The Role of the Opposition in Parliament

MR. JUPP: Our guest of honour today is one of the colourful figures whose skill in opposition is of inestimable value to the parliamentary life of this country. His visit to speak to us today is all the more welcome as we have waited until now to hear him at The Empire Club.

Born in Los Angeles, California in 1908, of Canadian parents, who were Maritimers, he wandered up to Manitoba alone at the age of 16 and continued his education until he had two degrees from the University of Manitoba, B.A. in 1930 and B.D. in 1934. He became a printer and a member of the International Typographical Union, and also a Minister in the United Church. Political aspirations promptly impelled him to seek election to the Federal Parliament, but he was unsuccessful in his first two attempt in 1935 and 1940 and also for the Manitoba Legislature in 1941, but he was a City Alderman in 1941-2.

Active in the CCF party since 1934, he has held office as Manitoba Chairman three times, and has been on the National Council since 1939 and National Executive since 1942. He has been the member of the House of Commons for Winnipeg North Centre since the by-election on November 30, 1942. His record as Chairman of the C.C.F. National Convention on five occasions must be unique. As Chief Whip of CCF since 1944, he enjoys a length and breadth of parliamentary experience seldom equalled, and as he has always been in opposition to the government of the day, he is rarely qualified to talk to us on "The Role of the Opposition in Parliament".

MR. KNOWLES: There was recently handed down in Ottawa one of the most important decisions ever made by the Supreme Court of Canada. I suggest, however, that even more important than the actual decision that the Padlock Act is beyond the powers of a provincial legislature is the fact that there are now four members of this nation's highest court who at one time or another have gone beyond the question as to whether or not provincial legislatures can interfere with certain basic rights and have declared that Canada's constitution is such that even the federal parliament has no power to pass any law abrogating freedom of speech, or the right to free discussion, in any part of this country.

The doctrine that freedom of discussion in Canada is guaranteed by the preamble to the British North America Act was first enunciated in the Supreme Court in 1938 by Sir Lyman Duff, and he was joined at that time by Mr. Justice Davis. This was in connection with the Alberta Press case. In 1953, in connection with the first of the Jehovah's Witnesses cases, three of their lordships, Mr. Justice Rand, Mr. Justice Kellock and Mr. Justice Locke re-asserted Sir Lyman Duff's proposition that no legislative authority in Canada, provincial or federal, has the right to abrogate freedom of discussion. Laws against indecency, disorder, defamation and sedition are proper; in other words, freedom of discussion means "freedom governed by law"; but the dictum of their lordships to whom I have referred is clear: freedom of discussion there must be.

In relation to the Padlock Act, Mr. Justice Rand has now re-stated the position he took in 1953, and Mr. Justice Abbott has likewise gone beyond the question as to the right of Quebec to enact the Padlock law, which he denies in very clear terms, to declare that under the British North America Act even the federal parliament could not pass a law that would abrogate the right of free discussion and free debate. To use words quoted by Mr. Justice Abbott, these rights constitute our "breath of life".

Four of the justices whom I have named are today members of the Supreme Court of Canada. Since the full court numbers nine we have reached the point where almost a majority have openly taken the position that our constitution contains an implicit guarantee of freedom of discussion, a guarantee which no legislative authority can now set aside. This leads me to suggest that if one of these days we are able to persuade parliament to pass a Bill of Rights the Supreme Court will be bound to uphold it. It may be that the Supreme Court will beat us to it and declare that we already have such a Bill of Rights in the preamble to the British North America Act of 1867, by virtue of nine short words which gave to Canada a constitution "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom". The position of their lordships who have already taken this stand is that all the rights and freedoms which had been won in the United Kingdom by 1867 were by those nine words guaranteed for this nation at our birth. It will take eternal vigilance on our part to preserve and extend these freedoms, but no one can gainsay this priceless heritage.

With reference to our subject for today I believe you would be interested in the way in which Sir Lyman Duff spelled out the meaning of free discussion. He defined it as something more than unrestrained conversation. He said that free discussion means "criticism, answer and counter-criticism", it means "attack, defence and counterattack", it means "the freest and fullest analysis and examination of political proposals" from every point of view. "This is signally true," he said, "with respect to Ministers of the Crown and members of Parliament."

I suggest that the picture is clear. The Parliament of this country, elected by free men and women on the basis of free discussions which cannot be abrogated, is not just a club of good fellows who ought to do the nation's business in the shortest possible time and with the least possible contention; rather it is a body which should examine every proposal that is made to make sure that it is in the country's best interest; it is a body in which attention should be drawn to proposals that ought to be made but which are often overlooked, unless an election is just around the corner; it is a body which should scrutinize expenditures and inquire into the administration of public affairs to make sure that fairness, justice and equity are maintained. Experience has shown that the best way to get this kind of examination and attention is by "criticism, answer and counter-criticism", by "attack, defence and counter-attack", by the cut and thrust of free debate between those who support and those who oppose the government of the day.

It is not necessary for me to tell you that in the struggles that take place in parliament--and I trust you agree with me that parliament is not doing its job properly unless there are such struggles--there is no lack of strength on the side of the government. For one thing, the government has its majority, by means of which in the end, even though we can delay that end, it can achieve its will. For another, the government has in its hands the administration of all its departments, the activities of which are woven into the fabric of our national life. Above all, it has the power of the public purse. If then free discussion in parliament is to mean anything, if it is to be real, certain measures of strength must be accorded to the opposition. It must be recognized that it is the opposition's right, indeed it is its duty, whenever it feels strongly about any matter of public policy, whether it be something the government is proposing or concern over something the government is failing to propose, to criticize and attack the government for all it is worth. It should be recognized that it is the opposition's right to keep parliament in session months on end, if in doing what its members believe to be their duty it chooses to do so.

It is the opposition's right to insist at all times on the full protection of the rules of debate. The government is entitled to that same protection, but in addition it has its majority with which to establish its will. The opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the greater importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules. Only by according such rights to the opposition is it possible to achieve anything even approaching equality of strength between the two sides, and I suggest that unless we approach equality of strength--there cannot be absolute equality for in the end the majority must prevail, hence I say unless we approach equality of strength--between those who support and those who oppose the government of the day, there will not be that cut and thrust, that "attack, defence and counter-attack" which, as Sir Lyman Duff put it, are "the breath of life" of our parliamentary institutions.

It is also unnecessary for me to tell you that one of the essential features of democracy is the right of the people, on the basis of universal suffrage and by secret ballot, to determine who shall form, from time to time, the government of the country. But I suggest that you could have universal suffrage, the secret ballot, and a government which is the choice of the majority of the people, and still not have full political democracy. Democracy includes respect for the rights of minorities. Democracy is not real unless the force of public opinion is brought to bear not only on the choice of a government once every four or five years but on the legislative process month in and month out, day in and day out, during the time between elections. I submit, therefore, that you do not have full political democracy, let alone the economic as well as political democracy for which my party stands, unless you include along with the ingredients that are taken for granted, such as universal suffrage, the secret ballot and majority rule, a full and unquestioned recognition of the rights and functions of the opposition to the government of the day. Only in this way can you protect the rights of minorities; only in this way can you make sure that the force of public opinion will be brought to bear on the legislative process. We are indeed fortunate in Canada to have inherited from the United Kingdom a parliamentary system of government, the genius of which is the responsibility of the government to a parliament in which the rights of those who support the government and likewise the rights of those who oppose it are clearly recognized. Indeed it was Ramsay MacDonald, when he was Prime Minister, who said, "The House of Commons consists not only of a Government, but of an Opposition, and both have functions and rights."

It might interest you to know that the term "His (or Her) Majesty's Opposition" has been in use longer than the title "Prime Minister". If you go through the Hansard records of the first years of Canada's parliament you won't find Sir John A. Macdonald referred to as Prime Minister, but rather as First Minister. Indeed at the beginning you will find him referred to as Minister of Justice, since he held that portfolio as well as being the Queen's First Minister. On the other hand, right from the start you will find reference to "the honourable gentleman who leads the Opposition". The title "Prime Minister" has found its way into some of our federal legislation, but it is interesting to note that even today those rather important statutes, important to the individuals concerned at any rate, which provide for the salaries paid to the leaders of the government and the opposition designate the one as the Queen's First Minister but the other as Leader of the Opposition.

Even in the United Kingdom it was not until 1878 that the title of Prime Minister was first used officially. Previous to that the title was First Lord of His (or Her) Majesty's Treasury. On the other hand, we who sit to Mr. Speaker's left enjoy a much longer tradition under our present name, for the designation His Majesty's Opposition was first used at Westminster as long ago as 1826.

It came about in a way that seems typically British. No one planned it. No one sat down and figured it out. A debate was in progress, in the course of which a government spokesman remarked that it would be hard for His Majesty's Ministers to raise objections to a certain course of action. He went on to say, however, that for his part he thought it would be even harder for His Majesty's Opposition to compel His Majesty's Ministers to take the course being proposed. The title was hailed immediately as a happy one, and within minutes an opposition spokesman rose and said that a better phrase could not have been invented "to designate us, for we are certainly to all intents and purposes a branch of His Majesty's Government". That way of putting it has had to be qualified, for the opposition is not part of the government as such, but it is the genius of our parliamentary system that the opposition does play a part in the governing process the importance of which is beyond question.

In a moment I should like to set out three specific tasks to which the opposition must address itself, but before doing so I should like to indicate that Canadian political leaders have recognized very clearly the importance of the role of the opposition in parliament. There are many quotations one could give, but perhaps two will suffice. When Sir Charles Tupper wrote his farewell letter to the Conservative Party in 1901 he put it this way: "The duty of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to exercise its vast influence in restraining vicious legislation, and in giving a loyal support to proposals of the Government which commend themselves as in the interests of the country; while initiating itself such measures for the commonweal as are neglected by the Administration."

Lest someone chide me for having quoted from a former Labor Prime Minister and from a former Conservative Prime Minister, but as yet from no Liberal, may I refer you to certain words of Sir Wilfred Laurier which were spoken in 1913. The House of Commons was in the midst of the debate on the Naval Aid Bill. In an effort to bring to an end the opposition of the Liberals, the government of the day, headed by Sir Robert Borden, interrupted the proceedings on the Naval Aid Bill and brought in a resolution to amend the rules of the House of Commons so as to provide for closure. The Liberals were scandalized. This was a form of tyranny free men in a free parliament could not take. I will not yield to the temptation to digress and tell you what happened in parliament last year. But this was back in 1913 when the Liberals were opposed to the use of closure and were fighting it for all they were worth. Sir Wilfrid made some tremendous speeches during that battle. On one occasion he told of how he had been urged to propose a form of closure when the Conservatives were opposing his Reciprocity Bill in 1911, but how he had refused to do so and had gone to the country instead. He went on to say, in the 1913 debate on the proposal for closure, "Heaven is my witness that I would rather stand here today defeated and in opposition by that appeal to the people than stand over there in office by the power of the gag." Criticized for his strenuous and prolonged opposition to the proposal for closure, Laurier said this: "There are occasions . . . when an opposition or a minority owes it to itself, on account of the strong views it holds upon some public measure, to oppose that measure with all the force at its command." Sir Wilfrid pointed out that this was not a modern doctrine; that it went back to the days of Charles I, back to the struggles against the King to uphold the constitutional rights of the people of England. He told of opposition all night by certain members, until the House looked like a starved jury. Then he said this: "On another occasion in 1771, the majority of the house did not want to allow the publication of the debates. That strange position was opposed by a minority headed by no less a man than Edmund Burke, and Burke by whole days of obstruction succeeded in defeating the object of the majority, and, as he himself said afterwards, `Posterity will bless the pertinacity of that day'."

We who sit in the opposition in the House of Commons have all sorts of epithets hurled at us. Don't worry, we hurl some across the floor as well. We are called obstructionists, time-wasters, and so on. I submit that ours is a great tradition, that we play a vital role in the democratic process--a role without which our legislative process would not be democratic--and that posterity will continue to bless the pertinacity of those to Mr. Speaker's left who do their job as best they can.

Those who from time to time sit at Mr. Speaker's right have certain encomiums coming to them as well, but you didn't ask me to speak on that aspect of the parliamentary process, so I am content to leave it at that.

I said I wanted to set out three specific tasks to which the opposition must address itself as it pursues its important role in the legislative process. Let me use three very simple words to identify these tasks. Any opposition worth its salt must check, prod, and in the third place do something else to the government. We will come to that third task after we have dealt with the first two.

Checking the government is the most obvious task of the opposition. This applies to legislation, spending, taxation and administration. The government always believes its legislation to be good, but to put it mildly there are times when that opinion is not shared by all of us who sit in parliament as representatives of the people of Canada. Last year's pipe line legislation of course stands out as an example of a government proposal some of us regarded as iniquitous. I say to you quite frankly that we now feel that it was more iniquitous than we realized a year ago, particularly in view of the fact that certain individuals are now able to make huge private gain as the result of financial aid made available from the public treasury on the basis of options the number and terms of which were not made known to parliament. I recognize that opinions differ on this matter, but a large number of us felt very strongly about this last year; we believe we reflected the views of perhaps millions of Canadians, and I submit that the opposition was really playing its role when it did its best to check the government from going ahead with that legislation. In the end we were over-ruled by the majority; that is democracy. But because of our fight there won't be another piece of legislation like that for awhile; that too is democracy, with the opposition playing its role.

Two years ago there was the legislation amending the Defence Production Act so as to give certain powers to the Minister without time limit. A long, hard fight by the opposition ended in an acceptance by the government of a three-year time limit. That too was democracy.

I could cite other examples, such as our attempt to check the government when it increased first class postage rates to four and five cents an ounce, and so on. Likewise in the field of government expenditures a particular responsibility--and a difficult one to discharge--rests upon the opposition. We have to try, in committee of supply, and in some instances in certain special committees outside the House, to examine into every dollar of government expenditure. This task is so huge that the best we manage is spot checking, but I believe it can be said that it does have a salutary effect on the government to know that we are on the lookout for waste or extravagance, for after all it is the people's money the government is spending. Similarly in the field of taxation it is our job to check the government whenever we feel unnecessary taxation is being imposed, or whenever we feel taxation is being imposed on those unable to bear it and not heavily enough on those who should bear it. Likewise we have to keep an eye on the government's administration of its various departments. By the very nature of things we are the receivers of complaints from civil servants, taxpayers, veterans, pensioners and others who are dissatisfied with any aspect of government administration. It is our task to check on such complaints and to try to keep the government on the rails. We do this in debate, we do it by making the fullest possible use of the question period before the orders of the day, and in every way open to us under the rules of the House.

Our second task is equally important, if not more so. It is ours to prod and push and persuade the government to take those steps for the common good which it sometimes seems awfully slow to take. Some day this country will have national health insurance. If the Liberals are in power when that day comes they will assert that they did it all by themselves. They will even tell you that they had it in their platform before my party was born. They're right. They put it there in 1919. But I think I have only to mention the subject of health insurance to make my point that the opposition, by prodding the government, plays a very effective role in parliament, a role that results in certain legislation coming into being which otherwise would never reach the statute books. If any of you are Liberals you will rejoice that your party will be able to boast about certain social benefits that are being increased by $6 a month, $1 a month, and various other figures. It takes a government to bring in such legislation; I don't detract from that for one moment. But the rest of you will be conscious of the fact that there has been an awful lot of prodding on these matters from the opposition side of the House, and for the purpose of this discussion on the role of the opposition in parliament I trust I am making my point, that one of our prime functions is to prod the government of the day, as Sir Charles Tupper put it, by "initiating such measures for the commonweal as are neglected by the Administration." I return to what I said earlier. Democracy is not real unless the force of public opinion is brought to bear not only on the choice of a government once every four or five years but on the legislative process month in and month out, day in and day out, during the time between elections. To achieve this a country needs a government which is the choice of the majority, and the role of an elected government is of undoubted importance, but a country such as Canada also needs an effective opposition to prod that government to give the nation that legislation which will advance the common good.

I come now to the third of the three simple words I referred to a few moments ago. I said any opposition worth its salt must check the government, and it must prod the government. It must also address itself to its main task, which is to replace the government. I have spent all this time telling you how important is the job of the opposition in the legislative process; now I am saying that the opposition should actually work itself out of that important job. In other words, the opposition should so conduct itself in parliament as to persuade the people of the country that it would be an improvement on the government of the day. No one will deny that our system works best when there is a change of government at reasonable intervals. Most of us have the feeling that the interval between changes in this country is becoming a bit longer than is reasonable. That leads, however, to a point which in my view is very basic, and I feel I must state it, even at the risk of appearing to take a more partisan stand than is called for in the context of these remarks. An opposition party, even if it enjoys the prestige of being the official opposition, and of having been in power in years gone by, cannot expect that sooner or later it will again take office merely by virtue of its having opposed the government of the day, and a very long day at that. The electors of a country may complain about the party in power, but they are not going to replace it by an opposition party unless they are persuaded that that opposition party has something better to offer, unless they are persuaded that that opposition party reflects the thinking of the people with respect to the needs and the problems of a new day.

At election time the government is on trial. If it hasn't delivered the goods it can be thrown out. An opposition is also on trial at election time. It too must deliver the goods, or it too can find itself thrown out and replaced by another opposition. What must an opposition do to deliver the goods? It must do its job of checking the government. It must do its job of prodding the government. But that is not all. It must also be the kind of opposition, it must advance and stand for the kind of policies that will persuade the electors that its members should be on the treasury benches, that its members will provide better government, government more in keeping with the times in which we are living, than those who are now there. That is the challenge that confronts any opposition party. Speaking for my own party, I may say that we accept that challenge.

It is a high privilege indeed to serve as a member of the parliament of Canada, regardless of the side of the House on which one sits. My experience has led me to be particularly conscious of the important role of the opposition, a role that is an integral part of legislative process, a role without which we would not have full political democracy. I am very happy to have had this opportunity of trying to convey to you something of that importance.

THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by Mr. Marvin Gelber.