1949-01-28

AUDIBILITY OF DEBATE


Mr. Maxime Raymond (Beauharnois-La-prairie):: I rise on a question of privilege. I believe it is the privilege, or rather I should say the right, of every member sitting in this chamber to be able to hear the speeches delivered in this house. Unfortunately those who sit in this corner and those who are sitting in the corner opposite cannot do so; and I may add without fear of contradiction that at least fifty per cent of the members of this house are unable to hear most of the speeches made in this chamber. As a result they are unable to understand not only the speeches but the conversations, which take place at the opening of almost every sitting, between the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition, and this means that we must wait until the next morning to read in the newspapers or in Hansard what took place the previous day.
Many times the attention of the former leader of the house was called to this condition, but to no avail. Now that we have a new leader of the government I would ask him to consider this matter very seriously. I have no doubt that it will be easy to convince him, for no later than yesterday, when the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), began to deliver his speech, the Prime Minister left his seat and came to this corner in order that he might follow what was being said. I hope some action will be taken in the very near future.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right; the acoustics of this chamber are bad, though they are not worse than they have been for the thirty years this chamber has been in use. Yesterday, as the hon. member has just recalled, I did move from my seat to the other corner of the house in order that I might enjoy the magnificent addresses being made on the motion to present an address to His Excellency in reply to the speech from the throne. The acoustics are no better in this part of the house than they are in the other corners, and when speeches are being made from the far corner it is just as difficult for
those of us who habitually sit here to follow them closely as it is for my friends in those sections of the house to follow closely what is being said at this end.
This unfortunate circumstance has been long known to all members of the house. I am sure it has not escaped your attention, Mr. Speaker, for, if I am not mistaken, over the last three years you have investigated systems designed to improve the acoustics in legislative chambers in other countries. My understanding is that you have not so far found in use anywhere a system which was sufficiently appropriate to justify your recommending it to the members of this house. 1 hope that before long it will be possible for you to find somewhere a system which you will feel justified in recommending to your colleagues in this chamber to improve the situation in regard to acoustics.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer here and as one who-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


George Alexander Drew: As a newcomer here and as
one whose voice is not ordinarily regarded as unduly weak, I must confess I have noticed some difficulty in hearing the speakers in this chamber. As the member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) was bringing this matter to the attention of the house, I had great difficulty in hearing what he was saying. I do feel it is not necessary to explore very extensively the possibilities of solving this problem because it has been solved, and effectively solved, in the chamber of deputies in Paris and in the legislative assembly in Rome where there is, in fact, loud speaker equipment between every two desks by means of which a loud speaker can be installed when anyone is speaking.
There would be no practical difficulty of any kind in installing a small microphone, which would not be unduly expensive, between every desk in this chamber so that every member, everyone in the gallery, and perhaps most important, every member of the press gallery would be able to hear what was said.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not the practice of the
speaker to enter into a debate-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Mr. Speaker:: -and it is not my intention to do so. As the Right Hon. the Prime Minister has already said hon. members may be

House of Commons
assured that representations have been made to me in this regard by members of the house, members of the press gallery and visitors to this house. I would be very pleased if a system could be found which would give satisfaction. I think it is my duty, though, to call the attention of the hon. leader of the opposition to the fact that one of the difficulties in adopting the method used in the French house or the Italian house or even in the congress of the United States is the fact that in most of these places the members speak from a rostrum. This means only one microphone need be connected to the loud speaker.
Here, the problem is quite different, but the hon. members may be assured that they have all my sympathy. The Speaker experiences considerable difficulty in hearing what is going on in the house. I will do everything possible to give you satisfaction, though I consider it my duty not to recommend an expensive installation which would not give satisfaction. You may depend upon it, however, that I will do my very best, in consultation with the proper officials, to make a recommendation satisfactory to all hon. members as soon as possible.


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps you will permit me to
say a word in view of the fact that you have referred to what I have said. In the French and Italian chambers the ministers speak from the rostrum, but the members speak from their seats. I believe that system would work here.



SUPREME COURT ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Supreme Court Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This bill comprises a number of amendments the purpose of which is to clarify existing sections in the act; they involve no change in principle. There is, however, one notable change, and that is the proposal to abolish appeals from the Supreme Court of Canada to the privy council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monlmorency) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Criminal Code (illegal organizations) and the Canadian Citizenship Act (loss of Canadian citizenship).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, in explanation may I say that a new item has been added to this bill, which is well known to the hon. members of this house. Article 98A of the Criminal Code has been amended as follows:
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person:
(a)	to attempt in any manner to establish in Canada a totalitarian dictatorship the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination or control of, any foreign government, foreign organization, or foreign individual;
(b)	to perform or attempt to perform any act with intent to facilitate or aid in bringing about the establishment in Canada of such a totalitarian dictatorship;
(c)	actively to participate in the management, direction, or supervision of any movement to establish in Canada such a totalitarian dictatorship;
(d)	actively to participate in the management, direction, or supervision of any movement to facilitate or aid in bringing about the establishment in Canada of such a totalitarian dictatorship;
(e)	to conspire to do anything unlawful by this subsection.
I want to add one remark, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. If the C.C.F., as I hope, is in no way connected with communism-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Wilfrid Lacroix: -the members of that party will surely not make lengthy speeches on this bill, as they did last year, but will allow it to reach a vote.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL FLAG


Mr. Roland Beaudry (SI. James) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, respecting a national flag for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Roland Beaudry: The purpose of the bill is to provide for a national flag for Canada. The description of the flag is appended in a schedule to the bill. I hope that within a few days I shall have the privilege of distributing to the members of this house a facsimile of this flag.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill for the approval by parliament of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada. The implementation

of these terms will involve a charge upon and payment out of moneys in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abboli (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to provide for the continuance in force of the Foreign Exchange Control Act until sixty days after the commencement of the first session of parliament commencing in the year 1951.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Agricultural Products Act to extend the operation of the act for a period of one year.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Robert W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure for the purpose of regulating the export and import of fish and fish containers and the export of marine plants, and the appointment of inspectors and other officers and employees required for the proper administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Proposed Legislation

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works, for the Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That on and after Monday, January 31, 1949, and every sitting day thereafter until and including Friday, February 11, 1949, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills.
He said: In referring to this motion yesterday I stated that if I had the consent of the house I would ask that there be substituted, for the dates January 31 and February 11, respectively, the dates February 7 and February 18. On referring to the rules, however, I find that the regular way to handle the matter is not by amending my own motion but by presenting it in its present form and leaving it to some other hon. member to propose the proper amendment, if he sees fit to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: I move:
That the motion be amended by replacing in the first line thereof the words "January 31" by the words "February 7," and by replacing in the second line thereof the words "February 11" by the words "February 18".


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before any remarks are made in connection with this motion, I think the house should have some indication of the reasons why there is any cause to consider it at the present time. I would point out that yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister said that in any event it was the intention of the government to proceed during the coming week with the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. For that reason there is no evidence of any necessity for

Business of the House
the consideration of this motion this afternoon. Certainly nothing has been put before the house which would suggest any reason for supporting such a motion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The reason for making the motion is to determine now that on February 7 we may proceed with the resolutions and legislation necessary to implement the agreement for the union of Newfoundland with Canada. It is an express term of that agreement for union that it will come into force and bring about the union if there is assented to, by His Majesty, a bill of the parliament of the United Kingdom confirming legislation passed by this parliament and by the government of Newfoundland ratifying the terms of that agreement. That procedure requires that there be in this house first of all a resolution, the one that was mentioned first under the heading "government notices of motions" today. That resolution is necessary before any bill can be introduced, because a bill to confirm the agreement will impose charges upon the consolidated revenue fund. Then the bill itself must run the gauntlet of the usual stages of procedure in this house and in the other place before it can become the law of the land. It is felt that it would be undesirable to have the matter dealt with at all by the parliament of the United Kingdom until the parliament of Canada has expressed the views of the people of Canada with respect to the union. Before the parliament of the United Kingdom will attempt to deal with the matter at all, in order to comply with the terms of the statute of Westminster there will be required a joint address of this house and of the senate asking His Majesty to lay before the parliament of the United Kingdom a bill embodying the proper legislation.
When I was over in London some months ago I had some discussion on this subject with members of the government of the United Kingdom, and I was told that they would like to have not less than three weeks to deal with the legislation in their houses of parliament after the proceedings had been completed here. It is therefore urgent, I think, that we reach this matter and ascertain, at as early a date as possible, the views of the parliament of Canada upon the terms of union that were signed last December. It was for that reason that, when I announced to the gentlemen of the press the date that was fixed for the session, I explained to them that we were calling parliament together on a Wednesday instead of a Thursday, as had been done in several previous years, so that there might be a couple of days of debate on the address before we asked parliament to suspend the debate and deal with the matters concerning Newfoundland, as it had been our intention

to ask parliament to do at the time specified in the motion as printed on the order paper.
When notice of this motion was given I found that there were many members of parliament on both sides of the house who felt that it was not necessary to commence on January 31 in order to have the Newfoundland proceedings properly dealt with in time, and that they wished to have at least another full week of debate on the address before adjourning it.
It is my view that we do generally make better progress in dealing with the substantive business of parliament if we do not have too many disputes over matters of procedure, and I would take it for granted that we would be probably just as far advanced with the Newfoundland matter after a week or two if we met the wishes of hon. members who wish to have an additional week to debate the address.
The reason for bringing the motion forward is to have it fixed, that we will start on this matter on February 7, and to inform the law officers of the United Kingdom of this change, which we hope will not necessarily mean that we shall be delaying them in putting before them, if parliament approves of the agreement, the required material so that it can be dealt with in orderly fashion in the United Kingdom parliament.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I assure the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and hon. members that on any procedural matters that will facilitate the business of this house he will find the full concurrence of myself as leader of the opposition and those associated with me; but that concurrence does not extend to the point of departing from well established practices, for which departure no substantial reason can be offered. The reasons now presented by the Prime Minister offer no justification whatever for presenting this motion today. I would point out that throughout the whole record of the House of Commons, not only in this chamber but in other chambers in early buildings since confederation, in the majority of occasions on which the debate on the speech from the throne has proceeded without interruption it has actually been completed within the time which would elapse between now and next Friday.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


George Alexander Drew: Some hon. members, of course, are basing their views on recent experience, which is not traditionally the experience of this house, if they examine the record.


I do not wonder that hon. members at the other end of the chamber have difficulty in hearing the debate when it seems so difficult for some hon. members to keep their own thoughts inaudible.
The motion that is before the house at the present time is one which has the effect of terminating the debate on the address before anyone in the house knows whether in fact it will still be going on next Friday. It is a very easy matter to examine the record of Hansard and to ascertain that postponing the debate and then reviving it, and thereby bringing back the subject matter that was under consideration, inevitably prolongs the whole debate. But there are other reasons why this motion should not be accepted by hon. members without a great deal more explanation than has been offered. The date on which agreement was called for between the parliament of Canada and the representatives of Newfoundland, described in the agreement as the government of Newfoundland, was March 31. That date was decided on before the government had fixed the date of the session. If there was any reason to believe that additional time was needed it would have been very easy to have fixed an earlier date for the opening of the session so that the debate on the speech from the throne could have proceeded in an orderly way to its customary termination without interruption, such as is now suggested.
It is difficult to imagine what the urgency IS wxiiCxl SuggcScS tiicit it IS iicCcSScuTy to iiciV6 this bill considered a week from Monday, particularly when more than two months will still elapse between the date on which agreement is required and today. After all, there is no reason to suggest that any extended delay will be involved in presenting the views of this house to Westminster, because it is inconceivable that the government of Canada has not already presented all the facts to the government of the United Kingdom other than the appropriate indication of such decision as may be reached by this parliament. That being so, the time that is suggested as being necessary for these proceedings seems to bear no relationship whatever to any reasonable requirements to deal with this matter in the ordinary way.
There is of course another and very much more cogent reason why this motion should not be accepted by hon. members. The rules of this house are not different from the rules of any other house. Please do not think for one moment that I am unaware of the tactics that can be employed in delaying the consideration of a debate on the speech from the throne, because if it is delayed the government finds an opportunity to introduce a number of extraneous subject matters which in their opinion will divert public attention
Business of the House from the inadequacy of the statements in the speech from the throne and from the weaknesses in the position of the government. I am certainly convinced that this is the reason the adjournment is sought, rather than the reason that has been suggested in the house today. It will of course be very convenient if the striking omissions from the speech from the throne are supplemented by appropriate statements from day to day by various ministers who will make those bright promises which the minister of reconstruction does not think are as useful as they once were.
But these can go on from day to day in the intervening period. And of course it would appear that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) holds a similar view. These can go on indefinitely-and this is nothing new. I think the hon. members of this house not only on the opposition side but on the government side should seek to have an explanation on the one hand in regard to certain statements, which are extremely vague, in the speech from the throne and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I will debate it on the appropriate occasion.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the motion.


Mr. Howe:: Are you speaking on the speech from the throne?


Mr. Cruickshank:: I thought you knew the rules.


George Alexander Drew: I think it is very obvious that a number of motions can be padded out with various statements that can be introduced on the one hand by presentation to the house, and on the other hand by those interesting pieces of information which appear in the press throughout Canada, without any names attached to them, stating that the press is authoritatively informed from someone very close to the minister that such and such a thing is going to be done.
There is of course a still further reason, and one which, it seems to me, is very difficult for some hon. members opposite to dispute: that is, that the debate on the speech from the throne is no mere formality, as some people seem to * suggest from time to time. It is in fact the most important debate in many cases which will take place in any legislative assembly. Because, under the practice established here, as in every other parliament or legislature within the commonwealth, the debate on the speech from the throne offers an opportunity to the house to say by its vote whether the government still commands the confidence of the House of Commons. It may be a comfortable assumption on the part of the government that they

Business of the House can look at the list of members and count every vote according to the places where they seat themselves in the house. But if any house of commons or legislative assembly reduces itself to a position where individual discretion, intelligence and conscience mean nothing, then there might just as well be no recorded vote at all, and the vote might just as well be taken from the printed sheet.
The fact is that members of this House of Commons and other legislative bodies in the country have demonstrated that measure of independence which is the hallmark of free parliaments. There is no reason on this or any other occasion to assume that merely because of the tag on which a member was elected he is simply to become a servile digit to be named by the leader of his group, without any respect for his own conscience, when some subject is before the house.
The practice is very well established, and on this occasion I think it would be well if I were to place before the house the opinion of a member whose virtues have been loudly extolled by a number of hon. members opposite as one who understands the real meaning of parliament, and of this parliament particularly. I would quote the words of the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King). It is true that we have not always agreed on every subject; but in this instance surely I can offer to hon. members opposite no better advice than that of the man for whom they have shown such unreserved respect in these past few days and for whose opinion they have the highest regard.
Therefore I should like to read what the right hon. member for Glengarry said in 1921, as it is reported at page 151, volume I of Hansard for that year. These words, it seems to me, set forth the very core of the consideration that should be in our minds. I shall quote his words, and these will be his words until I have indicated that the quotation is ended:
We take the position that without the confidence 3f this house and of the country they are not entitled to introduce a bill or to spend a dollar; and unless my right hon. friend can show us some precedent for adjourning the debate on a motion of want of confidence in the government to take up another matter, we would be justified I think in adhering to the position which we have taken from the outset, namely that the government lacks the confidence of the country, and therefore is not entitled to proceed with any legislation.
There the quotation ends.
The mere fact that the want of confidence motion has not yet been moved varies in no way the effectiveness of this statement- because the only reason there is no want of confidence motion before the house is that this motion has been introduced before the debate has been resumed. The view put

forth there by the right hon. gentleman is one in which I think all hon. members might well concur; because if for any reason members in the house do not support the government, then the government may well have committed itself to a course with which it had no right to proceed, unless that confidence has once been established.
There may of course be varying reasons. We would simply not recognize reality if we were to say that there could be no occasion upon which some emergency situation might arise where a motion of this kind might be called for, if the debate were to be unreasonably protracted. But no such situation arises now. The debate is going on next week, by decision of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his colleagues. That being so, until there is any indication whatever that an emergency actually presents itself, and the debate is in fact proceeding next Friday, there is no reason whatever to support the motion. It should be opposed in principle in any event. But even without that, the motion is wholly unnecessary, and therefore it is opposed.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, when the proposal was first made that the debate should be interrupted from today, my colleagues felt the request was one we could not approve. The government, however, has compromised to this extent, that next week the debate on the address will continue, and that at the end of next week we shall take up the matter of union with N e wf oundland.
I think it is unfortunate that this debate must be interrupted, but my experience in the twelve years I have been here is that normally the debate on the address lasts anywhere from three to six weeks. I realize that there is great urgency in connection with the Newfoundland agreement, but that urgency arises because of a situation not in our own country or in our own parliament but in the British parliament. May I say that that is the reason why we shall support the amended resolution that has been introduced this afternoon. At the moment the British house is engaged in many important matters dealing not only with their own grave domestic situation but with the international situation as well. I think we owe it to them, if they require at least three weeks to deal with this matter, to see that they have ample time in which to consider this agreement, which according to newspaper reports will be opposed by some members of the opposition in the British House of Commons.
While we dislike these interruptions of the debate on the address, on this occasion we think that the government has a better reason

for asking for an interruption than it has had on any other occasion I can remember. When we first saw the request made by the government we felt, particularly in view of the experience of last year, that we should hesitate and consider carefully whether we should consent to such an interruption. From time to time, however, it is necessary that those of us who are in opposition should view matters of government convenience, particularly when they involve courtesy to another parliament, in a broad way. I repeat that we have decided to support this amended resolution.
I would remind hon. members that many weeks ago, in the autumn, we asked that parliament be called to deal with matters of urgency, and of course this has become one of the matters that could have been dealt with had parliament been called before Christmas or earlier this month. This is the criticism I make of the government at the moment-that the session should have been called earlier. But it was not called earlier, and we are now faced with the necessity of giving consideration to union with Newfoundland. After all, this is a most important event in the history of this country-the addition of a new province, something which was contemplated by the fathers of confederation as long ago as 1867 and, in relation to what will be the tenth province, is about to be consummated in 1949.
I say again that we dislike interruptions to the debate on the address. We believe that this interruption could have been avoided by calling parliament earlier. But since parliament was not called, since the union of Newfoundland with Canada is an important matter which should be dealt with, and since we should give the British parliament ample time in which to deal with it and to plan its work, we will support the amended resolution.


Roland Beaudry: Following the words of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar I should like to ask the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew) if he suggested earlier that parliament should have been convened sooner, for instance at a time when it was impossible for the leader of the opposition to have a seat in this house?


Mr. Graydon:: The hon. member did not
make history with that remark.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the explanation of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and to the arguments advanced by the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell). I agree with the hon. member that everything should be done to enable consideration at the earliest possible day of the resolution with regard to the admission of Newfoundland into confedera-
Business of the House tion. With him I agree also that that event will represent a step forward in the completion of the destiny of this dominion. In that regard I am in agreement with him; but he failed to answer the argument advanced, and the government has as yet not answered the argument of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), that first and foremost the government of this country must have the confidence of the House of Commons.
This resolution carries out an old plan; there is nothing new about it. Parliament could have been called three weeks ago, if not before, and this matter could have been determined.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot hear the interruptions, so I shall not say anything in reply. It was most interesting to hear the interrupters on the other side of the house when my leader said that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne might be determined within a week. They ridiculed that statement; they jeered.


An hon. Member:: Certainly they did.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. says that it will take anywhere from three to six weeks to complete that debate. Having regard to the fact that an election is not too far away, I have no doubt that this debate will take a considerable time. If so, the responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister for failing to call parliament together early enough to have this matter determined.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Even without a leader of the opposition?


Gordon Graydon: You will get plenty of him before you are through.


John George Diefenbaker: During the days of the war we in the opposition co-operated with the government at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John George Diefenbaker: In relation to anything having to do with our war effort, the words of the hon. member for Carleton were to that effect. During the war there were invasions of the rights of a free parliament, but we of the opposition intend to be assured that they shall not be continued in the days of peace. More than anything else the people of this country are asking that parliament be restored to the prestige that it enjoyed in the years prior to the war. They are asking that parliament shall not continue in living stagnation while government by bureaucracy continues in this country. They are asking to have restored the right of the people's representatives
34

Business of the House to preserve the rights of the people and to represent all the people in this country. I congratulate my right hon. friend upon becoming Prime Minister, but I say to him that his duty as the leader of this government, with the reshuffling of the cards that has taken place and the addition of certain members to the cabinet, is to demand at the first opportunity a vote of confidence, thus giving to hon. members the opportunity to determine the question once and for all.
I do not want to be over-critical-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I said over-critical; but I do say to my right hon. friend that in the last couple of days the government has shown an uncertainty, a lack of unity, and a failure to realize in what direction it is going except in the direction of an election. We have the right to know whether my right hon. friend and those associated with him have the confidence of this house. The people want the members of this parliament to have an opportunity to let the government know that its taxation policy is wrong, that its income tax is unjust. When I say this I speak for the farmers. The government says it has the confidence of the people. The farmers want an opportunity of having their lack of confidence in this government placed before this house, because that lack of confidence extends from one end of the country to the other.
My hon. leader says members of parliament are not mere digits to be pushed about, to be directed. Not since the end of the war was there a finer declaration of the principles of parliament and what it stands for than was contained in the words of my hon. leader this afternoon when he pointed out that, regardless of our position, we in this house have a responsibility which can be discharged only when each of us individually votes on the question of confidence or non-confidence in the government. I say to my right hon. friend that he should give the members of this house an opportunity of saying to him and to those associated with him-and I should think they would want it-whether this house has any confidence in them, before they proceed with notices of motions and resolutions calling for the expenditure of millions of dollars. On one occasion the right hon. member for Carleton expressed similar views.


Some hon. Members:: Glengarry.


John George Diefenbaker: Glengarry has been represented so often by leaders of the opposition and prime ministers that it is easy to understand the mistake I just made. I say, sir, that the house should be given the opportunity of declaring whether or not it has confidence in this government. My right hon.

friend should not translate into the days of peace the conduct of parliament in the days of war, which all too often was contrary to the highest principles of constitutional government. We on this side intend to do our utmost to see that the invasions of parliamentary rights, which were pathways in the days of war, do not become permanent highways of peace.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad hon. members opposite are beginning to show some evidence of awakening from their normal lethargy, and I trust that this degree of awakening will extend also to the rights of this house which are placed in jeopardy by the motion now under debate. It would be a happy day indeed if we could see on the part of hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker, some degree of concern for constitutional practices and the preservation of the rights and responsibilities of a free parliament.
Let no one underestimate the importance of the subject now under discussion. It is not a mere question of procedure for today or procedure for Monday. What is at issue here goes far deeper than that. It is procedure measured in terms of the duties and responsibilities of the executive branch of government to this house. Is the government supreme? If so, it matters little what happens here, and certainly the motion should pass. If, however, the house is supreme, then it is the house that should determine the order in which business shall be taken up; and above all things, before this government is permitted to lay any business before the house, it must establish, in the recognized constitutional manner, that it possesses the confidence of the house. Under conditions now obtaining in this house and this country the government has no right to lay before this chamber one item of government business calling for a decision without having established that it does possess the confidence of the house.
Consider exactly what it means if this motion is adopted. In the first place, it means the government has asserted that the time of this house must be rationed. It means that the government asserts its right to sidetrack the important debate on the address in favour of a measure it proposes to introduce. It means also, in effect, that the government does not owe a primary responsibility to the house. It is time this house, out of self-respect, out of a sense of responsibility for the maintenance of its constitutional position in the interests of freedom in this country, asserted its right to determine the kind of government that should occupy the seats of office; and that can be determined under present circumstances only by a vote in this house which

will show the confidence hon. members are prepared to extend to or withhold from the government.
At no time in the life of this parliament was it more important that the debate on the address should proceed without interruption until it was established whether or not the government held the confidence of the house. Hon. members opposite seem to forget that, technically at least, there has been a change of government with the change of prime ministers, that there has been a change in portfolios, though in most cases the same ministers were reappointed. It is in that sense a different government; and it has not established in any particular that it possesses the confidence of the house.
Perhaps I should not have been amazed, but I must confess to some degree of surprise that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) should have submitted so weakly this afternoon in the face of the government's steam roller. That is evidence of an altogether too friendly association between Liberal members and the C.C.F. party in this house. If that is to be an example of the way in which that group is to function in opposition, then I suggest it come out in its true colours and proclaim itself as simply a wing of the government party. If we are to have a continuation of that attitude the criticism of government policy we may expect from the C.C.F. party during this session will be a very friendly, mild and ladylike kind of criticism.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been an attempt on the other side to ridicule the importance of this debate. The reason is perfectly obvious, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that the debate on the address gives the members of the opposition, yes, and such other private members of the house as choose to assert their freedom and responsibility as members of the house, an opportunity to stand in their places and criticize the government on its past record, on its policy, on the contents of the speech from the throne, and on the omissions from it. Not only is this a duty; it is a responsibility which every member of the house must exercise according to his rights if he would do his duty by those whom he represents.
Necessarily, any government characterized by such flaws in its record affords very great opportunity for criticism. If this debate is not throttled, or sidetracked by the government steam roller, there will be plenty of criticism of the government in this chamber during the course of this debate. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that a government which has shown itself so impatient of criticism would desire in this way to throttle 29087-31
Business of the House criticism? That is precisely the issue which is before the house today. Shall criticism have a free voice in a free parliament? It is that issue that will be determined in the vote on this resolution today.
This resolution means precisely what it says. It signifies that the government is not prepared to permit parliament, in the ordinary way, to proceed in freedom to express criticism of government policy. The reason becomes all the more obvious in the light of what has been said of late-supposedly emanating from government circles or sources close to the government, and referred to by my esteemed leader- about the possibility of a general election. What could better suit the purposes of a government, such as the one in office today, than, on the eve of an election, to throttle criticism in this house, and this at a time when much criticism is being heard from the people of this country. That is the measure of the government's sense of responsibility to those to whom it owes responsibility, that, at this above all times, it should seek to stifle criticism.
In this house the day before yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we went through a form which is followed on the opening day in every parliament which stems from the mother of parliaments. In the measure which has been traditionally introduced respecting the administration of the oaths of office, the house asserts its right to proceed with business of its choosing without first having to take up the program laid down before it in the speech from the throne. Is that an empty formality? Is it simply a reminder that in days gone by a free parliament found itself at odds with a monarch?
It goes a good deal further than that, Mr. Speaker. It amounts to the assertion, if this house has the courage to assert what it should, of the right of the house to proceed with its business in the proper way. In this instance no business can be taken up, if that constitutional position is to be preserved, until the government has established that it possesses the confidence of the house.
The same old mentality dominates this government as dominated the one which it succeeded last fall. There is the same old complex; the same old bureaucratic approach to all of these problems; the same contempt for parliament; the same irresponsibility in its attitude towards the elected representatives of the people in this house. If this is a new government, Mr. Speaker, it has learned its constitutional practice from the government which preceded it, and that was a poor way to learn sound constitutional practice. It was a very good way to learn oligarchic practice.

Business of the House
If this is a new government, it is not yet a reformed government, since it has the same old mentality that imposed taxation by radio and in many ways heaped contempt upon parliament.
Let me turn for a moment to a high authority, to no less a person than the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Concerning this government and its attitude to such matters, he spoke words from which hon. members opposite would do well to profit. I will quote, Mr. Speaker, from a speech of the hon. and esteemed member for Quebec South, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of August 9, 1948. It happens that this speech was delivered before the national convention of the Liberal party. In reviewing some of the things to which I have alluded, the bureaucratic complex of this government and its tyrannical and irresponsible attitude towards the House of Commons, he said this:
Without the existence of an almost all-powerful bureaucracy, it is unlikely that we would have had budget by radio, restraint of trade by embargoes and prohibitions, bungling of freight rates, and a snarling of interprovincial relations.
Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, that is just what this government has attempted to do.
He says further:
But to me loss of individual freedom through irresponsible bureaucracy is too high a price to pay even for security.
I ask hon. members of all parties of this house to weigh well the memorable words uttered by the member for Quebec South on that occasion, when he said:
Since the beginning of this convention there have been hints that from high places from now on all would be well; that things would be different in the future; that we would mend our ways. The pride that could flout a parliamentary caucus or a house of commons quailed before a national convention. But tonight the delegates will be gone, the old pride will return.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, the old pride has returned. We have proof of it in this government resolution today.
The old plea of urgency has, of course, been trotted out. I think we have had enough in what the Prime Minister has said to completely disprove this allegation of urgency with respect to the Newfoundland measure.
Where is the sense in the government seriously saying it is imperative that the throne speech debate should not be permitted to proceed-it would probably last two or three weeks-because there would not be time to pass this Newfoundland legislation? Why could not the house have been called two weeks ago? No reason has been given-no reason whatever.
But the Prime Minister was not satisfied with that. When we met here on Wednesday

there was tremendous urgency about this Newfoundland business. It was so urgent that it had to be proceeded with on Monday next. The most this government was prepared to permit, by way of rationed time in this chamber to speak in this debate, was Thursday and Friday. Two days to air the grievances of a nation in a parliament in which the new government has not yet proven it possesses the confidence of the house! Two whole days for the assertion of the rights of democracy in this House of Commons before the government steam roller begins to put legislation before the house and sidetrack other forms of discussion!
Suddenly, Mr. Speaker, that urgency began to fade somewhat in view of the snarl into which the government had gotten itself by its attempt to dictate to the house. The Prime Minister then decided that the house might have another week to discuss it. Today he says, and I recall his words, that we would be as far ahead after a week or two of debate on the speech from the throne. Then, why confine the debate on the address to one week if we would be as far ahead after a week or two?
The way in which democracy is functioning in free parliaments and legislatures the world over today is being watched by many people as the race narrows down between the true democratic way of life and the communist totalitarian method. There never was a time when it was so much the duty of members of a free parliament to assert the rights of all its members, if they would value their freedom and the constitutional processes they were elected not only to carry out but to defend.
What would be your attitude, Mr. Speaker, if you were one of those detestable communists, after seeing what was being attempted by the government in this House of Commons today, after hearing the talk about the rights of parliament, about parliament being a place where the grievances of the people are being aired, and where criticism can be leveled at the government without fear of individual retaliation, and then government comes along and decides that it will ration freedom of speech in this chamber? What would be your attitude, Mr. Speaker, if you were a communist? You would say, Is that not a fine sample of democracy? You would say, If that is democracy, then, after all, what is the fundamental difference between it and the totalitarian method?
This is no way for any government to expedite the business of the session. If they want to do that, let them first give this house a free opportunity to express an opinion as to whether or not they possess its confidence.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I think it has become apparent that we are not getting anywhere. If we have just a little bit of time in which to think this whole matter over, I believe we shall be able to come to a decision much more amicably than we perhaps would today. For that reason I am asking leave to adjourn this debate.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there a seconder to the motion?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Grey North.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn is not before the house.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I submit to you and to the other members of the house that a serious question is raised by this debate, and I trust that you will bear with me for a few minutes while I try to analyse it in what I hope will be a nonpartisan way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That would be hard for you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: I realize that at times we all
must show certain partisanship in this house, but I meant what I said when I indicated that I planned to try to analyze this question in an unbiased way. The question is whether or not the members of the government are taking the right attitude towards the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Let me direct the minds of hon. members back to the announcements made in the press about this session. In Vancouver I read that the speech from the throne would be considered for only a day or two and that we would then go on to discuss this proposed union with Newfoundland. In other words, the Prime Minister and the cabinet from the start have had the idea that this throne speech debate would last for a matter of only a few hours and then would be adjourned, or in effect would be pushed aside and used as a filler between other items of government business. The result must inevitably be that the debate on the speech from the throne will be of little use to the members of this house or to the country.
We saw this same attitude taken at the opening of the last session. Back in December 1947 we were all surprised to learn, again from the press, that the house was to be called into session a few days before Christmas, and that the reason it was being called was to deal with the Geneva trade treaties. I may be wrong in that, but I think that was the main reason given for calling the house
Business of the House in December. Mention may also have been made of the austerity program. In any event, I came east then believing that the main reason for calling that session was to consider the Geneva treaties. When we came here we were met with exactly the same plan that is being attempted at this session. The speech from the throne was to be dealt with for a day or two, and then we were to go on with this emergency business. As it turned out, the debate on the Geneva treaties lasted for two days, and then was adjourned until after Christmas, when it was again adjourned. The treaties were sent to a committee and the committee made a report, but the house never dealt with it or with the treaties; they have not been approved to this day. They are to come up again at this present session. On that former occasion the same attitude that is being taken today was taken by the cabinet towards parliament and towards the debate on the speech from the throne.
I submit that there are some serious objections to that attitude; in fact, there are grave dangers in the government of Canada adopting that attitude. First of all, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have placed far too little importance on this throne speech debate, which can only mean that they place far too little importance on parliament itself, on the private members of this house, whether they be in the opposition or on the government side, and on the people represented in this house by the private members. The keystone of our democratic system of government is parliament, not the cabinet. Parliament is composed of men and women entrusted by their constituencies with the responsibility of leading the nation. Under our system the leadership of this nation should not come from the cabinet; in the final analysis it should come from parliament. The cabinet is only the executive of parliament.
At the opening of each session the private members gather here from all over Canada, fresh from contacts with the people. They know the problems that are worrying the people and the action that the people want to have taken by parliament. We who come here as private members are certainly much closer to the people than any member of the cabinet can possibly be. He is here in Ottawa practically all the time; he has many other things to do and cannot be in such close touch with the people as a private member.
If the debate on the speech from the throne is held immediately after the opening of parliament it gives the private members a chance to bring the views of their constituents directly to the attention of the cabinet. That is important, because it can, or it should, influence the legislation that will be brought

Business of the House down by the cabinet. Hon. members in this way also bring these views to the attention of their fellow members and of the Canadian people.
Some of these matters are of the utmost urgency. Let me give the house an example of the matters which are of great concern to us on the west coast at the present time. One is the position of our merchant marine and of our shipbuilding industry. Our merchant navy is fading away. It is like the old soldiers, Mr. Speaker. You remember the old saying that old soldiers never die, they simply fade away. That is what is happening to our merchant marine. It was built up during the war in a remarkable way. We trained a great many seamen who took their full part as the fourth arm of the service. In our shipyards we built a great many ships. We did a wonderful job. We developed a highly skilled personnel and in fact established a remarkably good Canadian merchant marine.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members that the debate is with respect to procedure in the House of Commons. I doubt whether it is in order to debate any other questions at length.


Howard Charles Green: My basis for mentioning this subject, Mr. Speaker, is the urgency of that particular problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I did not stop the hon. member when he mentioned the subject, but I doubt whether he is entitled to discuss the subject matter more fully at this time.


Howard Charles Green: I shall simply repeat my statement that the Canadian merchant marine and the merchant navy men are fading away, and that something must be done about it and done quickly.
Another urgent matter which I shall mention is that in my city at least there are a great many employable unemployed piling up on the different social agencies. I think the dominion has accepted the responsibility for such unemployed as distinguished from the unemployable. Just before I came east I was called in to attend a meeting of the Vancouver community chest and council, and some of the key social workers in the city emphasized the very serious problem which is rapidly developing.
Many of these unemployed are young veterans. Something will have to be done very quickly about that problem either by the Department of Labour or by the Department of National Health and Welfare or perhaps by both. There again is an urgent matter which I should have had the opportunity of discussing fully on the address in reply to the speech from the throne without having to wait perhaps for three or four weeks and then

speaking when the house will not listen, when nobody is interested in the throne speech debate.
I know exactly what will happen after the debate on the speech from the throne is adjourned next Friday. It will be brought up again on Mondays and Fridays, and all hon. members from Ontario, or from parts of Ontario adjacent to Ottawa, and all hon. members from those parts of Quebec adjacent to Ottawa will be away for the week-end looking after their respective businesses. There will be a few exceptions. The poor old members from the far east and far west will be here debating the throne speech. That is exactly what is going to happen to the speech from the throne. It is not good enough.
I repeat that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his colleagues are underestimating the value of the throne speech debate. In a country of such great distances and of such divergent activities and varied outlooks as Canada, it is of the utmost importance for us to have a chance at the beginning of each session to discuss these various problems, and the debate on the address gives us that opportunity.
The effect of the plan proposed by the cabinet will be to make the debate a farce and to belittle the private member, both here in the house and in his constituency. That is most unfortunate at a time when our democratic system of government is under attack both from within and from without.
There is another serious objection to the proposal of the government, and it is this. It continues an attitude in the cabinet-and I regret very much having to say this- which amounts to contempt for the place of parliament in governing the nation. In any event, it shows clearly that the government attaches very little importance to parliament. There is a reason for that. I do not think the members of the cabinet have that outlook maliciously. Only three of the members of the present cabinet held office before the war. The majority, including the Prime Minister, have known only the wartime system of governing the country, which can be fairly described as government by order in council. Their training in governing Canada has been by wartime methods. I am afraid that wartime powers have spoiled them and that is why they so lightly override parliament. They must remember.

and it is here, in the House of Commons, that they should be told-that, like the private members, they are the servants of the Canadian people and not their masters. They are not the masters of the private members either.
They would do well to remember the attitude of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill toward the British House of Commons during

the war years. I remember how impressed I was to read time after time of his attitude toward the house. He would come before the House of Commons in Great Britain in a most terribly distressing time and say, in effect, "I am glad to be able to come to the House of Commons and tell you my troubles, and from the feeling that you are with me, that you are trying to help me, I get great strength to carry on in these difficult times."
I think our former Prime Minister, the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) had much that same attitude.


Mr. Mitchell:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: How long did they permit a debate on the speech from the throne to continue in Great Britain when Winston Churchill was Prime Minister?


Howard Charles Green: Well-


Humphrey Mitchell: Two days.


Howard Charles Green: I shall come to that. That is my third point.


Gordon Graydon: You don't see any Churchills over there.


Howard Charles Green: The Right Hon. Winston
Churchill has always been a House of Commons man, and a little bit of that same sort of attitude would be very helpful to the ministers of the present Canadian cabinet.
With regard to the question of the Minister of Labour, what happened in wartime is entirely different from what should happen in peacetime. And that is exactly my point, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and his colleagues still act as if we were at war.


Humphrey Mitchell: It happens in peacetime too. Just read the history of the debates on the speech from the throne.


Gordon Graydon: Go back and read it; that is your trouble.


Humphrey Mitchell: It happened this year.


Howard Charles Green: One reason we are in this trouble today is that there has been no-


Clarence Decatur Howe: What trouble?


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister wish to say something?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I just said, "What trouble?"


Howard Charles Green: Get up and say it, then.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would like to ask my hon. friend what trouble he is referring to.


Howard Charles Green: What is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You spoke of trouble; what
trnubl e?
Business of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South has the floor.


Howard Charles Green: The minister of-I forget-I think it is now the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), was one of the three who were here before the war. He should know better; yet he is probably the one whose attitude toward parliament is most subject to criticism.
One reason we are facing this unpleasant situation today is that we are trying to carry on business in an age of television under a set of rules drawn up in the days of the hurdy-gurdy. I have been here since 1935, and I know there has been no revision of the rules in those fourteen years. For that I must say I blame the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King). I think he did not keep up with the times. Quite often committees were set up to revise the rules, and suggestions were made for such revision; but nothing happened. I do hope that at this session we will have another committee to revise the rules, and that when the revisions are recommended something will be done about them. Otherwise we are going to have trouble just as we are having today, and we will have it session after session.
I urge in conclusion that-have you something to say, too?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not until you are through.


Howard Charles Green: I do urge that the government be not too strict in having the debate on the address in reply cut off a week from today. Do not close the door to finishing that debate before going on with other business. If the present attitude is continued there will be in the end only one result, and that will be a new government.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I
desire to express my disapproval of the motion proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and amended by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) which would set aside to some future and distant date the discussion on the speech from the throne.
I endorse what has been said, that this government, in a democracy, should have a vote of confidence before they proceed with other measures as they now intend to do. Our first duty in the House of Commons is not to the government. Surely in a free democracy such as this our first duty is to the people who sent us here, people who have many problems confronting them at this time.
I know that in the prairies, from whence I come, they have plenty of worries. The agricultural producers of this country have many worries as a result of controls and embargoes, practically all by orders in council.

Business of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must ask
hon. members to discuss the motion, and not to discuss other problems.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, they have many problems worrying them today. I shall not discuss them in detail except to say that they lost in the neighbourhood of $2,000 million because of controls and embargoes. Then, there are other matters which are not satisfactory. I have in mind the United Kingdom-Canada wheat deal, in its present form. I could list many other items about which the people on the prairies are worried today.
As the elected representatives of the people, and as private members of the House of Commons, we should be given an opportunity to discuss those matters on behalf of the people. I cannot agree that there is the urgency set forth this afternoon by the Prime Minister, and endorsed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F.
I well remember that at the last session of parliament we were here on December 5, 1947, chiefly to discuss the urgency of the Geneva agreement. The house prorogued on the last day of June, 1948, leaving that matter entirely in the air. It has yet to be dealt with.
The government was elected about four years ago-in June of 1945. This is the fifth session of the twentieth parliament, and surely at a time such as this the government should be willing to have discussions of the problems confronting the people of Canada and to give private members the opportunity to do so, instead of throttling discussions as they are attempting to do today.
Many hon. members have serious problems to discuss on behalf of their constituents; and under this motion the members from various parts of the country would not have an opportunity for a long time to come to discuss those matters. Only the other day a minister of the crown made, in my part of the country, statements concerning government business and individuals which cannot be repeated and substantiated in the House of Commons. By this motion we would be denied the opportunity of bringing up that very important matter, one which has an important bearing on the dominion and the provinces, and upon individuals in the House of Commons.
Surely at this time the Prime Minister does not intend to be a party to that sort of thing in a free democracy such as we are supposed to have in Canada today. It ill behooves the government at this time, in the fifth session of a parliament, to offer such a motion. T

should hope that it would be withdrawn and that the government would give serious consideration to these very important problems confronting the people of Canada today. Many who will be making their plans for the coming season of production are greatly concerned, and they would like an opportunity for discussion of their future possibilities. This motion would nullify that opportunity for a long time to come. It is not in keeping with the best interests of the country. I voice my disapproval of the motion proposed by the Prime Minister and amended by the Minister of Agriculture, and I do so in the interests of the common people of this country.


Mr. John T. Hackell@Sfansiead: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a particularly bellicose frame of mind this afternoon. I should, however, like to discuss one or two aspects of this motion. Nothing clings to a man with more tenacity than a bad habit. During the war, parliament cultivated habits of disrespect for rules of parliament, habits which were justified by the national peril then existing. Since that time we have seen frequent recurrences of departures from the rules.
The rules of the house are not just arbitrary enactments; they have grown out of experience. This is not the time to trace any of them back to their origin. But it will be found that in most instances they can be traced to some successful effort to escape from tyranny, and from the abuses of dictatorship.
Parliament exists for the purpose of tempering lust for power, whether that power be vested in an individual or in a group. With great respect to the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming), I do not consider that the gentlemen opposite constitute a new government. I see a few new faces in old places, and a few old faces in new places. But after all, they constitute the same government; they have the same policy, and, I fear, the same bad habits. There has been some change in leadership, and this would be a good time to escape from the follies of the past.
One of the disabilities that has been visited on this assembly as a result of the war is the abuse of emergencies. The government hatches an emergency every ten minutes. Every time there is a difficulty it is overcome by providing an emergency. I am not prone to criticize, but seriously, is there anything urgent or emergent before this house today? The fact that the motion, if carried, will not go into effect until ten days hence is an answer to that question. Ten days hence there may be no reason to introduce this motion.
I submit that there is nothing urgent or emergent about the motion. I suggest that it

be withdrawn and that we proceed in the usual fashion prescribed by rules that make for order, that make for discipline, and that make for freedom. If there is anything that tends more than anything else to throw power into the hands of the administration and those who are associated with them, it is disrespect for and departure from the long-established traditions and rules of this house. If we lightly depart from them, as unfortunately was the custom in the last three years following the war, we shall see confusion, and loss of dignity in this house and lack of respect for it, which I fear is already apparent.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to take part in this filibuster. This motion was introduced and spoken to by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who gave his reasons for it. It was spoken to by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), who gave his reasons why he considered it was not necessary. It was spoken to by the leader of my party (Mr. Coldwell), who I believe very clearly put our case as to why we are supporting it. I cannot understand all this talk about the danger to order, about the danger to democracy, and all the other dangers that have been mentioned. Surely this is a question of orderly procedure in parliament, and whether we agree with it or not is a matter to be decided by the vote of parliament.
I think every hon. member, I suppose at least every hon. member on this side of the house, regrets that the government has felt it necessary to postpone the debate on the speech from the throne, or rather to postpone it if it is not finished by the end of next week. That is a longer time than the government suggested at first, and that in itself is one of the hallmarks of democratic procedure. There has been a compromise between the two extremes. If the government did not get all they expected to get or wished to get in the first instance, the opposition got at least some of what it wanted.
We will have a whole week to discuss questions which affect our own constituencies and I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and other hon. members that there are important questions that will have to be aired in this house. But I believe that the sooner we get this issue finished with the quicker we can come to questions that are important. If the question of Newfoundland is not important, we can come to questions that are.
I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver South who said that democracy was under attack. I cannot conceive of anything 29087-4
Business of the House that can bring democracy more into disrepute than futile discussions in the House of Commons.


Mr. Gagnon:: I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment carried. The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As amended.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion as amended agreed to on division.



SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of repeated representations, and the widespread support which their request has received, is the government considering the granting of a cost of living bonus or other supplement to superannuated civil servants?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend asked me a similar question shortly before the last session of parliament [Mr. Maclnnis.l
prorogued. I gave him an answer at that time, but I do not recall its exact terms. I referred him, however, to a press statement I made last January, announcing certain increases in the salaries of civil servants, in which I dealt with this question of pensions to superannuated civil servants. This is what I said:
These pensions in essence are a special form of savings and are not related to the cost of living. Other Canadians do their own saving in various forms without help from their employers in this particular way, and most of such savings are normally held in the form of bonds, bank deposits, mortgages, annuities and other securities whose value is fixed in terms of money, just as superannuation pensions are. While it is recognized that superannuated civil servants encounter difficulties during periods of rising costs, these are similar to the difficulties faced by other retired persons living on pensions, annuities or other savings, and the government does not consider that it would be fair or proper in these circumstances to single out its former employees for special assistance.
So far as I am aware the government's view in the matter has not changed.



STRAIT OF CANSO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of conflicting press dispatches appearing in local newspapers within the last couple of days with regard to the engineering commission appointed to inquire into the feasibility of the Canso project and related matters. One report states that the bridge might be proceeded with immediately; another states that the commission's report is still under study, and yet another states that the commission's report will likely be released from Kingston on Monday. As the Minister of Transport is the responsible minister, can he make a statement clarifying the whole situation?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I am afraid I cannot make a full statement such as my hon. friend would wish me to make. I can, however, say to him that the board of engineers which has been established to study the Canso project have not yet made a report. They have had a conversation with me in which they indicated that they have studied several forms of transportation across the strait, namely, a causeway, a bridge, a tunnel, and the present facilities with improvements. It was also suggested by them that in relation to one of those projects, as to which they could come to no conclusion, that of a bridge, they would require additional data. They have indicated to me that they will make a report as to the cost of obtaining

the additional data, which would entail the laying of a test pier in the strait. When I have that report I shall bring it to the attention of the government so that it can be dealt with quickly.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has his department been asked by Washington to refuse the issue of further export permits for potatoes consigned to a certain United States potato importer?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer to that question is yes. The request from Washington was received after the permit referred to by my hon. friend had been issued. Upon investigation it was then found that the boat had already been loaded and that financial commitments had been made both to the growers and to the transport companies. The matter was referred to Washington, and it was agreed that it was too late to stop this particular shipment. At Washington's request, no further permits for seed potatoes will be issued to the United States firm in question. This ban has been placed upon the particular importer until further notice.



PARTICIPATION PAYMENTS FOR 1945-46 CROP YEAR AND SINCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the wheat growers of the prairie provinces may expect a further supplementary payment on the wheat delivered during the 1945-46 crop year and since. I might say that it was intimated recently in the west by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that this payment would be made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The date and the amount of the payment are matters which have not been definitely determined. It is usual to make the payment some time before seeding begins.


James Arthur Ross: Before June?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The probability is that the usual practice will be followed this year, although no decision has been reached as yet.
Inquiries of the Ministry CHINA



EVACUATION OF CANADIAN CITIZENS -H.M.C.S. &quot;CRESCENT&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement made by him today that H.M.C.S. Crescent has proceeded to far eastern waters, can he indicate the number of Canadian citizens who may need to be evacuated?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I cannot give any number because there has been no indication from the Canadians there. The total number of Canadians in China is about eight hundred, but they are not all in the area concerned. A considerable number of those in the area affected have indicated their desire to stay. It is, therefore, not possible to give the number of those who might wish to be evacuated should the necessity arise.


George Randolph Pearkes: If I may, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether there is any reason why H.M.C.S. Crescent has proceeded or is proceeding to far eastern waters?


Brooke Claxton: The ship is going on a cruise to the far east, and if there should be a need of coming to the assistance of any Canadians, it will be available to give that assistance.



INQUIRIES AS TO SETTING UP OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Veterans Affairs On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. Bentley (Swift Current):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Since I did not give him notice of it, I shall not expect an answer today if he does not feel like giving it. Has the minister given consideration to the setting up of a special committee on veterans affairs during this session?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I have not received notice of this question, but the answer to it is that the minister and the government have given consideration to the matter, and it has been decided not to recommend the setting up of a committee this session.
Income Tax-Farmers On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The western agricultural

Inquiries of the Ministry conference recommended that a committee of the House of Commons be set up for the purpose of studying the question of income tax as it affects the farmer, with a view to removing the present anomalies and injustices. Will the government give consideration to the setting up of that committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that question should be directed to the Minister of National Revenue.


John George Diefenbaker: Very well. I direct it to the proper place.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Consideration has not been given to the matter, but it will be.
Radio Broadcasting
On the orders of the day:


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the intention of the government to take steps to set up a special committee of the house at this session on radio broadcasting?


James Joseph McCann: The matter has not been given consideration. When it has been considered, an announcement will be made.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, or to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, whichever minister is able to give the answer. I brought this question before the house on February 25, 1948. My question is this: Has the government, or any agency of the government, worked out ways and means by which the veteran buying a house under any of the government plans will not, in case of illness, low wages or work stoppage, lose any reasonable equity that he may have in the house?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Careful consideration is given to all these matters, but no specific answer to the question can be given at this time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the minister consider it and give an answer as soon as possible? The veterans are much concerned about the matter.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REPORT AS TO REMOVAL OF OPERATING HEADQUARTERS FROM WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? In view of disturbing reports concerning the removal from Winnipeg of Trans-Canada Air Lines operating headquarters, will the minister make a definite statement as to the policy of the government and Trans-Canada Air Lines in connection with this matter? How many persons are being moved? What departments and personnel will remain at Winnipeg?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is obviously a question which refers to the internal management of the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Allocation of staff is a matter for the management of the air lines; it is not determined by the government. This is not the type of question which is usually answered on the floor of the house.
Winnipeg is the operating headquarters of the domestic lines of Trans-Canada Air Lines. Montreal is the operating headquarters of the Atlantic lines of Trans-Canada Air Lines. There is a movement of staff between the two, as and when required by the management. The government receives no notice of any such transfer of employees.



SAM CARR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary Wesi):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will he bring the house up to date on the Sam Carr case? Are we to have deportation or extradition proceedings? What charges are awaiting in this matter?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My information is that we have not yet received official intimation that deportation proceedings will be taken. We have already said that in the absence of deportation proceedings we will take extradition proceedings. We expect, however, an official statement on deportation.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Extradition on what charges?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On the charges that are outstanding against Sam Carr under the warrants for his arrest which have been extant since the matter first came up, and which are, as I recall, first, conspiracy under the Official

Secrets Act; second, the giving of false information to get a passport, and third, forging of an application for a passport.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. D. F. Brown for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the house in this debate I think my first words should be words of sympathy to the hon. the Speaker of the Senate in the tragic loss of his wife, which has just been announced today. Like many others here, I had the privilege of being received by her as recently as Wednesday, and I do wish personally to convey to Dr. King my very deep sympathy, which I feel sure is shared by every hon. member.
I should like first of all to pay my tribute to the mover and seconder for the adresses which introduced this debate, and to join with them in some of the things that were said in regard to the necessity for advancing the development of this country. I particularly wish to join my own wishes to the hope that was expressed yesterday that every possible step will be taken to expedite the development of the St. Lawrence river in every way that it can be done.
I also want to mention the fact that all of us here have a feeling of satisfaction in the birth not long ago of a future heir to the throne, and the knowledge that the much beloved princess, the daughter of the king and queen of England, is herself so well, and that this young prince gives every evidence of being worthy to take his place in the line of succession to the throne.
In coming to the speech from the throne itself, I must say that since this is the first speech from the throne that I have read since becoming a member of the house, it does seem to me to leave a great deal to the imagination and a great deal to determine by future discussion. One of the things which certainly every hon. member, and every Canadian from one end of Canada to the other, is anxious to know is what the intention of the government really is in regard to the taxation being imposed, far above the actual requirements of this country at the present time.
I notice that in the press reports of the speech from the throne it was suggested that
The Address-Mr. Drew the indication contained in the speech followed somewhat the same line as the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) before an assembly outside the House of Commons within the past few days, and that it also indicated the possibility of an early election. It was suggested that it indicated a cut in taxation. I think that hon. members will want to know a good deal more of the actual intention of the Minister of Finance before they can come to that conclusion, because the paragraph covering that subject reads as follows:
Prosperous conditions now prevailing are being reflected in the buoyant level of national revenues; a condition to which due consideration is being given by my ministers in the preparation of forthcoming budgetary proposals.
On past occasions buoyant revenues have been given consideration by the ministers, and they have used those buoyant revenues for the purpose of overtaxing the people of Canada to a point where, even with high levels of earnings, any savings are extremely difficult. I hope the consideration now being given by ministers to buoyant revenues will lead them to another conclusion, in spite of the repeated arguments made publicly by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that under some theory of cyclical budgeting he should tax the people as heavily as possible while we have buoyant finances. I express the hope that we shall have from him some indication that he has abandoned that strange theory of public financing, and that such consideration will lead to a reduction in taxes, which the people from one end of Canada to the other are demanding-and rightly demanding.
Most of the other points in the speech from the throne will be dealt with in a way which will probably lead to further information. However, there is one paragraph to which I should like to refer before passing to the main theme of my remarks.
Royal commissions have a very useful and very important function, if they are given terms of reference which clearly define their responsibilities, and if they are given a task which can be performed in a way that will lead to some useful results. There is reference in the speech from the throne to a royal commission to deal with transportation, which at the present time is being used mainly for the purpose of diverting public attention from the fact that this government has failed to deal effectively in any way with the problem of freight rates, something which should be dealt with by the government with the information now available instead of setting up a further inquiry into this very subject.
But I should think that the royal commission-which would be a royal commission never to be forgotten, if proceeded with in the
46	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew form suggested-is the royal commission which, it is stated, is to be set up. That royal commission is described in the speech from the throne as follows:
It Is the view of my ministers, that there should be an examination of the activities of agencies of the federal government relating to radio, films, television, the encouragement of arts and sciences, research, the preservation of our national records, a national library, museums, exhibitions, relations In these fields with international organizations, and activities generally which are designed to enrich our national life, and to increase our own consciousness of our national heritage and knowledge of Canada abroad. For this purpose, the government intends at an early date to establish a royal commission.


Mr. Rowe:: The Twentieth Century club.


George Alexander Drew: I would express the hope now, in these first remarks in the debate, that if any such commission is set up-which will certainly be a commission to arouse criticism of all royal commissions, because of the vagueness, uncertainty and lack of any limitation of its scope-there is no thought that the setting up of that commission will be given as a reason for not dealing with any of the subjects mentioned in the terms suggested by this paragraph in the speech from the throne.
Just take as an example the fact that this commission is to deal with television. This afternoon it was suggested that we had progressed in Canada from the early primitive stages to the days of television. I do hope hon. members in the house will realize that in Canada we have not advanced to the stage of television, and that at the present time we are being prevented from reaching that advanced stage by an arbitrary denial of the rights of those people who are prepared to provide television in this country, without the treasury of Canada being committed to the expenditure of one cent for this new service. I should like also to suggest that the full possibilities of this commission be fully recognized before the terms are drafted.
Then it contains the words "the encouragement of arts and sciences". That in itself, without some limitation, would cover a very wide field.
"Research"-that, too, covers the broadest possible field, because it would include research into every conceivable type of activity we now have.
"The preservation of our national records, a national library"-these may well be subjects for consideration by somebody.
"Museums"-well, they are set up by national, provincial and municipal organizations, as well as by private organizations. The limitation on that would be very difficult indeed.
"Exhibitions"-I wonder what the purpose of that could be. Are we going to have inquiries into the conduct of county fairs and


of agricultural exhibitions across the country? Are we to have inquiries into various activities of that kind?
Then, above all, let us imagine the wide possibilities of examining into "activities generally which are designed to enrich our national life." If there is one activity designed to enrich our national life, it is education; and although I recognize that this government constantly forgets it, the fact is that under the constitution the provinces of Canada were given certain designated powers. One of those exclusive powers covered education, which, in my opinion, is the most important way of enriching our national life.
I am not going to go into all the other possibilities. There are much younger members in the House of Commons than I am, but I doubt if any one of them would still be alive, when this commission finally completed its inquiries, if it were to really carry out all the possibilities contained in this paragraph.


William Earl Rowe: It would tide them over until after the election.


George Alexander Drew: That, of course, is the inescapable suggestion when, coincident with the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at a friendly gathering on Tuesday night that an election might not be very far away, we have this omnibus reference to a royal commission. I am expressing the hope now that before attempting to do this it will be recognized how absurd the results would be. Also I do hope there will be no suggestion at any time in the present session that the setting up of such a royal commission will limit the discussion here of any subject coming before it, because there are very few subjects which would be discussed here which could not in some way be brought under the wide umbrella of these terms of reference.
I find no positive statement as to the advancement of the national health program. Certainly I had hoped that there would be some positive statement in regard to that subject in view of the fact that at a very late date the dominion government did advance with the early steps of inquiry into the broad basis of the health requirements of this country so that other health programs could be proceeded with. Actually, from beginning to end, this statement by the government of its intentions during the present session is marked by the absence of any positive evidence as to the things that it intends to do, in the field either of health or of social security, in the reduction of taxation or in meeting the very urgent problem of housing that exists in this country at the present time.
There is a very clear and very important omission. There is no reference in the speech from the throne to the possibility of any

further meetings with the provincial governments of this country to work out a system of co-operation between those governments and, above all, to define the constitutional relationships of those governments within our federal system. The speech from the throne starts with a very simple and proper statement of the situation with regard to external affairs. It says:
The first concern of government in world affairs is to ensure peace and security. To this end, Canada continues to support the principles of the united nations charter.
It then goes on to discuss foreign policy. No one will disagree with the fact that the first concern of this and every other government and every other parliamentary body is to do everything humanly possible to preserve peace and to protect the people in the country which it serves. But there is another matter of almost as great importance, the constitution itself. Without an understandable constitution, an enforceable constitution, it is difficult for any nation to continue its course as a united nation. The constitution is in fact the framework upon which the national structure is built.
Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated that he had been invited to visit the President of the United States. I feel sure that every hon. member in this house will welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is going to have personal discussions on important subjects with the head of that great and friendly nation with which we are so closely associated. I hope it will be remembered that in the United States particular emphasis in public life is placed upon the constitution. As the Prime Minister, in the early stages of his responsibilities, is going to establish contact with the President of the United States, I hope he will keep in mind the oath which the president takes when he assumes office. It is a simple oath which reads:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I for one do not feel that Canadians should follow the pattern of any other country except where they find that that may be useful. However, I think it would be well for us to recognize the importance which is given in the United States to the constitution as the foundation of all their governmental responsibility. It is noticeable that the oath taken by the governor of every state in the United States when he is sworn in contains a similar provision, that to the best of his ability he will defend the constitution of his state and the constitution of the United States.
I believe the time has come when it is essential that the head of the government in
The Address-Mr. Drew Canada and all members of the government should have some feeling of responsibility for preserving the constitution of this country. This has been one of the great strengths of the democracy with which we are so closely associated. Our constitution is threatened today by a carefully planned effort to deny the provincial governments the opportunity to carry on their own affairs with the freedom and discretion which comes from independent taxing sources which will make them free to determine the things that they can do.
For that reason I propose to devote the remainder of my remarks to the necessity of a return in this country to the true principles of the federal system and to the recognition of the fact that national unity in Canada became possible under that federal system and that national unity can be continued only if that federal system is respected in fact as well as in name.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was referring to the constitutional position and to the steps this government has taken to centralize authority under the dominion government. I propose now to discuss the broad constitutional problem, with particular reference to what have been generally described as dominion-provincial relations.
Until a very few weeks ago my responsibilities lay in another field. Consequently I neither had the opportunity nor was it particularly my duty to deal with statements that might be made in other parts of Canada about what had taken place at the dominion-provincial conference, or about the present situation in regard to that gathering. The reason I feel I should deal with this subject in this speech, during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, is that this is the first opportunity I have had in the House of Commons to correct some extraordinary statements that have been made about what did take place at that conference, and to place on record the sequence of events which led up to the adjournment of the conference in May, 1946, and to say why today I feel it is so necessary that this conference be reconvened if we are not to increase the constitutional confusion already existing in Canada.
This is no new subject. It has been a matter of concern to thoughtful Canadians for many years, and in 1937 this government, under the previous Prime Minister, appointed

The Address-Mr. Drew a royal commission for the purpose of inquiring into the whole broad field of dominion-provincial relations, to make recommendations as to the way in which our federal structure could be best improved and the way the combined resources of Canada could be best put to the use of all our people, so that every part of Canada might benefit from the combined wealth and prosperity of the whole country. I have seen statements reported in the press coming from supposedly responsible people to the effect that it was very unfortunate that the premiers of Ontario and Quebec had prevented agreement at the dominion-provincial conference. Merely as an example of the many statements of that kind coming from presumably responsible sources I would quote these words:
It is calamitous for Canada that the Ontario and Quebec governments could not have continued with those of the other seven provinces in the negotiation of a compromise of the small area of disagreement which still remains between the seven provinces and the dominion.
Similar statements have been made in different parts of Canada; that the premier of Quebec and I, while premier of Ontario, had prevented agreement. Let me say without reservation that any such statement is utterly false and wholly unrelated to the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I am making these remarks, of course, for those who are capable of understanding them. As far as my position as premier of Ontario at that time was concerned, I was quite able to deal with that subject within the legislature where my responsibilities then lay; but I do feel that in the interests of an understanding of this vitally important subject it is just as well that the record be put straight and that some of this false and vicious propaganda, designed to create prejudice and misunderstanding as between different parts of Canada, be corrected right now on my entry into this house.
The constitution is not something to be treated as merely a scrap of paper. We have seen very convincing evidence of the importance of a working and workable constitution in a great many countries throughout the world in the past few years. It is significant that when France, one of the homes of real democracy, was freed after the invasion of Normandy and the German armies were driven out, the first thing that was done, even before any attempt was made to set up a government, was to draft a constitution which would be acceptable to the people and would, in their belief, continue the freedom which had been restored to them. Hon. members will recall that the first step was

the calling of a constituent assembly, whose purpose was the drafting of a constitution, which was then submitted to the people for approval or otherwise. And as will be also recalled, the first draft was refused, while the second was accepted.
I merely mention this to indicate that we have ample evidence before us that the constitution of any country is a vital feature of good government and of the preservation of the democratic structure at a time when democracy and freedom are the most precious things in the temporal sphere of man's activities.
For many long years it has been apparent that substantial changes were necessary to bring to its full efficiency and vigour the combined system of national government we describe as confederation. To a slight extent the first world war, but to a far greater extent the economic difficulties that followed, and then the second world war, emphasized the need for adjustments and for closer and more effective co-operation. It was out of that understanding of the need for an examination of our constitution that the royal commission was appointed in 1937 and that the subsequent discussions took place. Not for the purpose of emphasizing my participation in any of these events, but simply because it happens that I did have a fairly active part in them, I believe it is important to put on record some of the details of the earlier stages prior to the dominion-provincial conference which met in August of 1945.
Upon the presentation of the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission, a dominion-provincial conference was called but it did not produce very decisive, practical results. That was prior to the time I was premier of Ontario. Time passed and I was called upon to assume office in August, 1943. At that time I emphasized the need for a continuance of these discussions.
In November and December of 1943, I had occasion to go to England. On my return I found reported in the press a number of statements by members of the dominion cabinet indicating the intention of the dominion government to introduce legislation dealing with matters which were obviously within the provincial field. At that time I was concerned about the fact that if this were done it might cause unnecessary confusion and might prevent the possibility of a harmonious working out of some of these practical problems.
For that reason, immediately on my return I wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada and I think this letter, in itself, is a fairly effective answer to those uninformed propagandists who attempt to create the impression that I was a reluctant attendant at the meet-

ings here and not greatly interested in the advancement of dominion-provincial relations.
This is the letter I wrote on January 6,
1944,	to the then Prime Minister of Canada. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. King:
Since returning to my office I have had the opportunity to read a number of speeches made by dominion cabinet ministers, referring to plans that are being made for post-war employment and reconstruction. I find that in most cases they refer to fields of activity which would ordinarily be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
I need not say we are most anxious to co-operate in every practical measure which will assure effective post-war planning and the prompt rehabilitation of the members of our armed forces. I believe it is extremely important, however, where it will be necessary to obtain agreement of the provincial governments in regard to the joint occupation of fields of legislation ordinarily under their exclusive jurisdiction, there should be previous discussion so that any measures introduced will be on a basis agreed upon in advance.
At present there are agreements in regard to health and education awaiting adjustment between the dominion and provincial governments. I believe that it is very difficult to deal with these or with any other similar agreements until we have reached some understanding in regard to the present and future constitutional relationship of the various governments.
I would therefore urge that a dominion-provincial conference be called at the earliest possible date to consider the broad question of post-war planning and reconstruction. Not only is this necessary for the purpose of determining the basis upon which the dominion and the provincial governments will co-operate, but it is also necessary for the purpose of considering the subject of taxation in relation to these measures.
I believe it is of the utmost importance that such a conference be held before any measures are introduced, either in the dominion parliament or the provincial legislatures, which call for ultimate agreement between the dominion and the provincial governments. We will be prepared to send representatives to a conference of this nature at such time as will be convenient to you. but I do urge that the conference be held at the earliest possible date.
That letter was signed by myself.
I mentioned that letter for this reason. The Prime Minister of Canada at that time evidently thought sufficiently well of the general review of the situation which I put forward that he submitted a copy to the premier of every other province and asked whether, in their opinion, this suggested a satisfactory basis for a dominion-provincial conference. It is a matter of record that each of the provincial premiers indicated this would be a satisfactory starting point for such a conference.
I need not mention any of the intervening discussions which took place, but a conference did convene in Ottawa on August 6,
1945.	At that time the dominion government placed before the conference a number of proposals in regard to taxation, health, social security and public investment. I wish to emphasize this. All the governments attend-
The Address-Mr. Drew ing that conference accepted the proposals as the basis of discussion and indicated their approval of the general principles set forth. It was then decided it would be best to discuss the subjects in closed sessions, and in order to assist these discussions a co-ordinating committee was set up to bring together the combined knowledge and effectiveness of the governments in dealing with these subjects.
Again, simply as a matter of record, may I point out that the co-ordinating committee of representatives of every government, dominion and provincial, was set up on my motion as premier of Ontario, with the unanimous consent of those attending the conference. It then proceeded to discuss the broad fields of proposals which had been put forward. In a very short time it became apparent that there was a great deal of statistical information not yet available which was essential for the practical consideration of these proposals.
On my motion as premier of Ontario a dominion-provincial economic committee was set up, constituted of the economic experts from each of the governments for the purpose of examining the combined economic picture with which we were called upon to deal. As a result of these inquiries which were carried on in August, in November and again in January, it became apparent to all the governments that much still remained to be done before it would be possible to interpret, in exact figures and financial terms, the health, social security and public investment proposals which were then under consideration.
Various changes were suggested by the different governments, all of which were given consideration. In my official capacity I emphasized one particular point at that time, that, from 1867 on, there had been no attempt by official representatives of the governments to examine the possibility of a general readjustment of our whole taxation system. One of the proposals that I put forward, and I am now quoting from my statement presented as to our position, was as follows:
Immediately after the ratification of the new agreement steps would be taken by the co-ordinating committee, with the assistance of the economic committee and such other expert assistance as might be deemed advisable, to conduct a thorough examination of the whole Canadian tax structure for the purpose of establishing a new and revised system of taxation which would leave clearly defined and clearly divided taxing powers to the dominion and provincial governments, under a system which would impose the least onerous burden upon the individual taxpayer.
It seems to me that was a sound and practical suggestion. Then on the subject of health insurance I also urged that we should



The Address-Mr. Drew all accept in principle the proposals put forward, and then, when we had the economic and statistical figures that we required, we should proceed to deal with them with the advantage of this continuing dominion-provincial co-ordinating committee and the dominion-provincial economic committee. I might quote what was in my presentation to the conference:
The Ontario government expresses its belief that the highest possible measure of co-operation should be established between the dominion and provincial governments in the development of their resources and the maintenance of all types of production. It approves the idea of holding back public construction and public investment during the period when private investment and private production can provide the opportunities for employment which assure gainful occupation to all our people.
Then I went on and further urged the need for a dominion-provincial conference at least once a year, but expressed our own belief that it would be advisable to have a conference at least every six months to bring these governments together. I proposed that in our case we would then set up permanent provincial offices in Ottawa, and that there be a permanent secretariat here serving all the provincial governments, so that this combined team of governments could work continuously together as one functional organization in their field of common legislative and administrative responsibility.
I have seen some statements, which were just as remarkable as the others to which I have referred, to the effect that Ontario refused to share its favourable financial position with other provinces. That statement, I might say, is absolutely false. Fortunately, there was a Hansard record of those proceedings and it is there to show that as premier of Ontario at all times I asked, or insisted:
. . . that the special advantages enjoyed by the province of Ontario through the location here of head offices of large national organizations be recognized and that a plan be devised whereby the taxes paid by such national organizations be distributed to all provinces on the basis of the actual business done in those provinces and not in relation to the mere fact that the head office happened to be in the province of Ontario.
What is more, in our submissions to the conference we urged the very thing to which the Rowell-Sirois report had attached such great importance, something that the dominion government had not urged, and in fact refused to consider at the conference. We urged the setting up of a national adjustment fund, which was a key point in the Rowell-Sirois recommendations. We not only urged the setting up of a national adjustment fund but we urged that this fund be set up on a level much higher than that which had been suggested only a few years earlier in the Rowell-Sirois report. In order that I may not simply generalize but may refer to my exact words,

I should like to quote from what I said to the conference which was meeting on May 1, 1946, and I shall be quoting from the Hansard record until I indicate that the quotation has ended.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would the hon. member mind indicating the page?


George Alexander Drew: I shall be happy to furnish the Prime Minister with it because I am reading from an extract from it. It is the Hansard record of May 1, and I shall be happy to give him the exact page.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have the record here, and I should like to follow it.


George Alexander Drew: I shall be glad to give the exact page. The quotation is as follows:
Ontario believes in the system of fiscal aid to those provinces which from time to time require special assistance because of the fact that their economy is not so widely or so flexibly based that through their own free taxing powers they can meet the difficulties which arise.
What I said then and what I repeat now is that, while we suggested one form of administration of this national adjustment fund, we were not married to that proposal-I believe those were the exact words I used- and that we would accept any system of administration of a national adjustment fund which was acceptable to this conference. We shall not within the term of any agreement we now sign be drawing upon that fund to which, naturally, we shall contribute very heavily.
Then I went on, after certain words which intervened, as follows:
I stated the principle to which we adhere, that we are accepting the principle of fiscal aid in a fund administered on a basis acceptable to those provinces which will be dealing with it; and we are prepared to agree to whatever may by mutual consent here be regarded as an adequate sum for administration in that national adjustment fund.
In the face of those words on the record, hon. members can perhaps understand my surprise when I read from time to time some of these rather extraordinary allegations, that I, as premier of Ontario, was unwilling to share with the other provinces of Canada such advantages as Ontario might possess.
Then also, as to the suggestion made by those who should know better,-and of course,
I am referring particularly to some of those who were there-may I recall that in the Hansard record the very last words I addressed to the conference the day it adjourned, on the motion of the dominion government, were as follows:
I want to remind the conference that I have made it quite clear all along that nothing we have put forward is "take it or leave it."
Those were the broad general details, and that was the spirit of the proposals that

I put forward in my official capacity at that time. I was also extremely surprised to find the suggestion made that we had in any way made the continuance of the conference difficult, because those who have not taken the trouble to do so-and it is obvious that a great many hon. members have not-should read the record of those proceedings. If they do they will find that when the various proposals had been put forward, and the various criticisms had been directed to certain features of the dominion proposals and alternative suggestions had been made, the Minister of Finance at that time, who was at the conference, then said it would be necessary for the dominion government to examine all the proposals before it, that it would need more time, and therefore moved the adjournment of the conference sine die.
The interesting thing is that it was the premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Macdonald, who said, just before the motion was put:
I take it that Mr. Ilsley is not suggesting that there will not be another conference.
And, in the absence of anything to suggest the contrary, we all accepted the motion in the belief that we would be meeting again; and there was no reason to suppose for a moment that we would not be meeting again, because the stated purpose of the adjournment was to consider the various proposals which had been put forward.
It was therefore with very considerable surprise, and I may say indignation, that I learned on June 27, 1946, that the Minister of Finance had placed financial proposals before the House of Commons without notifying any provincial premier, except of course those closely associated with him, that there was any thought of the conference not proceeding as had been intended. At that time, without any relationship to the other subjects we were discussing and the constitutional problems which are vital, and which must be solved if we are to have a workable form of government under our federal system today, those proposals were put forward as a statement of what the provinces could get if they gave up their major taxing powers. No conference, no discussion, but here is what you get. It is not for me to say what anyone else should do in that respect, but the explanation that was given is one that is worth repeating in putting the record clear.
In explaining why they were following this course the Minister of Finance at that time made a statement on the matter, as reported at page 2908 of Hansard:
Ontario, it is true, did offer a proposal which was an alternative to the dominion proposals, but it was not until the closing hours of the conference that the financial implications of that proposal were
The Address-Mr. Drew revealed. These involved so large a net increase in total cost to the dominion as to put the proposal beyond the possibility of responsible consideration.
That was the explanation. The truth is that by the steady process of attrition, and by the steady demands of one province after another, most of the things that the Ontario government proposed at that time were actually done bit by bit. The government weakened in order to appease its friends. I do not suppose that any hon. members have forgotten that when the terms with British Columbia were announced there was an immediate and very vigorous outburst by the premier of New Brunswick, who indicated that he regarded this as an extremely unfair deal for New Brunswick, and then of course New Brunswick had to get similarly fair treatment; and so it has gone on by a steady process of putting a little more into the ante to sweeten it for all those who have to try to explain to their own constituents just why they accepted these agreements.
The fact is that there had been a very narrow field of difference between the governments at the time the meeting adjourned. The real barrier which existed was not a barrier on the basis of the money involved. The barrier was the determination of the dominion government to acquire centralized financial power through the proposed agreements, upon terms which would have made all provincial governments mere annuitants depending upon the dominion treasury. No other explanation is possible.
An examination of our proposals-and I hope that some of those who have been making such loose statements will really take the time to examine them before making some of the statements they do make-will show that in many ways the dominion government would have been much better off in accepting the proposals then put forward by Ontario and other provinces; and the people of Canada would have been much better off because the proposals put forward by the provinces would have ended the double taxation which the dominion government insisted upon retaining at that time. Some of these double taxes have since been reduced. It was quite interesting to see that what seemed to be quite irresponsible to the Minister of Finance in June, 1946, became the height of responsibility at some later date, at a time when some provincial governments were not finding the results too satisfactory.
To read many of the statements that have been made, one would think that the only objections which had been presented to the proposals put forward by the dominion government, or the only counter proposals, were
52	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew those put forward by the government of Ontario. In the search for information, which I hope will be pursued following these remarks, I suggest that, in reading the record, careful attention be paid to what was said by Premier Macdonald of Nova Scotia, who in the clearest and most cogent terms criticized this attempt to centralize power, and pointed out the fundamental and historic danger to a federal system of substituting annual subsidized payments to a provincial government in return for their own independent taxing power upon which their legislative independence must depend. The fact is that some very useful proposals were put forward by other premiers. An extremely clear, useful and powerful argument in regard to independent taxing powers, and the ability of the provincial governments to carry out their function in clearly defined fields, was put forward by Premier Manning of Alberta. I must confess that I have not been able to quite understand why it was that such a determined effort was made to make it appear that only Ontario and Quebec had failed to agree with these proposals.
Those two governments did not sign the tax terms-remember, the tax agreements related to this conference. They did not sign the arbitrary tax terms put forward in June of 1946, because they were able to carry on their own financial affairs. And the time will come when the people of Canada generally will have reason for considerable satisfaction that there were two provinces which were able to hold out, so that complete centralization of financial power did not get into the hands of the dominion government.
I have noticed that one of the less informed members who have spoken on this subject made the statement not long ago that as premier of Ontario I had no concern with principle in connection with this until after the conference, that it was only a question of the amount of money we got. To him particularly I would urge a little reading. But I think that, taking the generous view, it was a lack of knowledge of what occurred that led to such a remark.
I think I should clearly indicate what some of the basic principles were which were being asserted by myself as premier of Ontario at that time and by the premier of Quebec, and by the premier of Nova Scotia, and by the premier of Alberta, and by others who were attending that conference. I think you will find a very high measure of unanimity in the general views we expressed.
There was very clear evidence of a belief that under the federal system, which divides the fields of legislative and administrative responsibility between the dominion and provincial governments, the establishment of an


effective functional relationship is probably more important than anything else, and that one of the really effective steps toward the solution of our constitutional difficulties is to create the simple mechanism that will bring the governments together in continuing cooperation, through some form of permanent secretariat, and the regular meetings of representatives who meet with the knowledge of what the general responsibilities of the governments are.
However, admittedly, that is a detail of operation. The main point with which we were concerned was that there must be no doubt about regular conferences, if we were to make use of all the combined powers we had in bringing about a solution of our constitutional difficulties. One of the things that was emphasized, and probably emphasized more strongly by Mr. Macdonald than by anybody else, was that unless some such meetings took place, and started then, the agreements that were described as temporary must inevitably become permanent agreements^-because when the time came for the present agreement to terminate no solution would have been found for the problem; and it would simply be a case of going ahead, following the same course and adjusting the amounts.
It would mean that the provinces would be giving up effectively the main taxation fields made available to them under the British North America Act without the assurance of any other exclusive fields of taxation, within which their taxing powers could be exercised with any degree of independence for the purpose of raising those revenues necessary to carry out their many and increasingly complex responsibilities.
To enter into any agreement such as that suggested, no matter how attractive it might have appeared at the time, without the assurances which were asked, would simply have meant that the provinces would have established by agreement their permanent dependence upon a system of subsidies which has wrecked every federal system in the history of the world after a relatively short period of time, once it has been put into effect.
I have seen it argued that we were inconsistent in asserting these principles-and may I remind at least one hon. member opposite that it was principles we were asserting. In relation to these principles it was pointed out, however, that Ontario was prepared to sign a transitional or temporary agreement, because we knew that we had not a solution then- so long as there was an unqualified and enforceable undertaking that we would meet right away to examine our whole tax structure and prepare for a new

and really satisfactory tax agreement at the termination of the temporary one, under which our constitutional problems would be solved, and under which we might have a better taxing method, for the advantage of all the people of Canada.
That weaknesses have developed in this federal system of ours, no one can deny. Those weaknesses in the British North America Act are the result of the great changes in the conditions in this country, the scale of our activities, and the scale of our production. The fundamental weakness lies in the fact that the provinces were given the right to raise revenues only by direct taxation for the purpose of carrying out their exclusive responsibilities, while the dominion government was given the power to raise taxation in any way.
That never created any problem until 1917 when, for the first time, the dominion government, in order to raise the revenue necessary to carry on the very heavy responsibilities of the war in those days, went into the income tax field. At that time, recognizing the practice which had been so clearly established since 1867, Sir Thomas White, then Minister of Finance, gave the assurance that they would vacate that field as soon as possible.
Time went on, and greater invasions of those fields took place. But it was not until the early part of the second world war that the great and substantial change in the financial relationship took place which really presents the critical basis of the problem at the present time. At that time the dominion government proposed to the provincial governments that they should give up their great progressive fields of taxation of personal income tax and corporation taxes for the duration of the war, in return for annual payments, so that the dominion government, with all the necessary centralization of authority, might also have what they regarded as centralized financial authority related to it.
At that time I was leader of the opposition in the Ontario legislature, and I agreed wholeheartedly with the premier of Ontario in the acceptance of that proposal. But might I remind hon. members that at the time the provincial governments gave up their great fields of taxation, which had been the basis of their economic and financial independence since confederation, they did it upon the firm and unqualified and very emphatic assurance of the Minister of Finance that the taxing power would be restored to the provinces at the end of the first fiscal year following the termination of hostilities, and that their taxing powers would be diminished in
The Address-Mr. Drew no way by their acceptance of this proposal, which was for the purpose of meeting the emergencies of war.
In examining the situation today, in considering the necessity of early discussion of this whole subject, it is essential that it be remembered that the provinces gave up their taxing powers on that consideration. That undertaking was not only a verbal undertaking, it was not only one that was put in the form of a letter, it was actually given the sanction of a legislative promise by being included in the statute which approved the tax agreements themselves.
Let me make it quite clear that I did not suggest then, and I do not suggest now, that any particular tax should be made available to one government or another. What I do say is that a position has been reached where it is absolutely essential that the whole problem of taxation by all governments, dominion, provincial and municipal, be carefully examined so that the most efficient system possible may be devised. I said at the conference, and I say now, that I was not wedded to the allocation of one particular tax or another. I say, and in this I am simply echoing what has been said by the premiers of most of the provinces, that if the federal system is going to work and the local authority of the provincial governments preserved there must be real taxing powers available to those governments. If they are dependent upon subsidies for a substantial part of their revenue, their legislative and administrative independence will be illusory, because at every point where they seek to do something they must try to find out how much they are going to get from the government that is going to supply the necessary money.
I realize that there are those who believe that it would be a good thing if we had only the one government in Canada. No one need deny the right of anyone to hold that view. It is a perfectly natural question for anyone to ask whether one central government might not be more efficient than a dominion government with provincial governments dealing with local affairs. There are people who state that, and then there are people who state publicly that they believe in the federal system but who nevertheless are challenging all the lessons of history and following a course which if pursued is bound to destroy the federal system.
It is not mere accident that every nation with a land area one-third the size of Canada or more has adopted the federal system. That system is the only workable one for great land areas. The United States, Australia and other large countries have all found that to be the only workable system. But there are other reasons why we should be extremely

The Address-Mr. Drew careful not to weaken the federal structure in any way but rather to strengthen it and to give to the provincial governments that measure of independent authority in dealing with their local affairs which is the only way in which they can do the tremendously important job that they have to do.
There is a great background to this whole question. Canada had experimented with a single government. In 1841 the Act of Union provided for a single government, not only for what is now Quebec and Ontario but for the other provinces to the east as well. Actually those other provinces never came into that union and consequently Ontario and Quebec carried forward that experiment in unitary government from 1841 to 1867. One of the compelling reasons for the adoption of the federal system in 1867 was that even with all the efforts that were made to make that system work it was found that there were reasons why this country could not carry on under a single system of government. Therefore we followed the course which seemed to provide the greatest assurance of national strength in the central government with the retention by the provincial governments of those local rights and conditions without the preservation of which this country could not have become one great united nation.
Then there was another very important consideration. Those who discussed the federal system here in Canada had before them evidence of what had occurred in the United States, and in their thinking they were greatly affected by what had taken place there. It is quite clear from the discussions that they gave great attention to the exchanges which had occurred between those brilliant and highly trained men who had drafted the constitution of the United States more than 75 years earlier.
Because we as a nation followed the United States to a considerable extent in the drafting of our constitution, it is well for us to remember that another very important reason for adopting the federal system was that it provided checks and balances between the two levels of government which seemed best designed to prevent over-centralization of power at any time in the hands of the central government. Going back to the discussions which took place in the United States at the time of the drafting of their constitution, and using the word that is still used very frequently in relation to it, they were seeking to prevent the usurpation of power at any time within the framework of the democratic structure.
So that it may not be suggested that I am merely making this statement here in the House of Commons and expressing a different opinion to that which I have held at any

other time, may I quote from a statement I made in the Ontario house which is recorded in the Ontario Hansard of April 1, 1947. I do this in order to explain what I gave to the Ontario legislature as one of the reasons why it was essential that we respect in all its integrity the concept of the federal system which was laid down in 1867. I am quoting from the Hansard of the Ontario legislature of April 1, 1947, as follows:
In examining the effect of such proposals upon national unity, it would be well for all of us to consider their effect upon the province of Quebec.
There are good reasons why the province of Quebec attaches special importance to the provisions of the British North America Act and is less likely to accept substantial changes which are made without the consent of that province and without adequate compensating protection, if any of their established rights are to be diminished. With good reason Quebec looks to the British North America Act as their guarantee of their own civil law, of their customs, of their language and religion.
It would be well for all of us to keep in mind the reasons why those special rights were assured to the province of Quebec in 1867. The provisions of the British North America Act merely carried forward undertakings which were first given at the time of the capture of Quebec in 1759. Those undertakings were given statutory form in the Quebec Act of 1774 and repeated in the Constitutional Act of 1791.
It is not for anyone living in any other part of Canada today to question the wisdom of that decision. There can be little doubt that if those rights had not been granted the people of Quebec would have seen no good reason for not joining the other North American provinces which seceded and formed the United States, after the Revolutionary War which began in 1775.
Nor is it likely that the soldiers of Quebec would have fought so gallantly and so successfully in the defence of British North America in the war of 1812-14 if the Constitutional Act had not reassured them of those rights in 1791, and in doing so gave them a good reason for remaining loyal to the British crown.
In view of the fact that those rights have been undisturbed for nearly two hundred years, there is no reason why the province of Quebec should accept any agreement which would have the effect of weakening their provincial government, and by centralizing financial power in the central government present the very real possibility of the establishment of a unitary government, in fact if not in name.
If these deductions are correct, then those provinces which hope to maintain national unity will follow a course which it is possible for Quebec to follow as well. But, Mr. Speaker, in emphasizing the special reasons why Quebec would resist agreements which would weaken the federal structure and lead to centralization, I wish to leave no impression that it is Quebec alone which would be unwilling to lose control of its own local affairs. The people of Ontario are very properly jealous of their great traditions and I do not believe that they would be willing to hand over the control within their province of their local customs, their administration of justice, and their own long-established educational system.
I have read that quotation at length because I believe it is something it is necessary to

bear in mind today, since there is a firm conviction that those local rights and traditions which mean so much to the continuing unity of Canada are being threatened by the course which is being followed by the dominion government, and its repeated refusal to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference.
I am not forgetting it has been said that there is no threat of centralization in the course being followed by the dominion government. The evidence, however, is quite to the contrary. Centralization becomes a reality the moment the provincial governments place themselves in a position where they are not free to exercise their own discretion as to how they do their business, and are not able to finance their own affairs. History must not become our master, but history is a very useful guide. We can best judge the effect of this subsidy system by examining what has been said by those who should know something about it. One of the historic facts which cannot be escaped is that any attempt to centralize authority and make the local governments dependent upon the central government or vice versa -and there have been both tendencies-has always ended in the ruin of the federal system which tried it. That started well over two thousand years ago with the breakdown of the first federation, the Achaean league. There is plenty of evidence of what happens when centralization or dependence of this kind takes place.
I know it has been said over and over again that there was no intention of keeping these tax fields. It will be remembered that the Minister of Finance of that time gave his solemn undertaking that the provinces would have returned these great fields of the income and corporation taxes. Never mind whether some alternative can now be devised; that was the undertaking; and until an alternative is devised by consultation that undertaking should be fulfilled, and it is not being fulfilled. I find the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) made a statement on January 27,	1947, which indicated quite
clearly that he has no thought of ever returning these tax fields to the provinces. He said:
Why not divide the tax fields between the dominion and the provinces and let each raise all its own revenue? The chief objection to following any such plan is based on the inequality existing between the wealth of the various provinces. I doubt if any partition of the tax field could be agreed upon which would be equitable, efficient and adequate for all governments under the great complexity of conditions and needs that exist today.
That statement is in direct opposition to the undertaking of the previous Minister of Finance, who gave his assurance at the time the provinces gave up these taxing powers.
The Address-Mr. Drew
Then may I go back to the early ideas of confederation. George Brown emphasized this very point, that they were going to give the provinces taxing powers. These were his words:
No longer shall we have to complain that one section pays cash while the other spends it. Hereafter they who pay will spend, and those who spend more than they ought will bear the brunt.
That is a simple, blunt statement by one of the early leaders in this country. Another great Liberal leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. made this very clear statement:
It is a completely false principle that one government should impose taxes and another government spend the revenue therefrom. This will always lead to extravagance.
Then he went further; and I emphasize that these are not my words, but the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier describing the very type of subsidy payment that has now been forced upon certain of the provinces of Canada:
Too often this increase of subsidy-
And that is just what we have seen.
-has been nothing on the part of the federal government other than the payment of a note in return for political treachery.
If anyone does not like those words it is too late to criticize the author, but please let me remind him that they are the words of a great leader of the Liberal party who held strong views about the preservation of the federal system. Then I would like to read the words of another leader of the Liberal party whose views have been accepted widely in the statements that have been made. This is what he said in this House of Commons in 1930, in discussing this very idea of subsidy payments:
When on a previous occasion we were discussing this matter of grants from one treasury to another, I said I thought it was an unsound principle: in fact I think I used the expression that it was a vicious principle to have one body to raise the taxes and another body spend the people's moneys thus raised.
Now, that is the second time today I have agreed with the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), and agreed completely, as to the soundness of the position taken in regard to the dangers of subsidies of this kind instead of giving effective taxing powers to the governments which have to carry on their business.
Today we have a situation in which we are no nearer solution of our constitutional problems than we were several years ago. The acceptance of these arbitrary terms put for ward in the House of Commons in June, 1946, did not advance the solution of our constitutional problems or bring about agreement on health, social security and other measures under discussion at that conference. As a

The Address-Mr. Drew matter of fact, they may only hinder it, unless there is, in fact, some early solution of these difficulties.
This problem is not confined to our own country. This is a problem faced by all countries with a federal system, because in every country those who had a taste of concentrated power always felt that taste lingering in their mouths, and the flavour in some way affected their thinking. It happened in the United States after the war of 1812-14. Students of the history of that country will recall that the very same idea of a centralized taxing power was offered there as an efficient solution of their difficulties, much the same as we have seen here. It has been tried over and over again in different countries. Woodrow Wilson gave this warning in one of his discussions of governmental problems. I quote his words:
The history of liberty is the history of limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because the concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberty.
Then, just to bring the last expert witness forward, I should like to quote the words of that great democrat, and I use that word with both the capital and the small "d", Franklin Roosevelt. In discussing this tendency of centralizing power under similar devices developing in the United States, he used these words:
To bring about government by oligarchy, masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in one federal government . . . the individual sovereignty of our states must first be destroyed.
The strength of this country has been built upon the combined strength of all the governments. The great developments that have taken place in the nine provinces across Canada have very largely been the result of the wise and'intimate guidance of the provincial governments in each of those provinces. Canada has good reason to be proud of the enormous expansion of its productive capacity during these past years, particularly during the years of war, to meet the crisis this country then faced. Let it never be suggested for one moment that the dominion government was responsible for the whole of that great development. Remember that in every province the roads which carried the heavy movements of food, munitions and production of all kinds, were roads put there by the provincial governments. The resources which were used were resources brought to their development and made available under the wise and sensible administration of these same provincial governments.

The thing which gave our workmen as high a degree of skill as that shown by the workmen of any country in the world was the educational system in each of those provinces with which the dominion government has nothing to do at all. Going right across the field you will find the ground had been laid for this great expansion. Please do not let anyone following me suggest that I am for a moment seeking to leave the impression that the vast industrial development was not in a great many cases carried out under the direction of the dominion government. The military production and the adoption of plans were also under the direction of the dominion government, but the ground work was there. The work which was done when these broad plans were laid was, very largely, the work of these provincial governments, which in peace and war, since confederation, have been close to the people. For that very reason the provincial governments were able to bring to the highest point of efficiency the efforts of the people from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Certain changes have taken place since the conference adjourned on May 3, 1946, at the instance of the dominion government. The present Prime Minister of Canada asserted the proposition that this parliament has the power, by majority decision, to change our constitution. His own words were:
The central power does not need to go back to the provinces in order to say what Canada shall be in the future.
At first glance that seems rather plausible. You have seen suggestions about the provinces assuming great measures of power and feeling they had to be consulted about this and that. The provinces came together to form a nation on the clear understanding there was a constitution which protected their rights and preserved their traditions and their laws. It is not for this parliament to change that constitution without consulting those provinces. Never mind whether anyone might think a sufficiently cogent argument could be put forward in any court to uphold that proposition. There is more than a legal decision involved in this; there is the unity of Canada. There will be a very real threat to the unity of this country if there is any doubt about the fact our constitution is not something which does, in fact, preserve those rights which were regarded as so important in 1867.
No country could possibly carry forward as a great nation without an understandable and workable constitution. Right now neither the dominion nor the provincial governments know where the border line is between many of their responsibilities. We see evidence of that in much of the legislation that is under consideration here. Some of the legislation

that has been suggested is definitely in the field of provincial authority. Those are the things that are going to cause difficulty. All this difficulty could be avoided by bringing these governments together in a conventional relationship such as has been suggested.
I emphasize this point again. This conference came to an end in May of 1946 by the decision of the dominion government, and it has not met since, for one reason and one reason alone, namely, the refusal of the dominion government to convene it. The record is clear. I for one have on frequent occasions urged the reconvening of that conference. I have written not only to the previous Prime Minister but to the present Prime Minister, while he was acting in that capacity, urging the reconvening of the conference; and I am not the only provincial premier who did so during the intervening years. But may I emphasize that there are those, whose views cannot under any circumstances be said to have a political flavour opposed to this government, who take that stand. For that reason may I just quote the words of Hon. Angus Macdonald spoken in the Nova Scotia legislature on May 12, 1947. I shall quote fairly briefly, but the passage shows exactly what the position was, in the words of that able public servant. These are his words:
There are important matters yet to be settled, constitutional and economic. In the constitutional field, there remains the whole problem of a revision of the constitution in the light of the experience of eighty years and in the light of Canada's identity as a federal state. This revision can only be made at a general conference between the dominion and the provinces, and such a conference ought not to be long delayed. Indeed, it should be held without any delay.
Then he made certain detailed observations, and I quote again:
For a proper settlement of the constitutional and economic questions that still remain, we in Nova Scotia shall continue to press. Let it not be thought for a moment here or elsewhere, that by simply increasing the subsidies to this province as is done under these proposals, Ottawa has rid itself of listening to just provincial demands and claims. Anybody who holds that view is sadly mistaken. In the words of a great Scottish warrior, "They have not seen the last of my bonnets and me."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: I am still quoting Hon. Angus Macdonald:
Thus far the dominion government has steadily refused to reconvene a general conference. I do not think it can long continue in this position. I believe that public opinion alone, if nothing else, will bring about the holding of a general conference on these important matters, even though one of the parties is reluctant to agree to such a meeting.
That is a general summary of the situation. Everything I have said is borne out by the record. In the face of that record, I
The Address-Mr. Drew can only say that anyone who suggests that the premier of Ontario of that time, or the premier of Quebec, in any way prevented the reconvening of the conference, is challenging the record and is stating what is directly contrary to the truth.
This concentration of power which has been achieved is already producing highly unsatisfactory results, because the dominion authorities were able to get the exclusive field of personal income taxes. And they did that; because, when the governments of Ontario and Quebec refused to accept those arbitrary terms, they did not impose income taxes. By the invasion of other fields, particularly the succession duty field, which, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance at that time, was supposed to be left clear, this government through its Minister of Finance during the current fiscal year is overtaxing the people of Canada to the extent of at least $600 million. That is what they do with the measure of centralization they have now achieved. I hesitate to think what they would do if they had been able to achieve that full measure of centralization which they were seeking and failed to realize only because the provincial premiers recognized the sound basis of the federal system.
This federal structure was intended to create checks and balances. It was intended to create checks on too great centralized taxing powers. It was intended to prevent the over-centralization of authority of any kind. Let us all remember what was done in order to carry that structure into effect. Following what was done in the United States, those who drafted our excellent constitution in the months prior to July, 1867, left with the provinces the exclusive jurisdiction over those personal affairs which largely determine the kind of life our people live from day to day.
The result is that under that federal constitution civil rights, property rights, the administration of justice, which establishes those rights through our courts, the municipal laws, the supervision of municipal affairs, which has so great an effect on the life of every one of us, and education, which determines the whole destiny and character of a nation, were all left exclusively with the provinces. That was done mainly with the idea that, so long as they retained their authority, there could be no usurpation of power by a central government at any time if, temporarily at least, power were assumed by those who believe in centralized power. It is just as important to preserve protecting provisions of that kind as it is to create them.
If the full protection of those measures is to be retained, then, under a new and revised system of taxation which will be to the

The Address-Mr. Drew
advantage of all Canadians, the provincial and municipal governments must have, under their laws, adequate independent taxing powers in order to be able to carry out their heavy responsibilities to the people whom they serve. The preservation of those particular rights and functions was never more important than it is today, when all over the world freedom is being threatened and centralized power is in so many lands destroying the democratic system in which we believe.
There are other reasons why this overcentralization of power has consequences that cannot be ignored. I think we are all indebted to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) for an unusually frank statement he handed to the press last Tuesday. I think it will bear quotation because it must be one of the frankest admissions made by any minister of the crown since confederation. These were his words in a statement handed to the press on Tuesday afternoon:
Getting votes is obviously not a matter of handouts or tumbling over ourselves to outsocialize the socialists. The recent by-election in Digby-Anna-polis-Kings highlighted the point. More was done for this constituency by way of direct financial beneficence than probably any other constituency in Canada, and you know what happened.


William Earl Rowe: One honest politician.


George Alexander Drew: We knew it was happening but we did not expect a frank statement by a minister of the crown that they were trying to buy the constituency with public money and failed.


William Earl Rowe: They could not sell their apples and they were paid $4 a tree.


George Alexander Drew: This admission, over-frank or naive, or just slightly exuberant, whichever it was, cannot be passed over too lightly. It is as frank an admission as I have ever seen of the fact that this government has been using the additional financial powers it had acquired in the hope that it would affect votes in the constituencies where the money was spent.


Mr. Sinclair:: Cocktail bars in High Park.


George Alexander Drew: I am going to be able to give you further evidence of the inclination of this government if you will be patient for a moment; but I do want to say this. The minister of reconstruction was right to this extent: that the fine people of Digby-Annap-olis-Kings were not to be bought by beneficences, to use his term, and that they sent to this House of Commons a man worthy of the great traditions of that constituency, a man who will represent them well. It was because of his character, his integrity and his ability that he is here today in spite of what was done.
But to those who seem to regard this as a rather humorous incident-and I would think that ministers of the crown might not so regard it-I would point out that this is not an isolated example of the same attitude. It can be said for the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply that he has not shown the experience, either in government or in public statements, that is possessed by the other ministers who do something somewhat similar. The other minister is the minister who has in his hands the control of this enormous concentration of money. Let me read a report from the Halifax Herald of January 6 of this year. I am quite prepared to admit that this outdoes the minister of reconstruction. Until I indicate that the quotation is ended I am quoting from the Halifax Herald:
Kentville, January 5. Finance Minister Douglas C. Abbott has replied to a resolution passed at the eighty-fifth annual convention, Nova Scotia fruit growers' association, here last month, in which an appreciation to the federal government for its financial assistance to the Annapolis valley apple industry, was voiced in a letter read by the secretary at the first meeting of the new directorate.


John Ewen Sinclair: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Let me read the last part of the quotation, which is as follows:
Mr. Abbott, in acknowledging receipt of the resolution, said he was very glad to know of the expression of appreciation, but regretted this appreciation had not "taken the form of a larger vote for the government in the recent by-election."


Mr. Black (Yukon):: The chickens are coming home.


William Earl Rowe: They are not politicians, they are statesmen.


George Alexander Drew: It is not possible that there were ever two more completely frank admissions. To use that gracious word employed by the minister of reconstruction, the Minister of Finance had conferred his beneficences upon Digby-Annapolis-Kings and regretted that the beneficences made possible by the money of the people of Canada had not been duly recognized by voting for the Liberal candidate in the by-election in Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is frankness so rare in
Ontario?


Arthur Leroy Smith: You had better take it, Jimmie.


John Ewen Sinclair: He is surprised that we are frank. Frankness surprises your leader. We are not surprised.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Stick to the C.C.F., Jimmie.
[Mr. Drew.1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Ewen Sinclair: We are not surprised that frankness surprises him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind all hon. members that their remarks must be directed to the Speaker.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member who has just spoken has said that we have no reason to be surprised at the frankness, and we have none, because this is the pattern of this government which is using this money power in this way.


John Ewen Sinclair: On a point of privilege, since the leader of the opposition used my words I will say I was not surprised that he was surprised at frankness. Everybody in the house knows that frankness is quite unknown to the leader of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: They certainly fell for that one.


George Alexander Drew: By its refusal to reconvene this conference to which I have referred, the dominion government is not only threatening national unity, but making impossible any solution of our constitutional problems. For that reason this government should not receive the support of hon. members of this House of Commons in the course it is following. By the admission to which I have referred, and by the added admission just made, it is obvious that neither this house nor the people of Canada have any right to have confidence in the government.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That the following words be added to the said address:
"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers do not possess the confidence of this house."


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the words of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), in which he expressed his deep sympathy with the Speaker of the other place in the terrible bereavement which has so suddenly overtaken him. I can assure him that all hon. members in the house have experienced a feeling of shock and surprise that the charming lady who so graciously received us on Wednesday afternoon has now passed away.
I should like to extend sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is a great pleasure to have such good reason to compliment both of them upon the excellence of the speeches they made in the house yesterday. I feel sure we are all of the opinion that they acquitted themselves with personal credit, and thereby brought distinction upon the constituents who elected them to this House of Commons.
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent The mover of the address in reply (Mr. Brown) is not a newcomer to the house. He has been a member throughout the life of this parliament, and for three years has been the chairman of the committee on Indian affairs. In that capacity he has won both the admiration and the respect of all those who took any part in the valuable work performed by that committee. He has shown like competence and diligence in all his activities in relation to the business of the house. I hope it will not be thought amiss that I should say that he has set a fine example in the way he has sought to serve in the House of Commons the interests not only of his constituents but of the country and the Canadian people as a whole.
(Translation):


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne is a new member, only recently elected to represent the riding of Laval-Two Mountains.
We are very pleased to have him with us on this side of the house and, after listening to the splendid speech he made yesterday, we realize that his support will be most valuable to this side of the house.
Before his election, he already had a fine reputation because of his public services as an agronomist in the Montreal district. He is an expert on agricultural problems and I am sure he has especially set his heart on working for the interests of the farmers.
In his first appearance in this house, he has shown fluency and cleverness to a degree which is seldom attained by a newcomer.
The electors of Laval-Two Mountains, I am sure, are still prouder today than on election night of the fortunate choice they have made in the person of this member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
(Text):
I should like also to extend a word of congratulation to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) upon the very interesting address to which we have listened. Of course, he will not expect me to allow this debate to be diverted into the channel he has seen fit to choose, rather than to have it deal with the subject matter of the question now before the house. The matter before the house is an address to His Excellency the Governor General, thanking him for the speech he has addressed to the two houses of parliament, setting out for them the purposes for which this fifth session of the twentieth parliament has been called.
I think we owe some measure of attention to the speech he pronounced, and that it is only proper that that measure of attention

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent should be accorded to it. Of course, that does not mean that I am not going to have anything to say about what the leader of the opposition, in the course of this debate, has taken so long to say. But before coming to that, I believe I would be sticking rather more closely to the traditions of the house if I were to deal with some of the matters dealt with in the speech from the throne.
Before doing that, however, I want to say to the leader of the opposition that there are many of the things he said in his speech concerning dominion-provincial relations, and concerning the constitution of Canada, and its principles, with which I am in entire agreement. And if there was any hope anywhere that an issue could be created upon that, then I am sorry that we shall have to disappoint those who may have entertained such hopes.
The speech which His Excellency has addressed to the houses of parliament states that the first concern of government in world affairs is to ensure peace and security. The leader of the opposition has agreed that that should be the first concern of government. But it is rather surprising that he found it sufficient to devote but one or two short phrases to that aspect of the great problem of peace in the world and security for Canada. At other times and places he has stated the position of his party, and I assume that he did not consider it necessary to enlarge upon it in the course of his address on this occasion. I find reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 12 that he had stated the night before in Winnipeg, with regard to the North Atlantic defence pact, that his party was on record as favouring an association of western powers for the preservation of peace.
That is quite true, because I referred back to the resolutions adopted at the convention where the hon. gentleman was chosen leader of his party. I found this resolution:
Western defensive union. In the present crisis Canada should give its strongest support to the concept of the establishment of a western defensive union of nations.
I took the trouble to look up those resolutions because it was not so very long ago that the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec made statements that were quite the opposite of this resolution. Le Devoir of November 13, 1948, had very substantial headlines reading:
"M. St-Laurent n'a pas le droit d'engager le pays & l'avance."
That translates:
Mr. St. Laurent has no right to commit the country in advance.
The report then goes on to state:
Au cours d'une conference de presse, hier apres-midi, dans les bureaux du quartier general 
du parti progressiste-conservateur, le leader provincial de ce parti, Me Yvan Sabourin, C.R., a qua-lifie de malheureuses les recentes declarations de M. Louis St-Laurent, futur premier ministre du Canada, au sujet de 'Timpossible neutralite" de notre pays, advenant une troisieme guerre mondiale.
A free translation of that would be:
In the course of a press conference yesterday afternoon in the offices of the general headquarters of the Progressive Conservative party the provincial leader of that party, Mr. Ivan Sabourin, K.C., described as unfortunate the recent declarations of Mr. Louis St. Laurent, the future Prime Minister of Canada, concerning the impossibility of maintaining the neutrality of our country in the event of a third world war.
The press conference reporter then went on to state:
M. Sabourin a soutenu que le Canada peut fort bien rester neutre advenant un conflit arme entre la Russie et les Etats-Unis; il a cite l'exemple des Etats-Unis qui sont demeures neutres pendant une periode assez prolongee, lors des deux dernieres guerres mondiales.
Then the reporter quotes:
"II est fort possible", a-t-il ajoute, "que si la guerre eclatait entre la Russie et les Etats-Unis. le Canada puisse demeurer neutre, et suivre ainsi ses meilleurs interets. Si les Etats-Unis ont pu demeurer neutres, lors des dernieres guerres mondiales, pourquoi le Canada ne le pourrait-il pas au cas d'une troisieme guerre? II n'y a qu'a ren-verser les roles", a dit M. Sabourin.
Perhaps I may translate that as follows:
Mr. Sabourin contended that Canada might very well remain neutral in the case of armed conflict between Russia and the United States. He cited the example of the United States, which had remained neutral for quite a long period at the time of the two last world wars.
"It is quite possible," he added, "that if war broke out between Russia and the United States Canada might remain neutral and thus best serve its interests. If the United States were able to remain neutral at the time of the last two world wars, why could not Canada do the same in the next, third, world war? It would only be required to reverse the roles."
We are naturally concerned to know the real attitude of the Progressive Conservative party in that regard. I hope that when I read the two short phrases of the leader of the opposition about this great question of the peace of the world and the security of Canada I shall find some enlightenment there. I hope that they are clear enough to let the people of Nicolet-Yamaska know before February 7 where that party stands. There is to be a by-election in that constituency and according to reports in the same paper, Le Devoir, there is a gentleman there who has been nominated as the Progressive Conservative candidate.


Gordon Graydon: Is this all on the speech from the throne?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: It all has to do with the
attitude to be taken by the Canadian people

on this primordial question of peace and security for the world. The recent issue of January 27 of this paper states:
Fait & remarquer: on ne trouve dans l'organisa- * tion du candidat conservateur a peu pres personne de l'organisation centrale conservatrice. C'est une elimination presque complete.
M. Yvan Sabourin, leader provincial du parti, a apparu dans le comte avant le choix du candidat. Depuis, il n'y a pas remis les pieds. On nous assure qu'il n'y viendra pas d'ici la fin de la lutte.
Un organisateur de l'Union nationale...
The Union Nationale is the name borne by a party which is probably known to some of my hon. friends.


George Alexander Drew: And which trimmed you down.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: To continue:
Un organisateur de l'Union nationale afifirme que cela se fait "par ordre". II ajoute qu'on ne veut "personne d'Ottawa. On ne veut pas les avoir dans les jambes. Pour eux, la meilleure nianiere de nous aider, c'est de ne pas venir nous nuire."
That could be translated as follows:
A remarkable fact is that we found no one in the organization of the Conservative candidate from the central Conservative organization. It is a complete elimination. Mr. Ivan Sabourin, the provincial leader of the party, appeared in the county before the choice of candidate was made. Since then he has not come back and we are assured that he will not come back between now and the end of the campaign. One of the organizers of the Union Nationale asserts that this is done by order. He says, "We do not want any one from Ottawa. We do not want to have to carry them on our backs. As far as they are concerned, the best way they can help us is not to come down here to cause us trouble."
That does create in the minds of some a feeling of some uncertainty as to just where the Progressive Conservative party in various parts of the country stands on this matter of a defensive pact for the western nations, which was referred to in the resolution passed by the convention. By the way, so there may be no mistake in identity I believe this Mr. Ivan Sabourin was either the proposer or the seconder of the candidature of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) at the Progressive Conservative convention. I am sure that fact accredits him to a certain extent, and does give some people who see these various statements occasion to be a little disturbed as to the real situation.


Gordon Graydon: Particularly in Nicolet.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Particularly in Nicolet; because the article goes on:
C'est, nous affirme une personnalite locale du parti, un test case. S'll reussit, on essayera de proceder de la menu' maniere aux elections gene-rales.
It, asserts an important personage of the locality, is a test case, and if that succeeds they will try the same thing at the general election. The Liberal party does not need
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent any test case. Its attitude is right out in the open, and it is the same whether it be in Nicolet, in Toronto or in Winnipeg.
We really do want peace, and I believe the people of Canada really want peace. I think it was because the people of Canada really wanted peace that this parliament approved with such unanimity the signing by Canada of the charter of the united nations in 1945. We took the provisions of that charter seriously; we believed them to mean what the words written into the charter express. We felt that if it were implemented in the spirit in which it was written it would be a real instrument to give us the sense of security we required to proceed in the path our destiny seems to have set for us. We agreed with the statement in the purposes-
All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
We felt that article 24 was something which would permit this charter to be fully implemented:
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the united nations, its members confer on the security council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the security council acts on their behalf.
And we accepted the provisions of article 25:
The members of the united nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the security council in accordance with the present charter.
We attached much importance to the provisions of article 43, designed to provide the security council with the strength required to make any recalcitrant conform with its proper decisions for the maintenance of peace:
1.	All members of the united nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the security council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2.	Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location and the nature of facilities and assistance to be provided.
3.	The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the security council. They shall be concluded between the security council and members or between the security council and groups of members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
We also relied upon the terms of articles 44 and 45. I need not take time at this moment to read them, but they provided the method by which the security council would

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent proceed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security throughout the world. But in spite of our reliance we collaborated with the other members to insert into the charter articles 51 and 52:
51.	Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the united nations, until the security council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security . . .
52.	Nothing in the present charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the united nations.
Of course, all hon. members know what has been happening in the security council. At the meeting of the general assembly in October, 1946, speaking for the Canadian delegation I said:
We are particularly concerned that the security council and the military staff committee have so far failed to make substantial progress towards a conclusion of the special agreements with individual members required to implement articles 43 and those following of the charter and thus make force and other facilities available to the security council. We are all of us bound under the charter to refrain from using armed forces except as provided by the charter.
Then a little further down:
Canada, therefore, urges that the security council and the military staff committee go ahead with all possible speed in the constructive work of negotiating the special agreements and of organizing the military and economic measures of enforcement.
We were concerned at that time that the charter, heralded with such applause throughout the world, was not being completed in its organs and put into position to carry out the purposes and give effect to the principles of this potentially great instrument for the peace and security of the world. The next year again, speaking for the Canadian delegation at the meeting of the general assembly, I called attention to these facts in these words:
But the security council, founded on what is called the unanimity of its permanent members, has done little to strengthen the hopes of those who saw in it the keystone of the structure of peace. It has done much to deepen the fears of those who felt that, with the veto, it could not operate effectively in an international atmosphere of fear and suspicion, where pride is allowed to take precedence over peace and power over reason.
This veto privilege, attacked and defended with equal vigour, if it continues to be abused, may well destroy the united nations, because it will destroy all confidence in the ability of the security council to act internationally, to act effectively, and to act in time.
There is no point in deceiving ourselves. Our peoples cannot be expected to accept, indefinitely and without alteration, voting procedures and practices which, in the name of unanimity, underline

disunity; and which reduce agreement to a lowest common denominator of action that in practice often means inaction.
Further down I read:
The fact remains, however, that these problems-
-the problems arising out of disputes and situations-
-must be solved and that procedures and practices which obstruct such solutions must be changed. This can be done by the voluntary abandonment of these practices; by agreed conventions or understandings which will regulate them; or, if necessary, by amendments to the charter. We must hope that no member of the security council will flout clearly expressed world opinion by obstinately preventing change and thus become responsible for prejudicing, and possibly destroying, the organization which is now man's greatest hope for the future.
Nations, in their search for peace and co-operation, will not and cannot accept indefinitely and unaltered a council which was set up to ensure their security, and which so many feel has become frozen in futility, and divided by dissension. If forced they may seek greater safety in an association of democratic and peace-loving states willing to accept more specific international obligations in return for greater national security.
Such associations, if consistent with the principles and purposes of the charter, can be formed within the united nations. It is to be hoped such a development will not be necessary. If it is unnecessary it will be undesirable. If, however, it is made necessary, it will take place.
I think it has been made necessary, and it is taking place. It is taking place not as the best solution for the problems of the world- the best solution would be the proper implementation of this world-wide charter signed at San Francisco. Unless and until those who signed that world-wide charter are prepared to respect their solemn obligations, the pledged sanction of their states which accompanied their signature, we have got to be content with something not quite as good, but which was foreseen in those articles of the charter which I have read.
The charter sets up the rule of law to be observed internationally as, in civilized countries, we expect the rule of law to be observed by our fellow citizens. This North Atlantic pact and the development of the Brussels pact also, sets up the undertaking of the signatories to avoid resorting to force or the threat of force in connection with possible disputes that may arise between them, and to apply the rule of law to such situations or such threats to the peace of the world as may arise.
There are quite a large number of the western democracies of Europe; there is the United States and there is Canada, who, we believe, are willing to put their signatures to a regional pact undertaking to have the rule of law observed between themselves as well as to unite their strength in the hope that their united strength will be sufficient

to deter any aggressor who might otherwise feel disposed to repudiate the solemn undertaking he signed at San Francisco.
There is no use deceiving ourselves or mincing words. We know that the people of the North American continent, that the people of the democracies of western Europe, fear there may be an aggression from this great power which was allied with us in the last war but which professes an ideology that would necessarily exclude the civilization under which our institutions have been established. We fear that those totalitarians who direct that great mass of human beings might attempt, by force, to impose their ideology upon the rest of the world. But we believe they are realistic, and we believe that, if we can negotiate with them from strength, they will be apt to feel there would be considerable risk in starting any war. We believe they will not start any war they are not confident they can win.
We believe that those we mentioned as the likely signatories of this North Atlantic pact have the potential strength, manpower, industrial know-how, material, the courage and desire to remain free men which would make it very doubtful that any aggressor could overcome them. We are forming or hope to form the alliance not for the purpose of having to fight together-of course we will if it is imposed upon us, but it is not for that purpose. Primarily, it is being formed for the purpose of doing that for which the charter of the united nations was signed at San Francisco in 1945.
It seems to me that any free man in any of our countries should have no greater hesitation in having his country become a party to that North Atlantic security pact than he had in having his country become a signatory to the San Francisco charter.
Now, that is the matter in the international field which His Excellency says, in the speech from the throne, is the first concern of his government. The second paragraph reports that, in spite of the unsettled and disruptive activities of international communism, the nations of western Europe are making progress towards recovery, and that North America is contributing substantially to the restoration of economic activity, thereby increasing their own power to resist aggression, either within or from outside. I think that is a statement which needs no development here. We all know that has been happening, and we know how effective it has been. From the elections that were held in Italy, we know what a partial restoration of economic activity in that country was able to do in repelling aggression from within.
It is said that an offensive for peace is now being pushed by the eastern powers. This
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent has been mentioned by the communist leader in Italy as well as by the communist leader in France. If it is anything but a sham, those leaders have a wonderful opportunity, as Mr. Lippmann pointed out in an article which I think was in yesterday's newspaper, of demonstrating their sincerity. If they will instruct their fellows to help rather than resist the restoration of economic activity in their respective countries, then we may be able to believe that this peace offensive is more than a sham, and that it is the expression of some desire by the rulers of these totalitarian states to put an end to this enervating cold war that has been having such serious effects throughout the world.
At home the situation is one that the speech comments upon as being a cause for rejoicing and satisfaction. Just let me put three or four sets of figures on record in that connection. We say that the economy of the country is buoyant. Last year the gross national production, according to the best available statistics, was $15,500,000,000 as compared with something of the order of $5 billion or $6 billion in the years which preceded the war. The present estimates for 1949 are $16,550,000,000. The salaries, wages and supplementary labour income for 1948, or the amounts distributed to wage earners and salary earners, totalled $7,135,000,000. The estimate for 1949 is $7,810,000,000. The number employed in 1948 in civilian employments was 4,890,000 and, in the armed forces, 35,000. The estimate for 1949 is 4,966,000 in civilian employments and 42,000 in the armed forces. Those are figures which are significant of the activity which is prevailing in this country and they are, I think, a justification for the further statement that progress towards social justice for all in any country is an effective safeguard against the effect and influence of subversive doctrines.
The next matter dealt with in the speech from the throne is the union between Newfoundland and Canada. I think all hon. members in this house look upon that as an achievement, not an achievement of mine or of any one of our colleagues, but rather an achievement of the Canadian people in bringing about a situation where the people of Newfoundland desire to become associated with us as one nation. It is a matter which should be consummated by March 31. This afternoon I indicated what were the steps which must be completed before the union could become effective, and what would happen if those steps were not completed by March 31. I think there are quite a number of people in Canada and perhaps quite a number who are not yet Canadians but who, under this arrangement, will become Canadians, who will have noted the attitude of the

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent various parties in this house this afternoon upon this question of the union of Newfoundland with Canada.
It was suggested that, if there was any reason why any more time were required than would be available until March 31, after the discussion on the speech from the throne of all the various matters that were referred to by the hon. gentlemen who addressed you this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and the other matters which you or the Deputy Speaker, who sat in your chair, found it would not be in order to discuss at this time, parliament should have been called together earlier.
I would remind hon. members that the terms of union which have been tabled and which will be submitted to this house for its consideration-and, if it sees fit, for its approval-were not arrived at in one or two days. Long and protracted negotiations took place in order to settle those terms. Those terms had been preceded by a fairly full proposal arrived at after months of deliberation last year. After the proposal had been approved by a majority vote of the people of Newfoundland in a referendum, the precise terms were under discussion here for upwards of two months, and the terms were not finally signed until December 11. I was the chairman of the Canadian committee that had to do with the negotiations with the representatives from Newfoundland; and I regarded the completion of that undertaking as something of consequence to the people of Canada, yes, and possibly of consequence to the people of the world. I felt that, so long as there was any hope that we could get that agreement into shape to have it for submission at this fifth session of the twentieth parliament, it was worth while working at it. We worked at it until December 11, and on that date we put our signatures to the document, subject of course to ratification by parliament.
After December 11 it would have been rather difficult, and not very convenient for the members of this house, if an attempt had been made to get them down here before Christmas. They might have arrived two or three days before Christmas; but I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are very many of them who would have felt at all kindly towards a government that brought them down here at that time.


Gordon Graydon: The government did it last year.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has been here for some time. He knows that parliament is not called to meet the day after the proclamation is issued. He knows that a reasonable time must elapse between the issuing of the proclamation and

the meeting of the house. Between December 11 and Christmas there were just fourteen days, or two weeks; and it would not have been possible to bring hon. gentlemen down here at that time. While the negotiations were going on, the attention of many members of the cabinet was devoted almost exclusively to the discussion of these terms of union.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: To election work.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the hon. member should try to be a little bit more serious in the interruptions he sees fit to make.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know they were in my riding.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We are discussing a matter which has concerned the Canadian people ever since confederation was mooted more than eighty-one years ago, and it has now reached the stage where it will be the responsibility of the hon. member who is making these interruptions, among others, to say whether it should be completed or not. It is my responsibility. I will not shirk it, and I will not blush for the way in which I discharged it, in recommending to my colleagues the date for the opening of parliament. I submit that the course I followed was a reasonable one, and I am quite prepared at any time to leave it to the public of Canada to determine whether or not it was reasonable under those circumstances.


Gordon Graydon: Whistling in the dark.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The next paragraph in
the speech from the throne deals with amendments to the Supreme Court Act to make the Supreme Court of Canada the court of last resort for Canadians.
There have been suggestions that this is something which constitutes a threat to the autonomy or liberty of the provincial governments. I had a compilation made of what has been happening in that regard for the last ten years. I asked for ten years but I got it for eleven. It is given from the year 1938 to 1948 both inclusive, and, unless my counting is wrong, that is eleven years. There were fifty-five cases in which appeals were asserted, or sought to be asserted, from judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. In one case the appeal was withdrawn. In five the appeals were allowed. In forty-nine cases the appeals were dismissed and the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada were affirmed. In no one of the five cases in which the appeals were allowed was there any constitutional issue between the dominion and the provinces. That is the record for the last eleven years in these fifty-five times

when Canadians went over to London to demonstrate that we in Canada were not able to settle our own affairs at home.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister
a question? Has he the figures for the appeals direct from the provincial courts to the privy council? Many of the appeals from British Columbia go right from the court of appeal to the privy council.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know. I have long
deplored this apparent tendency of the litigants of British Columbia to take their disputes to the privy council instead of taking them to the supreme court at Ottawa, but I did not go into that because that did not appear to me to have any bearing upon this fear that what we were proposing was something that was going to be a menace to the autonomy or the prerogatives of the provincial governments.


George Alexander Drew: I just want to put the record
straight. It has nothing to do with the merits of the proposition that is being discussed. I am interested in the statement that there were no constitutional issues involved, in view of the fact that I have a vivid recollection of the Canada Temperance Act appeal being decided within a very recent period.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I said that in the five
cases where the appeals were successful there were no constitutional issues between the dominion and the provinces. In all cases where there were constitutional questions between the dominion and any of the provinces the judgments of the supreme court were affirmed as rendered here in Canada.
The next paragraph of His Excellency's speech has to do with navigation and power of the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin, and I am very glad to know that the leader of the opposition is in full agreement with our policy to press forward for that as speedily as results can be hoped for. Here I wish to compliment the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) on his modesty when he was speaking of the results of this development with respect to the Canadian economy. He spoke of there being a drop of 85 feet which would be capable, in addition to its benefits to navigation, of producing 2,200,000 horsepower, to be divided one-half to our United States neighbours and the other half to the good people of the province of Ontario. That is quite true, but it is only a part of the truth. That drop of 85 feet is the drop in the international section; but the complete drop from lake Superior to the port of Montreal is something over 550 feet, and the horsepower 29087-5
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent involved in the project to develop this basin for navigation and power purposes is of the order of something like five million.
There has already been developed in the Soulanges section by the Beauharnois power company, now controlled by the Quebec hydro, 750,000 horsepower, which has been at work for a number of years, and there is in process of development there an additional 500,000 horsepower, which will be .ready at a very early date, making the power for the Quebec hydro from that development a million and a quarter, which can be increased by using over that head in the Soulanges section some of the water that is now being used less efficiently in existing plants. That will be done some day, so that the Beauharnois project will then be turning out two million horsepower.
At the time the project was considered, and even at the time the agreement of 1941 was entered into with the United States government, subject to ratification by congress and by this parliament, the Lachine section was looked upon as offering too costly a proposition for economic development.
Just about a year ago a commission was set up by the federal government to inquire again into the possibilities of developing the Lachine section. In October last the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) distributed the report obtained from that commission which was presided over by Mr. Henry and composed of Dr. T. H. Hogg, Mr. Arthur Surveyer, Mr. Guy Lindsay and Mr. C. W. West. In this report they came to the conclusion that there is 1,200,000 horsepower which can be developed just below the Victoria bridge in the city of Montreal at capital costs a little higher than the costs of the capital installations in the other section of the St. Lawrence, but that, in view of the fact that it will not be necessary to have huge transformers to step up or step down this power, and it will not be necessary to have transmission lines to make it available to consumers, and there will be no losses in transmission, the cost of that power to the consumer will not be any higher than the cost of the power from the international section to the consumer of Ontario. So that here we have in this project, in addition to the navigation facilities, the opportunity of there being made available to the industries of these two central provinces of Canada something over three million horsepower.
The leader of the opposition knows better than I do that the increasing demand for power in his province is at the rate of one hundred thousand horsepower a year, and that, without the one hundred thousand horsepower a year, the development which is
66	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent now proceeding in his province could not proceed at the same pace. So that we have good reason, whether we be of his province or of my province, to see in this prospective development an earnest of the great continued industrial development in our respective provinces. I hope that the attempt being made in the congress of the United States at this time to have the agreement of 1941 approved will turn out to be successful.
I think it is only fair for us to say that if, we cannot at this time get implementation of this agreement for the double-barreled purpose of navigation and power, the value of the power is so great that we shall have to give very serious consideration to going ahead and developing it on the power side alone-which would be amply justified, I think, by the economic benefits which could be derived from the power alone.
The next paragraph deals with the legislative provisions necessary to implement agreements for the sale of agricultural products to the United Kingdom. One hon. member this afternoon was most anxious that there be an opportunity to discuss problems of the agriculturists in the western provinces. He was, I am sure, happy to note, if he did note it, that the first step for the presentation of this legislation to the Canadian parliament was taken this very afternoon. I shall not enter into the details of it; and I am not sure that if the hon. member were to read the views of Sir John A. Macdonald on the proper scope of a debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne he would not come to the conclusion that he had better wait until this legislation is before parliament to discuss the matters to which he was referring this afternoon.
With respect to the international trade agreement, the charter for the international trade organization, and the efforts being made by the government, its commissioners and staffs abroad to remove specific obstacles to the sale of our goods in our traditional markets, I shall not say anything at this time, beyond pointing out the fact that there is a continuing committee which was established by the governments of the United Kingdom and Canada, when Sir Stafford Cripps was here in the autumn, to supervise the trend of trade between our two countries. This committee is at this very moment sitting in London, the meeting having been convened there on January 25.
At this time I would say that I believe there are things in our relations with our good friends of the United Kingdom which are more important than the specific terms of any one of these special agreements. I think they mean to treat us fairly, and I think it is very important that we treat them fairly. There have been some reports of actions taken


by us and of actions taken by them which have left an unfortunate impression as to the genuine desire existing on both sides to have as full and as cordial trading relations with each other as possible. I believe the continuing committee will be able to achieve for us in that field, as well as in the field of the actual shillings and pence or dollars and cents involved, very beneficial results.
We have found ourselves in pretty tight corners more than once in world affairs. We have been proud to stand shoulder to shoulder, and we have been successful because we were standing shoulder to shoulder. In spite of our best hopes for the future of the world, mankind being what it is we cannot be sure that in the future there will not be other tight corners for us to stand in. I think it is most important that we conserve, with respect to each other, the feeling that we deal fairly with each other, that we are pretty good people with whom to have collaboration, and that it would be most unfortunate if, as the result of reports they get of what is going on elsewhere, our people were to come to the conclusion that we were being let down by the people of the United Kingdom.
I do not think we are. Under very difficult circumstances I think they are doing their best, and this matter of the balance of payments and dollar shortage is something which is real. So far as we were concerned, we knew it was real just a little over a year ago. We had to take measures which were distasteful to us and distasteful to the Canadian people. But at that time we planned a course which has succeeded. Perhaps we have been fortunate; but things have turned out as we planned them. And over the period which has elapsed since the putting into force of our restrictions, our reserves of United States dollars have doubled. We felt it was necessary to the economic security of this country to have them doubled.
We must realize that those having the responsibility for the economic security of other countries are entitled to take the measures which appear to them inevitable to attain that degree of security their people expect from them.
Something has been said about the fact that during the war the urgency of the danger made it necessary for the federal government to encroach upon the field normally reserved to the provincial authorities. This is so. We had to do it, to a large degree, as a consequence of the necessity of warding off the danger which threatened our very existence. That was recognized by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I wish to pay him that tribute. He made no com-

plaint about what we did under the War Measures Act, even though it did invade the field which normally was within the jurisdiction of the government of which he was the head.
Since the war ceased, we have been trying to get out of the fields we had thus entered, and we have been doing it at a rate which not so long ago a great many members in this house were charging had been too rapid. At the present time we have a few small controls which it appears necessary to maintain, unless they are exercised by some other authority.
There is steel control. Steel control, in my view, does not require the existence of a war emergency for its justification in the hands of the federal authority, if in fact steel is a material in short supply. The defence of Canada is a matter of federal jurisdiction at all times; the defence of Canada requires watchfulness and preparation at all times. Steel is an indispensable material for the proper organization and maintenance of those forces which it is the responsibility of the central government to keep in existence. Anything that is necessary incidentally to the exercise of federal jurisdiction can be done by federal authority; and if it is necessarily incidental to the proper equipping of our armed forces to have a certain proportion of the steel in short supply in Canada, then from my reading of the constitution and my reading of the decisions under the constitution we are, I believe, justified in maintaining that control.
We do not like to maintain any kind of control any longer than it appears to us to be absolutely indispensable. At the same time we come before parliament asking parliament to continue the legislation under which we can exercise this control over steel. We come to the Canadian parliament and say, "Authorize us to make an agreement with the producers of steel to increase their productive capacity so that this short supply situation which justifies the existence of the control may be done away with."
There have been charges about the centralizing tendencies of this government, but I would invite hon. members of any opposition to cite a single instance, since the end of the war, where the central authority has attempted to go beyond the limits prescribed by the constitution. It is all very well to make broad assertions, but the whole tendency of this government since the cessation of active fighting has been to withdraw from those fields where during the war it had to invade the ordinary jurisdiction of the provinces.
With respect to the control of domestic rental housing, in October last the federal government wrote to every provincial premier
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent saying we felt that we would have to ask parliament to continue for a further period the legislative authority to exercise this control, but that if they chose to resume their jurisdiction, whether they maintained the controls or not, which was their own business, we would immediately withdraw.
What has been the situation with regard to that? I fear that if controls over domestic rentals were withdrawn at this time it would create a pretty chaotic situation in a great many large industrial centres of Canada. We have been building a lot of housing. Since the end of the war, I believe, 278,000 units have been erected. There were more erected last year than in any previous year in the history of Canada. But our economic prosperity, whether there be any inflationary elements in it or not, is increasing the demand for housing a lot faster than materials and manpower can provide the houses.
Although very large numbers are built each year, the net increase in family units in Canada keeps just a little bit ahead of the central mortgage and housing corporation and the others who are engaged in providing housing units. The result is that at the present time rental housing is still at a premium. Human nature being what it is, I fear that if there were no control, or if the control were immediately lifted, a great many Canadians would be exploited as a consequence of the shortage of housing. It is clearly something which is normally within provincial jurisdiction. But we put on the controls and I do not think we would be discharging our duty as humanitarian Canadians to the Canadian public if we took them off without those who normally have jurisdiction assuming the responsibility of either maintaining them or removing them in their respective localities.
What has been the result? The administration of controls is not a comfortable or easy thing. It does not bring in any revenue and it does not bring in very much glory. Those who have had to do with it have not had very much satisfaction in that respect. The premiers of the provinces realize what the situation is. They realize that we have caught hold of a lion's tail and we do not want to let go until somebody else grabs it. They say that they are not going to grab it.
Therefore it happens that we are going to have to ask parliament to extend for a further period our right, our privilege, of exercising this control over the rental of domestic housing.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
29087-5i
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 31, 1949