Mr. St. Laurent:

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member did not get a French copy of this bill it is due to an error in distribution. The copies were ready and the messengers handed them out to those who, to the best of their knowledge, wanted French copies.

(Text):

Mr. Smith (Calgary West):

I should like to say a word. I must say that I am content and pleased with the explanation of the Prime Minister. To digress for a second, I agree with the hon. member for Macleod that we pay our Prime Minister what, in my judgment, is a disgracefully inadequate sum of money for the responsibilities of his office. However, I will leave that. So far as the rest of us are concerned, nobody had to twist our arms to get us to come down here. We all struggled pretty hard to make the

grade and some of us did get here. After the temporary but complete tie-up of the economy of this country I should like to say that, in view of negotiations presently proceeding, parliament could not deal itself a more fatal blow than by giving ourselves money for days that we have not served, particularly in this time of emergency.

Mr. Speaker:

When shall this bill be read a third time?

Now.

By leave.

the third reading of the bill.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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

That when this house adjourns on completion of current business of the session it stand adjourned until February 14, 1951, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with His Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is drafted in the terms that were used in 1941 and 1942. Of course the date mentioned is a pro forma date which is fixed to be beyond any time when, if nothing occurred requiring parliament to meet earlier, the 1951 session would be commencing. It also provides that, if in the meantime it should appear to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker that the public interest requires an earlier meeting, he will have the authority to give notice that he is so satisfied and thus bring parliament together again.

By the terms of the resolution he is required to consult with the government in that respect, but that does not in any way imply that he is to be regarded in any other capacity than that which you, sir, assert to the representative of the crown when you take office, that you are the servant of the whole house. Therefore I am sure that Mr. Speaker will be quite prepared at any time to receive representations from any hon. member of the house that 69262-484

Business of the House

in his view an earlier meeting is required. Of course Mr. Speaker, representing the whole house, would have to consider the reasons urged, and he would have the responsibility of deciding whether or not he was satisfied that the public interest required the house to meet earlier. It would be his decision. Of course he would consult the government, and the government would make available to him all information which it had bearing upon whatever subject was then the topic concerning which it was suggested that the house should meet earlier, but the responsibility for making the decision would be that of His Honour the Speaker, as the servant of the whole house.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that hon. members of the house generally will be very pleased with the fact that there is to be adjournment of the house instead of prorogation at this time. I also hope it will carry some measure of reassurance to the people of Canada that it is intended that members of the house shall be on call to deal as expeditiously as possible with any events that may arise before the regular session of the house would normally be called. For that reason I welcome the fact that there is to be an adjournment under a motion of this kind. I recognize that the insertion of the words "February 14, 1951" sets a date which need not necessarily be the date on which the house would again meet. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has pointed out, Mr. Speaker may call the house together at any time he becomes convinced that it is in the public interest that this house should again convene.

I wish to leave no doubt in the mind of anyone that I share what I believe is the general view of hon. members that Mr. Speaker will dispatch his duties as the servant of the whole house in the same commendable way he has always done. Nevertheless Mr. Speaker, as the servant of the whole house, must of necessity and in good judgment be guided by the advice of the government as to whether or not there is legislation or whether or not there are measures to be placed before the house which would call for disposition by the elected representatives of the people. For that reason the government necessarily to a very large degree will determine whether the house shall or shall not meet, simply by reason of the fact that it will have the information which would be the most convincing evidence to Mr. Speaker that such a necessity exists.

The Prime Minister has pointed out that it would be for Mr. Speaker to consider the

Business of the House

situations that might arise. It seems to me that none of us can have any doubt as to the situation that is going to call for the attention of members of this house. Within the next few weeks some of the most momentous gatherings in modern history are to take place, at a time when we have all come to recognize a new form of aggression and a new world threat with a clarity that was not apparent only a few months ago. The representatives of the Big Three met the day before yesterday. Their discussions will have a profound effect upon the other meetings that will take place and the decisions that will be reached there. Tomorrow the ministers and other delegates of the Atlantic pact countries will meet to discuss their plans, in the light of the decisions taken by the security council of the United Nations and the world events which have been the cause of their action, and the general increase in public awareness of the dangers on all sides. Then on September 19, only next Tuesday, the general assembly of the United Nations will meet in what will probably be the most decisive gathering of the United Nations since that charter was drafted and signed in the spring of 1945. The importance attached to that meeting by Russia as well as the other nations is evidenced by the fact that Mr. Vishinsky is on his way to attend it.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that already in the minds of the men in the Kremlin the idea may be stirring that it would be better to seek a working arrangement with the free nations of the western world, at any rate. I think we all hope for that possibility. If on the other hand Vishinsky comes to that meeting and leaves no doubt as to the continuation of the course of aggression we have seen in these past few months, then those nations which are determined to hold the tide of communism will be called upon to reach new decisions which will make it possible for them to act without the restraint of the veto, which could paralyse effective action through the broad channels of the United Nations. Then following the discussions among the representatives of the Big Three who are now meeting, and the delegates of the Atlantic pact nations, who meet tomorrow, and of the United Nations, which meets on Tuesday, on October 16 the defence ministers of the Atlantic nations are to meet. At that time, with the advice of their general staff, they will be called upon to place before their respective governments recommendations which will interpret the diplomatic and other results of all these conferences that are taking place.

It seems clear, therefore, that one way or the other new decisions must be made by

the end of October which this house should be called upon to consider with the utmost dispatch, so that through this meeting place of the representatives of the people not only those representatives but all the people of Canada may be fully informed as to what is the situation, and decisions may be reached which will be in keeping with that situation. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, and without suggesting that you would not at all times be open to recommendations as to what should be done and believing that you would give them your careful consideration, I think this house should be assured that the date of February 14 will not, under any circumstances, be the date we shall be called upon to meet again. In view of the clearly settled dates I have mentioned and the course of events which must flow from those dates, I believe we should certainly meet not later than November 15. This would mean that even assuming the defence ministers met for a week or ten days, there would be ample opportunity for their recommendations to be considered by this and other governments before the legislative bodies were called upon to consider those decisions. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do most earnestly urge that there be no doubt about the fact that we are going to meet at as early a date as will give adequate opportunity for the consideration of the discussions which will take place, and the recommendations which will flow from them.

We have been told, and cannot be told too often, that these are the most critical days of our modern history. If the free nations can stand together and build up their strength during these next few years, perhaps show their determination to build their strength within the next few months, then it may well be that peace will be realized. With this schedule of meetings taking place within the coming weeks, I do not think we should adjourn with any possibility that this house will not meet again for five months. Five months is a long period of time in these days of fast-moving world events. Mr. Speaker, I therefore move:

That the words "February 14, 1951", in the

second and third lines of the motion be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "November 15, 1950."

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say

a word mainly with respect to the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) rather than with respect to the particular alteration of the date that has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). With regard to the motion itself, I can assure the Prime Minister it has our support. He knows that, of course, from the fact that earlier in

this session I expressed the view that in this time of world crisis parliament should not be prorogued but should merely adjourn, so that it could be readily called together to deal with any situation that might develop.

All of us have in mind the various points that were mentioned by the leader of the opposition in relation to the international situation. It is quite clear that that is the main reason why most members of this house feel the session should be adjourned., as is called for by the Prime Minister's motion. We, too, feel that it should be quite clear that if there is any worsening of the international situation, we shall be called together. From what the Prime Minister said to us the other night in discussing another matter, I feel sure that that is the case. Without detracting by one iota from the fact that our main concern is with the international situation, I would also draw to the attention of the government the fact that the public interest might require parliament to reassemble to deal with matters on the home front. I have in mind, for example, a matter that some of us have been pressing for right from the day this session opened, namely, the need for price controls. I suggest that the government, and you sir, now that additional responsibility has been placed upon your shoulders, should watch the price situation. If it worsens to any extent at all so that the standard of our living starts to go down any more than has already been the case, then parliament should be called to deal with that situation, even if our hopes are realized and parliament does not have to meet to deal with a worsening international situation.

I was quite interested in the way in which the Prime Minister put this motion today. He pointed out that, although the wording of the motion refers to consultation between Your Honour and His Majesty's government, he made it clear also that you, sir, are the servant of the entire house. If you were to receive representations from other members of the house than those who form His Majesty's government, you would have to take notice of them. I give you notice now, Mr. Speaker, that if the price situation gets out of hand, you will hear from me; indeed from this group as a whole. I hope that such representations as any of us might make as to the need for calling parliament to meet that situation will have the concurrence of the government at that time. That is my main reason for rising at this time, to urge upon the government to watch closely the international situation and be ready to call parliament the moment that situation makes it necessary, but to watch also the domestic situation, prices, matters affecting

Business of the House the workers of this country, and any serious situation that might face our farmers because of the frost out west. If anything of that nature makes you think that the public interest requires the summoning of parliament, I hope that the government will also make those representations to you, sir, and parliament will be called into session.

With regard to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, I did not have time to consult with my colleagues who are sitting near me, but this point does occur to me. The wording of the motion as it was originally drafted made it possible for parliament to meet on February 14 or on any earlier date. There was no possibility of its being any later. The substitution of the words "November 15" would of course make it imperative that parliament meet by that time, whether or not the situation demanded it. I believe I share the feelings of the leader of the opposition that the chances are conditions will make it imperative. It seems to me there is some question as to whether it should be made quite so mandatory in the resolution. What would be more useful to me at this time would be the assurance of the Prime Minister, the same kind of satisfactory assurance he gave the other night with respect to placing the troops on active service for any area other than Korea, namely, that if there is a worsening of the situation on the domestic front parliament will be called.

Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word in support of the principle of the resolution. We think it is important that parliament be alerted, and ready to meet at any date it is deemed necessary to deal with either domestic or international matters as they may arise. I have not had time to consider the wording of the amendment or to consult with my colleagues, but I would say that I would not presume to suggest November 15 as the last day on which it would be wise to allow the adjournment to continue. I think all I can say is that we are urging the government to call parliament without delay when it is felt necessary to deal expeditiously with any matter.

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):

Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with those who say that if the international or domestic situation requires it, parliament should be called at an early date. I have in mind one thing which I believe the government might take into consideration whenever they are making recommendations in that regard, and that is the real emergency which I have said now exists and which will in time become even more apparent as a result of the severe frost damage. Just before three o'clock an expert on that matter informed me that he would estimate that one-third of the value

Business of the House of the crop had been lost, representing a loss of perhaps as much as $200 million in the province of Saskatchewan. Yesterday in the house I made the suggestion that the Prairie Farm [DOT] Assistance Act should be amended so as to take into account the fact that while in some instances the farmers may have a yield of wheat greater than eight bushels per acre, the value of that wheat may be much less than it would be in a crop failure as defined under the act in an ordinary year.

Since making that suggestion I can say that I have had an interested and favourable response from people who are concerned with this problem. I just bring that matter to the attention of the government since I feel it is necessary that this act be amended soon in order to meet the emergency; and if it were necessary that it be done at an early date, that factor also should be taken into account.

Mr. Speaker:

The question is on the amendment. Shall the amendment carry? Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Yea.

Mr. Speaker:

Those opposed to it will

please say nay.

Nay.

Mr. Speaker:

In my opinion, the nays have

it

Mr. Casselman:

On division.

Amendment (Mr. Drew) negatived on division.