BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
MOTION FOR PRECEDENCE OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS
—DEBATE ON ADMISSION OF NEWFOUNDLAND
INTO CONFEDERATION
That the speech of His Excellency the Governor
General to both houses of parliament be taken into
consideration on Thursday next, and that this order
have precedence over all business except the introduction of bills and government
notices of motions
on Thursday and Friday, January 27 and 28, 1949.
I had intended at the same time to move
for an order of the house on the subject of
business of the house next week, but I have
been informed by some hon. members that
that arrangement had not yet appealed to
them as being the best that could be made,
that there might have to be a debate on a
motion of that kind, and that it would better
suit their convenience if the debate did not
take place until Friday. So, instead of combining that with the motion I now put before
the house, I would simply give notice of a
motion to be made on Friday with respect to
procedure for next week and following days.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, as this motion is not in
the usual form, I think it would be very
helpful to hon. members if the Prime Minister
(Mr. St. Laurent) would explain the effect of
the motion, and what he suggests should be
done tomorrow under that motion.
Mr. St. Laurent: The motion is not in the
usual form, inasmuch as it does not extend
to the whole of the time during which the
address of His Excellency the Governor General and addresses in reply may be under
debate in the house. But it does provide, in
the usual form, that tomorrow and Friday the
speech from the throne be considered. The
procedure on adoption of the motion would
be that the address would be moved and
seconded tomorrow. Then I would assume
that, in accordance with traditional practice,
Your Honour would recognize first the leader
of the opposition (Mr. Drew), that I should
follow him, that he would then recognize the
hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and following the hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar, the hon. member for—
Mr. St. Laurent: —the hon. member for
Peace River (Mr. Low). After those hon.
members have been heard, then the debate
would continue in such order as might be
arranged by the Whips, in the usual manner.
I had intended at this time to move that
afterwards, from Monday, January 31, until
and including Friday, February 11, matters
having to do with the entry of Newfoundland
into confederation should have precedence
over other matters. But I was told by some
hon. members that that did not appeal to
them as being the proper procedure, that
there would be debate on a motion of that
kind, and that it would be preferable not to
have the debate which would be expected
this afternoon in view of the fact that other
engagements had been made. I am therefore
giving notice that I will make that motion
on Friday. The purpose of the motion will
be that on and from January 31 until Friday,
February 11, the matters dealing with the
entry of Newfoundland shall have precedence.
However I am not making that motion at the
present time; I am putting a notice on the
order paper.
Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do think that
hon. members should recognize the effect of
the motion in the form in which it is presented. In the form in which it is presented
the debate on the speech from the throne will
10 Business of the House HOUSE OF COMMONS
have precedence only for Thursday and Friday, and to carry forward the debate under
the usual terms or following the usual procedure would require another motion, were
it not for the fact that the Prime Minister has
indicated that he intends to introduce a motion
which would have the effect of postponing
the debate on the speech from the throne.
I do not think it would be appropriate for
me to make any comments on this motion in
relation to the motion of which notice has
been given. Nevertheless the effect of this
motion is such that it would be unwise to
ignore the position in which the debate on
the speech from the throne is left unless the
second motion is carried by the house.
While the Prime Minister may assume that
he will be able to persuade a sufficient number
of hon. members to produce that result by
their votes, such assumption should not blind
hon. members to the fact that if this motion
as it now stands is carried nothing will have
been done to provide for the continued debate
on the speech from the throne after Friday.
I suggest that not only is this motion contrary to any motion that has been introduced
in this house since confederation; it is a
motion which it carried in its present form
presupposes the ability of the government to
carry a subsequent motion by the acceptance by members of one party of the decision
of the Prime Minister without any regard to
another motion. The continuance of this
debate rests entirely upon that assumption,
which, it seems to me, is not consistent with
our parliamentary practice.
I urge the Prime Minister seriously to consider the withdrawal at this point of the
motion and the substitution, which he can
easily make, of the ordinary motion to the
effect that the debate continue to have precedence. Then if the subsequent motion
gains
the support of this house the effect will be the
carrying forward of the debate anyway. Such
a motion would not in any way be subject to
the disabilities that this motion contains.
I should like to point out that I as well as
other hon. members of the house are under
some handicap in debating a motion such as
this because it deals with the address of His
Majesty's representative. It is customary,
and I believe the record will show that it
has always been the practice, that the motion
provide that the debate have precedence over
all other government business. On those
rare occasions when a subsequent motion
was moved which had the effect of postponing
the debate it related to the debate in the
customary form and provided for the carrying forward of that debate without any such
limitations as are now laid down. I again
ask the Prime Minister to take this into
consideration.
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar): Mr.
Speaker, I should like to support the leader of
the opposition (Mr. Drew). This motion, being
worded as it is, does exactly what he says it
does: it limits the debate to two days. It
seems to me that if we pass this motion we
shall be limiting ourselves to Thursday and
Friday. Without notice of another motion we
might find ourselves in a difficult position
if the proposal of the government should
not carry on Friday. In a democratic institution we have always the right to presuppose
that hon. members may not always
vote in accordance with the wishes of the
government.
I join the leader of the opposition in suggesting that the wording of the motion be
changed. We can deal with the situation as it
arises on Friday, when the other motion
which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)
has foreshadowed can be discussed and, if the
house sees fit, passed.
Mr. St. Laurent: I cannot accede to the
request made by the leader of the opposition
and by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar
(Mr. Coldwell) because that would be asking
the house to make an order and expecting the
house to reverse that order on Friday. I
moved my motion in this form because I had
been told by hon. members that there would
be a debate upon any motion made in an
attempt to postpone the debate on the address.
If that were so I thought it would be preferable to have it made on Friday. I am quite
prepared to agree to that.
I am prepared to state here that I am making no other assumption than the assumption
that this motion provides for the order of
business for two days and that a motion will
have to be made on Friday for the order of
business subsequent to that. If the order on
Friday is not made in the terms of the motion
of which I have given notice, I can move
another motion for that order of business.
This is merely to determine that we can go
on tomorrow and Friday with the debate on
the address.
Mr. St. Laurent: No, not by unanimous
consent but by virtue of the motion I am now
putting before the house. If hon. members
wish to have a debate this afternoon I am
quite prepared to have it. I even suggested
that we should have it. However, I was told
that that would not meet their convenience
because other arrangements had been made
for the rest of the day. It was necessary to
make some provision for tomorrow and
Friday.
On Friday I will move that the debate on
the address be not given precedence during
those days, but that precedence be given to
JANUARY 26, 1949 Business of the House 11
the measure with respect to Newfoundland.
We do not mean to adopt any dictatorial
attitude.
Mr. St. Laurent: Hon. members can say
"Oh, oh" all they like, but that is the fact. I
know the intent of our desires just as well
as hon. members who are saying "Oh, oh". I
wish to meet in the greatest degree possible
the convenience of all hon. members in the
house. I do not want to start a debate today
on the reasons for proceeding immediately
with the Newfoundland measure; that will
come on Friday. If we cannot arrange something that appears to be satisfactory to
the
majority of the members of the house, we will
arrange something else. There is no intention of getting a snap decision of the house,
but I do not think it would be appropriate for
me to ask the house to make one order today
and then come back on Friday and ask it to
vary that order.
Mr. Drew: I have asked the Prime Minister
to reconsider this, but since he has not done
so I would point out that this motion does not
produce the effect which he has indicated to
the house. He says that this would have the
effect of carrying on the debate; that unless
there was another motion we would go on
with the debate.
Mr. Drew: That was the impression I
gained.
Mr. St. Laurent: I am sorry I did not
express myself sufficiently clearly. I said that
If we could not arrange to go on with the
Newfoundland matter we would make some
other arrangement for using the time of the
house from Monday onward. I quite realize
that some provision will have to be made on
Friday for the business of the house during
the days of next week and following.
Mr. Drew: I should like to continue what
I was pointing out. The practice I have suggested is the accepted practice and Hansard
will show clearly that the right hon. member
for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the
last occasion, when he as Prime Minister
presented a motion of a similar character,
presented the motion that has always been
presented to deal with the speech from the
throne and give it precedence. On the very
occasion when he did that he indicated that
he would be introducing another motion
which would have the effect of postponing the
debate on a certain day. Therefore there is
no inconsistency in presenting the usual
motion to give precedence to the debate, and
to give on Friday, as the Prime Minister now
has, notice of a motion, to be debated then,
which, if carried by the house, would have
the effect of postponing the debate.
This motion is not in the form in which a
motion for debate on the speech from the
throne has been put forward traditionally in
this house. My understanding of the rule is
that such a motion requires unanimous consent, or forty-eight hours' notice. I indicate
to you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not consent to
proceeding with this motion in its present
form. I want to make quite sure that no suggestion can be made that we are blocking
the
debate on the speech from the throne. Therefore, if the Prime Minister will now introduce
the motion that has been used regularly since
confederation, we will support it and give
unanimous consent.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): The Prime Minister indicated that
one of his aims was to avoid a debate on procedure today, but it must be apparent
to him'
that he has made the very move which is
likely to produce a prolonged debate. Yet I
suggest it is still possible to avoid a procedural debate today if he will accept
the.
suggestion made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leader of this
group.
All he has to do is to withdraw the motion
he has made and make the motion that has
been made on almost every occasion, namely,
that the debate on the address begin tomorrow and have precedence until it is concluded.
As the leader of the opposition has
said, he can then give notice that on Friday
it is his intention to move a motion to the
effect that notwithstanding the order of
January 26 such and such shall be the case.
I would point out that not only was this done
in that manner last year, but in many sessions
the debate on the address has proceeded for a
considerable period of time and has then been
interrupted by a subsequent motion. I would
suggest that the Prime Minister should make
the usual motion. If he will accept that suggestion he will avoid a debate today.
Mr. St. Laurent: I think the hon. member
is making a mistake. The motion that was
made was that the debate on the address have
precedence for one day and that on the
following Monday measures arising out of
the emergency legislation—
Mr. Knowles: On a point of order, that was
interpreted to go on and on, indefinitely.
Mr. St. Laurent: Yes, but the motion that.
was made was not that the debate on the
address have precedence until concluded. It
was that it have precedence only over the
Monday following the opening of parliament [...]
