under discussion. I hold
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 329
in my hand a copy of Everybody's magazine,
published by a great man in England, Mr.
Poke. In an article he refers to the present
Prime Minister. The article is a laudable
one, which I approve. I knew the present
Prime Minister before he was a member of
this house. I have always had a great admiration for him because of his many personal
qualities, which have endeared him to a
large number of people. In the city I come
from he opened our winter fair, and he has
been a welcome guest there.
I also wish to refer to the leader of the
opposition (Mr. Drew) because I have known
him longer than anyone else in the house has.
I knew his father: I knew our leader as a
student at the university of Toronto. I did not
like the reception the leader of the opposition
met with here last Friday night, because he
is a great Christian gentleman. He is a
distinguished lawyer, and was an athlete. He
is a kind-hearted man. I cannot speak too
highly of the services which he gave to the
glorious cause of education. I remember
when he lived on Wellesley street. I lived
around the corner from him, and he was a
member of a great fraternity, D.K.E., opposite the house where young Jack Copp, a
varsity rugby player, was killed by a burglar
a few years ago. I have always been a great
admirer of the leader of the opposition and
I am a strong supporter of his today.
Now I wish to say something about the
merits of the proposed bill. I was a member
of the house in 1941 when the hon. member
for Davenport, the great traveler and discoverer, took a trip down there in the summer
of 1941. He made some discoveries about
Labrador. The bill which was before us in
1947 had to do with the Quebec, North Shore
and Labrador railway. I was a member of
the committee which dealt with that bill.
Important matters came up in that connection.
At that time we had no control over Newfoundland. The sponsors of the bill were
proposing to deal with the natural resources
of Labrador and to build railways in contravention of the Railway Act. At that time
we
inserted a saving clause which read:
Provided that authority be obtained from Newfoundland.
That was a wise provision, because Labrador, I understand, is to have one member in
the House of Commons and one senator. The
final discussion on Labrador took place on
April 25, 1947, and I shall quote from page
2433 of Hansard of that year. In connection
with the bill many matters came up. The
sponsors of the bill were asking for hotel services and railway services. At that
time we
did not own the territory or the country. Here
is a matter which I brought up at that time:
Another point I wish to make is that we are committed to a 99-year lease on bases,
from Newfoundland to British Guiana, between Britain and the
United States. That lease was given with the consent of Canada. We have given to the
United States
leases on all the bases in the Atlantic ocean, including some on the shores of Newfoundland
and
Labrador. The bases are not all out in the ocean,
because some are on Greenland. Iceland and other
places in the north country, including Newfoundland
and Labrador, the territory under the joint defence
board and the atomic board.
This proposed agreement is ultra vires of the
dominion. At the end of the bill it is brought under
the Railway Act by saying that it is declared to be
for the general advantage of Canada.
We did not have the power in the House
of Commons at that time to sanction the
Labrador bill. But this lease for ninety-nine
years was practically a freehold. They were
urging that the Newfoundland and Labrador
bases be given to the United States, although
the lease for ninety-nine years was to protect
United States shores.
I believe the government of Canada, the
provincial governments and Newfoundland
would be well advised to seek the cooperation of Britain and the United States
in having that lease cancelled and charged
up to lend-lease. In the darkest hours of
the war, during the battle of the Atlantic,
fifty ships, many of which were not fit for
use and some of which could not be taken
to sea, were given as consideration for that
lease. I hope the Prime Minister will do
something to help Newfoundland and Labrador by taking the action which I suggest.
I support the principle of the bill now
before the house, and hope that it passes the
House of Commons unanimously. If it does,
I know that sooner or later we shall have
the Chignecto canal leading into the bay of
Fundy, because that is the back door into
the St. Lawrence waterway. I speak with
the possibility of war in mind—because this
present weaponless war, as I call it, is just
as dangerous as was the Hitler war. They
are almost two of a kind.
I believe a better day is dawning for
Newfoundland and Labrador and also for this
country. Newfoundland was a pioneer at
the time of confederation. I support my
leader on the stand he has taken, and also
the Prime Minister in what he has said. I
do urge, however, that the giving up of those
bases in Newfoundland and British Guiana
in the darkest hours of the battle of the
Atlantic should not be charged against
Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, but
that negotiations should be had with the
British government and with the United
States to have them charged up to lend-lease.
330 Newfoundland
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly
concerning only two matters which arise
from the bill now before us. It has been
said by a number of hon. members who have
already spoken that as Canadians we must
do our best to extend the warmest possible
welcome to the people of Newfoundland as
they enter confederation.
One of the consequences of confederation
will be the coming to this city and to parliament of seven members of the House of
Commons and six members of the other place.
The question I raise, and which I hope is
being considered by the government, is this:
What sort of welcome will it be for these
thirteen new members of the Canadian parliament if, upon arriving here, they find
they
have no office space? I suggest strongly that
this is a matter which should receive the
serious consideration of the government, and
I suggest further it would not be out of place
for the government to indicate to parliament
whether or not such consideration is being
given, and if so, along what lines.
This matter has been taken up on many
occasions both in the house and with officials
of the house, not only because of the coming
to parliament of representatives of Newfoundland, but because of the overcrowding
already existing, and because of the increase
in membership provided by redistribution.
Mr. Probe: Put the senators in the new
printing bureau.
Mr. Knowles: My hon. friend suggests that
the senators' offices might be moved to the
printing bureau. To say the least, space
might be found in the east block for members of the other place; they would be somewhat
closer to the Chateau Laurier. But
speaking seriously, this is a matter that does
require consideration.
I could make a case for the greater space
needed for members on the opposition side of
the house. Were I to do so, it might be
regarded as a case of self-interest. May I
add however that it seems to me to be
unfair and poor business when so many parliamentary assistants, who have certain extra
duties as a result of their appointments, find
themselves crowded in the matter of office
space.
I urge the government to give consideration to this matter, particularly because of
the way in which the problem will be aggravated when these new members come from
the province of Newfoundland. I would ask
the government to do the fair thing and to
tell us, either from the floor of the house or
informally, what ideas they have, and to
indicate whether or not progress is being
made toward implementing those ideas.
If the government wishes to have my suggestion, then I have already made it, namely,
that space be found in the east block for the
offices of a number of senators, including
those we now have and the new ones who
may be appointed within the next few
months, and that members of the House of
Commons be permitted to move into some of
the offices thus vacated. As a matter of fact,
in the light of the number of vacancies in the
other place at this time, it seems to me only
fair that this working section of parliament
should be entitled to some of the vacant
space on the other side of the building.
Mr. Graydon: The government will not need
much space after this.
Mr. Knowles: My hon. friend's remarks are
understandable. They are the observations
one would expect to be made the morning
after the night before.
Mr. Knowles: I move on to say a word
about the other matter I mentioned at the
opening of my remarks. It has been touched
upon by the hon. member for Broadview
(Mr. Church), although I must confess I was
not able to hear his remarks well enough to
get clearly the point he was making.
I too am concerned about the relationship
between the measure now before us and
chapter 80 of the statutes of 1947, an act to
incorporate Quebec, North Shore and Labrador Railway Company. I understood the hon.
member for Broadview to point out that there
had been inserted in that act a saving
clause as set out in section 7 to the effect that
all the things parliament was permitting this
company to do should be done only up to the
border of Labrador, and that from that point
on, permission would have to be secured from
Newfoundland. The reference is not to the
government of Newfoundland, to the provincial government of Newfoundland or to any
government in the future. I raise the question as to what now happens when Newfoundland
becomes a province of Canada. My
point is of particular concern in view of the
fact that section 20 of the Quebec, North
Shore and Labrador Railway Act says that—
The works and undertakings of the company are
hereby declared to be for the general advantage of
Canada.
We all recall the arguments in the house
at the time this bill was before us. Hon. members will have in mind our opposition,
lest
this act be made a means whereby private
interests would have the opportunity to
exploit a great natural resource in the northeastern section of this continent, a
resource
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 331
part of which was in Canada and part in
another country, namely, Newfoundland. I
am wondering whether the action we are taking today, without some kind of assurance
or
saving clause, does not give to the company
—provided they exercise the right within the
five-year period set out in section 19 of the
act to which I have referred—the right to go
in and exploit for private gain the iron ore
resources and other great natural wealth to
be found there.
That wealth can mean great things for
the people of Newfoundland, if properly
developed in the interests of the people. It
can mean great things for the people of Canada as a whole. I should hope that when
we
reach the committee stage on the bill and are
dealing with the section concerning natural
resources, the ministers piloting the various
sections through the committee might be in
a position to give us at least their opinions
as to what the situation would be with respect
to the act to which I have referred. As hon.
members are aware, we are vitally concerned
that the great natural resource be developed
for the good of the people of Canada as a
whole, including the people of Newfoundland,
and not for the advantage of private interests.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house
to adopt the motion?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. St. Laurent moves that I
do now leave the chair and that the house
resolve into committee of the whole on said
bill.
Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Prime
Minister intended to speak on the second
reading.
Mr. St. Laurent: I had intended to say
something about the points that have been
raised, but I did not insist because I thought
I could make those remarks as soon as the
house got into committee. Then if what I
said suggested further questions, those questions could be answered during the committee
stage. While Mr. Speaker is in the
chair I could say what I intended to say but
I do not think that that would be of any
particular advantage to hon. members.
Mr. Drew: I do not want in any way to seek
a change in the ordinary rules of the house.
The reason I did not speak on second reading was that I thought the Prime Minister
had indicated that he was going to speak.
There are certain observations that I should
like to make on the second reading, and in
View of that I should like to have your consent, Mr. Speaker, to proceed.
Mr. St. Laurent: That will be quite agreeable to us. After I had moved the second
reading, if I spoke I would close the debate.
I thought that if I were going to close the
debate it would be just as convenient to have
my intended remarks made in committee,
where there would be an opportunity to ask
further questions as might be suggested. I
think it is the desire of all hon. members of
the house that no one be deprived of his
right to speak on the second reading. If the
leader of the opposition wishes to do so I
think we could consider the motion as not
yet carried and allow him that opportunity.
Mr. Knowles: Is this a precedent that might
be quoted on future occasions?
Mr. St. Laurent: If on a future occasion the
circumstances are such as they are today, I
hope it would be the temper of the house to
make the same disposition as I suggest should
be made today.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the leader of the
opposition unanimous consent to speak at
this time?
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make
certain remarks on second reading of this
bill and explain my position in regard to the
agreement which accompanies it.
First of all, I should like to refer to the
remarks that I made yesterday when the
motion was before the house, and express
the hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. St.
Laurent) will have something to say on those
points before the house goes into committee.
I believe that they raise important considerations which should be borne in mind by
hon.
members when dealing with this extremely
important bill.
The bill itself is simple and brief. It
merely has the effect of approving the terms
of the draft agreement which was settled by
the representatives of the Canadian government and by those who had been appointed
to represent Newfoundland in those discussions. In effect, the considerations before
hon. members on second reading of this bill
are very similar to those which were before
them yesterday when they were dealing with
the motion.
The question before hon. members is really
whether or not they wish to proceed with
the arrangements which have been made to
bring Newfoundland into confederation.
I think it should be pointed out and remembered during the discussions that in a case
of this kind there is not the latitude to suggest
amendments which can be exercised ordinarily when a bill is in committee. Usually,
when a bill is in committee, any changes that
are made by way of amendment or deletion
affect the legislative' authority of this house
332 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
alone. Therefore if there are any changes
in the minds of hon. members, there is no
reason why those proposals should not be
put forward, by way of argument, by way of
amendment, or otherwise within the rules
of the house.
But in this case it must be remembered
that the government, acting on behalf of
Canada, has signed a draft agreement which
is now before us as an appendix to this bill.
The same draft agreement has been signed
by those who were called upon to represent
Newfoundland, no matter what their status
may have been. Therefore, the house must
recognize that if the terms of union are to
proceed they must of necessity proceed upon
the basis of the draft agreement which has
been presented if there is to be concurrence
within the terms of that agreement.
The principle involved is to agree or
not to agree to proceed with the terms of
union along the lines of this draft agreement,
but the support of this bill which brings such
draft agreement into effect for the purpose
of completing the confederation cannot be
regarded as approval of every term of that
draft agreement.
As I pointed out to the Prime Minister yesterday, there is real objection to the inclusion
in an agreement of this kind of a provision
which, on the one hand, permits a province
to do a particular thing and to carry out a
particular type of production and, at the same
time, places a limitation upon the sale of
that product in other parts of Canada. It
matters not that the particular provision may
have no practical effect now that the decision
of the supreme court has been given in regard
to the constitutional authority of the parliament of Canada to place restrictions
on the
manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. The
fact remains that imbedded in this agreement
is a principle which, if it were accepted as
one which could apply to other types of production within Canada, would produce very
unsatisfactory results. It could, in fact, produce the very thing that confederation
was
intended to bring to an end; that is, any form
of trade barrier between the provincial areas
within Canada.
For that reason I think this particular provision might well be made the subject of
discussion between the government of Canada
and the representatives of Newfoundland,
with the idea of deleting it so that a principle
which may have very serious consequences
in some other case might not be established
as a precedent which would be contrary to
the practice that has been so carefully followed ever since confederation. I strongly
urge the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to
take this suggestion into consideration,
because it would seem to me that there is no
reason why the dominion government on the
one hand should wish to put forward any
special provision for one province, and on
the other hand impose a restriction in relation to that particular provision.
I should like to point out also that in relation to the financial arrangements there
is a
restriction which does not apply to any other
province. As I pointed out yesterday, there
is a specific undertaking that, even though
new financial arrangements are made with
other provinces, that is not to be taken as a
ground for any claim by Newfoundland for
similar consideration by way of adjustment
of their position. Again, it seems to me, that
is imposing a particular restriction on a single
province, which is not consistent with the
uniform type of arrangements which have
applied to the other provinces of Canada.
As will be recalled, this provision is not
something which can have only a theoretical
importance. It is related to events which
actually occurred in regard to the adjustment
of financial arrangements with other provinces during the past two years. When the
then minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, announced
in this house in 1946 the terms the dominion
government would put before the provinces
as the alternative to the retention by the provinces of their major taxing powers,
no
provision was made for any changes to follow. But very shortly after those proposals,
or I should say those arbitrary terms, had
been stated in this house, negotiations took
place between the dominion government and
different provincial governments. As the result
of arguments advanced by one provincial government, some changes were made; and those
changes were passed on to the other provinces. Then certain very advantageous terms
were placed before British Columbia. I am
not suggesting that those terms were not quite
properly demanded by that province, because
British Columbia has found even the present
terms inadequate. Nevertheless there was an
immediate demand from the premier of New
Brunswick and other premiers that they
should receive equally favourable terms, and
so the bidding and the consequent adjustment
went on. It was a form of horse trading
between governments, such as had been
anticipated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier so many
years ago when be condemned this very practice in such vigorous terms, saying that
such
arrangements usually were merely the payment of a note given in return for political
treachery. I remind hon. members that those
are the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, not
mine; but this type of horse trading over the
subsidies that should be paid in return for
taxing powers has produced precisely the
result anticipated so many years ago by Sir
Wilfrid Laurier.
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 333
At this point may I interject that when I
was premier of Ontario and was putting forward the position of my province, I did
not
refuse to deal with subsidies as part of the
arrangement. I mention that because of certain remarks made during the debate on the
address prior to its adjournment last Friday
evening. I would remind hon. members that
the proposals I put forward at that time are
a matter of record, and that we in fact proposed a system of subsidies on a basis
which
would adjust itself to the requirements of the
provinces, with a national adjustment fund,
which was the key recommendation of the
Rowell-Sirois report. We stated that we
wished to enter into arrangements of that
kind under a transitional agreement which
would also provide for an examination of the
whole combined taxing system of Canada by
competent experts of all the governments and
other experts who would be brought in to
examine this extremely important subject.
We pointed out that there is only one group
of taxpayers in Canada, who pay taxes to
the dominion government, the provincial governments and the municipal councils. We
pointed out that there is no magic by means
of which money can be drawn from any
obscure source. There is no question of
generosity on the part of the dominion government involved in any of these proposals
or,
if one chooses to use the term preferred by
the minister of reconstruction (Mr. Winters),
no question of beneficence. There is nothing
of that kind. The dominion government is
merely the collecting body which draws from
the people of Canada taxes for the purpose of
undertaking certain responsibilities. If the
dominion government requires more money
for the purpose of making payments back to
the provinces, the money comes from the very
same people; it comes from the taxpayers of
Canada as a whole.
What we recommended then, and what I
still recommend, is that there be an examination of our whole taxing system so that
the
taxes required by the dominion government,
the provincial governments and the municipalities may be adequate for the responsibilities
they are called upon to assume. In
this way we may be enabled to establish in
Canada the most scientific tax system possible,
adjusted to meet the modern conditions in
which we live, so that the taxes called for
by these three levels of government may be
imposed upon the people of Canada in a way
that will place a less onerous burden upon
them and place the least possible restriction
upon personal effort and upon production
in every part of this country.
I think it is appropriate that I should recall
my recommendation in that respect, because
certain comments have obviously been made
without knowledge of what we actually
recommended. I also refer to that proposal
because it has a very direct bearing on the
terms that are included in this draft agreement between Canada and Newfoundland.
The representatives of Newfoundland have
accepted terms similar to those which were
placed before the provinces of Canada in
this house in 1946. This restriction has, of
course, been placed upon Newfoundland that
they cannot apply for an adjustment in
consequence of a subsequent adjustment with
any other province. I suggest, Mr. Speaker,
there is a particular reason for that restriction being included.
This agreement also does something that
I recommended, and recommended very
strongly as premier of Ontario at these
dominion-provincial conferences. I urged
that, in addition to the taxing systems we
proposed and the subsidy payment provided
by a transitional agreement, there be also
an immediate recognition of the recommendations in the Rowell-Sirois report that a
national adjustment fund be set up. We
urged that such a fund be set up on a basis
very much higher, however, than that recommended in the Rowell-Sirois report. This
would enable those provinces still needing
additional financial support, over and above
the ordinary subsidy payments during the
transitional period, to obtain funds from this
national adjustment fund. Perhaps I should
interject that it is a matter of record that
I also said I was prepared to agree to any
form of distribution of that fund, which was
acceptable to those provinces receiving contributions from it.
I mention that for this reason. In the
draft agreement with Newfoundland the
principle of grants in aid, recommended by
the Rowell-Sirois commission, is recognized.
Over and above the ordinary subsidy payments, there are substantial grants in aid
which are related to the recognition of special
financial requirements. I find it difficult to
believe it was not in the mind of the dominion
government that, when this new province
shall receive these special grants, there may
well be demands from those provinces that
have accepted these unsatisfactory terms.
In some cases the provinces are not satisfied
and there may well be a demand from them
that they receive similar consideration. It
would look as though the dominion government had decided that this type of horse
trading would have to stop some place.
Therefore they decided, after further negotiations, that they would say to Newfoundland,
at that point it stops; you cannot claim any
more.
If that is the purpose, and I cannot see any
other purpose in placing such a limitation
334 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
in the agreement, then right at the outset
we are accepting the inclusion in the agreement of something that the people of
Newfoundland, within a comparatively short
time, may consider unsatisfactory, having
regard to the speed with which those
adjustments took place after the terms of
the dominion-provincial agreements were
announced in the House of Commons in 1946.
I therefore come back to my comments of
yesterday on this subject. I suggest to the
Prime Minister that consideration be given
to the unsatisfactory results that might follow
the inclusion of a limitation of that kind,
and that, through negotiation with the
representatives of Newfoundland, this particular restriction be deleted.
In so far as these arrangements are concerned, it is appropriate to point out that
the
representatives of Newfoundland have concurred in these terms. Whether the authority
of those who represented Newfoundland was
adequate is, as I said yesterday, something
to be determined by the people of Newfoundland and the government of the United
Kingdom. The mere fact of concurrence,
however, does not constitute a reason for
opposing the terms under which the union
goes forward. I wish to make it clear that I
see very serious objections to the provisions
I have mentioned. I think it would be desirable that these grounds of possible objection
be removed. It could be done by consultation; and, if it is done, at least two reasons
for misunderstanding in the near future may
have been withdrawn from the terms of
union.
There is in this agreement a provision that
the subsidy payments may continue, not for
the shorter period in which they are payable
to the other provinces but, on the option of
the representatives of Newfoundland, for an
extended period of eight years. This is not
a ground for opposing the terms of. union,
although I do object in principle to such an
arrangement. It has been agreed to by
certain provinces. I think it is an unsatisfactory arrangement, but that is for them
to
decide. The whole problem, of course, can
be solved when there is a resumption of the
dominion-provincial conferences and the
dominion government and provincial governments sit down, as they should, and discuss
the whole relationship of the dominion and
provincial governments in the tax field, with
particular reference to the financial requirements of the municipalities in Canada
from
the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The very terms of this agreement once
more emphasize the need for the revival of
that conference, which only stands adjourned
by the dominion government and can be
recalled at any time by them. This action
has been requested over and over again, not
only by myself, but by other premiers of the
provinces of Canada. The terms of the agreement emphasize as well the need for a conference
which will set up a continuing, integrated, functional relationship between the
dominion government and the governments
of the provinces, so that the very type of discussions which are suggested by some
of the
terms of this agreement could, from time to
time, be dealt with by the representatives of
those governments who are working together
within this federal structure, and who can
deal with practically any problem that may
arise, without the necessity of any constitutional change, so long as they work together
in a spirit of co-operation and good will.
I should like particularly to remind the
people of Newfoundland that, in supporting
this bill which embodies these terms, it will
be my aim, as it will be the aim of those associated with me in this house, to bring
about
such a conference at which Newfoundland
and the other provinces will be present, where
the combined constitutional authority of all
these governments can be brought together
most effectively for the advantage of the
people of Newfoundland, of every other province of Canada, and generally for the welfare
of Canadians.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind the
house that if the Prime Minister speaks now
he will close the debate.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, when I asked a few
moments ago for the unanimous consent of
the house to hear the remarks of the leader
of the opposition, I did not realize what I
was letting the house in for. But I am sure
we have all found it most interesting to hear
him extol and congratulate himself on the
high statesmanship of his attitude in respect
of dominion-provincial relations.
Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point
of privilege. I sat down because the Prime
Minister indicated that he was going to speak.
I received no concession from this house
when I spoke; and I sat down on the understanding that the Prime Minister was going
to speak.
Mr. St. Laurent: On the point of privilege,
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the leader
of the opposition read the rules of this house.
When he does so, he will learn that, if the
mover of a motion speaks in the course of a
debate, he closes the debate; and that no one
can be heard in that debate after he has
spoken. If the leader of the opposition felt
that I was rising to speak, and did not object
to my doing so at that time, his failure to
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 335
object would have prevented him, in the
absence of consent of the house, from himself
being heard. That explanation having been
made, and because I felt that possibly there
might have been some misunderstanding of
the effect of the rules of this house, I asked
the house to waive the application of the
rule, even to waive the motion that had been
put for the second reading of the bill, and to
revert to a previous stage so that the leader
of the opposition might be heard, not after
I had spoken but before. He could not be
heard after I had spoken. I think that is
exactly what the position is. If the hon.
gentleman did not wish to have any courteous
waiver of the rules by the house, I am sorry
that the circumstances made it necessary for
him to have it in order to make the remarks
he has made at this stage of the discussion.
Mr. Drew: I was under the impression,
from some of the earlier proceedings, that it
was someone else who needed to read the
rules of the house.
Mr. St. Laurent: It may be. The hon.
gentleman is not the only new arrival in this
house.
Mr. Rowe: The Prime Minister himself
might read them.
Mr. St. Laurent: I do not intend to be led
into discussing at this time the whole matter
of dominion-provincial relations. The motion
before the house is for the second reading of
this bill. Other opportunities will be presented when the matter of dominion-provincial
relations can be taken up again. On this
bill I wish to deal with the pertinent points
made by the leader of the opposition. The
first one is the undesirability of there being
in the terms of union something which
appears to many to be a new principle; that
is to say, some impediment or barrier to
interprovincial trade arising out of the terms
of this clause which was inserted in the agreement with respect to oleomargarine.
I think
I am privileged to refer to the document,
since it has been tabled, and I am referring
to the document that was tabled and not to
the schedule of the bill as such. In the document tabled, term 46 provides as follows:
(1) Oleomargarine or margarine may be manufactured or sold in the province of Newfoundland
after the date of the union and the parliament of
Canada shall not prohibit or restrict such manufacture or sale except at the request
of the legislature
of the province of Newfoundland, but nothing in
this term shall affect the power of the parliament of
Canada to require compliance with standards of
quality applicable throughout Canada.
(2) Unless the parliament of Canada otherwise
provides or unless the sale and manufacture in, and
the interprovincial movement between, all provinces of Canada other than Newfoundland.
of oleomargarine and margarine, is lawful under the laws
of Canada, oleomargarine or margarine shall not be
sent, shipped, brought, or carried from the province
of Newfoundland into any other province of Canada.
Hon. gentlemen will notice with what care
this provision was drafted. It provided that
the parliament of Canada would not prohibit
or restrict such manufacture and sale in Newfoundland except at the request of the
legislature of the province of Newfoundland. By
a majority judgment the supreme court has
now decided that the parliament of Canada
cannot prohibit or restrict the manufacture
or sale of oleomargarine in any of the provinces. I must confess that one of the reasons
given in the majority judgment came to me
rather as a surprise. I had assumed that this
provision in the Dairy Industry Act was one
which related to the subject of agriculture.
As hon. members know, parliament and the
legislatures of the provinces have concurrent
jurisdiction in respect of matters dealing with
agriculture. But the supreme court held that
this was not a matter related to agriculture,
but rather something which was local and
private within the province. Consequently
it held that the parliament of Canada had no
jurisdiction in regard to it. The clause as
drafted envisages that the parliament of
Canada would not so "prohibit or restrict"
except at the request of the legislature of
Newfoundland. If the parliament of Canada
has no jurisdiction, in that the matter does
not come within the clause relating to agriculture in the British North America Act,
it
cannot do anything at all about it. My view
was that if it had jurisdiction, it was because
the subject matter related to agriculture,
over which both parliament and the legislature would have jurisdiction. As far as
I
was concerned, I felt that it might be proper,
in a matter in which both had jurisdiction,
to agree, since oleomargarine had been available in Newfoundland for a long time,
that
the parliament of Canada would not exercise
its jurisdiction unless the legislature of the
province requested it to do so.
The term provided in addition that, if this
was something over which parliament had
jurisdiction, the oleomargarine manufactured
and offered for sale in Newfoundland would
not be exported into any other of. the Canadian provinces, unless the parliament of
Canada, having jurisdiction, made it legal for
oleomargarine to be manufactured and sold
in those provinces. That is the thing that is
regarded as setting up a barrier to trade,
involving a new principle.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it does not involve a
new principle. There have been for many
years in the dominion and in the provinces a
barrier to the transportation, or to the forwarding from one province to another,
of any
form of intoxicants. The provinces have
336 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
asserted their control over the sale and distribution of intoxicants within their
respective
areas; and under these provincial laws it is
an offence, which is sometimes committed
unwittingly by Canadians going from one
province to another, to have in a province
any intoxicant which has not been purchased
from the liquor control board of that province. Very recently I was a bit embarrassed
by a guest at my own apartment who had an
empty bottle that had contained something
which would be regarded by most persons as
coming within the legal definition of intoxicants, and which had been purchased from
the board of Quebec.
Under the legislation administered by the
leader of the opposition, it has been for a
good many years an offence to have in
Ontario any intoxicant that has not been
purchased from the board of control which
operated under the government of which the
hon. gentleman was the premier for several
years. That was not only something done by
the provinces. So that it might be fully
effective throughout the whole dominion, in
spite of the fact that the dominion has jurisdiction in interprovincial trade, there
were
introduced into the Canada Temperance Act
by a statute of 1916, amended in 1919, the
provisions which are now sections 168 and
following of the Canada Temperance Act,
which is itself chapter 196 of the Revised
Statutes of Canada, 1927. That makes it
an offence punishable under the terms of the
legislation of the parliament of Canada to
transport or have in one's possession any
intoxicant—and the word is defined by the
statute—contrary to the provisions of the laws
of the province where the person happens to
be. Therefore, in order to make effective this
barrier to the trade in intoxicants produced
or manufactured in one province and designed
to be sold in other parts of Canada, the
legislatures of the nine provinces of Canada
and the federal parliament agreed in setting
up this concurrent system which makes it an
offence punishable under the laws of Canada
to have anything which is not allowed under
what the legislature has seen fit to provide as
the regime in the province where it exercises
its jurisdiction.
In a general way, since 1919, the Canadian
public has regarded that portion of the legislation of the provinces and of the dominion
as good legislation. Perhaps I should say
that I have heard it is the intention of the
government of one province to recommend
to the legislature a prohibition against the
manufacture and sale of oleomargarine within
its limits. There was a report that the premier
of Prince Edward Island, in the exercise of
the jurisdiction which the majority of the
supreme court have declared to be that of
the provinces, had said that he was going to
recommend to the legislature of his province
that the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine be prohibited.
Mr. Drew: I believe he has already dealt
with it by order in council.
Mr. St. Laurent: That may be so. I was
not aware that it had come into effect, but I
did read in the newspapers that it was the
intention to do that.
This matter of where the jurisdiction lies
in the sale of commodities that might compete with the produce of the dairy industry
may not yet be finally settled. The Canadian
Federation of Agriculture is still considering
the advisability of applying to the privy
council for leave to appeal, and has quite
recently asked the Canadian government
whether it would not itself assert an appeal.
It has been informed that that was highly
improper in view of the attitude taken by
the government in recommending to this
house that there be in future litigation no
further appeals to the privy council. Whether
or not there will be an appeal has not yet
become certain.
When these terms of union were drafted
and signed there had been no decision from
the supreme court. If hon. members will
reread them they 'will see that they were
carefully prepared, to be applicable to any
situation that might arise. If the jurisdiction
had remained with the federal parliament, or
if an appeal to the privy council results in
that tribunal saying that it does rest in the
parliament of Canada, then term 46 will make
it certain that the people of Newfoundland
will not be deprived of the right to continue
to use a substitute for the butter they do not
produce in their island, and which they have
been using for so many years. If on the
other hand it is decided by the courts that
the parliament of Canada has no right to do
anything about it, the fact that the government of Canada agreed with the delegation
of Newfoundland that it would not do anything about it is not going to cause any harm
to anybody.
It may be suggested that there is a difference between intoxicants and oleomargarine.
There is. Intoxicants are obviously
connected with peace, order and good government in a local way. Therefore it is obvious
that those who are responsible for peace,
order and good government in a local and
private way within a province can be concerned about exercising proper control over
the sale and distribution of intoxicants.
Are the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine something about which provincial
governments or provincial legislatures are
concerned? The majority of the supreme
court have said that it is. They have said
that it is something of local and private con
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 337
cern within the province. Well, if it is, the
provincial legislatures have a right to do
about it that which may appear to them to be
in the public interest. They are the ones to
judge, if they have the jurisdiction, what they
should do about it.
The exercise of jurisdiction is never in any
instance controlled by the opinion one may
hold about the wisdom of the way in which
the person having the jurisdiction has exercised it. The privy council has repeatedly
said that it will not concern itself with the
wisdom or otherwise of the exercise of jurisdiction, if there is jurisdiction. If
there is
jurisdiction, the constitution says where that
jurisdiction lies; and it is those who have the
jurisdiction who are supposed to have the
wisdom to exercise it properly.
With respect to the second point, that there
is in the terms of agreement with the province of Newfoundland something which is
different from the terms to be found in the
tax agreements with the other provinces, I
believe the leader of the opposition (Mr.
Drew) has omitted to look at the last part of
the clause in question. That clause provides
that the government of the province of Newfoundland shall have the right to enter
into
a contract with the dominion government
along the same lines as the contracts made
with the other provinces; but that it shall
also have the option of making that contract,
not only for the period for which it is made
with the other provinces, but for five years
longer than the period made with the other
provinces.
Mr. St. Laurent: That is term 27 (2). Perhaps I should read it, so that my point may
be not only asserted but proved on the record.
It states:
27. (1) The government of Canada will forthwith
after the date of union make an offer to the government of the province of Newfoundland
to enter into
a tax agreement for the rental to the government of
Canada of the income, corporation income, and corporation tax fields, and the succession
duties tax
field.
(2) The offer to be made under this term will be
similar to the offers to enter into tax agreements
made to other provinces, necessary changes being
made to adapt the offer to circumstances arising out
of the union, except that the offer will provide that
the agreement may be entered into either for a
number of fiscal years expiring at the end of the
fiscal year in 1952, as in the case of other provinces,
or for a number of fiscal years expiring at the end
of the fiscal year in 1957, at the option of the
government of the province of Newfoundland, but
if the government of the province of Newfoundland
accepts the latter option the agreement will provide
that the subsequent entry into a tax agreement by
the government of Canada with any other province
will not entitle the government of the province of
Newfoundland to any alteration in the terms of its
agreement.
In other words we say to them: You may
have your choice; first, you may place your
selves in the same position as the other provinces. But if for greater security you
wish
to have at once an agreement that will go on
five years beyond the agreement with the
present provinces, you have to make it as a
firm agreement for the whole period. And
if we make a new agreement in 1952 with
the other provinces, that will not entitle you
to have yours revised. In other words, you
cannot have it both ways. You cannot have
an agreement whereby, if we make a less
favourable agreement from 1952 to 1957 with
the other provinces, you will keep the former
advantage, whilst, if we make a more favourable agreement with the other provinces,
you
will get the increased benefits. You must say
at the outset whether you will stand on the
same level as the other provinces and get in
1952 the same kind of agreement they get, or
you can at once secure for yourselves the
benefit for a further period of five years on
the present basis. But if you do that, you
take it for the period for which you are exercising your option.
I submit that is not a principle which would
prove substantially to be objectionable.
I am fully in accord with the leader of the
opposition when he states that the principle
we are now debating on second reading is as
to whether there should be made an agreement for the union of Newfoundland with
Canada on terms which will appeal to the
people of both sections as fair and reasonable. We suggest that these terms are fair
and reasonable. But accepting the principle
of the bill does not involve acceptance of the
individual terms. It involves merely the
desire of parliament to look at the document
to see whether or not it amounts to fair and
reasonable terms.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr.
Church) raised the question of the embarrassment which might result to the people
of
Canada from having Newfoundland join with
Canada in view of the fact that in 1941 there
had been given a ninety-nine year lease for
certain military bases in Newfoundland.
Those leases were made on terms agreed to
by the government of the United Kingdom
and that of the United States at a time when
the situation was a most unhappy one. The
leases are in existence. The government of
the United Kingdom, the government of Newfoundland and the government of Canada
alone can do nothing to modify those terms.
They create a condition for years in certain
areas in Newfoundland; and they must be
respected, unless it can be arranged with the
government of the United States that they
shall be varied.
There are in process at the present time
negotiations looking to variation in the leases
to bring them into accord with the joint
declaration made by the President and the
338 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
Prime Minister on February 12, 1947, about
the principles which would govern the
arrangements for military co-operation
between the two countries. Those principles
were agreed to by the two governments.
They were announced simultaneously by the
President and by the Prime Minister. I
believe they have received pretty universal
approval throughout the United States and
Canada. It is our hope that in our negotiations with the government of the United
States we shall have the actual exercise of
the rights provided for by these leases
brought into line with the principles which
have been set out in this joint declaration.
We hope that will be so because of the
attitude of the two governments of Canada
and the United States. Their practice has not
been to deal with each other at arm's length,
but rather to try to make arrangements
which would afford the most satisfactory
method and degree of co-operation between
the peoples of the two countries.
We hope it will be possible to have the
lessees, who by contract have their rights for
ninety-nine years in these leases, agree that
they should exercise their rights in the manner which the two governments of. Canada
and the United States agreed would be the
proper way to ensure co-operation between
them as set out in their joint declaration of
February 12, 1947. The hon. member for
Broadview may be assured that I hope to be
able to discuss with the President of the
United States some aspects of these leases
on the occasion of the visit I am to have the
honour of paying him on this very week end.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) feels that the entry of
Newfoundland into confederation and the
presence of six senators and seven members
of parliament in addition to the present membership of our houses of parliament is
going
to place a serious burden upon the restricted
office space available in this central block. I
think everyone who occupies any portion of
the central block will be in full agreement
with him as to the facts.
His suggestion that space should be made
in the east block for the hon. members
of the other house would seem to indicate
that he does not realize to what extent there
is already congestion in the space available
in the east block for the services located
there. I was Secretary of State for External
Affairs for well over a year before I could
get space in the east block. During that
period I had to use as my office the one that
was available for me during the session in the
centre block.
Mr. St. Laurent: The suggestion is made
that they might be put in the printing bureau,
but those who have visited the printing
bureau know that there is such congestion
there that a large part of the work which
should be done by the king's printer has to
be let out by private contract. Hon. members
are aware of the serious difficulties which
arise in providing additional buildings for
government services in this capital district.
There are urgently required in the capital
district more buildings for the housing of government services.
Up to the present time it has been felt that
it would be unfair to take any building
materials or manpower which could be used
for the provision of houses and devote them
to the construction of government buildings.
But there has been some easing in the supply
situation. Hon. members are aware that for
the last week or so there has been quite a
controversy here in Ottawa as to where the
additional buildings are going to be located.
The matter was submitted to the federal
district commission and to the planning commission. They were told that the three
services that require new accommodation
were the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
Department of Trade and Commerce and the
printing bureau. They looked over the field
and found two sites in Ottawa and one in
Hull. One site in Ottawa was opposite the
supreme court building on Wellington street
and it was decided that that should be used
for a building for the Department of Veterans
Affairs. They recommended that the other
site in Ottawa west should be devoted to
the building for the Department of Trade and
Commerce and that the printing bureau,
which requires a large site—I am told it will
have a frontage of seven hundred feet and a
depth of three hundred and fifty feet—should
be located in the city of Hull.
Mr. St. Laurent: The provision of additional accommodation for government services is necessary in
order to relieve
congestion throughout the whole service. If
accommodation is made available for the
Department of Veterans Affairs and the
Department of Trade and Commerce it will
relieve congestion in the space available for
the houses of parliament. The project I hear
discussed most frequently for the housing of
hon. gentlemen of the other place is the east
block. The west block is the one I hear
discussed as being the proper location for
additional offices for members of parliament.
I feel it is urgent that more space be provided
for hon. members. This is something which
is receiving active consideration, not only
out of concern for the comfort of others but
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 339
out of concern for the comfort of each one
of us who is affected by the congestion which
now exists. Perhaps hon. members do not
realize that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is still located in one
of
the temporary buildings where he has been
since the beginning of the war.
There is a necessity that something should
be done. It is recognized that the redistribution which we have provided for and the
augmented number of hon. members occasioned by union with Newfoundland will
increase the urgency for additional space.
I have attempted to deal with the matters
which relate to the principle of this bill. My
own is that in accepting the principle
of the bill the house does not go beyond
asserting that it is desirable that there be
union of Canada and Newfoundland on terms
advantageous to the people of both sections.
When the bill is in committee it will be the
responsibility of hon. members to look at the
terms set out in the schedule annexed to the
bill and determine whether those terms will
be of mutual advantage to the people of
Canada and to the people of Newfoundland
in their desire to be united with the people
of Canada.
Motion agreed to, on division, bill read the
second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford
City) in the chair.
On section 1—Agreement approved.
Mr. St. Laurent: As hon. members will
see, there is only one section to this bill,
which asserts that the terms set out in the
agreement are approved. I think probably
it would be more satisfactory to hon. members if the terms were first read so that
hon.
members would know what is implied in approving or refusing to approve these terms.
I would suggest that we suspend consideration of section 1 of the bill and immediately
give consideration to the terms of union.
The Chairman: Then clause 1 of the bill
stands, and the preamble to the schedule will
also stand until we have considered the sections of the schedule. Is it the wish of
the
committee that we consider the schedule under
headings? For example, the first heading is
"Union" and includes sections 1 and 2 of the
schedule.
Mr. Diefenbaker: I was just wondering
whether it would not be better to take the
preamble first, for the reason that certain
questions arise in connection with the
preamble which might be cleared away at
this time.
The Chairman: Standing order 76 reads:
In proceeding in committee of the whole house
upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then
every clause considered by the committee in its
proper order; the preamble and title to be last
considered.
Mr. St. Laurent: I think the suggestion of
the hon. member for Lake Centre is that we
consider the preamble of the schedule, not
the preamble of the bill. I may be mistaken,
but I have always taken it that standing
order 76 referred to the preamble of a bill.
Here the preamble of the schedule is part of
a document which, coming to us in the form
it does, has to be taken or rejected as it is,
because it is an agreement made with another
party which is submitted for approval. It
can be approved or disapproved; parliament
can say it will not approve this one but that
it would be perhaps disposed to approve one
that contained something else, but in that
event the bill would be defeated and this
agreement would not be approved. It seems
to me there is some value in the suggestion
of the hon. member for Lake Centre, because
I think the facts alleged in the preamble help
us to understand the terms of the agreement.
Even if it were necessary to have unanimous
consent to do so, I would suggest that such
unanimous consent might be given and that
we take up the preamble of the schedule
before attempting to deal with the individual
terms.
The Chairman: Then it is agreed that the
preamble to the schedule be considered now.
Section stands.
On the preamble (to the schedule).
Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the preamble generally deals with the discussions
that took place with members of the national
convention of Newfoundland, and also the
submissions made and the arrangements
entered into at the discussions which took
place between the governments of the United
Kingdom and Canada and the representatives
of Newfoundland. Yesterday my leader made
clear that we in this house had but one matter
to determine, and that was the question of
whether or not we favoured consummation of
the dream of confederation by the inclusion
of Newfoundland.
That, of course, is the legal and parliamentary position. But in addition to the legal
position, as I see it there is also a moral
responsibility resting upon this parliament to
remove or alleviate any causes of discontent
on the part of the very large minority who
voted in the negative during the two referendums. The essence of democracy is a
recognition of the need to preserve the rights
340 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
of minorities. Dictatorship denies that minorities have rights and, as far as minorities
are
concerned, those rights are determined by
the simple process of coercion.
On June 19 of last year I asked the right
hon. Prime Minister a number of questions in
regard to the proceedings that led up to the
question of confederation between Newfoundland and Canada. At page 5545 of Hansard
for last year the right hon. gentleman used
these words:
The British North America Act contemplated that
there might be union between Canada and Newfoundland on a joint address of the houses
of parliament of Canada and the legislature of Newfoundland. That principle could
be resorted to; but it
would require, in order to be resorted to, the
restoration of self-government in Newfoundland,
and then joint addresses under the terms of section
146 of the British North America Act. On those
joint addresses, union could be consummated by
order of His Majesty in council without legislation
in the parliament at Westminster or legislation in
the parliament of Canada. But if that method is not
resorted to, the matter is not expressly provided for
and would have to be accomplished by new legislation that could, I suppose, be adopted
only by the
parliament at Westminster if there were joint addresses from the houses of the Canadian
parliament
asking that it be done.
Then he goes on to set out in detail the
usual processes. Once more I should like to
point out that we in this parliament recognize with pride the fact that the hopes
of the
fathers of confederation are about to be consummated. The acquisition of Newfoundland
will take its place, in strategic importance,
with the acquisition by the United States of
Alaska and Louisiana. It is actually the
completion of that unity which caused Mr.
Galt, as he then was, to say at the time of
confederation:
Half a continent is ours if we have but the courage
to take up the burden.
In taking up that burden, in welcoming
those who heretofore have belonged to a
sister dominion, above everything else we
want to be sure that these new citizens who
join us will do so in a spirit of amity and
unity, thereby making their contribution to
the strength, power and destiny of this confederation. For that reason I bring up
these
questions, because as I read the British North
America Act the procedure followed here was
never contemplated. Section 146 contemplated only one procedure, much different
from that now being adopted.
With a view to ameliorating the causes of
division and bringing into this confederation
the people of Newfoundland in that spirit of
dedication to our common destiny, I ask certain questions by way of explanation. I
believe that the answers to these questions,
properly given by the Prime Minister of this
country, will go far to remove the causes of
the discontent which now exists in New
foundland, which cannot be denied and
cannot be answered by a refusal to face the
facts.
I ask, first, in view of the fact that under
the Newfoundland Act, 1933, and the commission report at that time, it was contemplated
that responsible government would be
restored, why is it that the plan of confederation as provided for under section 146
of the
British North America Act has not, in fact,
been followed in this case? Secondly, what
has the Canadian government done to remove
the reasons for the objections that have been
made by that very large minority that showed
its strength in the vote on the two references?
Thirdly, have any representations been
received in opposition to the course followed
by the Canadian government from groups of
individuals in Newfoundland claiming to
represent the seventy odd thousand who voted
for the restoration of responsible government?
If such representations have been made,
would the Prime Minister table them and also
table the replies given in reference thereto?
Fourthly, and I think it is very important, the
leader of the opposition has made clear that
our responsibility as Canadians is to vote on
this legislation and in no way to infringe
upon the sovereignty of another dominion.
Recognizing that, I should like to ask this
question. In view of the fact that Newfoundlanders will now become Canadians, and
the
desire of each of us must be to remove any possibility of disunity by reason of the
fact that
the government has not followed the scheme
set forth in the British North America Act
to cover possible union in the future, has this
government made any representations to the
British government regarding the question
whether or not it would be preferable that
responsible government be restored in Newfoundland prior to the matter of confederation
being discussed in this house?
I think an answer to those questions would
go a long way towards arousing the people of
Newfoundland to a realization that we in
Canada, in welcoming them, want them to
realize that in no action we take are we
endeavouring to control their destiny without a recognition of their rights.
Mr. Church: In passing Bill No. 11 you are
passing on to the people of Newfoundland all
the criminal law, the civil law, the law of
patents, the law of trade-marks and many
other matters. I do not wish to take any further part in the debate on the control
bill,
Bill No. 12, to amend the statute law to
implement the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.
Last night I read a statement by the
attorney general of England, Sir Hartley
Shawcross, in an address at Lincoln's Inn, in
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 341
which he complained about the costs of law.
He said that it was too complicated, the
procedure too involved for the ordinary litigant to be able to afford court costs.
It is
this type of thing we are passing on to the
people of Newfoundland under Bill 11.
Nothing is being done to rectify these conditions in Canada. Reference has been
made by Sir Hartley to the shocking state of
statute law in England. The criminal code
even in Canada has not been revised by the
House of Commons since its inception in 1905.
In a radio address reported in the Daily
Telegraph, Mr. Churchill spoke of the need
for legal reform. In the same article it was
reported that he said the same thing in a
radio address on March 2 last. Mr. Churchill
was complaining about the very same thing,
the cost of litigation. There were 25,000 new
rules, orders in council and so on, and no one
can tell about their validity until the court
of last resort has been reached. He said that
only about five of these orders in council had
been considered by the Supreme Court of
Canada.
Last night, I asked about the difference
between that kind of rule and the lucidity of
the divine laws. I am reading something
from the twelfth chapter of St. Luke in which
lawyers were reproved. I wish to quote the
following verses:
44. Woe unto you. scribes and Pharisees. hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear
not. and
the men that walk over them are not aware of them.
45. Then answered one of the lawyers, and said
unto him, Master. thus saying thou reproachest us
also.
46. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous
to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
52. Woe unto you. lawyers! for ye have taken
away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in
yourselves. and them that were entering in ye
hindered.
So, you see, we have a divine rule relating
to lawyers who are needed in the law courts.
In 1491 BC. the ten commandments were
laid down by Moses from Mount Sinai, yet
their lucidity is amazing. Everybody understands them. Now, there is a conflict between
divine law and constitutional law. Any
minister or member of the government knows
that he must follow constitutional practice.
A government which does otherwise is proceeding unconstitutionally, as a great lawyer
in England, P. St. George Kirke, said. It is
difficult for us, men of all occupations, to
decide what should be done about the criminal
law, civil law and matters of the kind.
Last night I referred to a town in England,
called Stevenage, which had been planned by
the Labour government. They tore down the
old buildings and started something else. An
appeal was taken to the law courts. A judge
of the lower courts expressed the opinion that
nothing like it had been done since the time
of Ahab, who was a king of Samaria, when
he took Naboth's vineyard. But Ahab gave
Naboth compensation for it. Of all the judges
in England, there was only one county court
judge who questioned these rules and regulations of statute law. He said that this
statute law conflicted with the eighth, ninth
and tenth commandments which are as
follows:
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness—
Thou shalt not covet—
The county court judge referred to that,
and he did something which was 'very fine
indeed. This shows the need for law reform
in this country as well.
Another matter came up which I should
like to mention, and with that I shall conclude. This matter came up in connection
with the nationalization of a very important
industry in Great Britain. A billion dollars
of paper money was issued. It is turned out
by printing presses and adds nothing to the
national wealth of the country. After depreciating a person's investment, the government
compels him to take that particular
type of money. What chance have the people
in the law courts when the judges over there
do not act?
The other matter about which I wanted to
speak was with regard to patents and inventions. The law regarding patents and
inventions mentions a seal. The law is set
out in the 15th chapter of Genesis, verses
5 to 18. God made a covenant with Abraham.
That was the authorship of that seal. What
did the inventors get? They have been interfered with; something has been written
into
the law which should not have been put in.
The patentees have been interfered with.
The patentee was to get all the rights and
privileges under the patent. Every patent
had been granted by the king and the
crown to the patentee. It is issued by the
crown under the royal seal which goes with
this patent or trade-mark, the patentee to
have and enjoy the whole profit and advantage from time to time accruing by reason
of
the said invention during the time of sixteen
years. What is being done? Inventors are
being driven out of Great Britain, and here
in Canada they are being driven to the
United States by the same factors, by the
control system, income tax and surtax up to
a large sum of money. The surtax is 2 1/2; per
cent. The result is that inventors are leaving
this country and are going to a free country,
namely the United States. The inventors are
also leaving Britain with the same object in
View. I commend the changes made in this
law. In conclusion, I can only say that these
instances I have given are violations of the
342 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
eighth, ninth and tenth commandments: thou
shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not covet. That is
what the
government is doing with regard to patents
and trade-marks under the law as it is. The
lawyers know something about that.
I do not wish to criticize the high court
judges. Far from it. I can tell hon. members,
however, that we have no real law reform
in this country. For many years past I have
been trying to get some. It is a forgotten
subject here. We should have a committee
to go over these legal bills and see that we
get some reform. With the complexity of the
law, with the maelstrom of red tape and the
cobwebs in it, I can tell hon. members that
it is a relic of other days. In England, as a
result of the summary offenders act, half the
prisons have been closed. How? The people
are given time to pay. Yet we have no law
reform in Canada of the criminal law which
we are to pass on to Newfoundland according
to this bill. In Toronto we built the Toronto
jail, the jail farm on Yonge street for men
and the jail farm for women three miles from
there at Concord. The government here,
through one of the departments, have taken
those two new jail farms. I do not know
why that was done. I can tell hon. members
that 400 people have been crowded into the
Toronto jail. It was built after 1867 for use
only for remands, and is fit for no more than
200 persons. We have been trying to get
something done, and we did get something
done by establishing these two jail farms. If
that is the kind of law reform that is to be
passed on to Newfoundland, it is another
matter. Having explained these matters, and
pointed out the urgent need for law reform in
this country, I suggest that we should have
a legal committee to go over every one of
these laws every year in order to see that we
get some real law reform.
Mr. MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I want to
say a few words along the same lines as those
spoken by the hon. member for Lake Centre
(Mr. Diefenbaker), although I am not taking
the same position. Indeed, I am taking the
opposite one. I am speaking not in criticism
of what he said but because two members
from this group spoke along the same lines
in the debate yesterday.
Mr. MacInnis: Yes, I quite understand. It
seems to me that we are going a little bit too
far when we say that the fathers of confederation could lay down the procedure by
which
the dominion of Newfoundland, some eighty
years later, could come into confederation. It
is true that a procedure was laid down in the
British North America Act, but when that
procedure was laid down it could not be foreseen that the dominion of Newfoundland
would not have a responsible government in
1949 when its entry into confederation was
being considered. That is one of the points
I wish to make. There is so much unanimity
in this house on the desirability of Newfoundland joining with Canada that I think
it would be a mistake to indulge in criticism
that can lead nowhere; because, in my
opinion, there is nothing this parliament can
or could do in the matters complained of. I
am not attempting to defend the government
in what it has done. It does not need my
defence, because .it has plenty of supporters
on its own side quite able to defend its
actions. I do not believe it was up to this
government to suggest to the government of
the United Kingdom that it should restore
responsible government to Newfoundland to
enable it to negotiate with the government of
Canada. I am not well versed in how these
things are done, but I do not believe that it
would be proper for the Dominion of Canada
to make proposals of that kind to the United
Kingdom government. There were two referendum votes taken on this question by the
people of Newfoundland. According to the
system of voting followed, both votes were
opposed to the reconstitution of responsible
government. The first vote was on three
questions: the commission form of government, responsible government and confederation.
Responsible government received
the largest vote. But it was stipulated that
it would require to have an over-all majority. The first vote then stood at 85,000
to
69,000 against responsible government. In
the next vote the situation was somewhat
similar. Confederation carried by quite a
reasonable majority. If an hon. member
came to this house with as clear a majority
as confederation received I believe he would
think that he was quite justified in speaking
for the electors of his constituency. There
is only one logical conclusion to the criticism
of how the negotiations were carried out, and
I do not think any hon. member would want
to accept that conclusion because, in the first
place, it would delay confederation and in my
opinion the results would be the same as they
are now. That conclusion is to have another
referendum taken by the people of Newfoundland with the exact terms of confederation
before them. They should be asked
whether they want confederation or not.
That is the logical conclusion to the criticism
made by the hon. member for Lake Centre
and the two hon. members from my own
party. I do not think anyone would suggest
that seriously as a solution, if a solution is
required, or if we want to insist that a greater
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 343
degree of democracy should be used in the
circumstances. I believe that the procedure
followed, namely a referendum vote of the
people of Newfoundland, was a democratic
one. There may be a difference of opinion
in Newfoundland between those who wanted
responsible government and those who wanted
confederation, but I do not believe that the
best way to smooth out those differences
of opinion, and put an end to any bad feeling
that may still exist, is to keep harping on it
in this house. Let us get ahead with the
terms of confederation as quickly as possible,
and when we bring Newfoundland into confederation with the rest of Canada I hope
that neither they nor we will ever regret it.
(Translation):
Mr. Dorion: Mr. Speaker, the bill now under
consideration will undoubtedly assume considerable importance in the annals of this
country. I therefore feel it only proper
that, upon the entry of the new province into
confederation, a small part at least of the
debate in the house be carried out in French,
so that our future fellow citizens may remember that Canada has two official languages.
The few comments I wish to make in connection with the preamble of this bill are as
follows:
Following the statements made by the hon.
member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker),
I must first agree with the view he has
expressed, and maintain that, in so far as
the entry of Newfoundland into confederation is concerned, we should have been governed
by the stipulations not of an ordinary
statute, but of that basic, fundamental law
which governed the birth of Canada, the
British North America Act. As we all know,
section 146 of the act provides for the entry
of Newfoundland into confederation. It is
probably expedient to recall it.
It shall be lawful for the queen. by and with the
advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy
council, on addresses from the houses of parliament
of Canada, and from the houses of the respective
legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and
British Columbia, to admit those colonies or provinces, or any
of them, into the union, etc.
I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that this has
already been done. Indeed, when British
Columbia joined confederation in 1871, the
process followed was that provided in the
British North America Act. The preamble
of the order of Her Majesty in council, dated
May 16, 1871, states unequivocally:
And whereas by addresses from the houses of the
parliament of Canada, and from the legislative council of British Columbia respectively,
of which add
resses copies are contained in the schedule of this
order annexed, Her Majesty was prayed, by and
with the advice of her most honourable privy council, under the one hundred and forty-sixth
section
of the hereinbefore recited act, to admit British
Columbia into the dominion of Canada, on the terms
and conditions set forth in the said addresses.
And later when Prince Edward Island
joined confederation, the British North
America Act was once more complied with.
The procedure followed was that which is
outlined in section 146. The preamble to the
order in council dated June 26, 1873, reads as
follows:
And whereas by addresses from the houses of the
parliament of Canada, and from the legislative council and house of assembly of Prince
Edward Island
respectively, of which addresses copies are contained in the schedule to this order
annexed, Her
Majesty was prayed, by and with the advice of her
most honourable privy council, under the one hundred and forty-sixth section of the
hereinbefore
recited act, to admit Prince Edward Island into the
dominion of Canada, on the terms and conditions set
forth in the said addresses.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the new bill
before the house is a further departure from
the provisions of the British North America
Act and I take the liberty of drawing the
attention of hon. members to that fact. When
one is aware of the present government's
ideas on centralization, this breach assumes a
great deal of importance. Not only do the
government deliberately overrule a section of
the British North America Act, but they disregard explicit undertakings agreed upon
since 1934 with the people of Newfoundland.
In November 1933 Newfoundland's legislative
assembly requested the suspension of its
letters patent, and the said act was ratified
by the British parliament. The act passed
by the assembly of Newfoundland included
the following proviso:
Be it agreed that as soon as the island's difficulties
have been resolved and the country is again self-
supporting, responsible government shall be restored at the people's request.
When the British parliament ratified the
act, it was decided as follows:
Whereas we are in receipt of an address from the
legislative council and the house of the said island
asking that we be graciously pleased to suspend the
said letters patent and to issue new ones providing
for the administration of the said island until it
again becomes self-supporting, on the basis of the
recommendations contained in the report of the
royal commission which was appointed by us on the
17th day of February, 1933 . . ."
A little later, in 1941 or thereabouts, Newfoundland's economic situation having improved
considerably, the island people approached the British parliament with a view
to restoring responsible government. At that
time, on December 2, 1943, Mr. Emrys-Evans,
344 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
then Secretary of State for Commonwealth
Affairs, expressed himself as follows:
The arrangements made in 1933 included a pledge
by His Majesty's government that as soon as the
island's difficulties had been overcome and the country was again self-supporting,
responsible government on request from the people of Newfoundland
would be restored. Our whole policy is governed
by this undertaking.
In 1945, in violation of this agreement—
since it actually was an agreement between
the Newfoundland legislature and the British
parliament—the commonwealth relations
office, through the government commission,
decided to call a national convention.
Members of this convention were elected
during the summer of 1946 and on February
8, 1947, the convention decided to send a
delegation to Ottawa to examine the conditions under which Newfoundland might
possibly enter confederation.
After the lengthy discussions with which
we are familiar, proposals were submitted by
Canada and there occurred at this stage a
rather important development: the proposals
made by Canada to the Newfoundland
national convention that had been called in
the summer of 1946 were implicitly rejected,
since it was decided to submit to the people
two questions only:
First, were the electors in favour of responsible government and second did they favour
a commission of government.
This means that the national convention,
having been apprized of the proposals made
by Canada, had decided to ask the people of
Newfoundland, by means of a referendum, if
they wished to return to their pre-1933 type
of administration or whether they were content to keep the system which had been in
force since that date.
What happened then?
The British government, without consulting
anybody in Newfoundland, without the approval of anyone there, or, at any rate without
the approval of any legally constituted body,
decided to put three questions to the people
of Newfoundland, in spite of what had been
formerly decided upon by the national convention. This is how the first referendum
came about.
Now, evidently, the only legally organized
body which at the time could speak on behalf
of the people of Newfoundland was this
national convention, and that is why, contrary
to the wishes and decisions of that convention, the British government resolved to
put
three questions to the people of Newfoundland in the referendum of June 1948.
I submit that this decision by the British
government was irregular, even illegal and
unjustified. In my opinion, it would be
interesting to know what interests were then
at stake, what lobbying took place about
which no report has reached us. Why did
British interests decide to put the third question to the people of Newfoundland so
that
they could answer whether or not they
favoured the entry of the island into confederation?
It would surely be interesting to know
what must have taken place at the time,
about which we have not been told anything.
And so on June 3, 1948, when the first
referendum took place, there were 22,311
votes cast for the commission government,
64,066 for confederation with Canada and
69,400 for responsible government. Here I
ask myself this question: On what grounds,
under what statute, legislation or authority
was the result of the first referendum disregarded and a second one held?
If the result of the first referendum, in
which responsible government received a
majority, had been complied with, conditions
would have become again as they were before
1933. The government of Canada could then
have dealt with the established responsible
government according to the rules set forth
in the British North America Act.
Why was the result of that vote disregarded? On what grounds? Under what authority?
We do not know. All we know is that
the second referendum took place on July 22,
1948. At that time 78,323 votes were cast for
confederation with Canada and 71,334 for
responsible government, a majority for confederation with Canada of 7,000 votes.
But it must be noted that only 78,323 votes
favoured the entry of. Newfoundland into confederation and the electoral list comprised
176,297 electors. Therefore if the first result
had not been satisfactory because there had
not been an absolute majority, the same principle could have applied to the second
referendum, and the latter might conceivably nave
been rejected, in view of the fact that the
results were far from expressing the will of
an absolute majority of the electors. It must
also be noted how the appeal was made to
the electors in favour of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation.
I have here an article written by Mr.
Camille l'Heureux in Le Droit of November
10, 1948. I wish to quote the following
paragraph:
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 345
All kinds of abuses crept into the pre-referendum
campaign. Aided and abetted by members of the
commission government, the advocates of confederation openly led an intensive campaign
of scandal,
trickery and sectarianism. The propaganda in favour
of responsible government was not only delayed in
post offices but in many cases it was destroyed. The
responsible government league goes so far as to
accuse the leaders of those who advocate confederation, of pitting Orangemen again
Roman Catholics
on the island. In this connection, the league quotes
the rallying cry given its members by the Grand
Master.
However, it happened that Canada accepted
that second vote which was taken on July 22,
1948, and after such irregularities, after that
infringement of the British North America
Act, we are now told that things must be
done quickly, that the debate must necessarily
be shortened, so that Newfoundland's entry
may be decided as soon as possible.
That is not satisfactory, especially since the
scanty details we have been able to obtain
do not permit us to size up the extent of the
burden which the entry of Newfoundland
into the confederation will mean for the Canadian ratepayers. I submit that we have
not
been given all the information which would
enable us to analyse the importance of the
action we are going to take, because if we are
to rely on what the press has brought to our
knowledge on various occasions, it would
appear that Newfoundland's entry into confederation is going to be exceedingly costly
for us.
Here, Mr. Chairman, there is a third point
I wish to make. As the cost of Newfoundland's entry into confederation will no doubt
come out of the present revenues of the Canadian government, it is clear that the
government will draw from the income tax as well as
from all other existing revenues, a considerable part of which belongs to the provinces,
and that is why we were and still are right
in claiming that the provinces should have
been consulted. The province of Quebec especially should have been consulted, because
of
the marking of boundaries between Labrador
and that province, which is a matter included
in this bill. No doubt that is why the premier
of Quebec used these words which I quote
from a statement he made on November 8,
1947:
That is a problem of the highest importance, concerning as it does all provinces in
Canada, and
especially the province of Quebec. It seems to me
altogether discourteous for the federal authorities
to take such important action without even consulting provincial authorities. particularly
those of the
province of Quebec, deeply interested in this
matter.
(Text):
Mr. McIvor: I enjoyed very much the intelligent presentation which was given to us
yesterday to show- why we should have
this union, but more important than trade,
more important than national defence is
something else which has not yet been presented to this committee. I refer to the
religious union that exists already between
Canada and Newfoundland. I can give you
a concrete example. The advisory board of
the Salvation Army, of which I am a member,
has jurisdiction over Canada, Newfoundland
and Bermuda. Perhaps this is one of the
indirect reasons why we are to have union
at this time. I say that when the Christian
church leads, all others can intelligently
follow.
Mr. St. Laurent: The hon. member for Lake
Centre asked certain questions. I have not
all the material here but in order that the
record may not appear incomplete I shall
attempt to give a provisional answer. First, I
should like to say that I appreciate the attitude which has been taken by hon. members
in respect of this proposal. Personally I share
the views expressed by the hon. member for
Vancouver East, that it is not apt to be
helpful, in eradicating the irritation that
naturally comes from losing out in any
contest by popular vote, to be constantly
referring to that fact.
Rules were set for this matter. It so happens that there was a substantial minority
that did not have its way and that would
now like to see the thing started over again.
There are some people who would like to
see a more recent test determined by a vote
started over again, but that is not the way
democracies work.
In this case there was originally an undertaking by the government of the United Kingdom—I
am not attempting to make a defence
of the government of the United Kingdom, I
am simply stating the facts which I think
afford justification—to restore responsible
government to Newfoundland on demand or
on request—I do not remember exactly what
the terms were—when the situation had
improved.
In December, 1945, the government of the
United Kingdom decided—there was no other
government in Newfoundland at that time than
the commission of government composed of
a governor appointed by the United Kingdom,
three residents of the United Kingdom, and
three residents of Newfoundland—that they
were not the ones to make the request for the
restoration of responsible government and
determined that there would be a national
346 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
convention, elected by the people of Newfoundland, to consider the form of their
future government.
That convention was elected. After it had
investigated the financial situation and so
forth its findings were made public. Then the
government of Newfoundland said: We will
ask the people themselves whether they want
responsible government, a continuation of the
commission of government, or confederation
with Canada. In view of the fact that three
questions were to be submitted, they said, if
there is not an absolute majority in favour of
any one there will have to be a second
referendum. There was a vote but there was
no absolute majority in favour of any of the
three questions, and a second referendum was
held.
On that second occasion the people of Newfoundland, instead of saying that they wanted
responsible government restored, decided
against it. In the first referendum some of
them had wanted responsible government
restored, but they were not a majority of
those who voted. In the second referendum
the majority said: No, we do not want responsible government restored; we want union
with Canada.
Twenty-five members of the convention
voted against the submission of the proposal
of the convention and I am rather surprised
at the attitude taken by the hon. member
for Charlevoix-Saguenay that there was no
justification for putting the question to the
people of Newfoundland. The national convention was merely a convention to inquire
into the situation and to make recommendations; it was not even a legislative body.
In the absence of any legislative body other
than the commission of government, which was
not representative, and a referendum having
been submitted to the people, it seems to me
that the result of that referendum was a
democratic expression of what the people of
Newfoundland wanted.
I shall deal with the other questions at
eight o'clock. I appreciate that the hon. member for Lake Centre is as desirous as
any of
us here to have union accomplished under
such terms as will leave the least possible
resentment in the minds of the new Canadians who are joining our nation.
Mr. St. Laurent: I shall endeavour to give
as full answers as possible, because I think
the hon. member feels that the more light we
can throw on the fact the greater help will be
given to dispelling resentment.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. St. Laurent: When the committee rose
at the dinner hour I was proceeding to deal
with the questions suggested by the hon.
member for Lake Centre, and I believe I said
I appreciated that he was putting these questions for the purpose of having the facts
upon
the record in the hope that it might dissolve
some of the resentment felt by those who
believe some other procedure to achieve confederation should have been followed.
If I understood the hon. member correctly
his first question was why, in view of the
terms of the Newfoundland act of 1933—
which provided that on request of the people
of Newfoundland, when their financial situation had been restored, they would get
back
responsible government—the procedure to
bring about union had not been that contemplated in section 146 of the British North
America Act. That section, as hon. members
will recall, provided that her majesty, on the
advice of her most honourable privy council,
might on the joint addresses of the houses of
the Canadian parliament and the houses of
the legislature of Newfoundland or Prince
Edward Island, admit those colonies into
union.
I think I have dealt with the first part.
We did not consider it would be proper for
us to express any views in respect to the
manner in which the government of the
United Kingdom and the government of Newfoundland should carry out the provisions
that had been made in 1933. We constantly
maintained the position that we felt the Canadian people would be glad to welcome
the
entry of Newfoundland into confederation,
but that we should not do anything to influence her decision or course of action in
the
matter. To be quite frank, I may say we
felt that this would probably be the most
helpful attitude for us to maintain in order
to bring about a desire to join Canada. We
felt that the people of Newfoundland, naturally proud of their history and the control
over their own affairs which they had up to
1933, would resent any action by the Canadian government or the Canadian people
which might be construed as expressing an
opinion as to what they should do.
The hon. member for Lake Centre will
remember that we had some exchanges in
that regard at the end of the session of 1948.
He referred to the Hansard report of Saturday, June 19, 1948. I will not take time to
read the exchanges that took place then, but
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 347
in answering questions put by the hon. member for Lake Centre I said our position
was
that we felt we should not attempt to interfere with the discharge of the responsibilities
of the government of the United Kingdom or
the government of Newfoundland, and that
we would scrupulously endeavour to avoid
doing anything which might be construed as
an attempt on our part to dictate to our good
friends of the island.
The situation which presented itself to us
was that the government of the United Kingdom had requested the election of a national
convention; that this national convention had
passed a resolution requesting the governor
of Newfoundland to inquire whether the
Canadian government would be prepared to
receive a delegation and to explore with that
delegation whether or not there were satisfactory terms which could govern the union
of Newfoundland with Canada. The reply
given was that we would welcome that delegation. The delegation came. We worked
with them for over three months, and afterward submitted what we then considered
would appear to be fair terms upon which
the union could be consummated.
We did nothing beyond that at that time.
I'he matter came before the national convention; and after discussing the terms a
majority
of the national convention voted against
including in the referendum a question as to
whether or not the people would wish to
unite with Canada. I can give this house the
assurance that we expressed no views as to
whether that question should or should not
be included in the ballot. The government
of the United Kingdom decided that, in view
of the number who had voted for its inclusion in the ballot, and in View of what we
were told, that there were petitions signed
by great numbers in Newfoundland asking
that it should be included, they would submit the question.
During the whole of that period we were
maintaining an attitude of the strictest
neutrality, because personally I think many of
us felt that by doing so we would favour the
prospects of union to a greater degree than
if we attempted to say or do anything which
could be construed on the island as showing
a desire to influence their decision in the
matter.
The question was submitted, with the result
that has been referred to already in the
course of the debate. After the first referendum a statement was made by my predecessor,
the Prime Minister at that time, that if
on the second ballot the people of Newfoundland indicated in a clear and unmistakable
way that they wished to join Canada on substantially the terms of the proposal that
had
been submitted, the Canadian government
would co-operate with their representatives
in giving final form to those terms. If I
remember correctly the hon. gentleman, or
some hon. gentleman on the other side, asked
what would be considered a clear and unmistakable decision of the people of Newfoundland.
Speaking for myself—because we had
not discussed the matter in council—I said I
thought it would be the usual democratic
process; that if there was a majority, that
majority would be apt to be considered as
the expression of the views that should prevail, but that after all it was not our
responsibility to count the ballots or decide the
sufficiency or insufficiency of the vote. If the
government of the United Kingdom and the
government of Newfoundland, after counting
the ballots, stated to us on their responsibility
that there had been a majority for union with
Canada, I said I thought it would be very
difficult for us to refuse to recognize the
validity of that statement; and they did state
to us that there had been a clear majority
expressing a desire to unite with Canada, and
that the governor was appointing a delegation
to come and discuss the final terms of union.
That delegation came. The situation was
discussed, I think, in a manner that did credit
to both the Canadian and the Newfoundland
delegations. I believe the view that prevailed
was that it was not a time to try to get this
or that particular advantage but that it was
in the interests of all, if there was to be union,
to have such terms determined as could be
accepted by the majority of the reasonably-
minded people in Canada and Newfoundland
as being fair and apt to promote the welfare
of the enlarged Canadian nation.
On the day those terms were to be signed
there arrived from St. John's a telegram
addressed to me, which in compliance with
the request made by the hon. member for
Lake Centre I shall table. It is signed by
Mr. Fred W. Marshall, chairman of the
responsible government league. Perhaps I
should read the telegram so that its contents
may be available to all hon. members in the
house. It was in the form of a night letter,
dispatched from St. John's, Newfoundland,
on December 10, and which reached us here
on the morning of December 11. It is
addressed to the Right Hon. Louis St.
Laurent, K.C., Prime Minister of Canada;
report delivery Ottawa, Ontario.
Following memorial passed unanimously at mass
meeting of citizens held tonight " this vast gathering of citizens of Newfoundland
meeting at St.
John's in the dominion of Newfoundland the 10th
day of December, 1948, places on record its strong
objection and protests most emphatically against the
manner in which Newfoundland is being forced into
confederation with Canada.
It affirms that the only manner in which terms of
confederation can be negotiated with Canada is by
a duly representative legislature of Newfoundland.
348 Newfoundland
HOUSE OF COMMONS
It consequently objects to the appointment of any
delegation of citizens to negotiate terms with
Canada.
It most strongly protests against the recognition
of the present delegation of citizens appointed by
the governor in which the people of Newfoundland
had neither choice nor voice.
It demands that instructions be given immediately
by the governor or the commission of government to
the said delegation to refrain from signing any
terms on the ground that it has no power to do so
and that, moreover, such an act of signing would
prejudice the constitutional position of Newfoundland in England.
It moves that a copy of this memorial be sent
immediately to the governor, the members of the
commission of government and the members of the
said delegation and the Prime Minister of Canada.
Fred W. Marshall, Chairman, Responsible Government League.
This document arrived on the morning of
December 11, but notwithstanding its arrival
the terms of union were signed at that ceremony to which I need not refer. The proceedings
were broadcast at the time to the
whole Canadian public.
The telegram was answered on the 14th of
December in the following form:
Fred W. Marshall, Esq.,
Chairman,
Responsible Government League,
St. John's, Newfoundland.
Dear Sir,
The Prime Minister has directed me to acknowledge the receipt of the telegram which
you sent to
him on December 10th on behalf of the Responsible
Government League, and to let you know that its
contents had been duly noted.
Yours sincerely,
R. G. Robertson,
Secretary.
I will table these documents. I should add
that the only other document of which I
know, and I have had a fairly careful search
made as well as endeavouring to keep as
fully informed as possible about the proceedings, is the receipt on October 8, 1948,
of a communication from W. L. Collins,
Secretary of the Responsible Government
League. It reads as follows:
Sir,
Herewith enclosed you will find a copy of the
resolution passed unanimously at a giant rally held
in St. John's. Newfoundland, on Friday, October 8.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
W. L. Collins.
Forwarded with this letter was a carbon
copy of something which reads as follows:
Whereas a delegation, privately selected by the
chairman of the commission of government, is at
present at Ottawa under instructions to prepare the
entry of this country into the Canadian Federation;
And whereas since the said delegation was neither
chosen nor elected by the people of Newfoundland,
it cannot, in justice, claim the right to represent
our people or to negotiate on their behalf any final
terms of confederation;
And whereas it has been ofiicially stated by the
commission of government that the people of New
foundland will not be permitted to express, by way
of plebiscite, their approval or otherwise of the final
terms on which Canada proposes to absorb this
country;
Be it therefore resolved that this mass meeting of
Newfoundlanders do most strongly condemn the
unjust and improper methods which are, and have
been, used to deprive us of our inalienable democratic rights and of our existence
as an independent
people:
And be it further resolved that. on behalf of
approximately half the electorate of Newfoundland
who share our beliefs, we do most strongly deny
to the members of the said delegation any right
whatever to act on our behalf, or in our name to
give their consent to any terms which would finally
commit Newfoundland to confederation without the
prior approval of our people being first obtained to
such terms, by way of plebiscite:
And be it still further resolved that copies of this
resolution be sent to the British, the Canadian and
the Newfoundland governments, to the members of
the Ottawa delegation and to the press.
One other document which I have not
before me at this moment was addressed, not
to the Canadian government, but to the
meeting of prime ministers in London. I will
certainly have it found. During the dinner
hour efforts were made to have it located,
but since it was after six o'clock those efforts
were not successful. It was not a document
addressed to the government of Canada; it
was addressed to those attending the meeting
of prime ministers in London.
The answer to that communication was
sent immediately after my return to Ottawa
on November 9, 1948. It reads as follows:
W. L. Collins, Esq.,
Secretary,
Responsible Government League.
Dear Sir:
On his return from London, Mr. St. Laurent asked
me to acknowledge receipt of your letter addressed
to him there under date of the 16th of October, enclosing a memorandum to the commonwealth
prime
ministers then assembled in conference in London,
and to inform you that the matter of the union of
Newfoundland with Canada was not dealt with in
the conference.
Yours very truly,
Guy Sylvestre.
Private Secretary.
With respect to these representations of the
organization which calls itself the responsible
government league in Newfoundland, I can
only repeat what I said in the house at the
end of the last session, at page 5546 of
Hansard:
The department would, of course, receive courteously and file anything that would
come from any
group in Newfoundland, but the department would
not act on anything that does not come from those
who have the constitutional responsibility for the
government of Newfoundland at the present time.
This referendum had been held and the
majority of those voting expressed the opinion
they did not want the restoration of responsible government but did want union with
Canada substantially on the terms of the
proposal. It was our feeling that had we, at
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 349
that time, done anything to rebuff or repulse
the advances being made by the people of
Newfoundland we would have seriously
offended a large number of them, and possibly offended them to the point where the
matter of union with Canada would have
been shelved again. We felt we must be
extremely careful to do nothing which would
offend the susceptibilities of. those who we
hoped, as the fathers of confederation had
hoped more than eighty years ago, would
ultimately become our fellow citizens in this
Canadian nation.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr.
Diefenbaker) has asked what the Canadian
government has done to remove the objections. For the reasons I have stated, the
Canadian government did nothing to remove
those objections, leaving it to the people of
Newfoundland to make their decision and
deal with those who favoured and those who
did not favour union with Canada.
The third question was, Have any representations in opposition been received by the
Canadian government. I have answered that
question, and as soon as the staff find it for
me I will table the further document which
was addressed to the prime ministers in conference at the London meeting.
The fourth question was, Has this government made any representations to the United
Kingdom government as to the desirability of
restoring responsible government. To that
question I must answer that we did not. We
felt that it was not our province to do so
and that, in so far as the Canadian government was concerned, it should leave entirely
to the government of the United Kingdom
and the government of Newfoundland the
taking of such steps on their side as they
might see fit. We felt that the Canadian
government would have its responsibilities to
the Canadian parliament in the attitude it
was taking for Canada in these issues, and
that it should not assume any further or
greater responsibility than that.
I hope that this statement of fact will
satisfy most people that we endeavoured to
maintain a correct attitude in the course of
these negotiations. As I have seen in newspaper articles the statement that this suggestion
of union was the result of a deep-laid
conspiracy which had arisen out of the meeting of the Quebec conference in 1943, there
is one assertion I wish to make. I do not
think I need to do more than mention the
date. Hon. members know what it was that
brought together in Quebec, in 1943, Mr.
Winston Churchill and Mr. Franklin D.
Roosevelt, and I do not need to deny that
statement. But for the record I deny that
any question whatsoever of the entry of
Newfoundland into confederation or of the
union of Newfoundland with Canada was
discussed at the Quebec conference of 1943.
At that time the leaders of those democratic
nations were endeavouring to devise ways
and means by which to bring to an end the
horrible war which was threatening the very
existence of us all. That was the matter
that was discussed at the Quebec conference
of 1943.
Moreover, I emphatically deny that there
was at any time any attempt by the Canadian
government, otherwise than by maintaining
a correct attitude and by maintaining the
attitude that the whole of the people have
maintained, to induce our Newfoundland
friends to become associated with us. We felt
then, as I still feel today, that the most effective way we could act to bring about,
as early
as possible, a consummation of this dream of
1867, was to behave as honourable, free men
in a prosperous community, acting in a correct manner in the administration of their
affairs. We felt that was the thing that would
be most apt to make an impression upon the
people of Newfoundland. That attitude was
adopted and maintained with the most
scrupulous exactitude. On the other hand,
we felt that to do anything that might be
construed as a rebuff to or a repulse of any
advances that were being made would be
offensive to that population; and we refrained
from doing anything of that kind. I hope the
people of Newfoundland and the people of
Canada will find in the end that this union,
on the terms that have been proposed, will
work out to the mutual advantage of all those
who will be citizens of greater Canada, and
that it will prove to be a step forward in the
progress of that people, which already occupies an important position in the family
of
nations.
Mr. Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie): Mr.
Speaker, before I proceed with the observations I intend to offer to the house on
this subject I should like to ask the Prime Minister
a question. I should like to know whether
the Statute of Westminster applies to Newfoundland.
Mr. St. Laurent: I should not like to be too
positive about that. We are told by the Newfoundland delegation that it did not apply
to
Newfoundland inasmuch as it provided that
it would come into force in any one of the
dominions upon adoption by the parliament
of that dominion, and the parliament or the
then legislature of Newfoundland had not
adopted it. But the terms of union provide
that, if union is consummated, it will thereafter apply to the province of Newfoundland
in the same way as it applies to the other
provinces of Canada.
350 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
(Translation):
Mr. Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie): Mr.
Chairman, the question of a union between
Canada and Newfoundland—the latter coming into confederation as a tenth province—
gives rise to a certain number of problems
which may be classified under the following
headings: constitutional, financial and economic, political, both from the national
and
international points of view, and all that
follows therefrom.
We are therefore about to commit ourselves
to a most important undertaking, one that
carries with it most serious consequences for
the future of this country. For the time
being, I will restrict my remarks to the constitutional problems.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave,
as his authority for the procedure adopted,
section 146 of the British North America Act.
He does not believe it necessary to obtain
the approval of the provinces, being of the
opinion that, in cases like this, the members
of this house represent the particular provinces from which they come.
Had the act of 1867 not provided for the
annexation of Newfoundland, I would maintain that this procedure is altogether unconstitutional
since I do not share the opinion
expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St.
Laurent) to the effect that our constitution
is merely a law that may be amended or
changed according to the fancy of a majority
of this house, without the consent of the
provinces, the contracting parties to the act.
On the contrary, it is not an act in the
ordinary sense of the word; it is, in the words
of an eminent member of the Montreal bar
and a former bâtonnier, "the outcome of an
understanding, of an agreement, of a contract.
It is a pact agreed to between the provinces;
more than that, it is an agreement between
two totally different races and creeds."
The statutes passed by the imperial parliament only served to enact this contract
into a law; they ratified it. Proof thereof is
found in sections 91, 92, 93 and 133 which are
a recognition of the agreement, of the contract
entered into, without which recognition Quebec never would have agreed to it. I will
never allow that, after having secured our
agreement to a contract, the power given by
a parliamentary majority be used to amend
this contract. That would be a denial of
justice.
This truth was recognized by the judicial
committee of the Privy Council, in the matter
of The regulation and control of Aeronautics
in Canada (1932 A.C.). Here is what Lord
Sankey had to say:
(Text):
Inasmuch as the act embodies a compromise under
which the original provinces agreed to federate. it
is important to keep in mind that the preservation
of the rights of minorities was a condition on which
such minorities entered into the confederation, and
the foundation upon which the whole structure was
subsequently erected. The process of interpretation,
as the years go on, ought not to be allowed to dim
or to whittle down the provisions of the original
contract upon which the federation was founded,
nor is it legitimate that any judicial construction
of the provisions of sections 91 and 92 should impose
a new and different contract upon the federating
bodies.
(Translation):
It will be noted that Lord Sankey insists
on the word "contract." Now, I agree that
section 146 of the British North America Act,
to which the four contracting provinces had
agreed, grants the power to proceed with the
union of Newfoundland, but it does not follow that in the exercise of that power,
the
constitution could be transgressed in other
respects. According to section 146, a very
definite method must be followed and a
majority of this house has no right to change
it without the consent of the provinces which
were parties to the act of 1867. Section 146
of the constitution reads as follows:
(Text):
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the
advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy
council, on addresses from the houses of the parliament of Canada, and from the houses
of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British
Columbia, to admit those colonies or provinces. or
any of them, into the union . . .
(Translation):
To invoke that section of the constitution, all
the conditions mentioned would have to be
fulfilled, to wit: addresses from the parliaments of Canada and Newfoundland. This
implies the existence of a legislature in Newfoundland, but such a legislature does
not
exist. The island is governed by a commission appointed by London in 1934. There
can therefore be no address from the Newfoundland legislature before it has been
restored. One of the main factors to carry
out union is missing.
The procedure followed is counter to the
constitution. We have not negotiated with
the non-existing Newfoundland legislature;
we have dealt with the creatures of the
imperial commission which had only administrative powers until a responsible government
was restored.
The contract agreed to on December 11
last was not between two parties authorized
to make such a contract; one of the parties
was unauthorized. The adoption of this
measure would be not only a breach of the
constitution but it would make us share in
the breaking of a solemn pledge of Great
Britain to Newfoundland, and in a most
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 351
arbitrary action taken by the London government commission.
Reference is made to the referendum of
July 22 last which gave a bare majority in
favour of union. Concerning this referendum,
I shall merely quote the views of Monsignor
J. M. O'Neill, Bishop of Harbour Grace, and
add a few personal remarks:
(Text):
I do not mean to insinuate that the confederate
leaders are communists. Perhaps they are not. But
I do say that they used communistic tactics to obtain
the small majority they secured in the second
referendum. By pitting the poor against the rich,
the outports against St. John's, the protestants
against the catholics, they succeeded in accomplish—
ing the communistic aim of divide and conquer.
Divide they did, perhaps for all time.
(Translation):
That gives us an inkling of the means used
to secure a majority. In addition to that,
reference was made to the trying conditions
of 1933, when the people who were on relief
were getting six cents a day. Then there was
the lure of family allowances, and old age
pensions, considerably higher in Canada than
in Newfoundland. I believe that in Newfoundland the old age pension does not exceed
$72
per person and $120 per couple, while here it
is at least $360 per person. The members of
the imperial commission participated in the
campaign in favour of the union. ' No stone
was left unturned to reverse the wish
already expressed by the Newfoundland
people in favour of responsible government.
I have said that in approving this agreement we would be sharing în the violation
of a pact between Newfoundland and Great
Britain. As a matter of fact, when, as a
result of financial difficulties and after an
inquiry by a royal commission, the Newfoundland legislature sent to London a request
for the temporary suspension of the constitution, the statutes show that it was agreed
as follows:
(Text):
The existing form of government would be suspended until such tirne as the island
may become
self-supporting again.
It would be understood that, as soon as the
island's difficulties are overcome and the country is
again self-supporting, responsible government, on
request from the people of Newfoundland, would be
restored.
(Translation):
These clauses were incorporated in "The
Newfoundland Act 1933".
Later on, in 1943, Mr. Emrys-Evans, Under-
Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs,
commenting on this act in the British House
of Commons, expressed himself as follows:
(Text):
I am quoting from page 599 of the House
of Commons debates of England:
The arrangements made in 1933 included a pledge
by His Majesty's government that as soon as the
island's difficulties had been overcome and the country was again self-supporting,
responsible govern—
ment, on request from the people of Newfoundland,
would be restored.
Our whole policy is governed by this undertaking.
(Translation):
In 1946 the government commission decreed
that a national convention, consisting of 45
members elected by the people, be appointed
to inquire into the state of the country and
recommend various methods of government
to a nation-wide people's referendum rather
than rehabilitation of the promised responsible
government.
I quote the following excerpts from the
said act:
(Text):
Acts of the honourable commission of government
of Newfoundland of 1946.
The National Convention Act states:
Whereas it has been decided that provision should
be made for enabling the people of Newfoundland
to examine the future of the island and express
their considered views as to the suitable forms of
government for the island, having regard to the financial and economic conditions
prevailing therein,
and that this provision could most appropriately be
the holding of an elected national convention of
Newfoundlanders;
And whereas it has been decided that the said
convention should have the duty and function hereinafter in this act set forth;
And whereas it is necessary to provide for the
constitution of the said convention and the election
of representatives thereto and the regulation of their
proceedings;
It shall be the duty and function of the convention to consider and discuss among
themselves as
elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland the changes that have taken
place in the financial and economic situation of the island since 1934,
and, bearing in mind the extent to which the high
revenues of recent years have been due to wartime
conditions, to examine the position of the country
and to make recommendations to His Majesty's
government in the United Kingdom as to possible
forms of future government to be put before the
people at a national referendum.
(Translation):
Having acquainted itself with the terms of
union submitted by Ottawa, the national convention, appointed in 1946, suggested to
the
British parliament two forms of government
between which the people would be asked to
choose: firstly, maintenance of the present
status and, secondly, restoration of responsible
government. It also defeated, by 29 votes
to 16, a motion recommending a third form
of government, namely, union with Canada.
Notwithstanding the decision of the people's
elected assembly, the British government ruled
to include union with Canada on the ballot
forms, even though this had been turned
down by a majority of almost 2 to 1. In the
referendum of June 3, 1948, the majority
voted for responsible government. This was
the second time, so to speak, that the people
352 Newfoundland
HOUSE OF COMMONS
and their representatives expressed themselves in favour of or against union between
Newfoundland and Canada. The government commission, however, never admitting
defeat, arranged for a second referendum
which gave a slight edge to those favouring
confederation after the struggle I have already
summarized. The governor then appointed a
delegation to negotiate union with Canada.
This delegation had no legal status to enter
into such an agreement; such a step was
autocratic and totalitarian.
May I remind the house that in a letter
dated October 29, 1947, the then prime minister expressed himself as follows:
If the people of Newfoundland stated clearly, in
a manner excluding the possibility of any doubt,
their desire that Newfoundland become a province
of Canada, on the basis of the proposed arrangements, the Canadian government, subject
to the approval of parliament, would be prepared, insofar as
it was concerned, to take whatever constitutional
steps were required to achieve this union at the
earliest possible moment.
The reply given by the national convention, by a vote of 29 to 16, on January 27,
1948, was a plain answer, more so surely
than the slight majority afforded by the
second referendum. Moreover, no doubts
could remain after the first referendum,
which favoured responsible government and
excluded entry into confederation. Yet we
have a very slight majority, secured by means
which brought condemnation by Bishop
J. M. O'Neill, dispelling any doubt in the
mind of the government.
The conclusion to be drawn therefrom can
be found in a letter published by Bishop
J. M. O'Neill:
(Text):
It became obvious to many Newfoundlanders that
the government of Canada, in collusion with the
government of the United Kingdom. had long ago
determined to annex Newfoundland regardless of
the outcome of the referendum.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, we cannot be a party to a
contract that violates an explicit agreement,
concluded between Great Britain and Newfoundland, to re-establish responsible government.
In doing so we would be party to
an injustice, to an unlawful act.
(Text):
Preamble agreed to.
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3—Application of the British
North America Acts.
Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I was not
satisfied with the Prime Minister's explana
tion regarding the application of the British
North America Act. While strictly speaking
this is a problem for the British government,
I suggest the Prime Minister should give some
indication as to how that government is going
to overcome the British North America Act
which, as I said last night, states very
definitely in section 146—
It shall be lawful for the queen, by and with the
advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy
council, on addresses from the houses of the parliament of Canada, and from the houses
of the
respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island—
and so on. Would the Prime Minister indicate
what is going to be done to make it legal for
this union to take place, in view of the terms
of the British North America Act?
Mr. St. Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know that I can add to what I have said. We
have acted here in full conformity with what
was prescribed by the terms of the British
North America Act with respect to the Canadian situation. The responsible authorities
for the government of Newfoundland are,
and have been since 1933, the government
of the United Kingdom and the commission
of government.
The hon. member wants to know how they
are going to act to overcome that. They are
going to act in accord with the expressed
wishes of the majority of people of Newfoundland who, in referendum, stated they
wished to have union with Canada and did
not wish to have restored now their responsible government. How will that become
effective? It will become effective by virtue
of a confirmatory statute of the parliament
of the United Kingdom, which is the parliament that passed the British North America
Act and which, according to the terms of the
agreement, is called upon to give legal effect
to the terms of the agreement before they
become effective.
The hon. gentleman asks why the other
procedure was not resorted to. The other
procedure was not resorted to, first, because
it could not be resorted to without restoring
responsible government, and the majority of
the people had said that they did not want
that done; and, secondly, because of the constitutional developments which have taken
place since confederation and which are
reflected in the terms of the Statute of Westminster. No longer does His Majesty exercise
the royal prerogative. in respect of Canadian
affairs on the advice of his most honourable
privy council in London; he exercises that
prerogative in respect of Canadian affairs on
the advice of his Canadian ministers. It
would have been a retrograde step to ask
that that prerogative be exercised for this
purpose by His Majesty on the advice of
ministers responsible to the electors of the
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 353
United Kingdom and not on the advice of
ministers responsible to the elected representatives of the Canadian people.
It must not be forgotten that the British
North America Act was passed in 1867,
almost eighty-two years ago, and that conditions in this country, its people, its
parliament and its government are not the same
today as they were then. I was surprised at
the attitude expressed this afternoon by the
hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. Most
of us from my province derive perhaps some
sentimental satisfaction from the developments that have taken place and that have
brought about the situation whereby the
prerogative of His Majesty is now exercised
on the advice of ministers responsible to his
Canadian subjects, but the hon. member for
Charlevoix-Saguenay seems to be one of those
who have lagged behind, and he is not willing
to keep pace with the developments that time
has brought about.
The situation is that a statute will have
to be passed by the parliament of the United
Kingdom before these terms of union become
effective. If that statute is passed it will have
the same effect as had the statute of the
parliament of the United Kingdom which
confirmed the agreement made, in a manner
not strictly in accord with the British North
America Act, for the return to the province
of Saskatchewan, to the province of Alberta
and to the province of Manitoba of their
natural resources. The procedure being followed here is the procedure that was followed
there.
It was found that the British North America
Act did not provide the proper machinery
for the return of those resources to the western provinces. In order to get them back
to the western provinces, as my hon. friend's
constituents wanted, and as the rest of the
people of Canada felt was fair, an agreement was made that they would be returned.
It was provided that that agreement would
not come into operation until it was ratified
by the parliament of Canada, by the legislature of the province, as far as that province
was concerned, and then confirmed by an act
of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
That was necessary because it was a procedure not strictly in accord with the terms
of the British North America Act.
This is the same thing. This procedure is
not strictly in accord with the terms of the
British North America Act. It is to do something which the British North America Act
contemplated, but it is being done under
conditions which have changed over the
eighty-two years. The requirements of the
British North America Act, in so far as they
can be complied with, are being complied
with, but in order to give it the effect of law
—no one can dispute that something is being
added—there must be a confirming statute
of the parliament of the United Kingdom,
the same parliament that originally passed
the British North America Act.
Mr. Nicholson: I am sure the Prime Minister is making a sound legal argument, but
I should like to draw the attention of the committee again to the fact that this is
a very
controversial question in Newfoundland. As
I mentioned last night, I spent a week there
in December. I have been in a great many
countries throughout my short lifetime and
that was the first time I have ever been in an
embarrassing position as a Canadian. I was
embarrassed on a great many occasions.
I want to make it clear that the people I
met, who were so bitter about the question,
were not necessarily opposed to becoming
part of Canada, but they felt that an injustice
was being done. They felt that it would have
been better in the long run to have taken the
additional step of granting responsible government to Newfoundland and then having
the elected representatives of the people carry
out the terms of the British North America
Act and negotiate with the elected representatives of the Canadian people.
I have here a copy of the St. John's Daily
News which contains reference to a letter to
the London Times by Sir Alan Herbert, who
is sponsoring the Newfoundland bill in the
British house. Sir Herbert says in his letter:
Canada may think it wise and proper to take in
a new province of which at least half of the population is bitterly opposed to the
arrangement. That
is her affair. But the United Kingdom's good faith
and honour are ours. Further if the Statute of
Westminster means anything we have absolutely no
right to dispose of this dominion's independence,
population and possessions by a British act of parliament as our government proposed
to do. Our only
right and duty is to say. here is your liberty again.
Do what you will with it. Many people seem to
think this affair is settled. I hope they will think
again. I have the Newfoundland (Liberation) bill
ready and shall introduce it as soon as I have
power. I hope some lover of liberty and right
dealing who is successful in the private members'
ballot will take it over.
Then the St. John's Daily News of January
13 contains a summary of the bill and the
report goes on to say:
Sir Alan said he isn't opposed to confederation of
Newfoundland with Canada but he supports the convention of the Newfoundland responsible
government league that the island's government should
be restored by the United Kingdom and allowed to
conduct its own negotiations with Canada. He said
if responsible government were restored there could
be a Newfoundland general election in May when
the candidates favouring self-government and confederation could face each other.
If the confederation party was elected the terms recently signed
with Canada by certain "unelected Newfoundlanders" would be a useful basis for discussion.
"Confederation (if there is all that hurry) could still be
accomplished before the snows fell again." If the
self-govemment party was elected then "Newfound
354 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
land is quite able to take care of herself and looks
like being able to do so for a long time to come."
I might remind the committee of the opinion expressed by Mr. Lodge, who was a member
of the commission of government which
was established in Newfoundland by the
British government in 1934. When he returned to Great Britain in 1939, he said:
After five years of commission government, Newfoundland is economically poorer than
she was
before its advent. Notwithstanding all the optimistic utterances of the secretary
of state the commission has failed to make any definite progress towards
rehabilitation.
Then in chapter 1 he said:
At the end of 1933 two governments of His
Majesty, theoretically equal in status, agreed together that one should surrender
to the other not
merely independent dominion status but the whole
of the political freedom of its people.
And later on:
It was the negation of political liberty and the
repudiation of all those principles of democracy on
which British statesmen affirm—and believe, at any
rate when they are making after-dinner speeches—
that the empire has been built up and will always
rest.
Again it mentions:
It is quite possible that, had the problem been
posed at a point of time either a year earlier or a
year later, the decision might have been quite
other...
On the other hand, before the end of 1934, Great Britain had elaborated the comforting
doctrine that,
however reprehensible debt repudiation may be
when practised by other countries, default ceases
to be really default when the defaulter is the
British government.
It seems to me that the fact of having been
in financial difficulties in those early thirties
should not have been a situation which
imposed a penalty which deprived the people
of this important part of the world of their
democratic rights for such a long period.
Now, regardless of the terms of the British
North America Act, notwithstanding that
78,000 voted in favour of union with Canada,
we cannot overlook the fact that 71,000 registered their opinion that before we could
proceed with the terms of union the commitment
given by the British government should be
fulfilled and the people should have a chance
to go to the polls and elect their own government.
I cannot press this further, because I know
that legally the Prime Minister is quite within
his rights in saying this is not primarily a
Canadian problem. But I should like to tell
the members of this committee that during
my lifetime we are going to have a great
deal of bitterness because of the method that
has been followed; not because the people of
Newfoundland cannot be happy as a part of
Canada, but because the government of
Canada has approved the treatment that has
been given to Newfoundland in depriving
those people of responsible government for
this long period and is completing negotiations without having given them a fair chance
to have their own elected representatives
carry on their negotiations for them.
Mr. Claxton: I do not want to reply at
length to the hon. member for Mackenzie,
because the points he raised have been covered already. But the hon. member speaks
about thwarting the will of the people. I
ask him whether in these circumstances it
would be better for Canada, for the union
and for the people of Newfoundland to thwart
the will of the majority, as expressed in a
plebiscite, or to thwart the will of a minority
as expressed in the same way.
Mr. Nicholson: I pointed out last night
that, at the first democratic opportunity the
people of Newfoundland were given, a proposal was made that the question of confederation
be placed on the plebiscite, and that
was rejected by 29 to 16. Then the democratically elected representatives of. Newfoundland
decided unanimously that at that
stage they would not confuse the issue by
pressing the question of confederation with
Canada; they would ask the people the two
straightforward questions: are you in favour of
continuing commission of government, or are
you in favour of responsible government? In
spite of that unanimous decision by the Newfoundland convention the British government
disregarded this expression of opinion and
the people were obliged to express themselves
on the three questions. I know that in the
first referendum there was not a clear majority. In the second referendum there was
a
small majority; but the charge is made that
a large amount of money from outside Newfoundland was used to influence opinion.
Mr. Nicholson: By those in the minority,
who I think should be given a chance to prove
their claim. Certainly there is a great deal
of bitterness in Newfoundland because of the
feeling that funds from outside that country
were used in order to obtain a majority decision in favour of confederation. Whether
we
like it or not, Canadians are going to be held
responsible for the bitterness that now exists
and will continue to exist.
Section agreed to.
On section 4—Representation in parliament.
Mr. Fleming: A number of hon. members
have expressed concern about the right of the
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 355
Newfoundlanders to representation in a
democratically elected body prior to union. I
am just as concerned about their representation after union comes about, presumably
on
March 31 next. Article 4 of the terms of
union provides that the province of Newfoundland shall be entitled to be represented
in the
Senate by six members and in the House of
Commons by seven members. Then article 6
(2) provides:
For the first election of members to serve in the
House of Commons, if held otherwise than as part
of a general election, the governor general in council may cause writs to be issued
and may fix the day
upon which the polls shall be held, and, subject to
the foregoing, the laws of Canada relating to by-
elections shall apply to an election held pursuant
to any writ issued under this term.
I take it that once union becomes a fact
there will be no delay in the appointment of
the six senators. Patents can be issued, and
they can take their places in the Senate very
quickly. But I am concerned about the time
within which Newfoundland will obtain
representation in the House of Commons,
through the election to this chamber of seven
representatives. In the terms of union there
is no time limit within which this election is
to take place. I mention that fact because
there is an interesting comparison in article
16, Where you find a time limit imposed by
the terms of union upon the election of a
legislature for the province. That article
reads:
The legislature of the province of Newfoundland
shall be called together not later than four months
after the date of union.
There is no similar time limit with respect
to the election of the seven members of the
House of Commons. Once union becomes a
fact, presumably this parliament will proceed
at once to enact legislation which will be as
binding upon Newfoundland as upon any
other part of Canada. In particular, taxation
will be imposed upon Newfoundland just as
upon any other part of Canada; and as this
parliament proceeds to impose such taxation
while there are no members from the province of Newfoundland holding seats in this
house, we shall be in the position that parliament will levy taxation without representation,
something I hope every one of us will
view with the greatest apprehension.
I do not know whether we may expect a
general election this spring. That possibility
is at least contemplated in article 6(2). But
unless we are to have some assurance that
there will be a general election this spring
I think the house is not only entitled to but
should require an assurance from the government that, immediately union becomes effective,
writs will be issued for the holding of
elections in these seven constituencies in the
province of Newfoundland, so that province
may have representation in this house just as
quickly as the law will permit.
Mr. Jaenicke: The question I should like
to raise is somewhat different. Not long ago
we amended the British North America Act,
and the representation in parliament was
fixed at 255. This amendment was brought
about by an address to His Majesty. As I
read this section, the number of members of
parliament is now to be increased by seven.
Therefore this will be contrary to the provisions of the British North America Act.
Is it
the intention of the government to present
another address to His Majesty to increase
the representation, or will the British legislation provide for that increase? The
same
thing also would apply to the number of
senators.
Mr. St. Laurent: The British North America
Act provides that, in the event of Newfoundland becoming a province of Canada, it
would
be entitled to six senators. In 1867 the act
provided for four senators, but by virtue of an
amendment which was made, I think in 1915,
it was provided that the number would be
six instead of four. This provision has existed
in the British North America Act for over
thirty years.
With respect to representation in the House
of Commons, if and when the terms of union
are ratified here and approved by the parliament of the United Kingdom, provision
will
automatically be made for seven members
additional to the representation in the house.
In the omnibus bill which was read for the
first time yesterday, hon. members will find
provision is made for the required amendments in the Representation Act to refer to
Newfoundland and to refer in the schedule
to the electoral divisions of Newfoundland.
In answer to the question of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I may say
that this parliament has decided what provisions will apply to elections required
to provide representation for all parts of Canada.
As soon as the existence of a vacancy is
brought to his notice, the Speaker is required
to notify the chief electoral officer. It is a
statutory provision of the Dominion Elections
Act that writs for the filling of that vacancy
must be issued within six months.
Mr. Jaenicke: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister whether the procedure he outlined would not be a departure from the
established precedent concerning the manner
in which the British» North America Act is
amended? In my opinion it can only be done
by an address to His Majesty, and the parliament of the United Kingdom would have
to
pass a special act in order to amend the
British North America Act, or to change the
representation in the House of Commons.
356 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. St. Laurent: I submit not, Mr. Chairman—any more than it was necessary to
amend the British North America Act for the
purpose of giving legal effect to the return
of the natural resources to the western provinces. It was not done in the form provided
by the British North America Act, but it was
confirmed by the parliament that passed the
British North America Act and made effective
notwithstanding anything to the contrary. In
the
Votes and Proceedings tomorrow the hon.
member will probably find the form of address which it is proposed to ask the houses
of parliament to adopt. I think he will find
the matter is properly taken care of in that
form of address.
Mr. Fleming: I appreciate the point the
Prime Minister has raised in his 'answer, but
I am also not unmindful of the fact we wait
very long sometimes for the holding of by-
elections. I recall very well that two years
ago, owing to inclement weather, we were
told, the by-election in the riding of Halifax
was delayed for seven or eight months. In
view of the circumstances under which these
vacancies will exist, presumably on the first
day of April, would it not be very simple
for the Prime Minister to assure the house
that steps will be taken immediately to see
that the writs are issued and everything possible is done to expedite the filling
of the
vacancies in the Newfoundland seats in this
house.
Mr. St. Laurent: The only assurance I can
give the hon. member is that we will attempt
to discharge our responsibilities in that
regard in such a manner as will satisfy both
the house and the Canadian public.
Mr. Case: I should like to make this observation. It has been some time since the
dominion of. Newfoundland has had an election. Clause 4 provides for the election
of
seven members. I think it can be reasonably
assumed that the people, given that opportunity of expressing themselves, may or may
not elect all of one party on certain conditions or matters of policy.
I notice provision is made for the appointment of six members to the Senate. I do
not
know what practice was followed by the
fathers of confederation when the upper
chamber was created. Appointments were
made from Ontario, from Quebec and from
the other provinces which entered into the
union. I may now be trying to pry into an
internal secret, but it would be interesting if
the government would disclose how generous
they might be in seeing to it that, not only
the government, but His Majesty's loyal
opposition would be represented in the
Senate. I can understand how these appointments are made at a later stage; but when
a
province is coming in and there are these
appointments to be made, it would seem
reasonable to think that some recognition
should be given to the minority who have
never had an opportunity of electing any part
of the federal government of the Dominion
of Canada. If I am not presuming too much,
and the Prime Minister would care to make
an observation, I am sure I would appreciate
it very much.
Mr. St. Laurent: All I can say is that we
are endeavouring to obtain the best possible
information concerning what would be apt
to make the people of Newfoundland feel
they had chosen wisely in joining confederation. So far, the only specific recommendation
we have had is that, because of the
general mentality of the people of Newfoundland, it would be wise if it were possible
to have two of the six senators chosen
from the Anglican denomination which
represents about a third of the population.
Mr. St. Laurent: Two chosen from members
of the Anglican denomination; two chosen
from the Roman Catholic denomination and
two chosen from the United church or other
denominations which make up the remainder
of the population.
I inquired how soon after the entry of
Prince Edward Island, British Columbia,
Manitoba and the setting-up of Alberta and
Saskatchewan appointments had been made
to the Senate. To my surprise I was informed
it was about five months. I am not sure
whether there was one earlier than that, but
I believe the earliest were made around the
five-month period, and in some cases it was
much longer than five months. I was surprised to find that so long a time had been
found necessary to deal with these vacancies.
This point was discussed with those from
whom we were seeking to be enlightened
about the situation in Newfoundland. We
were told it would be unwise to proceed
otherwise than by threes, if we could not
make six appointments. If we made the six
appointments, it would be all right provided
they were distributed according to religious
denominations, as I have described. But if
we did not do that we should make at least
three appointments at a time, because it
would be unsatisfactory if any one of these
three groups was preferred to the other two.
We were told we should be careful to avoid
offending the susceptibilities of these three
separate religious groups in the island.
Mr. Stephenson: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister one question. He has mentioned that two members of various religious
denominations might be appointed, but is it
not possible for them to be all of the Liberal
faith?
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 357
Mr. St. Laurent: I am told it has been so
long since elections were held in Newfoundland that most of the people are unable
to
indicate what their political faith is. On the
other hand, I have received representations
which were along the lines of the statement
made by the Minister of Reconstruction and
Supply (Mr. Winters) about the people of
Canada generally, that they are Liberals and
it behooves us to go out and see that they vote
that way. Â
Mr. Knowles: All public men over seventy
will turn out to be Liberals.
Mr. Graydon: Perhaps the Prime Minister
might want to ask the minister of reconstruction if he would care to revise those
figures he gave the house the other day. I
would ask him this question. Does the government anticipate arranging the election
so
that there will be representation from Newfoundland in this particular session, provided
that this session goes its normal
length?
Mr. St. Laurent: I hope it will not be possible to have representation during this
session, because that would mean that the
session would have to go on until late in the
summer. The matter cannot be dealt with
until after March 31, and it then requires two
months at the very least in order to arrange
an election. That would account for April
and May. I would hope that by the time
April and May were over we would be
nearing the close of this session.
As to the other question, that matter has
also been under consideration and discussion.
We were told that it would be unfortunate
if gentlemen were elected to this parliament
and then a general dissolution came about as
a result of which they were not able to take
their seats but were forced to go back for
re-election, or in other words to be elected
twice before they really became members of
parliament. We would have to wait and see
how events developed in order to determine
whether or not the holding of a by-election or
by-elections would provide those who were
elected with an opportunity of being introduced to the Speaker and taking their seats
in the house.
Mr. Knowles: Purely for the information
of the people of Newfoundland and of course
not because we here are interested, the Prime
Minister might solve this whole problem by
telling us the date of the election.
Mr. St. Laurent: If the Prime Minister
knew the date of the election, he would be
glad to confide it to the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre.
Mr. Fulton: There is one consideration
which I feel should be borne in mind and
given careful thought in making appointments from Newfoundland to the other house.
A number of hon. members have observed—
with some degree of deprecation, I take it
—that there is in Newfoundland a substantial
body of opinion which is opposed, we will
say, not to the idea but to the method of
confederation. I feel that that fact should
be carefully borne in mind when appointments are being made to the Senate. That
body of opinion, which we understand is
substantiel, is entitled to representation in
the six appointments to be made to the other
chamber. 1 think we can all take it as a fact
that the purpose of the other house is, among
other things, to provide representation for all
groups of opinion, particularly minority
groups, in the Canadian parliament. I would
strongly urge that this matter be taken into
consideration. Perhaps the Prime Minister
would be willing to give us some assurance
that that fact would be borne in mind when
making those appointments.
Mr. St. Laurent: The only assurance I would
care to give the hon. member is that we
shall endeavour to take into consideration, in
making those appointments, all factors that
will tend to bring about a state of satisfaction
among the people of Newfoundland.
Mr. Drew: That is not one of the things
that are to be referred to the royal commission
to find out what will enrich the life of the
country, is it?
Mr. St. Laurent: I think there are many
things which would enrich the life of the
country merely by being omitted from discussion in this house.
Mr. MacInnis: Some of this debate on
appointments to the Senate has been in a
jocular vein and perhaps some of it has been
serious. But if it has done nothing else, it
has pointed out the farcical way in which
appointments to our Senate are made. Perhaps the debate also offers a good opportunity
for this house to consider whether we should
not change the way in which such appointments are made? I have been reading
editorials in the press from one end of
Canada to the other, and what is said about
the other place is not particularly complimentary. I was reading recently one of
the few books on politics written by a Canadian—"Democratic Government and Politics",
by Professor J. A. Correy—and what he says
about the Canadian Senate is not particularly
complimentary either. After many years as
a member of parliament, I find myself in
358 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
general agreement with him. If we are to
have a second house, it should be such a
house as to warrant the respect of the Canadian people, and be of some use in the
government of Canada. Otherwise we should abolish
it.
Mr. Rowe: It is of plenty of use to the
government; but that is all the use it is.
Mr. MacNicol: Is a question about appointments to the Senate in order?
The Chairman: I do not think that discussion generally on appointments to the Senate
is in order. When the house is in committee
of the whole, discussion must be strictly
relevant to the clause under consideration.
Mr. Hazen: I should like to support the
suggestion made by the hon. member for
Kamloops. The Prime Minister has just told
us, perhaps jocularly, that the people of Newfoundland do not know just what their
political opinions are now, because they have not
had an election for so long a time. I would
point out to him that at the time of confederation there was a great upheaval in political
opinion, and some men who took an active
interest in public affairs changed their ideas.
Some went one way and some went the other.
Some were in favour of confederation and
some were against it. I believe it is true that,
when the senators were appointed after confederation, they were chosen both from those
who opposed confederation and from those
who favoured it. The government of that
day took care to see that the Senate was
represented by both those who favoured confederation and those who opposed it. In
Newfoundland today there are people who
oppose this union and people who favour it.
I think that the example followed at the
time of confederation could well be followed
today, and that it would have good results
in the end.
Mr. MacNicol: I was going to say, Mr.
Chairman, that if the present government
remains in power—
Mr. MacNicol: Wait a minute. I know
what I am going to say. If it remains in
power for another five years, there may be
only one party in the other place.
Mr. Rowe:
Five years? You mean five months.
Mr. MacNicol: I am taking an arbitrary
position. If the government remains in power
for another five years, and appointments are
continued on the present basis, all from their
own party, it will mean that there may be
only one party in the other place. The hon.
member for Saint John-Albert brought up the
matter I had in mind. Right after confederation a bill was introduced. I forget the
name
of the sponsor, but I have a copy of the
original bill at home. There was a suggestion that the government of each province
should appoint one half the senators from that
province. The Prime Minister nods his head.
He is familiar with that suggestion. The
government in each province would name
one half. of the senators and the federal government would name the other half. In
that
way the government would avoid what is
taking place now. I have forgotten how
many Liberal senators and how many Conservative senators there are in the other place.
They are so far apart in numbers that the
other place has become only a government
rubber stamp, with no possibility of the
opposition affecting any controversial legislation.
Since the government will name the senators from Newfoundland, I suggest to the
Prime Minister that one half be named from
supporters of the official opposition and one
half from government supporters.
Mr. Brooks: Everybody seems to be giving advice to the government as to whom they
should appoint to the Senate. I noticed that
three religious denominations were mentioned. I thought that I should mention the
military forces of Newfoundland. Yesterday
we heard of the splendid record of the navy,
the army and the air force of Newfoundland.
I remember that after the first world war
vacancies in the Senate were filled from the
different armed forces. If that practice was
good in those days it is good now. I suggest
to the Prime Minister that in making these
appointments he consider making some of
them from the different armed forces. The
armed forces are entitled to this consideration
and Newfoundland would be a good place to
start. It could then be followed out in filling
the large number of vacancies that we have
in Canada.
Mr. St. Laurent: I thank hon. members for
the advice that is being tendered tonight. I
would not have risen even to express my
thanks were it not that I find it necessary to
differ from the opinion expressed by the hon.
member for Davenport. It would be a mistake
to have in the other place gentlemen feeling
that they had a responsibility to a government of a Canadian province. National unity
in Canada demands that all those who form
part of the Canadian parliament feel that
their responsibility is to the Canadian people
as a whole, and that they are not the representatives of any provincial government
or
any municipality or other local authority.
On that point I feel that I have to differ from
the hon. gentleman. But I do recognize that
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 359
it is abnormal that there should be, in the
event forecast by the hon. member, a Senate
composed exclusively of members of one
party. That is something which is giving
concern not only to hon. members on the
other side of the house but to others. I can
assure hon. members that we have within
our own party serious misgivings about the
situation that is apt to occur because of the
way in which the Canadian public favours
those who are elected to this house.
Mr. Fulton: Your misgivings will be removed at the next general election.
Mr. MacNicol: Can the minister give the
name of the sponsor to whom I referred?
Mr. Hansell: The Prime Minister has
thanked us for some little advice that he may
have received from members of the opposition. I should like to put my little finger
in
the pie and give him some further advice. I
appreciate what he has said with respect to
the overbalancing of one side of the other
place, but there is a way in which it can be
overcome. I know that I am not voicing
anything new, but from my experience here
a feeling has grown upon me that we are in
need of some parliamentary and electoral
reform. No country remains static. We make
progress. We change our ideas and we
change the machinery which is used to put
over those ideas.
I contend, Mr. Chairman, that the government and this entire house should give some
consideration to a change in our parliamentary and electoral machinery and have
the gentlemen who sit in the other place
elected by common consent of the people of
Canada. Personally I see no particular
reason why in the other place there should be
sitting two apparently separate bodies, one
the counterpart of the government side of
the house and the other the counterpart of
the opposition side. Why cannot that body be
a true example of a democratic institution?
Let each member act independently and
oppose or favour a measure as his experience
guides him.
I know it is difficult to put this election idea
over to any government which is in power.
It is extremely difficult to do that because
naturally they like to have the privilege of
appointing various distinguished gentlemen
to that other place. I am confident every one
of us is aware of the fact that in Canada
there is a large body of opinion which belittles our parliamentary institutions. I
do
not know that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was right when he made the
remark which caused so much discussion the
other day, but I just wonder how much of
that kind of thinking is retained in the public
mind. The effectiveness or the ineffectiveness
of our parliamentary institutions is the subject of some concern to us and to the
people
of Canada. We do know that in Canada
many people hold the view that the gentlemen who sit in the other place sit there
as
the result of having been good party supporters in the past, and what they have
received is just a juicy political plum.
Mr. Hansell: A lot of people think that.
I am not prepared to say that it is not so.
Mr. Hansell: It is a good plum, whether
they deserve it or not. I believe the time has
come when members of that other place
should be elected by the people of Canada.
Mr. Fraser: The Prime Minister and the
hon. member for Macleod have mentioned the
fact that gentlemen are called to the other
place. I was wondering whether the Prime
Minister was going to select some ladies for
the other place. There are two there now.
The women of Canada constitute over 50 per
cent of the voting strength of the country.
They should also be appointed to the other
place.
Mr. Rowe: Many years ago the policy of
the party opposite was to reform the Senate—
I believe that was some thirty years ago. We
were to have Senate reform.
Mr. Rowe: The Minister of Justice has said
that we have it now. It is reformed because
nothing has been appointed to it for a number
of years except reformers. However, the predecessor of the Prime Minister stated on
one
occasion, when asking about reforming the
Senate, that no one was appointed to the
Senate by his government except those who
were committed to submit to any reforms the
present party might design. Therefore I
should like to ask the Prime Minister whether
in the appointment of these new senators
from Newfoundland he would inflict that
obligation upon them which, I understand,
has been inflicted upon every senator
appointed by his government.
Mr. St. Laurent: I know of no infliction
imposed upon any of the members in the
other place, nor have I found in their reaction
to notification of appointment that they felt
that anything was being inflicted upon them.
360 Newfoundland
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Knowles: May I say a further word on
this matter, arising out of the section with
which we are now dealing. I should like to
say first of all that I do not see why our Tory
friends to the right are so concerned about
the lack of nominal Tories in the Senate. Most
of the Liberals who go over there soon become
Tories, anyway.
Mr. Knowles: They are not looking for
places in the Senate, though.
Mr. Fraser: I would hate to see one offered
to you.
Mr. Rowe: There will be many over there
looking for them now.
Mr. Knowles: The very fact that we are
dealing with this subject in the jocular manner which has characterized our discussions
in the last half hour or so—
Mr. Knowles: —suggests the sense of frustration which we feel about this branch of
parliamentary government, namely the other
place. I think the hon. member for Macleod
was hitting the nail on the head when he
referred to some disillusionment on the part
of people with respect to parliamentary institutions; and that part of that stems
from the
feeling that we are maintaining an institution
which does not fill a proper and necessary
place. Â
My question, either of the Prime Minister,
or of the Minister of National Defence, both
of whom were involved in these negotiations,
is this: Was there any discussion with the
representatives from Newfoundland about
possible changes in or reforms of the Senate?
Mr. Knowles: Then I take it that the
present government is not concerned with
reforming the Senate?
Mr. St. Laurent: Oh, my hon. friend can
take what he likes from it, but that does not
flow from anything I said. I said, on the
contrary, that there were in our party many
members who were concerned about a situation which was apt to arise under conditions
forecast by the hon. member for Davenport.
Mr. Graydon: Not forecast, no; it was a
hypothetical question.
Mr. Fleming: At the risk of changing the
subject, I should like to draw the attention
of the committee to another provision in the
group of articles with which the committee
is now dealing. Article 6 (3) states:
The chief electoral officer shall have authority to
adapt the provisions of The Dominion Elections Act.
1938, to conditions existing in the province of Newfoundland so as to conduct effectually
the first
election of members to serve in the House of
Commons.
Attention has already been directed to the
fact that this election cannot take place in
any event until after April 1. In view of that
circumstance, what justification can there be
for vesting, in an appointed official, authority
to adapt legislative enactments of this parliament? That seems to me an extraordinary
provision. Parliament enacts provisions, and
now it is proposed that an appointed official
shall be given authority to adapt those legislative provisions to meet the circumstances
of Newfoundland.
I suggest there is ample time for parliament to do everything required to adapt the
provisions of the elections act to the circumstances to be found in Newfoundland,
and
that this is a departure which parliament
ought not lightly to tolerate, namely the
proposal that authority be vested in an
appointed official to adapt the legislative
enactments of this parliament.
Mr. St. Laurent: The hon. member for
Eglinton might do well to read the elections
act. He would find in it provisions put there
by parliament authorizing the electoral officers to adapt the provisions of the act
to
special circumstances of individual cases.
That was put there by parliament, and has
been there for a great many years. Probably
it was there when the hon. member was
reading the elections act in his university
days.
There exist in Newfoundland special circumstances which do not exist in other Canadian
provinces. There are provisions for the
revision of electoral lists by officials who are
called by one name—county or district court
judges—in the other Canadian provinces, and
these judicial functions are normally performed by an official who goes under another
designation in Newfoundland. It is matters
of that kind which the chief electoral officer
would have to adapt as conditions arose, as
he is authorized to make those adaptations
under the elections act for the other parts of
Canada. That is all there is to it; there is
nothing more sinister than that.
Mr. Fleming: If this article contemplates
vesting in the elections officer nothing more
than the powers he now has under the
Dominion Elections Act, is that matter not
sufficiently taken care of by the bill introduced yesterday by the Minister of Justice,
which would have the effect of applying the
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 361
Dominion Elections Act to Newfoundland as
it applies to other parts of Canada? This
article certainly suggests on the face of it
much more than what I contend is in the
elections act, by way of vesting powers in
the chief electoral officer.
Mr. St. Laurent: An attempt was made in
drafting these terms to satisfy the delegation
from Newfoundland, one which in its composition comprised some very distinguished
lawyers. In the group there were the law
officers of the Canadian government, and the
law officers the delegation from Newfoundland brought with them. They suggested it
would be advisable to have this provision in
there to take care of such differences as conditions might present. And the recommendation
made by the law officers accompanying
the Newfoundland delegation and those accompanying the Canadian delegation were
thought to be unobjectionable, with the result
that the clause was inserted. One of the law
officers acting for the Newfoundland delegation was the dean of the law school of
Dalhousie university. They considered all these
matters in detail and made their recommendations. They appeared to the two delegations
to be unobjectionable, Â and were
inserted.
Mr. Timmins: My recollection is that last
year when the previous prime minister was
speaking to the house, and we were talking
on the matter of Senate reform, he informed
the house that in respect of later appointments he had made to the Senate there were
certain conditions attached—that he had
spoken to members to be appointed, and had
suggested to them some conditions, and that
he would expect them to respect any change
or reform that might be made in the Senate,
if any reforms or changes were to be made.
I say, if there are changes or reforms to be
made.
I am sure the Prime Minister is not unmindful, and has knowledge, of what those
recommendations or commitments were when
they were made, and I should like to have
him tell the house whether that same policy
is to be followed in the future in making
appointments to the Senate from Newfoundland or whether the matter was given any
consideration when the discussions took place.
Mr. St. Laurent: The matter was given no
consideration when the discussions took place.
With respect to conditions imposed upon
appointees to the Senate, I must say to the
hon. member that I have no knowledge of
any having been imposed.
Mr. Rowe: You should have had a caucus
before you took office.
Mr. St. Laurent: When my hon. friend sits
in my place he may tell the house how things
should be done, but in the meantime I am
deciding that.
Mr. Rowe: I hope I know more of what
my predecessor did than my hon. friend.
Mr. Drew: In view of the caustic nature of
some of the remarks of the Prime Minister,
may I say that he is not going to decide;
this house is going to decide.
Mr. St. Laurent: This house has never in
the past, and I hope it will never in the future,
decide when, where or why party caucuses
should be held.
Mr. Drew: I am not talking about party
caucuses.
Mr. Rowe: You may not need any more
caucuses; one or two more will be about all
you will need.
Mr. Green: May I ask the Prime Minister a
question. On the same date that the terms
were signed certain statements were given to
the Newfoundland delegation some of which
seemed to tie in with sections of the terms
of union. Can the Prime Minister tell us
whether there are to be subsequent agreements between Canada and Newfoundland
with regard to some of the questions contained in the statements, or just what is
to
be done? For example, there is one statement having to do with elections and changes
in electoral divisions. Are there to be further
agreements dealing with some of these items
that were raised by the Newfoundland
delegation? Â
Mr. St. Laurent: I know of no further
agreements. These statements were in respect
of matters which it was felt Were not proper
to have put into the terms of union which
would become the constitution of the new province. We were constantly being told by
members of the Newfoundland delegation: Our
understanding is such and so. I told them that
I did not want them to understand anything
that was not going to be brought before the
houses of parliament when the terms of
union were being confirmed, that everything
that they felt had influenced their attitude
should be put in the form of statements that
could be given to the houses of parliament.
We could then assert to the houses of parliament that all that was being undertaken
in
the form of constitutional obligations was in
the terms of union; that in discussing the
terms of union we had declared what would
be the policy of this government but that
that would not bind anyone but ourselves.
Nevertheless we felt that it would be unfair
362 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
to the houses of parliament if we did not
make known to them what declarations as
to policy we had made during the course of
the discussions. It was for that reason that
these statements were made up.
Many more things were talked about than
are referred to in these statements. We asked
the Newfoundland delegation to give us an
indication of all the things that they were
taking as probable future happenings, and
we said that we would put them in the document that we would produce before parliament.
We would not ask parliament to make
these part of the terms of union but parliament would know what this government
intended to do so long as it was the government responsible for the direction of affairs.
I have not looked at the terms, but with
respect to the electoral boundaries my recollection is that they were told that, after
each
decennial census, a redistribution bill was
introduced and a committee set up to consider the boundaries of each constituency
and
to make a report to parliament. They were
told that with respect to the boundaries of
the Newfoundland constituencies that would
come about in the regular way.
There were some members who did not
want to take the responsibility for those
boundaries because they said that they did
not know enough about where the lines would
run to want them to be permanent boundaries.
They were quite satisfied that they be the
boundaries for the first election and that
somebody else should take the responsibility
of saying what should be the boundaries of
the constituencies for future elections. They
were told that that responsibility would be
taken, in the first instance, by the committee
of the house that studied the matter and
reported to parliament and, ultimately, by
parliament when approving or disapproving
of the recommendations made by the
committee.
Mr. Green: I raised the question because
some of the statements are an indication of
government policies while others say that
further consideration will be given to this or
that subject and then agreement will be
reached. In reading over the pamphlet it
seemed to me that several things had been
left in the air, that they have not yet been
decided, and apparently are to be dealt with
at a later date.
For example, there is the question of
responsibility for the Northern Labrador
Trading Operations, which is to be the subject of discussions between Canada and Newfoundland,
or if necessary the province of
Newfoundland. Then reference is made to
penitentiaries and the question whether
national harbours will be set up in Newfoundland.
What is the intention of the government
with respect to these particular items where
obviously no conclusion has been reached as
yet but on which conclusion is to be reached
shortly? Will there be further agreements,
or just what does the government plan to do?
Mr. St. Laurent: These are matters which
would be determined either by the Canadian
government, under its responsibility to the
Canadian parliament, or by the government
of the island, under its responsibility to the
legislature, according to where the jurisdiction may lie.
With respect to penitentiaries, there will
have to be an agreement with the province.
They were told it was unlikely, that probably
it would be undesirable to establish a federal
penitentiary in Newfoundland, and that it
probably would also be undesirable to bring
prisoners convicted by the courts of Newfoundland to the penitentiary at Dorchester
because of the inconvenience to their families
or friends when visiting them. It was stated
that for the start there would be made an
arrangement whereby the Canadian government, being responsible for the care and maintenance
of those sentenced to terms of two
years or more, would undertake to reimburse
the government of Newfoundland for caring
for these prisoners in the provincial jails.
That is something which will have to be
worked out and we would hope to have it
worked out in a manner that would be most
satisfactory to the people of Newfoundland
and to the Canadian people. There is another
provision concerning certain boats that are
presently owned by the government of
Newfoundland.
Mr. St. Laurent: Yes, Clarenville boats.
They are operated in a manner which is conducive to the development of the trade of
Newfoundland. They carry relatively small
cargoes of fish down to ports they can get
into and that large boats carrying heavier
cargoes cannot visit, and from those ports
they bring back commodities that enter into
the trade of Newfoundland. It is a desirable
trade for the economy of Newfoundland. It
might be very undesirable to attempt to have
these boats operated by the Canadian
National steamship lines, because then their
operation would come under the collective
agreements between the steamship lines and
the seamen, which might make the operation
of these boats so costly that instead of being
profitable it would be detrimental to the
economy of Newfoundland. There had not
been time or opportunity to determine just
what would be the most practicable way of
continuing the operation of those boats in
order to benefit the economy of the island.
There a question arose as to whether the
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 363
government of the island could operate boats
in international trade, and that was not
finally determined. The outcome was, "Well,
we all know that we want to have done that
which will best contribute to the economy of
the island, but at the present time we do not
know what that will have to be. We will
trust each other and work out something
satisfactory in that regard."
Mr. Green: These are more or less loose
ends that will have to be tied up as the
information becomes available?
Mr. St. Laurent: That is so; just as there
is another loose end with respect to public
property, for example.
Mr. Knowles: I hesitate to raise a point of
order when the Prime Minister is seeking to
be helpful in connection with these matters, but would it not be better if we took
up
these things in relation to the proper clauses?
Mr. Green: The hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre is always very free with his
advice to other hon. members as to how we
should follow the rules of the house. I
brought up this question because in this
statement there is one paragraph which deals
with elections, and I wanted to know how
that was to be tied in with the sections in the
terms. I submit that the right hon. Prime
Minister is perfectly in order in explaining
just how these statements tie in with the
terms of union.
Mr. Pearkes: Following the suggestion
made by the hon. member for Royal, I
strongly urge that, when these appointments
are being made, full consideration be given
to the ex-servicemen of Newfoundland. I
am quite certain the denominational question should not cause any difficulty, because
there will have been distinguished ex-servicemen in all three denominations mentioned
by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Jaenicke: I am worried about the
words "British North America Act, 1867 to
1946," in section 5. I hesitate to say very
much because of the statement made a few
moments ago by the Prime Minister that
some eminent counsel and the law officers of
the crown drafted this agreement; but supposing we have an amendment to the British
North America Act subsequent to this date,
dealing with the representation in the House
of Commons and the Senate. Is the Prime
Minister satisfied that Newfoundland, the
new province, could not take the position
that they would not be bound by a subsequent amendment, in view of this wording?
Should it not read "1867 and amendments
thereto"?
Mr. St. Laurent: This is the official description of the British North America Acts determined by
the parliament of the United
Kingdom. Each of the amending statutes
contains a provision substantially along this
line: "This act may be known as the British
North America Act, 1946; and this act and
the others may be described together as the
British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946."
The description is always of the original and
all those up to the date of the one that is
mentioned.
Mr. Jaenicke: I realize that; but supposing
we have another amendment, say in 1950 or
1951. Would not Newfoundland then be in a
position, if they do not agree with that
amendment, to say, "We are not bound by it,
because we are only bound by the amendments to the British North America Act up
to 1946"?
Mr. St. Laurent: No. That matter was given
serious consideration, and a provision was
even drafted and considered by the law
officers providing that the reference to any
act would mean that act or any amendments
made or to be made thereto. However, they
came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to have this kind of statement, that
the
interpretation acts of Canada, Newfoundland
and the United Kingdom were sufficient in
that regard.
Mr. Cruickshank: I want to ask the Prime
Minister one question in regard to this. As
I understand it, the new province is to have
the same number of members in the other
place as we are, though their population is
just equal to that of one of our towns. Will
they have the same number of parliamentary
assistants that we have?
Sections 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7—Provtncial constitution.
Mr. Green: This paragraph provides that
the constitution of Newfoundland is revived
at the date of union and shall continue as the
constitution of the province, and so on. Can
the Prime Minister tell us how the constitution of Newfoundland will be amended once
this union takes place?
Mr. St. Laurent: The constitution of the
province of Newfoundland will be subject to
amendment by the legislature of Newfoundland under the first subsection of section
92
of the British North America Act. They will
have the right to amend their constitution in
every respect save in respect of the office of
lieutenant governor, just as every other
Canadian province has that right.
Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario): How
is it the parliament of Canada has power to
revive the constitution of Newfoundland? In
364 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
section 1, under the heading "Union", I
read:
On, from, and after the coming into force of these
terms . . . Newfoundland shall form part of Canada
and shall be a province thereof—
At that stage, when Newfoundland comes
in, does it have no constitution? Does it
receive its constitution after that? How is
it that we, the parliament of Canada, and not
the parliament at Westminster, are to revive
the constitution which, as I understand it,
was derogated from, or whatever the proper
expression may be, under the authority of
that other parliament?
Mr. St. Laurent: If this were not to be
confirmed by a statute of the parliament of
the United Kingdom the revival of the constitution of Newfoundland could not be done
by the parliament of Canada; it would have
to be done by the parliament of the United
Kingdom. But it is one of the conditions of
this agreement that it does not come into
effect or have legal effect until confirmed by
an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
The delegation from Newfoundland and its
law officers insisted that they did not want
the province of Newfoundland to get a new
constitution out of the union. They wanted
to be in the position of the provinces of
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which had
constitutions before union and retained all
the powers of their constitutions, except those
given to the central authority. It was for
that reason that the dean of the law school
was insistent upon having the constitution
revived an instant before union becomes
effective. It will be revived only because
there will have been enacted an act by the
United Kingdom agreeing to this.
Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario): I am
still not clear as to why this clause is in here
at all. Has it any effect? As I understand
the Prime Minister, this would have no effect
unless there was an act passed by the parliament at Westminster. What effect has
this clause in here?
Mr. St. Laurent: None of these clauses
would have any effect except by virtue of an
act passed by the parliament of the United
Kingdom. The parliament of the United
Kingdom is, at the present time, the legislative body having jurisdiction and authority
over Newfoundland. You cannot have a
marriage merely with the consent of the
groom. You have to have the bride agreeing
thereto as well. These terms of union have
to be agreed to by Canada and they also have
to be agreed to by those who are competent
and willing to give consent for the other contracting party.
Section agreed to.
 Sections 8 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On section 17—Education.
Mr. Fulton: I wonder if the Prime Minister
would be good enough to explain why it is
necessary to make a special provision for
education in Newfoundland, and why section
93 of the British North America Act is not
sufficient to cover the case if it were made
applicable.
Mr. St. Laurent: With respect to education,
the situation was different from that which
existed at the time of the creation of the two
new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
At that time, this parliament had control
over education in those territories. It could
reasonably stipulate it would part with that
control, subject only to certain guarantees
of the rights of minorities. The delegates
from Newfoundland were told we had no control over their educational system at the
present time. The authority having legislative jurisdiction at that time, however,
could
make any provision it wished to make with
respect to education. We also told them we
had no right to insist upon any guarantee
being written into the constitution because
they have complete jurisdiction themselves;
but if, for the satisfaction of their own people,
they felt it was preferable to have a guarantee
written into the constitution, we could not
object. The matter was discussed back and
forth for quite a long time.
The hon. member knows that the sanction
of the rights of minorities under section 93
of the British North America Act is an appeal
to the governor in council and the enactment by this parliament of remedial legislation.
The hon. member knows what difficulties arose out of appeals under that section
and out of the attempt to pass remedial legislation some forty years ago. It was felt
by
the delegation from Newfoundland that it
would be more effective to have the clause
concerning guarantees drawn in this way so
that the legislature would have complete control over education but would not have
jurisdiction to do things that would impinge upon
the rights of minorities. To do those things
would be a denial of jurisdiction.
If an attempt were made to do those things,
the recourse is to the courts of law. The
courts of law will examine whether or not
the thing that is being done is contrary to the
guarantee written into this clause. If it is
found by the courts of law to be contrary,
the courts of law declare it to be void and
unconstitutional. It was felt that would be
a more effective safeguard than appeal to the
governor in council and a requestto the central parliament to pass remedial legislation.
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 365
Mr. Fulton: I take it, then, one might summarize the effect of this section by saying it
has the effect of preserving permanently the
status quo in Newfoundland and providing,
instead of an appeal to the governor in council against infringement and action by
parliament, an appeal to the bench of the Supreme
Court of Canada.
Mr. St. Laurent: The ultimate appeal
would be to the Supreme Court of Canada. It
would be an appeal to the ordinary provincial
courts in the first instance, but ultimately
there could be an appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada.
The hon. member says the effect is to fix
the status quo for all time, but that is subject
to some modification. I understand the
schools in Newfoundland are denominational
schools, but under the present practice different denominations can amalgamate for
a
school district. The right to do that is preserved. Moreover, there is a right in
the
legislature to set up other schools than those
which exist at the present time, but it is
provided that if they do set up other schools
they must not discriminate against the
denominational schools in the districts. Such
was the desire of the delegates from Newfoundland; and, as the hon. member has indicated,
the sanction was to be an appeal to
the courts, not an appeal to a political body.
Mr. Kidd: May I direct a question to the
right hon. the Prime Minister? It has to do
with the education of veterans. I notice that
veterans affairs comes under section 38, but
I do not see the word "education" mentioned
in section 38, so I am taking this opportunity
of asking my question. The Prime Minister
may be familiar with the educational system
in Newfoundland. There are no universities
in Newfoundland and a student wishing to
receive advanced education, after receiving
first or second year college, has to go to
Dalhousie, McGill, Queen's or varsity. The
student finishes his education and takes his
degree there. The result has been that a
great many Newfoundlanders who came to
Canada for their education remained in
Canada. There were those, of course, who
had to go back because of some business
association in the island. I may say that
Canada has benefited during the past thirty
or forty years from the large number of Newfoundlanders who have remained here upon
completion of their education.
 In the universities at the present time we
have the veterans of world war II. Will the
veterans who are attending university today,
and those who come in next year, receive' the
same grants? My question might be directed
through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of
Veterans Affairs. I know this matter has
been taken up, and that the student veterans
in university today get $60 and $80. I have
in mind particularly the veteran who today
is taking a medical course, who has perhaps
another three or four years ahead of him—it
is a long course—and whose money is running
out.
Mr. Gregg: As my hon. friend said, that
matter properly comes under section 38,
paragraph (f). Perhaps I am out of order
but I think I can answer the question quite
briefly. Paragraph (f) reads:
Sections six, seven and eight of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act will be extended
to Newfoundland
veterans of the second world war who have not
received similar benefits from the government of
any country other than Canada.
University education comes under section
8. In such a case as that referred to by my
hon. friend, completion of the veteran's education would be provided for by my department
in exactly the same way as though he
had been a Canadian veteran.
Mr. Dickey: On this section on education
I should like to say just a word. Many
tributes were paid in this house yesterday to
the various groups and influences which,
down through the years, have contributed to
the drawing together of the old colony of
Newfoundland and this country.
I think one of the strongest and most
important of those influences, which was not
mentioned, is the number of young men and
young women of Newfoundland who, through
the years, have come to the universities and
colleges of eastern Canada for the purpose
of completing their education, and I refer
particularly to the colleges and universities of
Nova Scotia. It has been a delight to those
institutions to have these welcome visitors
who have made so signal a contribution to
their academic life. When speaking a few
minutes ago, one hon. member referred to
the fact that, of those Newfoundland young
people who came to Canada to complete their
education, a great many stayed in Canada.
Happily that has not been true in every case.
Perhaps indicative of the importance of the
bearing this has on the happy subject we
are discussing tonight is the fact that four
out of the six Newfoundland delegates, who
came here to discuss with the representatives
of the government of Canada the terms of
union which we are here discussing, were
graduates of the law school of Dalhousie
university. I am sure we all hope that the
young men and young women of the new
province will continue to come and pursue
their studies at the eastern Canadian universities to which their' fathers and mothers
came in their day. Along with a widespread
and, I hope, important development in the
366 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
educational life of the new province itself,
will be the backing and the help of the
existing institutions which have contributed
in great measure to the professional and
cultural life of Newfoundland down through
the years.
Mr. Timmins: I do not think it would be
inappropriate to say that a good number of
the young men from Newfoundland have
found their way up to Ontario to seek their
education. The  Secretary of State for
External Affairs will bear me out when I say
that he and I, as students at Victoria college in Toronto, had with us many young
men
from Newfoundland, a good number of whom
have become professors in Canadian universities. One of them was also a delegate who
came from Newfoundland to consult with our
officials and our Prime Minister in respect of
this act of union. We have welcomed many
in the past, and I think that in the future
we will welcome more and more of these
young men to our various universities, particularly those in Ontario.
Mr. Bentley: I should like to ask the Prime
Minister whether consideration has been
given to certain things. When speaking on
second reading of the bill this afternoon, the
leader of the opposition pointed out, in connection with oleomargarine, that there
was
embodied in this agreement a certain term
which, while it may not be operative now,
since time and circumstances have removed
the need for it at the present time, is nevertheless there for future consideration
by anyone who may feel that he may want to take
advantage of it. In this section the same
thing happens.
The Prime Minister has said that the terms
of the Newfoundland delegation with regard
to their educational system were something
they themselves wanted, and that the Canadian delegation agreed to them because the
Newfoundland delegation wanted them. That
means that there is a departure from the
regular practices under the British North
America Act in that the new province of
Newfoundland, when union takes place, will
not need to appeal to His Excellency the
Governor General—or to the lieutenant
governor, I presume, in the case of a province
—for any changes in connection with the
agreement. That may be all right. Traditionally, Newfoundland undoubtedly wants
that. They are accustomed to it. But did the
Canadian delegates consider seriously the
pOSsibility that if this becomes part of the
agreement by consent of Canada, then in the
future some other provinces which may wish
to adopt this particular procedure may possibly put up a strenuous fight, and that
we
shall find our whole Canadian system of
education altered to suit that of Newfoundland? Was that possibility considered when
the matter was under discussion?
Mr. St. Laurent: I do not think this term
can have any effect on the educational system
in Newfoundland or in Canada. It is a modification of the guarantees of minority rights
set out in the original British North America
Act. In the acts which created the provinces
of Alberta and Saskatchewan there were
made for those two provinces special provisions which were somewhat ditferent from
the terms set out in the original British
North America Act. The hon. member suggests the possibility of some province wishing
to have these or similar terms instead of
having the terms that are now in the British
North America Act. I do not know how an
an amendment of that kind could be brought
about. I think it would be a relief to all of
us in Canada if these matters could be dealt
with by the courts of justice whenever there
was any feeling that a minority right had
been violated, instead of being dealt with
by means of an appeal to a political body.
The experience of the Canadian public with
respect to appeals that have been taken under
section 93 of the British North America Act
is really an unhappy one. It has created
disunion, and whatever disposition was made
by the governor in council, there was a large
section disappointed and dissatisfied with
the decision. They are apt to consider that
the decision is not really a judicial but a
political one. In these matters where there
are to be constitutional safeguards it is better
to have them sanctioned by judicial decisions
than by decisions which many people feel
are more of a political than of a judicial
character.
Mr. Bentley: The Prime Minister has tacitly
agreed that what I suggested might happen
could happen and would be desirable. If a
province wished to adopt this particular principle or practice, any changes in educational
matters would not be subject to a legislative
body.
Mr. St. Laurent: No; all changes, under this
section, have to be made by the legislative
body of Newfoundland, but if the legislative
body of Newfoundland attempted to do something that violated a minority right, instead
of having a political body decide the question
whether or not there was a violation, that
question would be decided by a judicial body.
It is the same in the other provinces. There
are guarantees of minority rights. But when
there is a contention that they have been
violated, instead of going to the courts to
determine whether that is so or not the matter
is taken to the governor in council; and,
whatever he decides, many feel that his
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 367
decision is more apt to be a political decision
than a judicial decision.
Mr. Knight: Was any arrangement made
in regard to federal grants in aid of education? Was there any discussion in regard
to
that?
Mr. St. Laurent: There was no discussion
on federal grants in aid of education other
than the provision made for the extension to
the people of Newfoundland of the legislation
relating to veterans. The transitional grants
provided were fixed after all the requirements of the public services of the province
had been considered. There was no special
portion allotted for education, but the over-all
picture was studied to arrive at a figure that,
in the opinion of those who were making the
agreement, would make it a workable agreement.
Mr. Knight: I was thinking in particular of
the vocational grants now given to technical
schools in the other provinces and derived
from dominion funds. Was anything done
about that? Will these same grants be available?
Mr. St. Laurent: Yes. We attempted to
draw this agreement in such a manner that
the citizens of Newfoundland would become
full Canadian citizens in every respect of
rights and obligations.
Section agreed to.
On section 18—Continuation of laws.
Mr. Cruickshank: Am I to understand that
 any laws enacted here will be binding, or can
they be appealed and abolished as was done
in the case of oleomargarine by the supreme
court after sixty-seven years?
Mr. St. Laurent: The hon. member uses
language which does not perhaps accurately
describe what the supreme court did. The
supreme court did not abolish the law. The
supreme court decided that those who passed
the law had no right to do so and that it
had never been any good.
Mr. Cruickshank: What about my question? Am I assured by the Prime Minister
that this law is good and that they cannot
abolish it?
Mr. St. Laurent: To the best of my knowledge, and to the best of the knowledge of the
legal experts who were accompanying both
delegations, it is good. It is something within
their jurisdiction. Beyond that I cannot go.
The hon. member knows that it is not only
with respect to oleomargarine that the courts
have found that after a long period something
that was looked upon as valid law was not so.
Perhaps he remembers what happened to the
so-called Lemieux act dealing with industrial
disputes. It had been applied for a good
many years in a manner which the Canadian
public thought was satisfactory, and all at
once the privy council said that those who
passed that law went beyond their jurisdiction and it was not binding on anybody.
Mr. Timmins: Will the Prime Minister
make a short statement in respect to the
meaning of this particular section, having
regard to the following subsection:
(1) Subject to these terms, all laws enforced in
Newfoundland at or immediately prior to the date
of union shall continue therein as if the union had
not been made . . .
(2) Statutes of the parliament of Canada in force
at the date of union. or any part thereof, shall come
into force in the province of Newfoundland on a
day or days to be fixed . . .
I presume that means that the criminal law
of Canada will probably come into force
immediately after the passing of the act of
union. I should like to know whether the
criminal law of Canada will immediately
supersede the criminal law of Newfoundland,
or just what the situation is to be.
Mr. St. Laurent: No, Mr. Chairman. This
section was drawn precisely for the purpose
of not having the criminal law, among others,
come into force immediately, because we
were informed that it would be embarrassing
to administer the criminal law of Canada
until arrangements had been made to provide
the proper machinery, and that therefore it
would be preferable to have a provision that
these general laws of Canada could from
time to time be put into force in the province
as machinery to administer them had been
previously provided; and that pending that
time the laws in force at the time of union
would continue.
In Quebec at the present time there is a
civil code which came into force in 1866, and
which contains provisions that the parliament
of Canada would have the right to amend or
repeal. But it has not yet been seen fit to
do that. The legislature of Quebec would not
have the right to enact that kind of legislation, but it does apply as a part of the
legislation of Quebec until such time as parliament sees fit to deal with it. It will
be the
same with respect to Newfoundland. They
have a certain body of laws which will continue to be applied until by proclamation
it
is stated that the present laws of the dominion in that regard will be substituted
for
those that exist in the province. or course it
is not intended that it will take very long.
It is intended to be merely a transitional
measure to bring progressively into force
those Canadian laws under conditions which
will not prove to be embarrassing; and it is
perhaps because there were on the delegation
368 Newfoundland
HOUSE OF COMMONS
those distinguished lawyers, graduates of
Toronto and Dalhousie, that a section such as
this was very carefully considered. We were
told that it would be embarrassing to them in
the administration of criminal justice to jump
right away from a common law system to
the code; that they were not going to take the
trouble of learning our code and our procedure until they were sure that they were
going to have to apply it; and that it would
take them some little time after they became
sure that the union was going to be realized
to put themselves in a position properly to
administer the provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada.
Mr. Hackett: Will the Prime Minister say
to what extent the judgments of the Supreme
Court of Canada and of the privy council,
in so far as they bear upon the relationship
between the provinces and the dominion,
would find application to the new relationship about to be established between Newfoundland
and the dominion?
Mr. St. Laurent: The only answer I can
make is that it was assumed by delegates on
both sides that the Canadian constitution as
it applies in fact to the other Canadian provinces would apply to Newfoundland after
the
union.
Mr. Hackett: Is there any enactment to that
effect? Is there anything that would warrant that statement?—and I hope the Prime
Minister will not think I am unduly
inquisitive.
Mr. St. Laurent: It was felt that section 3
would have that effect. And then, as the
Statute of Westminster is not one of the
British North America Acts, and the decisions
which may be given with respect to the
Statute of Westminster do not affect the British North America Acts, and vice versa,
it
was felt there should be a special declaration
as to the manner in which the Statute of
Westminster would apply to Newfoundland.
That was provided in section 48. From and
after the date of union it will apply to the
province of Newfoundland as it applies to the
other provinces of Canada.
It was felt that having section 3, which
refers to the British North America Acts, that
included not only British North America Acts
but those acts as the courts have construed
them to be; and that section 48, adding to it
the Statute of Westminster, would give the
new province exactly the same status as the
other Canadian provinces.
Mr. Jaenicke: Will the Prime Minister tell
us whether Newfoundland has a divorce law?
Mr. St. Laurent: Newfoundland has no
divorce law; and we were informed that there
were, I believe, three persons who claimed
to be divorced because they had gone to other
jurisdictions and there obtained decrees. But
there seemed to be some doubt as to whether
those divorces were divorces which should be
recognized. And of course that would depend
upon whether there had been really a change
of domicile before the divorce decrees were
granted.
Mr. Pearkes: Will there be any change in
the laws in force on those portions of the
ocean between Canada and Newfoundland?
In other words, will there be any extension
of the extraterritorial waters, now that Newfoundland will become part of Canada—
because I believe it is customary that when
a portion of the ocean is nearly surrounded
by a country, that water is declared a territorial water.
Mr. St. Laurent: We intend to contend, and
hope to be able to get acquiescence in the contention that the waters west of Newfoundland
constituting the gulf of St. Lawrence shall
become an inland sea. We hope that, with
Newfoundland as a part of Canadian territory, the gulf of St. Lawrence west of Newfoundland
will all become territorial waters
of Canada, whereas before there would be
only the usual off-shore portion that would
thus become part of the territorial waters. Of
course that is a matter which is not governed
by statutes; it is governed by the comity of
nations. It is our intention to assert that
position and it is our hope that it will be
recognized as a valid contention.
Section agreed to.
On section 19—Supply.
Mr. Cruickshank: I am sorry to say I was
not here at the time representation in parliament was being discussed, but I believe
I am
in order in discussing that matter on this
subject of supply—because it provides the
money.
Mr. Cruickshank: I wish I could. Do I
understand seriously that 320,000 people are
to have seven members representing them in
the House of Commons, while they are to
have six appointed—and parliamentary
language does not permit me to say where.
In British Columbia we have one city, the city
of Vancouver, with 350,000 people—
Mr. Cruickshank: "Order"—my foot. I do
not think they are serious about this bill.
Are there to be seven members elected by the
people of Newfoundland, and six appointed to
the other place—and by I don't know whom?
It does not make sense, and I object seriously
to it. Â Â Â Â Â
FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Newfoundland 369
I cannot move an amendment. I am in
favour of having a tenth province, but I am
definitely not in favour of moving six from
one graveyard to another—over there—particularly when British Columbia is limited
to
its present number, six.
Mr. Cruickshank: No. And I presume with
those seven members, and six appointed to
the other place, if we were to carry this
through to its logical conclusion, that would
mean three and a half parliamentary assistants.
Mr. Cruickshank: So far as I am concerned,
through you to the Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman, I strenuously object to the six members
not elected from this population.
Mr. St. Laurent: Unfortunately the objection comes a little too late, because the provision for six
members in the other place, in
the event of Newfoundland's joining Canada,
was enacted some thirty-three or thirty-four
years ago. It was enacted at the same time
as the provision was made that representation in this chamber should never fall below
the number of members to which it was
entitled in the Senate. It is for that reason
that the province of Prince Edward Island is
still entitled to four members in the House
of Commons, although the quotient of representation for the rest of Canada would be
something of the order of fifty odd thousand
per member.
Mr. Cruickshank: Does not the Prime
Minister think that right in this parliament
we enacted an amendment whereby we did
exactly the opposite to what he is stating?
We are changing our redistribution at the
present time. Quebec is getting more than
she had before; and some of the other provinces will have more.
I am afraid the Prime Minister's argument
does not hold good at all. This will mean six
people we will have to look after in that
little island over there—and a certain parliamentary assistant made a speech here
not
so long ago along the very lines I am following. If Prince Edward Island, with a handful
of population, is entitled to four senators, then
surely to goodness British Columbia is
entitled to more than six. Surely we are
entitled to more than that, when one of our
larger centres has a greater population than
either of these districts I have mentioned—
including the new province entering confederation. I do not think the Prime Minister's
argument holds good at all.
Mr. Gibson (Comox-Albemi): What the
hon. member for Fraser Valley has said
must bring closely to the attention of the
Prime Minister the very urgent need for
reform in the Senate, which was so often
promised by his illustrious predecessor. It
does seem fantastic that the maritime provinces—
Mr. Gibson (Comox-Albemi): I thought
you were interested in the reform of the
Senate?
Mr. Knowles: On a point of order, we discussed this matter for an hour.
Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni): After all, in
the maritime provinces, producing about the
same amount of fish as British Columbia does,
there will be 30 senators; yet we have only
six senators. I can assure the committee that
there are as many indigent politicians in
British Columbia as there are in the maritime
provinces.
Section agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
On section 22—Fisheries.
Mr. Knowles: I wonder if the Minister of
Fisheries would make some comment on the
sections having to do with fisheries? This is
one of the subjects connected with the coming
into confederation of Newfoundland about
which I have been reading and I have found
it rather interesting, in fact almost intriguing.
Such documents as I have read would seem
to suggest that Newfoundland may be ahead
of Canada in her legislative provisions for
the marketing of fish. I understand that
Newfoundland is to have the right to continue for another five years the arrangements
that she now has. May I inquire whether
the Department of Fisheries and the government generally will be considering the
methods employed in Newfoundland with the
possibility, should it be found that theirs are
better than ours, of changing the Canadian
laws.
Mr. Mayhew: I do not know whether you
wish to call it eleven o'clock, but it will take
longer than five minutes for me to give an
adequate answer.
Mr. St. Laurent: Perhaps if the explanation will extend beyond eleven o'clock it
might suit the convenience of hon. members
if I moved that the committee rise, report
progress and ask leave to sit again.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
This individual participated in:
