Gordon GRAYDON

GRAYDON, Gordon, Q.C., B.A., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Peel (Ontario)
Birth Date
December 7, 1896
Deceased Date
September 19, 1953
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Graydon
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=795045ac-0a2d-489d-aac6-1477f9c815d1&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister, lawyer, solicitor

Parliamentary Career

October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
CON
  Peel (Ontario)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
NAT
  Peel (Ontario)
  • Leader of the Official Opposition (January 1, 1943 - June 10, 1945)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
PC
  Peel (Ontario)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
PC
  Peel (Ontario)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
PC
  Peel (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 1689)


May 25, 1956

Mr. Graydon:

May I say to the Prime Minister that this pretty well indicates the degree of seriousness of the offence and, I think, shows the ridiculousness of the position which the Prime Minister and the government have taken in connection with it.

Topic:   AFTER RECESS
Full View Permalink

December 7, 1953

Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):

Mr. Speaker, may I just make one or two observations in connection with this proposal? As to a number of these conventions which arise out of the deliberations of the special agencies of the United Nations and of international organizations, it seems to me that a procedure such as that which has been recommended by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) ought to be followed. When the conventions come before parliament, they come in the form of a resolution, and there is no opportunity in committee of the whole to interrogate anyone in the government; they sometimes also come in fairly detailed form as does this convention. On previous occasions, when resolutions of a detailed nature of this kind have been before the house, I have felt that proper provision is not made under the rules for a proper and full discussion unless the matter goes before a special committee of the house.

As to the present situation, I only want to make one or two additional remarks. We voted first for this declaration in 1948, as I understand it, and perhaps the minister will tell us what has been done in the interval to take it seriously. A couple of weeks ago the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) made a suggestion in the house which I think might well be brought back to the memory of hon. members. He was speaking about the possibility of our doing something with our great stocks of wheat to try to help those who are in need of help. I mention that merely as being one of the practical things which we have to consider.

Look at the actual amount which we have contributed, which I believe is somewhere between $1 and $2 million this year, in the way of assistance to underdeveloped countries, and make comparisons. Of course if you start with nothing the subscription will seem quite large, and I am not saying for a moment that it should be larger or smaller. I hope the minister will say something to us about what he regards as our responsibility in this question.

I know there are two views. There is the view that it is possible, by giving assistance to backward countries, to slacken their efforts, and actually do harm. Personally I find it difficult to believe that, provided it is done wisely. But I should like to hear about that. As I say, if you compare this amount, what we are spending on what we might call construction, with the amount that we are spending on defence, in other words on destruction, the comparison would be so trifling that you would not dare to give the figure. Obviously that is not a fair comparison at all and I do not suggest for a moment that it is. I should like to hear from the minister what he has to say about that.

You cannot spend even the short time that I did at the United Nations without having these things rise up and strike you. Despite all the wrangling that goes on there, you

cannot help feeling that somehow or other there ought to be some means of understanding. I think it was Charles Lamb who had criticized somebody with great asperity and a friend asked, "Do you know the man you are criticizing?" Lamb replied, "No, of course not; I could not attack him like that if I knew him". I hope there is force in that, although I must admit that the Russians seem to be able to continue their sharp attacks even though they are sitting in the seat next to you.

I am afraid my remarks have been rather rambling. This declaration might be treated as a matter which just passes in the night, so to speak, something that means nothing to us, something about which in our hearts we are really bored to death. If we take that attitude it seems to me that we may have occasion to rue it bitterly. On the other hand, common sense ought to enter in. I hope the minister will be able to give us a view which will combine the common-sense approach with these obligations at a time when we can see that right decisions may involve blessings beyond what we can imagine, while on the other hand wrong decisions may lead to evils beneath our darkest imaginings.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   MOTION APPROVING UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ADOPTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS
Full View Permalink

May 9, 1953

Mr. Graydon:

There must be many hon. members who have no background at all with respect to this matter. Perhaps the hon. member for Peace River felt that he could not give the background when he asked the question. Will the Minister of Justice indicate what the point is that is involved?

Topic:   ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Subtopic:   REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT OF REMARKS OF MR. JUSTICE MANSON IN VANCOUVER
Full View Permalink

May 9, 1953

Mr. Graydon:

You may be, too, before long.

Topic:   ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Subtopic:   REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT OF REMARKS OF MR. JUSTICE MANSON IN VANCOUVER
Full View Permalink

May 9, 1953

Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):

On as important an announcement relating to such a far-reaching discussion as has taken place between our own Prime Minister and the President of the United States something ought to be said on behalf of those who sit in other parts of the house.

I agree with what has been said with respect to the great advantage and benefit which comes from a close personal contact between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. These talks help knit closer together the two great nations that compose this North American continent, whose objectives, aims and future destiny are so closely bound up together. These exchanges of views on the personal level between the Prime Minister and the President ought to be maintained and ought to be more frequent so that the least possible area will be open for disagreement on any point between Canada and the United States in the future. We have everything to gain by being together and everything to lose by being apart in even a small way.

I was interested in what the Prime Minister said with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway. This is a matter which is of concern to many people in Canada if not to all people. I was concerned this morning to read, as I suppose most hon. members were, of the new proposal by the President and the cabinet with respect to the United States part of the seaway. It seemed to me to come at a rather late hour in the discussions with respect to the St. Lawrence deep waterway. I have not been aware, and I do not suppose other hon. members have been aware, that the United

External Affairs

States government contemplated that kind of policy, and it must have been somewhat of a surprise to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs when it was brought out of the cabinet meeting yesterday. I imagine most people will be concerned for the simple reason that while it is hoped it may not involve a delay, still when the avenue is left open for participation between the United States and Canada, which the Prime Minister has left open, the undoubted result will be to constitute a delay. I say that because one of the problems that this government and this parliament face in dealing with the United States government is that it is one thing for the government to take a position, and it is another thing for the congress to take the same position and for that congress speedily to carry out the decision that is made.

Frankly, I am concerned lest some of these new things thrown into the St. Lawrence seaway discussion may have the effect of causing delay. I would ask the Prime Minister, when the appropriate time arrives today, and after his having sized up the situation personally in Washington, to tell the house what his own idea is as to when the first sod will be turned on the St. Lawrence seaway project, and when it is likely to be finished.

Those are questions which will be asked every member of parliament in each area when we go home. While it may be a difficult question to answer, it is a question which will come to the front in every conversation concerning the St. Lawrence seaway development. I think parliament ought to know, before it recesses, what views the Prime Minister holds on that point, after his personal contacts in Washington.

Then, I have been interested in the question of trade, and dealt with it myself briefly in the discussion of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I was glad to note that the matter was raised again by the President and the Prime Minister. Because it does seem to me that while for some considerable time we have been facing the threat of actual aggression by the Soviet union on the military front, we are now definitely faced with aggression which is just as grave, just as menacing, just as serious and just as dangerous to democracy, on the economic and trade fronts.

That is why I think it is important that article II should at this time be the subject of most careful examination, consideration, study and action. While we may be holding our own on the military front, wa must also see that at least we are holding our own on the economic front as well.

External Affairs

The Prime Minister made reference to his representations to the President regarding the unanimous resolution passed by the house the other day. I would ask him to go a little farther on that point, and to indicate to the house what reception he got from the President concerning these various moves which seem to be on foot by various groups in the United States, with influence in the congress, as a result of which particularly agricultural commodities either have been subjected or are about to be subjected to regulations which will have the effect of barring the entry of our agricultural products into the United States.

That is one of the most serious problems now facing this country, and I suggest parliament ought to have something more than the simple and formal statement made by both the President and the Prime Minister on that point. Because that is another matter concerning which questions will be asked the membership of the house when they return to their constituencies after prorogation.

It is of vital interest to agriculture as well as to some other branches of our economy that we know just where the congress and the United States government are going in the matter of barring entry to the American market in respect of some of our most important products.

I do wish to say to the Prime Minister that I hope this is but the beginning of a series of meetings between prime ministers of Canada and presidents of the United States which may occur at intervals sufficiently frequent to bring about some kind of common voice in the councils of the world on the military, economic and other fronts. With so much in common, so far as the peace of the world is concerned, I would hope that this country and the United States might go forward in the friendly manner to which they have now grown accustomed, so that not only would our friendship be maintained but that it might be advanced and promoted in years to come.

Topic:   IRRIGATION
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink