1937-01-15

THE LATE FIZALAM WILLIAM PERRAS-THE LATE HON. PETER JOHN VENIOT

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Since parliament prorogued 
on June 23 last two hon. members who were with us in this house, at the last session, have been taken from us by the hand of death. Both occupied seats on this side of the house. Before entering upon the business of the session, it is fitting that a word should be said with respect to the double loss we have sustained.
Parliament had prorogued but a few days when word was received that Mr. Perras, the member for Wright county, had passed away.
I must confess that his death came as a great shock to me personally, as indeed it must have to all hon. members, because only an evening or two before the prorogation of parliament we were seated together at this desk, after the house had discontinued its sitting, discussing the welfare of one of his constituents. The solicitude which Mr. Perras felt for those who applied to him for help was characteristic of the man. It explains, in large manner, the hold' he had on the affections of the people of his constituency.
Mr. Perras was born in Hull, Quebec, in 1876. He received his early education in a primary school of Hull and was a graduate of Ottawa university. His business and political interests were for the most part identified with the county of Wright, his native county. For a time he was mayor of the municipality of Gracefield, where he subsequently resided, and was warden of the county.
Mr. Perras was elected to parliament as the member for Wright in 1925 and was returned at the general elections of 1926, 1930 and 1935, each time with an increased majority. In this house Mr. Perras did not take much part in political discussions, though when he spoke he was equally fluent in the French or the English language. He took a considerable part in the work of the committees, and he enjoyed close friendships with members on all sides of the house. Few members have been more zealous in the manner in which they have sought to serve the interests of their constituents, and it is not surprising the electors of Wright county gave to their representative the increasing measure of confidence which Mr. Perras enjoyed. I know that members of the Liberal party will greatly deplore his loss, for both in and out of parliament he was a loyal advocate of the party's principles. To me he was always a loyal supporter and a true friend. May I say that, irrespective of party, I am sure his passing will be deeply felt by hon. members generally.
Only a few days had elapsed after Mr. Perras' death when word was received of the

Tributes to Deceased Members
death of the Hon. Peter Veniot, a former colleague in the government, and one who was a very close personal friend. Mr. Veniot's death cannot be said to have been altogether unexpected. All will recall how during the last session, despite great pain at times, suffering as he did from a malady which was incurable, and which he must have known to be so, he continued to keep his place at his desk and to participate in the debates in this house. He did so until, no longer able to bear the strain, he was removed to a hospital in Montreal, and subsequently to his home in Bathurst, where very soon he had to give up all thought of further activity in public affairs. His courage was a very part of him, and was nowhere better exemplified than in the brave and patient manner in which he faced death. It was on July 6 that at the age of 72 Mr. Veniot passed away in his home at Bathurst, New Brunswick, the town which for some forty years had been the centre of his personal, business and political activities.
I hardly need to review Mr. Veniot's public career. It was a distinguished career well known to hon. members of this house and scarcely less so to citizens of Canada generally; for he had been a minister in the government of his province-Minister of Public Works- and also premier of the province of New Brunswick; and for some years he was Postmaster General in the government of Canada. It might, however, be well to recall that Mr. Veniot was for the most part a self-educated and self-made man. He was one of the few remaining members of parliament whose birth anteceded the date of confederation, he having been born at Richibucto in 1863. His early education was obtained at the Pictou Academy, Nova Scotia. His first association with public affairs came as owner and editor of an Acadian weekly newspaper in the mari-times. He was elected to the New Brunswick legislature in 1894. After a few years in the legislature he became collector of customs at Bathurst, which position he occupied for a little over ten years. It was in 1917 that he became Minister of Public Works in the government, of New Brunswick, and from that time on until the end of his life he was continuously in the legislature or parliament.
Mr. Veniot's personal characteristics will be much in the minds of all who are present here. Outstanding, as I have already said, was his courage and, born of deep conviction, the fearlessness with which at all times he was prepared to express his views. He belonged to the old school of political fighters who [DOT]rather enjoy the rough and tumble of politics. He was one of the most vigorous in party contests. At times he was given to striking
hard blows, but he was always equally prepared to receive them. He did not, however, cherish bitter feelings towards his opponents. As an administrator he was most industrious and efficient. He worked tirelessly in whatever office he held.
With Mr. Veniot I personally enjoyed a very close association, and I confess that his passing has left a blank in my life. When it came to the formation of the present ministry, a year or two ago, it was a source of disappointment both to him and to myself that we were each obliged to recognize that [DOT]having passed the age of three score years and ten, with health somewhat impaired, it seemed inadvisable for him, either in his own interest or in that of the public, again to attempt to assume the onerous responsibilities of a portfolio. However, his disappointment in that regard served only to bring out the finer side of his nature. I am sure that all my followers will agree that in the assiduous manner in which he continued to fight its battles no member of the party could have been more chivalrous to the party as a whole. Certainly I oan say that no supporter was ever more loyal to his leader to the end of his days than was Peter Veniot. It was these qualities of true worth which so greatly endeared him to all his colleagues.
As I think of how Mr. Veniot's name will be remembered in this country, I feel that it [DOT]will always be associated with the qualities of industry, of integrity, and of fidelity. It is very much to his credit that throughout a life of public service which extended over almost half a century he gave almost all of [DOT]his time to public affairs, often at considerable sacrifice of his own private interests. As the best of all legacies he bequeathed to his family an honoured name, and to his country an honourable tradition of public service. Perhaps as fine a tribute as any that could be paid his memory was that expressed by the people of Gloucester, whose interests in the legislature and in parliament he had served for so long a time, when being called upon to choose a successor they selected Doctor Veniot. his eldest son, one of six sons, and returned him to this House of Commons by acclamation.
May I say to Doctor Veniot, knowing his father as I did, I am sure that nothing could have meant more to his father or could mean more to his father's memory than to have one of his sons, and in particular his eldest son, continue unbroken the tradition of public service which has come to be associated with the name he bears.

Tributes to Deceased Members


Right Hon.   S@: On behalf of the opposition and those who sit around me I wish to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in expressing regret at the death of these two friends of ours who have passed away since the last session, and I also wish to express the sympathy of the opposition with the government in the loss of two of their loyal supporters.
As a matter of fact the life of a member of parliament is a pretty strenuous one, more so than that of an ordinary individual, and that is the reason why we find every year there are those who in the interval between sessions have passed away and whose memory we wish to honour by some words of appreciation.
Mr. Perras, as member for Wright, was born across the river in Hull. He lived most of his life at Gracefield up the Gatineau river, and one thing I had in common with him was the fact that he was in the lumber business, which, long ago, before I entered public life, was also my work. Mr. Perras was mayor of Gracefield for many years, and I believe was successful in carrying out the work of that office. He was also warden of the county, and we all know the responsibilities which that office entails.
I did not know Mr. Perras very well, but some of my relatives lived next door to him in this city and they described him to me as a good neighbour. I do not know how one can say anything better about a man than that those who lived beside him considered him a good neighbour. He died a comparatively young man, at the age of only sixty. He was a regular attendant at the sessions of this house. It is quite true, as the Prime Minister has said, that he did not take very much part in debate, but he was careful in his work and diligent in looking after the wants of his constituents, and he has left behind him a name of which his relatives may well be proud.
Mr. Veniot was an older man in point of years, and one who, as the Prime Minister has said, had given much of his life to public service. According to the records he first started some sixty years ago, as secretary of the school board. He became a member of the provincial legislature, afterwards premier of his own province, eventually a member of this house, and he was appointed by the Liberal administration in 1026 as Postmaster General of Canada. In other words, Mr. Veniot's career was a distinguished one, and I join with everything the Prime Minister has said in that regard and in the expression of sympathy to the family he has left behind.

Mr. Veniot was a very worthy representative of the Acadian race, and when he was in his prime he was a doughty fighter, an opponent strenuous in debate. During the last year or two he had not been well, but I feel sure, although I never heard him on the platform, that in elections he must have been an effective debater. At the same time Mr. Veniot was of a very kindly disposition; I always found him so. When he had his political armour off he was a cheery, pleasant man to meet and to do business with. I think we may take a pattern from Mr. Veniot's life. There is no position which is not open to anyone with the ability and the energy to take advantage of the opportunities afforded in this country. My opinion has always been that we cannot expect democracy, such as we know it, with universal suffrage, to survive unless everyone is willing to render public service according to his means, his ability and his position. I do not care whether it be for municipal purposes, in connection with charitable organizations, or in either the dominion or the provincial field; some service everyone ought to render, and I have always felt it to be the duty of everyone, in whatever position he may happen to be placed, to do what he can for the general community.
And so, Mr. Speaker, we all regret very much the death of these two gentlemen, and I would say here that this House of Commons is the poorer for their passing. I join with the Prime Minister in requesting, sir, that you express to their families the sympathy of this house in the great loss they have sustained.


Mr. J. H. BLAOKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should like to express on behalf of the social credit members our endorsation of the words of sympathy which have been expressed. We were not in the house long enough to learn to know these gentlemen, but what we have heard has led us to believe that they were men of outstanding character, devoted to the public service. We rejoice therefore in the record of their lives and wish to join with the members of the older parties in extending to their memories honour and to their bereaved ones our sincere sympathy.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
would be failing in my duty, and almost a filial duty, if I did not second the laudatory remarks which have just been uttered with regard to one of our colleagues, the late Hon. Peter Veniot, former minister and representative of the province of New Brunswick in the dominion government.

Accession oj King George VI
Besides his relatives and those very close to him, nobody of this present generation has perhaps been more intimately connected with the late Hon. Mr. Veniot than I happened to be during the last twenty-five years. In 1912, I had the honour of being chosen to assist him in his capacity of organizer of the political party to which we both had pledged our allegiance, in New Brunswick. In 1917. I sat with him in the New Brunswick legislature; in 1921. I became his colleague in the government of that province; from 1923 to 1925, I served under him in the same government; in 1934, again I became his colleague in the House of Commons, and finally, in 1935, I succeeded him in the dominion government as the representative of the province of New Brunswick.
A few moments ago, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that the main characteristic of that worthy colleague of ours was his courage, and if I take the liberty of making these few remarks in my own language which was also the mother tongue of the late Mr. Veniot, it is in order to point out the spirit with which he made it his duty to regain that very French language which was his own, in spite of his environment and the fact that he had to acquire his primary education in a province where he could not learn the French language.
At the age of twenty-one years Hon. Mr. Veniot, who wished to devote himself to the social and economic re-establishment of his Acadian compatriots, realized that it was necessary for him to recover his mother tongue, and although he was compelled to fight for a living and to learn a trade, he devoted himself to the study of the French language and learned it sufficiently well to become the undisputed leader of his Acadian fellow citizens during the last forty years of his life.
Hon. Mr. Veniot was a patriot in the fullest acceptation of the word; he was truly a Canadian. He had the honour of being prime minister of his province and during the few years that he led the government of New Brunswick it may be said that the impression which he made on public affairs in that province was all to his credit. He promoted primary education, he organized technical schools, he initiated the Workmen's Compensation Act, and also legislation with regard to health, roads, hydro electric services, in a word everything that could make for the economic and social revival of those whom he was leading. He had a firm will, and his conception of duty did not stop at sacrifice.	He well deserves to have his
memory honoured by his own Acadian compatriots as well as by his fellow citizens in Canada, that larger homeland which he considered as his own.
Mr. Speaker, I deem it a great privilege to associate myself with those, who a few moments ago, spoke so highly of him, and to say how much we owe to that great Canadian who will surely rank some time in the future among the men who have done much for their country.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is almost
unnecessary to say that hon. members in this section of the house desire to join with other hon. members in paying our respects to the memory of those who have passed from us. and expressing our sympathy with the immediate friends and relatives.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day are called, may I say a word with reference to the appearance on the order paper of the special order in the following terms:
That an humble address be presented to His Majesty King George VI, extending the greetings of the members of this house upon His Majesty's accession to the throne, and conveying to His Majesty and to Her Majesty the Queen the assurance of their loyalty and support.
Hon. members will recall that yesterday when I asked for unanimous consent to proceed with the resolution to-day the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) took exception to my so doing. After what I said in reply to the hon. member I thought he had agreed to allow the motion to be made, but he told me after adjournment last night that you, Mr. Speaker, had misunderstood his intention in the matter, and that in reality he intended to press his objection, I mentioned to the member for Winnipeg North Centre that I thought hon. members generally believed he had consented to the order being proceeded with. Moreover I drew his attention to the fact that if we did not proceed to-day with the resolution we could not deal with it until after the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has taken place, because of the house having agreed to give it precedence on Monday. I pointed out, further, that if the resolution were not proceeded with until after we had discussed the bill respecting the law touching the succession, it might be some time

Accession of King George VI
before it could be adopted. I expressed to him the hope that he would not offer further objection. He has stated to me frankly that he has no desire to delay the motion, but that he feels the point he has raised is one which should be strongly taken; that in bringing forward a resolution expressing loyalty to the new king before disposing of a bill respecting succession the government is not proceeding logically.
My hon. friend has said to me that while agreeable to our proceeding this afternoon, he may nevertheless find it necessary to say something to the government by way of criticism of its action in having consented to the enactment by the parliament of Westminster of the abdication bill. If on this resolution the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should desire to exercise some latitude in criticizing the government-while he may not wish to refrain from criticizing the government, I believe he does not desire particularly to do so on this resolution-I am sure the house will be tolerant of his attitude in view of an understanding reached between the hon. member and myself last night, subject of course to the approval of all hon. members, which would permit consideration of the resolution this afternoon.



ACCESSION OF KING GEORGE VI


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That an humble address be presented to His Majesty King George VI, extending the greetings of _ the members of this house upon His Majesty's accession to the throne, and conveying to His Majesty and to Her Majesty the Queen the assurance of their loyalty and support.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising is to ask hon. members to unite in a resolution of confidence and good will to our new king upon his accession to the throne, and to express our loyalty and support to His Majesty King George VI and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
It is not my intention this afternoon to say anything about the circumstances which led to the accession to the throne of King George VI, beyond saying that they are without precedent in British history. May I point out, however, that they serve to reveal clearly the double foundation on which, throughout the British commonwealth of nations, rests the essential relationship of the crown and the people, namely, on the part of the crown, consecration to all that is highest and best in the well being of a people, and on the part of the

people, loyalty to the crown, as a symbol of the sum and substance of all that is most cherished in the collective life of a nation or a people. In words of unmistakable sincerity, His Majesty King George VI has given assurance of his desire and of the desire of the queen to consecrate their lives for all time to the service of the people.
I can not do better than to read to this house the message sent by King George VI to the two houses of parliament at Westminster a day or two after His Majesty's accession to the throne. The message, under the signature "George R.I.," is as follows:
I have succeeded to the throne in circumstances which are *without precedent and at a moment of great personal distress, but I am resolved to do my duty and I am sustained by the knowledge that I am supported by widespread good will, and sympathy from all my subjects, here, and throughout the world.
It will be my constant endeavour, with God's help and supported by my dear wife, to uphold the honour of the realm, and promote the happiness of my peoples.
This gracious message, which was presented to parliament on December 14, was supplemented by another message which was broadcast, to the empire, at the early dawn of the new year. The king's new year greeting to his peoples in all parts of the empire was in these words:
In this first New Year's day of my reign I send all the peoples of the empire my warmest wishes for their welfare and happiness.
In succeeding to the throne, I follow a father who had won for himself an abiding place in the hearts of his peoples, and a brother whose brilliant qualities gave promise of another historic reign. His reign was cut short in circumstances upon which, from their very sadness, none of us would wish to dwell.
I realize the full responsibilities of my noble heritage. I shoulder them with all the more confidence in the knowledge that the Queen, and my mother, Queen Mary, are at my side.
Throughout my life it will be my constant endeavour to strengthen the foundations of mutual trust and affection, on which relations between the sovereign and people of the British Empire so happily rest. I ask your help toward fulfilment of this purpose, and I know that I do not ask in vain.
In this deeply moving message, and from what we know in other ways of the character of our new king, we are able to discern in him one
Who comprehends his trust and to the same
Keeps faithful with a singleness' of aim.
There could1 be no surer guarantee of the extent to which King George VI may be expected to meet the great responsibilities of his reign than the reverence which he has for the memory of his father, his determination to follow1 in his father's footsteps, of whom it

Accession oj Kino George 1 /
may truly be said there never was a better king, and the similarity, in many particulars, of their dispositions and lives.
It is remarkable that in so many ways their lives have been so alike. King George Y, like King George VI was a second son. The early part of the life of each was spent in association with the navy; and both came to the throne in circumstances which were wholly unexpected. As I have said, in disposition the present king is very like his father, and those qualities which made his father beloved; by his people will equally make the present king beloved by them as well. There is that quality of natural simplicity and dislike of what is ostentatious, the desire to be unobtrusive in his ways, the enjoyment of the simple and wholesome things of life; the love of home; the joys of country life; a dignified tradition of comradeship and human understanding, and' a fine sense of duty and obliga-gation.
Like his father the present king has been singularly fortunate in his happy family life. The lives of King George VI, of his queen and of their children, are almost as familiar to all in this country as they are to the people of England.
In sharing the great responsibilities of the throne. Queen Elizabeth, herself a descendant of early Scottish kings, promises to be to King George VI all that Queen Mary was to King George V. Already Queen Elizabeth and the little Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret Rose, have won an abiding place in the hearts of the people.
In one further particular His Majesty is greatly blessed. He continues to enjoy the loving tenderness and sure guidance of a mother to whom he has been greatly devoted, and who. I believe, among women is the most honoured and most beloved in the world to-day.
It is well, Mr. Speaker, that all these things are so because never before has a king ascended the throne at a time as critical in the affairs of the world as the present. Never before has there been thrust on a pair of young shoulders responsibilities wider and weightier than those which rest upon the shoulders of the present king.
Our new king has given us his assurance, in no uncertain terms, that he will seek to do his part. Already he has accepted his responsibilities in a dignified and courageous manner. It remains for us to give our assurance that in the great work of government we will do our part. Therefore I am glad to be able to avail myself of this, the earliest opportunity, to bring forward in this house a resolution expressive of our confidence, our good will, our loyalty and our support. It will,
I know, meet with the unanimous acceptance of members of this house. In presenting the resolution I am proud to be joined by my right hon. friend, the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Sir George Perley).
I beg to move, seconded by Sir George Perley:
That an humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words:
To The King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, the members of the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, desire respectfully to extend our greetings upon Your Majesty's accession to the throne, and to convey to Your Majesty and to Her Majesty the Queen, the assurance of our united loyalty and support.
Your Majesty's gracious New Year's message, sending warmest wishes for the welfare and happiness of your peoples, and dedicating yourself and the queen to their service, has been deeply appreciated by Your Majesty's subjects in Canada in common with those of other parts of the British Empire. We believe that, under the blessing of Divine Providence, Your Majesty will be vouchsafed guidance and strength to meet the responsibilities of your noble heritage, and to fulfil your purpose to strengthen the foundations of mutual trust and affection between the sovereign and his people.
We pray that, amid the confusions of the world, and the uncertainties of the times, Your Majesty's throne may be established in righteousness; that Your Majesty's counsellors may bo endowed with wisdom; and that all endeavours of Your Majesty's reign may be directed to the well-governing of your peoples, the preservation of freedom, and the advancement of unity and peace.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, nothing could give me greater pleasure than the honour of seconding a resolution of this kind, an address of loyalty to His Majesty, King George VI. The SPrime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has moved the resolution in felicitous terms and we associate ourselves with his expressions of loyalty and devotion to the crown. From his earliest years the present king, as Prince Albert, was brought up and trained with the idea in mind that he might some day succeed to the throne, and he was taught the duty and privilege of service. At the outbreak of the great war he was serving in the Royal Navy, and he was present at the battle of Jutland. While still a young man he began to take part in public functions as a member of the royal family. My position as High Commissioner for Canada gave me the privilege of meeting Prince Albert several times during our stay in London, and I formed a high opinion of his ability and his keen sense of duty.
Accession oj King George VI

I was present officially when he was given the freedom of the city of London at the historic Guild Hall, where he made his first public speech of any importance. We were also at Westminster Abbey when the prince as Duke of York married the charming Scotch girl, and it was a delight to witness the popular enthusiasm on that occasion.
Since that time both the duke and the duchess have carried out the many duties that fall to the lot of members of the royal family in such a way that they have endeared themselves to everyone and have given an example of happy family life such as we all admire and respect.
With this background His Majesty comes to the throne well qualified by training and heredity to bear his heavy burden. He is endowed with wisdom and understanding, and is thoroughly conversant with the constitutional form of government of the British Empire or the British commonwealth of nations of which we are all so proud. We are a free people, and a great and very real democracy under a constitutional monarch. British subjects in every part of the world have shown conclusively that they are devoted to the crown under all circumstances. In many ways His Majesty is like his beloved father, King George V, and' I believe that under his wise guidance and with the support of his charming consort the prestige of the monarchy and the proud loyalty of the people for their king will be increased as the years roll on.
To quote from the final words of the present resolution, we pray "that all endeavours of Your Majesty's reign may be directed to the well-governing of your peoples, the preservation of freedom, and the advancement of unity and peace."
We on this side join whole-heartedly in extending to His Majesty and to Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth our respectful greetings and our assurance of loyalty and support. May I add the sincere wish that their majesties may be blessed with long life, happiness and prosperity. "God save the King."


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I highly appreciate the privilege which is mine of seconding the resolution moved by the right hon. ^ the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and of tendering to His Majesty King George VI, on the memorable occasion of his accession to the throne, the respect and good wishes of my French speaking fellow-citizens.
It has been said by a foreign observer that the association of the nations of the Com-

monwealth has just given to the world, which has witnessed the downfall of so many empires and the disappearance of so many historic institutions, a great and comforting spectacle that of all its peoples uniting in a common sentiment of loyalty to the crown, in which they respect the symbol of their unity and of their glorious past.
Now that we have achieved the astonishing political progress of conciliating monarchy and democracy, the sovereign no longer directly exercises power, but he continues to be its living emblem.
The United Kingdom and the Dominions, conscious of the providential mission which is theirs of working for the maintenance of stability, order and peace throughout the world, have, in admirable unison, recognized in the proclamation of their new' monarch a guarantee of their continuity and of the safeguard of the best British traditions. The Duke of York's striking physical and moral resemblance to his father has been noted with satisfaction in recent years. Schooled like him in the hard and wholesome discipline of a sailor's life, he1 is moreover endowed with the high moral qualities and absolute devotion to duty that earned for George V the loyaltj' and affection of his subjects.
After serving his country in the navy and in the air force during the war, our monarch has devoted himself in times of peace to the study of social and industrial questions and to the establishment of closer bonds betw'een social classes. All those who have had the privilege of knowing his distinguished personality, of appreciating the simple and manly dignity of his character, are sure that he fully realizes his responsibilities and that he will scrupulously abide by the rules and duties of constitutional monarchy.
Indeed, in his first official statement to the privy council, the King affirmed his intention strictly to respect the principles of our form of government and his resolve to consecrate himself, before and above all else, to the welfare of his subjects.
May I be permitted to express to the King the assurance of our loyalty and of our wish to see him devote himself to the good government of his people and to the preservation of liberty and of peace.
We wish also to give expression to our respect for Her Majesty the Queen who, by her noble qualities of heart and mind, seems naturally destined to second the devotion of her royal husband.
In conclusion, I wish to recall the words of the official proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General of Canada and to repeat that we beseech "God by whom all

Accession of King George VI
kings and queens do reign to bless the Royal Prince George the Sixth with long and happy years to reign over us."


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to voice any objection to the words of the address, but as I intimated yesterday I protest against the government introducing an address at this stage of the proceedings. King George VI may be king de facto, but as I see the matter he is not king de jure until this parliament enacts appropriate legislation.
I am really not concerned as to what person occupies the throne, but I am concerned with maintaining the rights of parliament, and it is strange that I should have to take this attitude especially with the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his seat. It is undoubtedly regrettable that matters of procedure and criticisms of government policy should be mixed up with a formal address to His Majesty, but as I suggested yesterday the Prime Minister might have avoided this by deferring his motion. The bill which the Prime Minister has introduced should in my judgment have preceded this address; otherwise the debate on that bill loses all reality. The Prime Minister stated yesterday that the bill referred particularly to the question of succession in the future, but surely when King Edward VIII was placed by Mr. Baldwin in the position where he had to make an important choice, and he chose abdication-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I interrupt my hon. friend? I do not think he intends to misrepresent Mr. Baldwin's position, but I have no understanding that Mr. Baldwin placed the former king in any such position. All that I have heard, and all that I have read of dispatches, would indicate that His former Majesty had himself asked certain questions of Mr. Baldwin which Mr. Baldwin answered. I do not think that in any way did Mr. Baldwin seek to embarrass His former Majesty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I refer to Mr. Baldwin's speech in the House of Commons at Westminster:
I saw the king on Monday, November 16, and I began by giving him my view of a possible marriage. I told him that I did not think that a particular marriage was one that would receive the approbation of the country. That marriage would have involved the lady becoming queen. I did tell His Majesty once that I might be a remnant of the old Victorians, but that my worst enemy would not say of me that I did not know what the reaction of the English people would be to any particular course of
action, and I told him that so far as they went I was certain that that would be impracticable. . . .
Then His Majesty said to me-I have his permission to state this-that he wanted to tell me something that he had long wanted to tell me. He said: "I am going to marry Mrs. Simpson, and I am prepared to go."
It is to that statement I refer.


Mr. DUPUIS:: What is the hon. member quoting from?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That statement you will find in Mr. Baldwin's speech in the House of Commons.


Vincent Dupuis: But in what publication?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I just happen to be quoting from a number of documents that are included in the January issue of the Nineteenth Century magazine.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I think I am quite in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I imagine the document he is quoting from is not the full text or he would probably have given it. I think the Hansard of the House of Commons at Westminster will show that prior to the part my hon. friend has just read Mr. Baldwin had said that His Majesty had raised this question with Mr. Baldwin first, asking Mr. Baldwin what in his opinion would be the result of an endeavour to have parliament enact a morganatic marriage act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My point, Mr. Speaker, is this, that when the king was placed in that position, or found himself in that position, the succession was at that time altered. That is all I want to emphasize at this time.
It seems to me that we as members should not have been required to take the oath of allegiance before taking our seats in this house and voting on this question. The other day we received a note from the clerk of the house-I have no doubt he had been instructed by the government-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that the government has not sought to instruct the clerk, but I believe the clerk has tried to perform his duty as he believed it should be performed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The note said that an hon. member cannot sit in the house until he has taken and subscribed to the oath as required by the British North America Act. We had already taken the oath a year ago and already have seats in parliament. If on
Accession of King George VI

the demise of the throne parliament can carry on, I submit that so also can a member retain his seat. But I have no desire to make a scene, and further than that I do not think the matter is of sufficient importance-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -for me to take the action that Mr. Bradlaugh did in England a good many years ago.
I would point out that this house has a very slight knowledge of what actually took place in Great Britain. We have had to depend very largely upon newspaper accounts and radio messages. I have a notice on. the order paper asking for the production of papers relative to the abdication of King Edward VIII. These should be before the house, I submit, before the bill is discussed, and the bill should be passed before the address is moved. It is true that the Prime Minister has not absolutely refused to bring down the papers, but he said yesterday that he had consulted with Mr. Baldwin and is consulting with the prime ministers of other dominions to see what they are going to do. I hope the time will come before very long when the Prime Minister of Canada will decide these matters on their merits-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that correspondence is twosided, and one is not at liberty, where correspondence is confidential, to bring down correspondence unless he has the consent of the other party to the correspondence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I submit that when matters of great concern are at stake the members of parliament ought not to be expected to act without an intelligent knowledge of the grounds on which action is to be taken. I have no desire in this matter to do any muck-raking, but the people of this country have the right to know the fundamental facts of the case. Why all this haste and secrecy? Was Mr. Baldwin's action, after all, caused by pressure from the dominions? Whose statement are we to accept, that of Mr. Baldwin or that of our own Prime Minister? I think such questions are important.
I have here a cartoon by Low which represents a procession secretly in the dead of night in which the throne and the demised crown are being transferred under a policy of "hush," "silence" and "mystery," while the press and public opinion have been gagged. It seems to me that our Prime Minister is quite willing to join in that procession.
The government have introduced this bill. If the action of the government on December

10 was constitutional, surely further legislation is unnecessary. Within a few hours of the Prime Minister's statement of December 10 I wired him saying-
As a member of parliament pledged to loyalty to King Edward VIII-
As we all were at that time.
-I protest against the usurpation by the cabinet of the powers of parliament.
That. I believe, was before the order in council was passed.
There are two questions that persist in my mind. First, why should our Prime Minister, in connivance with Mr. Baldwin, be in a position to absolve me and other members from our declaration of loyalty to King Edward VIII; and, second, why should the Liberal party be in a position to decide who is to be king of the Canadian people? I am not indulging in captious criticism; I am simply trying to emphasize the importance of the precedent which has been and is being set. The Prime Minister relies, I suppose, upon a fait accompli, but in bringing this about he has deliberately set aside an important statute and acted contrary to a constitutional convention. Doubtless the Prime Minister was in a difficult position, I concede that; but the cost of pleasing the British government has been altogether too great.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt, but I must take exception to my hon. friend's statement. There was no question of trying to please the British government. When we come to the measure itself I think I shall be able to show the house that the government's action in every particular complied with the Statute of Westminster and was satisfactory.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I can only use my own judgment, but it seems to me that this action has made the Statute of Westminster a farce. While in 'Winnipeg the Native Sons were celebrating the anniversary of the passing of the Westminster act, a Liberal prime minister of Canada was lending himself to rubber-stamping a decision of the government of the United Kingdom. Further, so far as Canada is concerned we have once more gone back to government by order in council, thus setting a most dangerous precedent. If the Prime Minister can choose our king he can declare war or commit this country to any policy of less importance than the selection of the head of the state.
It seems to me that the Prime Minister has rather shifted his ground from the position taken in the public statement he gave to the

Accession oj King George VI
Canadian people a few weeks ago. The Prime Minister explains his position with what Mr. Baldwin might call " appalling frankness." He refers to the Westminster act, from which I read the pertinent paragraph:
And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this act that, inasmuch as the crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British commonwealth of nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
In his statement to the public the Prime Minister admits that-
The action involved in giving effect to Hie Majesty's instrument of abdication constitutes such an alteration.
That is, an alteration in the law touching the succession, which is something that has already been done. If the Prime Minister is correct in the statement he made yesterday, that the bill is not retroactive, then it should be-decidedly it should be, because we cannot pass over a complete change in the occupancy of the throne, putting down one king and setting up another, and assume that parliament has no particular concern with such a proceeding. The Prime Minister attempts to distinguish between " the legal standpoint " and the preservation of the constitutional convention. In maintaining the first he quotes from section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, which deals with procedure:
No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
I understand that some lawyers are prepared to say that what is contained in the preamble does not control the various sections; but this preamble is of a very special nature in that it embodies very clearly and definitely a statement of constitutional convention, a convention concerning which the Expert conference of 1929 said:
Such conventions take their place among the constitutional principles and doctrines which are in practice regarded as binding and sacred whatever the powers of parliament may in theory be.
In so far as this section refers to any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne, it is clear that this can be done only by the action of the dominion parliament.
The Prime Minister, however, leaves this attempted but rather nebulous distinction of legal and constitutional and hastens to emphasize the practical aspects of the case. He pointed out in his public statement that the time element enters in. Well, who created the imperative crisis-the king, or Mr. Baldwin, or Mrs. Wallis Simpson, or the American gossips? Surely if the king of the United Kingdom can be distinguished for legal purposes from the King of Canada then the recognition of the King of the United Kingdom as king of Canada can w'ait until there is time to call parliament. If the selection of the king of Canada is of such minor importance, the question arises: Why a king at all?
Parliament is now in session; it might have been considered that the very first step would be to discuss and settle this matter. Instead of that we are asked to pass a resolution of loyalty to the king. Surely this is not the proper time to introduce an address of that kind1; let us do it at the proper time-after the bill is passed.
What is the Prime Minister's conception of keeping a statute? In his address to the public he stated that he will have it-
[DOT]-asserted and safeguarded to the greatest practicable extent-
Mark that.
-consistent with all the circumstances of time and space-
Plenty of latitude there.
-and with the imperative, practical necessities-
"Practical" again, and the practicability to be judged by Liberal standards.
-which confronted the government on this unprecedented occasion.
Surely that kind of interpretation could drive a coach and four through any statute 1
I would ask the Prime Minister why he adopts one attitude towards the Statute of Westminster, which was put on the statute book only five years ago, and such a different attitude towards the British North America Act, which was put on the statute book seventy years ago. Such an unprecedented situation, declares the Prime Minister, "was not contemplated" when the Statute of Westminster "was drawn and enacted." I ask him, was unemployment on an unprecedented scale contemplated when the British North America Act was drawn and enacted? Was depression on an unprecedented scale contemplated when the British North America Act was drawn and enacted? Were debt burdens, dominion, provincial, municipal and private on an unprecedented scale contemplated when the British North America Act was drawn and enacted? Were great ac-
Accession of King George VI

cumulations of wealth and arbitrary powers of control by the holders thereof on an unprecedented scale contemplated when the British North America Act was drawn and enacted?
Then why does not the Prime Minister recognize the time element in connection with such matters? Why does not the Prime Minister carry out the provisions of the British North America Act "to the greatest practicable extent consistent with all the circumstances of time and space and with the imperative practical necessities" which confront his government and all governments in these rapidly changing days? It looks to me as if the present Prime Minister is prepared to carry out statutes only when it suits him, and that government by orders in council seems to him to be quite justifiable when a Liberal government is in office.
I do not intend to discuss the matter at any greater length on this occasion; it is not in order to say anything with respect to the terms of the bill. What further I have to say will be reserved until the bill is under discussion. At this time I wish merely to lodge a protest against the action of the government in what seems to me to be an effort to railroad through a matter of great importance.


Mr. POULIOT:: Does the Statute of Westminster provide for a king for Canada other than the king of the United Kingdom?
Air. WO'ODSWORTH: No, but it does definitely provide that there shall be no new king nor shall anything be done touching the succession without the consent of the governments of the dominions.


Jean-François Pouliot: If it is the government it
is not the parliament.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The parliaments, of course I should have said.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Scarcely a year ago it was my privilege to express devotion to His former Majesty King Edward VIII. To him British peoples everywhere had given warm and spontaneous love and great hopes were entertained for our future under him. His passing is now a mournful memory. After all, however, the British union of peoples is greater than any man. Men may come and go, but the British race must go on. Let us then turn from the past to the future. King George VI has merited our admiration and our loyalty. When I remember the tireless pains with which he has mastered his handicaps I am 
confident that under God he will be able to overcome, with us, the grave difficulties which everywhere beset our way. I take pleasure then in joining with my colleagues in this parliament in saving, "God save the King."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we should sing the national anthem.
The members rose and joined in singing the national anthem.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 4.30 p.m.
Monday, January 18, 1937