Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the statement of the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister, reported by the press as follows-

"War with Russia may be an outcome of the signing of the north Atlantic security pact . . ."

Mr. Harris, parliamentary assistant to Prime Minister St. Laurent foresaw the possibility of war when the pact is signed in about three months' time.

"If the Russians feel they must make war, it will come at that time," he said.

-and the duty of the government to place before this house immediately all the facts and circumstances upon which this statement was based.

Mr. Speaker:

I would call the attention of the mover of this motion to paragraph 3 of standing order 31, which reads as follows:

He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has leave of the house.

Hon. members know that the reason we have a standing order making it possible to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance is to take care of a situation in which the business already on the order paper does not give to hon. members any opportunity to discuss such a matter. In this house the practice has always been that during the debate on the speech from the throne hon. members have an opportunity to discuss practically any matter they may wish to discuss. Moreover, there is already before the house not only the motion to thank His Excellency the Governor General for his message, but an amendment and a subamendment. Since, therefore, it is possible for hon. members to

discuss this particular question during the course of the address in reply, I believe it is my duty not to put before the house the motion made by the leader of the opposition, and to ask the house to proceed with the business which is already before it.

Mr. Drew:

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the ruling is not debatable. I would point out, however, that we have no knowledge of when the vote will be taken on the motion for an address in reply. For that reason, with respect, I appeal your ruling.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been the practice in the house that there shall be no appeal from the opinion expressed by the Speaker under paragraph 3 of standing order 31. It is not a ruling the Speaker is required to indicate whether he thinks the motion is in order and whether the matter which it is proposed to discuss is one of urgent public importance. The practice, as I say, has been that there is no appeal from that expression of opinion. Moreover, the Atlantic pact is referred to in the speech from the throne. It is a matter which can be discussed in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. If the hon. gentleman who has made the motion fears that he may not have the opportunity of discussing it because he has already addressed the house in the debate, I would remind him that he has not yet spoken on the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), and therefore is not precluded from again entering the debate. The subamendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was moved after the leader of the opposition spoke on the main motion; therefore he can be heard at any time the subamendment is under discussion.

I have not seen the statement which the leader of the opposition has handed to Mr. Speaker. I heard it read. Apparently it refers to some statement made outside the house by a member of the house with respect to the Atlantic pact. I do not know that that is a matter which it would be in order to discuss in the house. But if an hon. member has expressed outside the house opinions which do not coincide with those held by others in the house, there will be full opportunity for expression of their opinions in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

North Atlantic Security Pact

Mr. Drew:

Since the Prime Minister has explained the circumstances at some length, may I say that the matter under consideration is not the Atlantic pact, but rather a statement by his parliamentary assistant, to the effect that war with Russia may come within three months. The parliamentary assistant has pointed out that the most important consideration in the mind of the government is the problem of external affairs. If there may be war with Russia in three months' time, nothing should take precedence over the placing before this house of the information upon which that statement is based.

(Translation):

Mr. Maxime Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie):

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the merits of the motion brought forward by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). However, the Prime Minister stated a few moments ago that there was no appeal from the Speaker's decision in such a case. I do not know that any one of the standing orders prescribes that there is no appeal from a decision given by the Speaker. In the past, the Speaker decided to rule out certain motions which were perhaps not unlike this one, but it has always been recognized that parliament makes its own rules, and not the Speaker. The latter may interpret the rules but it behooves the members of this house to maintain or overthrow the decision. Now, when the Speaker gives a decision and decides afterwards that there is no appeal from his decision, it is up to parliament to decide itself whether the Speaker has given a good decision or otherwise in stating that there was no appeal from his first decision. In the past, we have been placed in similar circumstances and I, for one, would not like that to occur again.

(Text):

Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):

May I ask

the Prime Minister a question? Is it not a fact that already some of the parties to this pact have been making secret arrangements with Russia outside the pact? It looks to me as if it is a lot of moonshine. It binds Canada for fifty years; it gets us nowhere. It gives us no security whatever at a time when Russia is conducting a cold weaponless war and has already captured a large part of Asia and Europe and other parts of the world. This pact is all pact and no security.

Mr. Drew:

May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that in Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms, third edition, 1943, at page 747, the following appears-at that time Mr. Black was Speaker:

The Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision that it is not urgent to adjourn the

house for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter of public importance being appealed from was confirmed by the house.

Mr. Ralston, from his place in the house, asked leave, under standing order 31, to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and stated the subject to be . . .

If hon. members wish me to read the content, I shall; if not, I will proceed:

Mr. Speaker ruled that the statement was not in order and that the matter was not one of urgent public importance, and moreover that there was no appeal from his decision.

Mr. Ralston appealed from the Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision.

And the question being put by Mr. Speaker: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained; it was decided in the affirmative.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this clearly establishes the precedent that the ruling is subject to the test of a vote of the house.

Mr. St. Laurent:

I agree with the leader of the opposition that if the Speaker rules that there is no appeal from the opinion he expresses, that is a ruling from which there can be an appeal. There is no appeal on the substantive opinion expressed by the Speaker that the matter is not in order and is not urgent. It is a roundabout way to get an appeal on what does become a ruling, if the Speaker rules that there is no appeal from the opinion he expresses.

Mr. Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie):

C'est exact.

Mr. Si. Laurent:

But he has not so ruled

yet.

Mr. Drew:

So that there may be no confusion in the matter, may I point out that my remarks were directed to the fact that this was not the practice. I would now ask you, sir, to make a ruling on the first point, so that it may then be dealt with in the customary way. The Prime Minister agrees that it can be done.

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):

have always taken the view that a ruling of Mr. Speaker sustained by the house in a previous parliament should not be binding on a succeeding parliament. Therefore I agree with the point made by the Prime Minister. But the substance of the motion moved by the hon. gentleman who leads the official opposition is such that We have to decide whether it is a matter of urgent public importance or not. While the statement of the parliamentary assistant is one which should be questioned, there is ample opportunity in the debate on the address to discuss it fully. Therefore it is not a matter of urgent public importance in the sense in which the word "urgency" is used in the rules of the house.

Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):

The leader of the C.C.F. will be prevented from speaking on this

subject of war until after his amendment to the motion for an address in reply is disposed of.

Mr. Coldwell:

While I do not like the decision made by a previous Speaker disallowing an appeal from his ruling that a matter then before him was not of urgent public importance, in this instance there is no question of urgency; therefore I believe the Speaker's ruling should be supported.

Mr. Speaker put the question as follows: The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's decision, Mr. Drew having moved the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing the following matter: A statement of the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister, reported by the press as follows: "War with Russia may be an outcome of the signing of the North Atlantic pact."

I decided that there was no urgency for the discussion, as the matter referred to was included in the speech from the throne now under debate.

From this decision, Mr. Drew appealed.

Mr. Pearkes:

I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew). Had I voted I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.

Mr. Johnston:

I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted I would have voted to support Your Honour's ruling.