James Garfield GARDINER

GARDINER, The Right Hon. James Garfield, P.C., B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Melville (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
November 30, 1883
Deceased Date
January 12, 1962
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Garfield_Gardiner
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=b88f8c1a-3837-4be1-8acb-61fedd1a9cc1&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer, principal

Parliamentary Career

January 6, 1936 - January 25, 1940
LIB
  Assiniboia (Saskatchewan)
  • Minister of Agriculture (November 4, 1935 - November 14, 1948)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
LIB
  Melville (Saskatchewan)
  • Minister of Agriculture (November 4, 1935 - November 14, 1948)
  • Minister of National War Services (July 12, 1940 - June 10, 1941)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
LIB
  Melville (Saskatchewan)
  • Minister of Agriculture (November 4, 1935 - November 14, 1948)
  • Minister of Agriculture (November 15, 1948 - June 20, 1957)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
LIB
  Melville (Saskatchewan)
  • Minister of Agriculture (November 15, 1948 - June 20, 1957)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
LIB
  Melville (Saskatchewan)
  • Minister of Agriculture (November 15, 1948 - June 20, 1957)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
LIB
  Melville (Saskatchewan)
  • Minister of Agriculture (November 15, 1948 - June 20, 1957)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 4153)


February 1, 1958

Mr. Gardiner:

So we did carry along throughout the period down to the present day. It has been said, and in fact it was said by the deputy leader of the C.C.F. a few moments ago, that on all but one occasion they had voted for the want of confidence motions. I want to say to him that if every one of the groups in this house, other than the government party, had followed the same course which his party has followed we would have all broken the confidence which we tried to give to the people of this country when we told them we were going to assist the government to carry on for a reasonable length of time. However, we did go on with our undertaking, right through, and my hon. friends opposite like to speak of the motion made a week ago Monday as a silly motion. The deputy leader of the C.C.F. party apparently agrees with them.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Full View Permalink

February 1, 1958

Mr. Gardiner:

When the Minister of

Finance got on his feet a few moments ago the first remark he made was that the nerves of some people on this side of the house seemed rather frayed and as a result they were taking certain actions. Ever since I was a small boy I have heard people say that when your nerves are frayed, the first thing you do is to go up in the air. Well, that is what the leader of the government did today. This action he is going to take-and I am not in his confidence as to what- that action will be-must have been given just about the same amount of thought as the words which he used during the election. He did not go very far towards carrying out these ideas.

I am certain that the right hon. gentleman did not really know until very recently what he was going to do today, and I am not too sure he knows even yet. He could not have consulted many people about it, because no one else seemed to know what he was going to do, or when he was going to do it, and since he found it necessary to take an aeroplane it may be, though I do not know how high up he went, that he intended to follow that Sputnik which was shot up into the air yesterday and which is now circling the world. He may have been doing that. I do not know. But in any case he did the usual thing that people do when they are nervous

he shot up into the air. Judging by the fact that one of the ministers who accompanied the Prime Minister returned to this chamber some time ago, that 'plane must have been back for some time. At last, the hon. gentleman is here in his place, but he still does not seem to have made up his mind to do whatever it is he may have in mind to do.

It is now five minutes to six, and with the house closing at six o'clock there is very little time left to him in which to say anything about it; and in that short space of time I should like to be able to say to him that he had better be able to show very plainly

just why he is doing this, and all about it, because there is going to be an awful lot of talk about the things that have happened in this session during the next two months.

There are going to be discussions across this country of the kind that were foretold at the time when I spoke on the address. I have gone through this kind of thing before in the province of Saskatchewan in 1929 and again, I repeat, on the same issue as that on which we were switched out this time. In 1929 we did not have a majority in the house and so we did not do what the group did here on this occasion. We did not say to them: such and such things are going to happen. We said: we will meet the members and find out. We met the members in session and were voted out, and we went across to the other side of the house and sat there. The new government sat there for five years. They took every year they had the chance to take, and at the end of that five years after we had discussed all the things they did or did not do in the five years they were there, they did not elect anybody to the house. Just before they went to the country they came to me and asked me if I would drop out of politics and take over the presidency of the University of Saskatchewan. That would have been a very fine thing, but I said this to them: 1 came into politics some years ago, and I am going to stay in politics until my constituency votes me out. And they have never done so.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Full View Permalink

February 1, 1958

Mr. Gardiner:

I realize, of course, that that is not the basis on which the decision is really made to form a government, the people elected to this house a larger group of Conservatives than they did of Liberals. That brought up the question as to who was going to form a government to carry on during a period when there was not a majority in this house in favour of any party. I realize that, under our constitution, no party has a right to form a government. It is not parties that have the right to form a government. It is

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration

the individual in the house who can command a majority and only the individual in the house who can command a majority. It does not matter whether he heads any party or whether he does not. Under our institutions of government, parties are formed only for the purpose of making it possible to have a government that can carry on for four or five years or, in other words, so that we can have a stable government. The people did not make a decision that made that result possible on June 10.

So there had to be some consideration given to it and some discussion of the matter. In spite of some of the things that have been said since that time, I want to say now -and I do not think anyone will ever be able to contradict what I am about to say and base that contradiction on constitutional arguments-that there is only one way in which a Governor General can act, and that is on the advice of his prime minister. I want to say further that if the prime minister of the day had said "Well, we are going to carry on for a while"-the Governor General would have accepted that, but that was not said, and there are certain reasons why it was not said.

The leader of the C.C.F. party on the day after the election-on the 11th day of June-said very distinctly to all the people of this country, over the air and through the press, that he was prepared to support a government that would be formed by the leader of the Conservative party. The leader of the Social Credit group took a similar position, although there was a difference in their respective positions. The leader of the C.C.F. party said in effect that the only person he would support as prime minister in this house was the leader of the Conservative party,-or if he did not say that definitely, he certainly left that inference. The leader of the Social Credit group however made it very clear that which ever party undertook to form a government they would give them the chance to show their wares in this house before that group voted want of confidence.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Full View Permalink

February 1, 1958

Mr. Gardiner:

I would remind him that they were kept in power and they have not done them.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Full View Permalink

February 1, 1958

Mr. Gardiner:

The question under discussion this afternoon has brought up matters which are of great importance not only to the estimates that are being considered at the moment but to the position which an institution of this kind holds among the democratic countries of the world. It is rather important that the occasion is brought about by the fact that it was necessary to find additional money in order to bring people to this country from a country which has suffered from the fact that its people did not have the benefits of democratic government. The money about which we are talking is money which the incoming government thought it would be necessary to vote for the purpose of taking care of additional numbers of Hungarian people who thought this was a good country to which to come because of the experiences we have had in the type of government which has been ours.

I should like to say at the beginning that the basis of all the freedom which we have in this country and which the people in Britain had before us is resting squarely upon the issue which we have been discussing this afternoon, as well as an additional one. The two principles which the common people of Great Britain in the earlier years fought to obtain were first, the right to pass legislation, and second, the right to vote money; that is the right to tax people and the right to vote money as a result of the fact that people had been taxed. That fight takes us back through the whole history with which every school boy and school girl in this country are familiar. That history brings up the most important charters and pieces of legislation that were ever placed upon the statute books. It begins with Magna Carta and it comes through the Declaration of Rights in the day of the struggles that took place during the Stuart period in British history. Then it is associated until the Bill of Rights which was the final act in order to prove

once and for all that the beheading of a king settled something, a matter which was referred to a few moments ago by the Leader of the Opposition. All of these documents which are a part of our history are back of the discussions which we have been having today and the real reason for having certain precedents followed when providing the executive with the people's money.

I want to say to members of this house, some of whom perhaps do not know it, that my experience was similar to that of the hon. member for Peace River. On two different occasions in my political life I have been the treasurer of a province. I have therefore had something to do with votes of this kind and know what is required in connection with them. For that reason I should like to say that the very nature of the house that we have at this time is such that it does not make it easy to carry on the constitution as we have it. Certain things happened early in this session which are of importance in relation to our constitution, but have not been referred to except incidentally in connection with this discussion. It was said by an hon. member a few moments ago that very early in this session,-as a matter of fact in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne-I had occasion to address ideas to this house. They were based upon the very matter that we are now discussing. I have been surprised, as a matter of fact, at the length of time that we have been here- something over three months-before we get right down to discussing the important matters relating to the method under which the government came into being. It brings us back to the fact that at the time we had our election on June 10, which has been referred to over and over again, the people of this country did not make a decision in favour of the government that is sitting on the government benches today. The people of this country gave a majority, in so far as votes were concerned, very much in favour of the party that is sitting as the official opposition as against the Conservative party.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Full View Permalink