June 24, 1947

PC

Charles Elwood Stephenson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. STEPHENSON:

It is a poor example to set for the children of Canada.

Topic:   DOMINION DAY
Subtopic:   SITTING OF THE HOUSE-MEAT RATIONING RESTRICTIONS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Does my hon. friend speak of the children of Canada?

Topic:   DOMINION DAY
Subtopic:   SITTING OF THE HOUSE-MEAT RATIONING RESTRICTIONS
Permalink
PC

Charles Elwood Stephenson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. STEPHENSON:

July 1st is Canada's birthday, and this is its birthplace. I said that it was a poor example to set for this country not to observe its anniversary. The government should set a good example by observing this national holiday.

Topic:   DOMINION DAY
Subtopic:   SITTING OF THE HOUSE-MEAT RATIONING RESTRICTIONS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I take strong exception to the suggestion that the representatives of the people are not observing the national holiday when we are doing our best to expedite the country's business.

Mr. CRUICKSHANIv: I would ask the appropriate minister if while we are saving time on the first of July the people of Fraser valley and Chilliwack will be allowed to have meat on that day?

Topic:   DOMINION DAY
Subtopic:   SITTING OF THE HOUSE-MEAT RATIONING RESTRICTIONS
Permalink
LIB

Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ABBOTT:

I am sure that the people of Chilliwack and Fraser valley will be allowed to enjoy a nice hot dog on the first of July.

Topic:   DOMINION DAY
Subtopic:   SITTING OF THE HOUSE-MEAT RATIONING RESTRICTIONS
Permalink
PC

Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. FRASER:

Following up that statement of the Minister of Finance, the order in council gives permission only to fairs and circuses to sell hot dogs on Tuesdays and Fridays. Is there any chance of that being extended to the ordinary taxpayer who runs a refreshment stand?

Topic:   DOMINION DAY
Subtopic:   SITTING OF THE HOUSE-MEAT RATIONING RESTRICTIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. I think it is my duty to remind hon. members that only urgent questions should be put on the orders of the day.

Topic:   DOMINION DAY
Subtopic:   SITTING OF THE HOUSE-MEAT RATIONING RESTRICTIONS
Permalink

UNITED NATIONS

POWERS OP GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 41


Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved the third reading of Bill No. 132, respecting article 41 of the charter of the united nations.


PC

Thomas Langton Church

Progressive Conservative

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, I have not a copy of this bill. It is not in the distribution office or in the office of the clerk of the committee. I object to the way business is being done in the dying days of the session. When the business was announced on Monday night no reference was made to this bill, and I object to this bill being brought on at this time. The bill has not been printed in French.

Here we are considering something that will land Canada clean outside of the empire. Reference is made to the security council. In my opinion it is all council and no security whatever. We tried that in the old league of nations and you know' what happened. Now it is proposed on the ninety-seventh day of this session to turn over to the executive the functions and powers of this parliament to make treaties binding on this country and sign a lot of covenants anew. Why should we transfer to the executive these powers during the recess of parliament.

The minister referred this bill to the external affairs committee, and the committee met and whitewashed the whole thing. What countries have adopted article 41 of the united nations charter? The minister said that the foundations of the council have been soundly laid. It was mostly sound. They have not been laid at all. If this is the kind of security we are to have, it is no better than a second league of nations and we will get the same results.

I have never seen a copy of this bill. I have sent down to the distribution office three times for it.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   POWERS OP GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 41
Permalink
LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. I think I should point out to the hon. member that the bill has been printed in French and English. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   POWERS OP GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 41
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

Copies of the bill are

not available now.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was distributed

two months ago and a copy placed on each member's file.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   POWERS OP GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 41
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

I have a copy of it, but the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has not. and a copy cannot be obtained now.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   POWERS OP GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 41
Permalink
PC

Thomas Langton Church

Progressive Conservative

Mr. CHLTRCH:

We tried depending on charters and peace pacts and notes in the old league of nations, but if you adopt the principle of charters you are inviting a third world war. The minister mentioned India as having adopted the charter. The government of India is only in the making. Britain gave India peace and justice and security for over a hundred years, what is going on there now? We have started the greatest civil war in history. The members of the British empire are our best friends, and unless we hang together we shall hang separately. None of them can go it alone.

The minister is a learned man, and he represented Canada faithfully and well at the united nations meeting. But the charter is a flat failure. Here we are at the ninety-seventh

United Nations

day of the session and not one hour has been devoted to the discussion of foreign affairs. I see my good friend the leader of the house is here today. I hope he will not allow a thing like this to go through. How many members have seen the bill? I have not seen it. I spent an hour trying to get a copy but I could not get one.

I am dealing with the charter of the UNO, March 1, 1947, the white paper I hold in my hand. How many hon. members have read it? How many hon. members know anything about it? I can tell the house that Australia will not sign article 41; they know something about it. There has been a lot of criticism of it. The UNO is a tower of Babel and a failure. The people are alarmed. We are transferring our powers and functions to make these treaties to our representatives, to the executive. the cabinet. I object to that principle. That is what led us into the first world war, and if we stick to this it will lead us into another war. The members of the empire are our best friends and dearest relations. They have always been our close friends. Instead of trying to keep the empire together we are disrupting it; we are allowing the UNO and the United States to scrap it. We are back to the old days of Geneva and security, and we all know what happened before. We all know what is going to happen because we are drifting into similar practices. The most notable effort made was made by the only real league of nations, the British empire. How does it come about that we are prepared to deal with every country of the seven seas but are not prepared to deal with the countries in our own empire? These are the people who stood by us in the past and will stand by us in the future.

The United States is a great country, and I am an admirer of it. They have representatives on the security council and you cannot blame them for that. As a writer in a great British paper said:

The most notable effort of the council so far. in my opinion is to divide the various parts of the empire one from the other. Ever since the United States of America left that great imperial group known as the British empire, because the British made it, the United States people have wanted to become a world power something like the one which they left. They want a new place in the sun.

They want a new imperialism. You cannot blame them for that. I do not blame them for it. We should be prepared to stand up for our country. We are going into a fools' paradise such as we had before, a second league, and making the same mistakes as the Geneva of old.

83166-291J

The United States have delegates there, and they talk about America first, last and all the time. The British delegates do not do that. Under the circumstances I think it is only proper that we should stick to the empire that we have had so long because they are the countries that have supported us. I would not call the government of India a government, and if we were told the truth we would all be of the same opinion. I tried to move the adjournment of the house to discuss these matters. This is the ninety-seventh day of the session and we have not had fifteen minutes devoted to this thing, the liquidation of the British empire. What are the conditions in India today? It is one of the countries that requested us to sign this agreement, to make a treaty out of it, to give the minister and the executive power over the head of parliament to bring us to the very verge of war. For 180 years India has been a great country and a great land. Under British rule India has had peace, security, liberty and justice for over 150 years. They have not much order there now. What would hon. members think of India if they could get a return giving actual information on the situation there today where there is civil war? Instead of tens of thousands there are hundreds of thousands being massacred in that land. We are proposing to give that country and its trade over to United States interests and to Russia. It will not be done with my vote. The outlook for the empire is too dark at present for me.

I wish to protest against this way of doing business. The Indian situation is a tragedy. The minister says that India has consented to this agreement, I would not call the government of that country a government. There are fifty million people there called untouchables who will be led like lambs to the slaughter. We do not know anything about it at all. It. is a serious tragedy. It is going to lead India to the greatest civil war in all history. Compared with what is going on in the Balkans it will be trivial.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   POWERS OP GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 41
Permalink
LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. I would ask for the cooperation of the hon. member. Under this bill we are not discussing the question of India or of the British empire. The purpose of the bill is to empower the government to enable Canada to carry out article 41 of the charter of the united nations. I will ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   POWERS OP GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 41
Permalink
PC

Thomas Langton Church

Progressive Conservative

Mr. CHURCH:

Mr. Speaker, have you read article 41 of this big white book?

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   POWERS OP GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 41
Permalink
LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

It is my duty to call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that

United Nations

he is not confining his remarks to the principle of the bill, since he has not seen the bill.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   POWERS OP GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 41
Permalink
PC

Thomas Langton Church

Progressive Conservative

Mr. CHURCH:

I am quite in order and I have not finished my remarks. India has agreed to article 41; the minister said so. The right hon. leader of the house may laugh, and all of that kind of thing, but I am sure that public opinion is not satisfied with the way in which we are doing business in this country, passing things over our heads and giving to the minister and the executive the power to make treaties. We have not discussed the liquidation of the British empire, because that is what it is.

In conclusion I wish to say, as has been said before, that I do not look upon this as responsible government. The government of India has not been properly elected; it has not been elected at all. Australia refused to sign this article. Britain has signed. Of course they are willing to sign. For many years past hon. members know what the record is under the present administration-internationalism, and scuttle the empire. Canada is asked to sign. If I get a seconder I shall move the six months' hoist. I shall move that this bill be not read a third time now but that it be read a third time six months hence. I am not going to be one of those who will give to the executive the power to make treaties during the six months that the house is in recess, because I know what they will do. I believe I have a seconder. If I have, that is all I wish to say about it. I do protest against this way of doing business. They are taking every opportunity to change the whole system of doing business with these treaties. We used to have two days set aside for a discussion of foreign affairs. I protest against this. If the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) will second my motion I will get the recorded vote on this matter, because I protest against such vast powers being taken away from parliament and put into the hands of the executive.

I wish to repeat that I could not get a copy of the bill. The bill has been passed over my head as a member of the house. I tried for over an hour and a half to get a copy. It was brought up last night when I was not in the house. I would have been here had I expected that it would be reached.

The committee on external affairs should never have been appointed. It has prevented the house from dealing with this matter. What have they done? They have forgotten all about matters raised here and have gone into extraneous matters of peace and security. These trips are wonderful things. They used to have them in the old league of nations. In fact it was suggested that I should be sent over there. They said that if I went over there they would

go home and pray. I never went over there and never had anything to do -with it. Wait until you see what will happen in India; wait until you see the civil war that will take place there. I am one member who is opposed to signing this or passing article 41. I have no faith in UNO or in anything it does.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   POWERS OP GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 41
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):

There was so much disturbance in the chamber I was unable to tell what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) said. I gathered that he was asking for a seconder to his motion for a six months' hoist. If that is so, I will second such a motion. I was going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), that this bill be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence. I am not sure whether I have seconded the motion of the hon. member for Broadview; if not, I shall make the motion myself. In fact he and I feel the same way about the bill.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   POWERS OP GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 41
Permalink

June 24, 1947