May 16, 1946

LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ANSWERS GIVEN TO QUESTIONS ON MAT 15
Permalink
PC

Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. FRASER:

He added that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ANSWERS GIVEN TO QUESTIONS ON MAT 15
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Order.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ANSWERS GIVEN TO QUESTIONS ON MAT 15
Permalink
LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The question is a lengthy one; I suggest to the hon. member that he put it on the order paper.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ANSWERS GIVEN TO QUESTIONS ON MAT 15
Permalink
PC

Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. FRASER:

I had it on the order paper. I asked what the costs were and the minister said that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation supplies part of the time of a staff producer, and station and network facilities. The answer did not give me the cost, and that is what I asked for. I should like to ask the.

minister if he will review that question, and the other question which was asked regarding the broadcast "The People Ask", and give me the cost which I asked for.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ANSWERS GIVEN TO QUESTIONS ON MAT 15
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph McCann (Minister of National Revenue; Minister of National War Services)

Liberal

Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):

I shall be very glad to have the answers reviewed.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ANSWERS GIVEN TO QUESTIONS ON MAT 15
Permalink

LABOUR CONDITIONS

REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYERS AT CLEVELAND MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION


On the orders of the day:


CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Did the government invite Canadian employers to send representatives to the recent conference held at Cleveland, U.SA., under the auspices of the international labour organization? Was the invitation accepted? If not, what reason was given by employers for their non-participation?

Topic:   LABOUR CONDITIONS
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYERS AT CLEVELAND MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION
Permalink
LIB

Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):

The Department of Labour did invite employers to send representatives to the international labour organization meeting referred to by my hon. friend, and it was agreed that they would nominate representatives to attend. But later we were informed that it was found impossible to find men who had sufficient knowledge of the questions which would arise who would leave their 'business to attend this particular conference. Two representatives of t'he employers did attend the second conference.

Topic:   LABOUR CONDITIONS
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYERS AT CLEVELAND MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION
Permalink

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

EXTRADITION TREATY WITH UNITED STATES


On the orders of the day: Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. As Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs can he say what action the government has taken on the extradition treaty with the United States and the report that was made on it by the committee on external affairs last session. Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): After the report, of the special committee on external affairs was tabled in this house negotiations were resumed with the United States authorities on the extradition treaty and protocol, and these negotiations are still proceeding. Canadian Citizenship


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP

NATIONALITY, NATURALIZATION AND STATUS OP ALIENS


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State) moved the third reading of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality and naturalization and status of aliens.


PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):

Before the motion is put there are two or three observations I should like to make in regard to the meaning of citizenship. Speaking to the amendment which I moved in committee on May 7, I said, as reported at page 1300 of Hansard:

This amendment is not meant to be allexclusive, nor is it meant to be all-inclusive. My first suggestion is that if the Secretary of State accepts the principle of the need in this country of a bill of rights signifying what citizenship stands for, then possibly the best means whereby that result could be effected would be to set up a committee of the house. It ivould not take very long for that committee to meet and it would afford an opportunity to exchange ideas among the various groups in the house and thereby evolve a bill of rights which would be acceptable to all, and one which would carry into effect the highest principles of citizenship.

I think I can safely say that in the course of the discussion on the amendment there was almost unanimity, as close an approach to it as can ever be expected in a representative institution, on the need of a bill of rights. One hon. member after another rose in his place in the house in support of the principles embodied in the amendment which I introduced. Some hon. members took the stand that it was too much circumscribed, and that in any event it could not possibly be comprised in the few words which I used in the amendment. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could have order. I cannot compete with what goes on behind the curtains.

I was saying that there was general unanimity on the need of a bill of rights, but there was also fairly strong opinion expressed by the hon. members immediately to my left, by hon. members of the Social Credit party and others, that a bill of rights, to be effective, must comprise more than what was confined within the ambit of my amendment. Finally the government, represented by the president of the privy council, placed this view before the house. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) dealt with the whole question of rights, freedoms and privileges. As reported at page 1477 of Hansard he said:

The hon. member for Lake Centre and I are very close together in this thing, but I suggest to him to-night that this is far greater than this trivial and piffling amendment dealing with three simple rights among a multitude of rights . . .

Why cannot we in this parliament get together on this issue? Why cannot all parties form a committee to consider these things apart altogether from this bill? If necessary that committee could call in advisers from the various provinces.

Mr. Diefenbaker: Is that not what I suggested?

Mr. Mackenzie: It is not what this piffling

amendment says at all, and that is why I say we cannot support the amendment.

The minister joined with me and said there was very little difference between us. Apparently the only point of divergence was as to the method of operation. I can say that there was never any disagreement between us because I said the same thing as he said in my opening paragraph when I introduced the amendment. I suggest, therefore, that, being in entire agreement with my hon. friend and with those who have expressed themselves on this question-the leader of the C.C.F. party, the leader of the Social Credit party and others-now is the time for us to make a declaration that a bill of rights shall be brought into this parliament which will assure that what we all desire in this regard shall be now determined and declared.

Section 27 of the bill as passed reads as follows:

A Canadian citizen other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall, subject to the provisions of this act, be entitled to all rights, powers and privileges and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities to which a natural-born Canadian citizen is entitled or subject and. on and after becoming a Canadian citizen, shall, subject to the provisions of this act-, have a like status to that of a natural-born Canadian citizen.

There were those who raised the objection that the amendment did not go far enough; that it did not comprise citizenship of those who were Canadians by birth. I believe it was the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) who raised that point, and it was an effective one. I could not but fail to accept it, because after all, what we are trying to do here is to get a bill of rights which will be the epitome of the wishes of all hon. members of the house. The section says:

... a Canadian citizen, shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have a like status to that of a natural-born Canadian citizen.

I know of no other section which would permit of a definition of the rights of citizenship. Having regard to the measure of agreement that there is amongst us, and answering the appeal made by the minister in which he asked us all to get together, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):

That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend it as follows:

Canadian Citizenship

1. By adding subsection 2 to section 27 as follows:

"27 (2) That when this act comes into force, if parliament be then sitting or if parliament be not then sitting within ten days after the next session begins, the question of adopting a bill of rights, so as to assure the maintenance and preservation of democratic and traditional processes of liberty and of equality under the law of all Canadian citizens without regard to race, creed or colour, shall be submitted to the House of Commons in a resolution to be considered in a select committee properly representative of the entire population of Canada."

Sir, by this amendment the views of all hon. members on all sides of the house will have an opportunity for expression. Out of that common expression and common cooperation -because after all this matter is above partisan consideration-there will come a declaration that will assure the preservation of democratic rights and ensure that in the years to come men and women, Canadians all, will be able to look back and say: These are our rights; no longer are they nebulous; no longer do they consist only in tradition and in precedent. They have been epitomized by parliament.

Topic:   CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP
Subtopic:   NATIONALITY, NATURALIZATION AND STATUS OP ALIENS
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not at this time propose to discuss the merits or demerits of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I desire only to refer Your Honour to the obvious rules of the house. In doing so I would refer Your Honour to paragraph 710 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, at page 238. I quote:

All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.

That is taken from May at page 421. Then, again, quoting paragraph 712 in the same volume:

On the third reading of a 'bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act-

Most of us were in the house at that time. -an amendment was moved that the bill be not now read a third time because it does not provide for complete government ownership of the Bank of Canada. This amendment involved the main subject matter dealt with in the bill. The Speaker ruled it out of order on the ground that it was an expanded negative.

And thirdly, at paragraph 713 in the same volume:

On the motion for the third reading of a bill to incorporate the Bank of Canada, an amendment that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole, with instruction that they have power to amend same so is to safeguard the sovereignty of parlianieut over Canada's

financial policy, was ruled out of order for the following reasons: "The amendment is irrelevant."

I submit that this amendment is irrelevant to any of the essential principles of the bill. The paragraph continues:

"The sovereignty of parliament cannot be affected by the passage of a bill in this house. The sovereignty of parliament is created and defined by the British North America Act, Section 91 of which states that it shall be lawful for the parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to all matters, except those assigned to provincial legislatures and, inter alia, subjects enumerated therein, including banking, incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money. The sovereignty of parliament can only be affected by an amendment to the British North America Act."

This is the most decisive citation, where a Speaker's decision is approved by the House of Commons. It was moved that the bill be not now read a third time but that all the words after "that" be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:

"The bill be referred back to the committee of the whole with the request-

Note those words, "with the request."

-that the government consider ways and means of providing compensation-

And so on. Then it continues:

Mr. Speaker ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the ground that a bill may be referred back with instruction either that the committee have power to amend it in certain particulars or for further consideration; it cannot be referred back-

These are the words upon which I base my contention-

It cannot be referred back with the request that certain matters be considered by the government.

That was a decision of a Speaker, upheld by the House of Commons. The same principle is now involved in the amendment now offered by the hon. member.

Again at page 503 of the same volume:

On the motion for third reading: (a) Amendment proposing to refer a bill back to the committee of the whole -with instruction to amend it so as to safeguard the sovereignty of parliament is out of order.

As I said before, speaking with the consent of such of my colleagues as were present, I made certain declarations the other evening. The hon. member for Lake Centre is now endeavouring to anticipate, by way of direction, the policy of the administration and government of Canada by forcing it into a position where it does not belong. I suggest that the hon. member's amendment is entirely out of order.

Canadian Citizenship

Topic:   CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP
Subtopic:   NATIONALITY, NATURALIZATION AND STATUS OP ALIENS
Permalink
PC

Grote Stirling

Progressive Conservative

Mr. STIRLING:

Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that an examination of the precedents put before Your Honour by the leader of the house will show that they are not analogous to this situation. It would appear to me that an amendment to the motion for third reading is in the same category as an amendment to second reading, provided it does not introduce a new subject. That makes this amendment clearly in order, because it introduces no new subject. Section 27 of the bill deals with the rights and obligations of Canadian citizens. The proposition is not that any direction should be given to the government of the day with regard to what it should do or what it should not do, but rather that an opportunity be given parliament and the House of Commons to discuss the reason why, in the opinion of so many people, it is necessary that a bill of rights be considered by parliament.

I suggest that the amendment by no means introduces a new matter of business; it does not bring in any new subject. It deals with a subject already dealt with in section 27 of the bill. For these reasons I suggest the amendment is in order.

Topic:   CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP
Subtopic:   NATIONALITY, NATURALIZATION AND STATUS OP ALIENS
Permalink

May 16, 1946