Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:

That on and after Monday the 14th February, 1944, to the end of the present session, government ' notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence at every sitting over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word in regard to this motion. I realize it follows the practice that prevails at- Westminster, and that in time of war, in the interests ,of the safety of the state, it is necessary to abrogate the rights of private members. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that during the entire period of the last war, with the exception of the last four or five months, private

Precedence of Government Orders

members' days were left untouched. I again bring to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the house the necessity of protecting the rights of private members. It is all very well to say that in Great Britain those rights have been taken away; but in Great Britain private members enjoy rights which are not granted to members of this house. Each day they have an opportunity of questioning the ministers of the crown, and if the ministers give unsatisfactory answers, supplementary questions are allowed. In any event the rights of the private members are protected in that at adjournment time they may again bring the question before the house.

I realize that the all-absorbing and exclusive business and responsibility of members of parliament is the mobilization of the nation for war and the making of plans for peace. As private members we have a great responsibility here. During the last few days statements have been made by members on the government side indicating an attitude in reference to parliament that [DOT] is far from encouraging. Our responsibility as members of parliament in connection with the war is to strengthen the resolution of the people to carry on to the end; to energize our people against the apathy that too often follows military successes; to assure our men and women of the forces that other men, with the necessary equipment, will be available as reinforcements and to see that our manpower is fully mobilized and put to the greatest possible use. For peace the challenge that comes to us as members is to make sure that the fullest possible plans and preparations be made now. I think I speak for the ordinary member of the house, Mr. Speaker, when I say that these aims and ideals for war and peace cannot be achieved if the membership of the house devotes itself, as it has to some extent during the past few days, to partisan discussions, and to turning this house into a cockpit of contending factions, each desirous of preparing for the hustings. Our responsibilities are too serious for that.

I ask the Prime Minister not to take away entirely the rights of private members. I realize that in time of war there must be a diminution in ordinary rights; that matters concerning the war must be given precedence; but we are living in times when parliament is losing its place in the opinion of the country. We are being criticized for wasting time; we are being criticized for abdicating two of our great functions, the deliberative and legislative functions. During this period

of war we have given up many of our privileges; we have put these things in pawn for victory. Private members are just as desirous as the government that we should get on with the business of the country, but we find our rights being whittled down, it is true with the consent of the house, until to-day we are almost in the position of being bound by the answers of the government. We cannot challenge the answers we get to questions asked on the orders of the day; we must accept what we are told. That is why ordinary members of parliament such as myself have reached the point where we feel that our rights should not be further curtailed.

Let me point out that this is not a partisan view I am expressing. The hon. member for Wellington South (M.r. Gladstone) dealt with this matter the other day, and two other hon. members are reported to have made speeches in the city of Hamilton last Saturday in connection with the same matter. I am not expressing a conception peculiar to the opposition. The hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross), referring to the labour order, is reported to have said:

The government is run by a bureaucracy; the members are nothing and I frankly admit it. If the order had gone through the house, it would have been better prepared.

Then the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Corman) as reported to have said:

The members of parliament are dead guinea pigs. I have never been consulted or called in on these matters. I admit there are powers behind the government. ... I think most of them are necessary, but I cannot see why the members should not be consulted. The Minister of Labour is not as bad as you think he is, but his hands are tied by these men who supposedly guide the destinies of this country.

Those are serious allegations against the power and prestige of the House of Commons. We find too that as time goes on the legislative authority of this parliament is being gradually diminished. No one can deny that. Orders in council of all kinds are necessary between sessions of parliament, but I submit that when parliament is sitting no orders in council should be passed at the instance of boards and commissions responsible only indirectly to parliament, carrying on uncontrolled by the representatives of the people, except those necessary for administrative purposes. We have only to look at the labour order to see what bureaucrats can do when they bring into effect legislation concerning the substantive rights of the individual, when there has been no discussion in parliament by the representatives of the people.

I realize the need to get on with the business of the war. Cn. the other hand, Mr. COMMONS

Precedence of Government Orders

Speaker, I say that private members should not be unnecessarily denied the privileges that are theirs. I appreciate the fact that for the first two or three months of the session the rights of private members must be abrogated; but I make the appeal that toward the end of the session at feast one day a -month be set aside as private members day. It may be argued that private members have -that opportunity in other ways, but I point out that -the same argument would apply in peace time. I am not one of those who believe that the importance of parliament is actually lessening. We have stood here together through dark days, but throughout the country the man on the street feels that we do not discharge our responsibilities. That is why I am offering this suggestion to-day, asking the Prime Minister, who has always stood as a proponent of the principles of parliamentary government, to protect the rights of the private members who, occupying no positions of power, nevertheless collectively have in our custody and care the rights of the people.

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I whole-heartedly support what has been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). Year after year since the war began we have agreed to dispense with private members' days, but few opportunities are given hon. members to bring before this house ideas which they think would be beneficial to the country. If I remember correctly, last year we made a similar appeal to the Prime Minister, suggesting that while the government should get along with the business related to the war in the early part of the session, later on some opportunity should be given to private members to express their vie\jfs, and I-concur in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre in that regard. I am particularly anxious that this should be emphasized this year because we are now approaching, we hope-I say, "we hope"- the time when we shall have to be giving closer consideration to the matters which will relate to the end of the war. If that is so, then it seems to me all the more important that private members, apart altogether from the legislation the government has foreshadowed, should be able from their places in the house to bring before parliament suggestions which they think might be beneficial to the country in the period which will follow.

I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre that if we were to study the opportunity given in the British parliament to private members, we would realize that we are more greatly restricted than are the members in what we sometimes call the mother of parliaments. As has already been said, they

IMr. Diefenbaker.]

have their question hour, at which time supplementary questions may be asked and ministers interrogated. They have also a custom which to my mind is an invaluable one, that of bringing matters to the attention of the house on the adjournment. A half hour is allotted to that daily. We have not that procedure here. As a consequence, sometimes hon. members have to take advantage of the motion to go into supply to bring some matter to the attention of the house, a procedure which often leads to long debate. Opportunities of that sort are few and far between, particularly in connection with appropriations made for war purposes, which in reality are a budget in themselves. I would urge the Prime Minister that he endeavour so to arrange the business of the house that, later in the session, when the pressure of war business has been eased somewhat, private members' days may be restored.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. Speaker,

the resolution which I moved this afternoon is similar to those which have been approved by the house at each session of this parliament. The arguments made in support of it are, if anything, stronger to-day than they were at any preceding session. I am glad to see, therefore, that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) both agree that there are reasons why, at least for the beginning of the session, the government should have an opportunity to get on with government measures, and that, if private members are to have an opportunity of bringing forward resolutions of their own, such opportunity should be postponed until later in the session. I think we are agreed on that.

So far as an opportunity being presented later in the session is concerned, I would say the government will be only too pleased to consider granting that opportunity in the light of conditions as they may develop. I did say in the last session that we would be prepared to consider giving private members an opportunity to bring forward resolutions when we got through the main part of our business. But I think all hon. members felt that by the time we reached the month of July they much preferred to have an adjournment of the house than to stay on for the purpose of debating the different motions placed on the order paper by private members.

Reference has -been made to the position at Westminster. I believe a comparison will show that in this house private members have an even greater opportunity of bringing forward

Precedence oj Government Orders

matters of interest to themselves, and of questioning the government, than is afforded at Westminster.

For instance, let us first consider the matter of questions, which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre. He said that at Westminster the government can be questioned at considerable length. My understands ing of procedure there is that all questions to be answered by the government must be placed upon the order paper, and that the only questions which may be asked of the administration during the question hour are supplementary questions, growing out of those already asked. We adopt quite a different procedure here, one which gives hon. members a much greater opportunity to ask questions of the government. Almost every day the government is questioned in regard to some matter of which it has had no notice at all, and of which nothing whatsoever has appeared upon the order paper. On some days an hour's time is taken up in questions asked of the ministers. That would not be permitted under the procedure at Westminster. In this way, an opportunity does exist here for private members which does not exist in London. More than that, there is here no restriction upon the introduction of public bills by private members. In London during this time of war that right has been taken away from private members. They have not the right even to introduce a public bill.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Of course our public bills do not get any further than the introduction stage.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Well, they do provide an opportunity to place before the public certain views which private members may wish to put forward. However,, the point I am emphasizing is this, that the government in taking its stand in this matter, and in making a request of the house, is not seeking to deprive private members of their rights. It is seeking to gain a high degree of cooperation on the part of hon. members in getting on with the all-important business, the business pertaining to the war. I am sure the leader of the opposition would recognize that fact if, on Monday next, the house were to begin a debate on some of the private members' motions; he would be the very first to say that the house had put itself in a false light before the public. The people of Canada would ask: Why is our parliament at this stage interesting itself in a number of motions which have been introduced by private members, instead of considering the war appropri-tion bill and other important war matters?

After all, what is the extent of the privation? In the first four weeks of the ordinary session hon. members have certain rights on Wednesdays and, I believe, Mondays. But after that government business has precedence.

In this session two weeks have already gone by, and hon. members have been perfectly free to discuss anything they liked, and have been under no restrictions whatsoever. The fact is that they have been discussing what they liked. We have had half a dozen amendments, apart from everything else, to the ' speech from the throne, and on them almost every subject of immediate concern has been discussed by one member or another. In those discussions there have been no restrictions whatsoever.

I do not like to have the impression develop in the public mind that private members have not full opportunity to discuss subjects in which they may be interested. The speech from the throne, we have been told, is lengthy.

It contains a number of subjects, each of which will come before the house in the course of the session. Hon. members may then address themselves to any of these questions.

Let us consider what would happen if we were to proceed now to a discussion of the private members' motions as they appear upon the order paper. The first of these motions is one which relates to measures for the better protection of all soldiers who serve in His Majesty's forces. There will be ample opportunity to discuss those matters on the war appropriation measure now to be proceeded with.

The next one has to do with the giving of clear titles to all soldier settlers who still hold land under contract with the soldier settlement board. That subject will come up under the estimates connected with soldier settlement, and in other connections.

The next resolution is one relating to reconstruction and rehabilitation; developments ensuring employment and opportunities in connection with transportation, and other matters. We shall be dealing at length with the whole question of reconstruction, and any member who wishes to discuss any particular phase of the subject will have his opportunity at such time.

The next resolution relates to the marketing of western Canada's wheat. My recollection is that in every session parliament has taken a couple of weeks to discuss wheat, and opportunities will come at such a time.

Next we find a resolution supporting feasible irrigation schemes in connection with post-war

Precedence of Government Orders

reconstruction. Such irrigation schemes can be discussed when we are dealing with the reconstruction measure.

Another has to do with the development of mineral resources under government control and operation. That, surely, would come up when we are discussing questions related to the resources of our country, and their development.

Finally there is a resolution relating to the prices of agricultural products. At other sessions we have discussed these matters, and ample opportunity will be given at this session for like discussion. And I suggest further that they will be much more effectively discussed when dealing with government measures on these subjects than they would be if discussed under private members' resolutions.

Mr. GRAYDON:

May I ask a question? I hope the Prime Minister is not building up an argument for use after the war is over because actually what he is saying now about this resolution covering something that may be dealt with in the course of ordinary debate would apply equally to peace time. I hope the Prime Minister is not going to deny to private members in time of peace the opportunity of placing resolutions on the order paper.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I thank my hon. friend for assuming that I will be directing the affairs of government at that time.

Mr. GRAYDON:

I hope the war will be over very soon.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am not at all surprised that my hon. friend should assume what he has, but let me say that the purpose of this resolution relates to war time only. There has been no attempt at any time that I am aware of to restrict private members' rights and privileges during a time of peace, by action similar to that being taken at this particular time because of the war.

Mr. GRAYDON:

The same argument would apply to both peace and war.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The whole thought behind this resolution is that we are at war and that the country is interested in seeing that this parliament concentrates on the prosecution of the war, and regards everything else as secondary until victory has been achieved.

I might say more on this, but the house has passed a similar resolution in previous sessions and hon. members understand its purpose. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) has repeatedly made remarks, about

parliament losing caste with the people, private members being reduced to ciphers and comments of that kind. I cannot understand why he should go on trying to belittle parliament in the eyes of the public.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Why deliver him a lecture

at this time?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Because he delivered a lecture to me.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

There was no question of any lecture. When the Prime Minister talks about-

Order.