1945-10-17

Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table the budget of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for the calendar year 1945 and to move:
That the budget of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for the calendar year 1945 be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, together with the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year 1944, which was laid on the table of the house on April 11, 1945, and the following annual reports for the year 1944, which were laid on the table of the house on April 12, 1945:
Canadian National railway system;
Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited;
Canadian National Railways Securities Trust;
Auditors' report to parliament;
together with the following items of estimates for 1945-46:
Vote 377. Maritime Freight Rates Act, Canadian National Railways;
Vote 378. Maritime Freight Rates Act, railways other than Canadian National;
Vote 421. Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals deficit, 1945.
Privilege-Mr. Church

And that the resolution passed by the house on the 7th September, 1945, referring certain estimates to the committee of supply, be rescinded in so far as the said resolution'relates to votes Nos. 377, 378 and 421.


Mr. STIRLING:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether this motion does not require notice?


Lionel Chevrier: This is the usual motion that follows the establishment of the committee on government-owned shipping. It is usually brought down a day or two after the committee has been set up.


Grote Stirling: But does it not require notice?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Yes. *	'


Mr. MACKENZIE:: It can be done only by consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHL7RCH (Broadview): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I wish to direct the attention of Your Honour and the house to a libelous Canadian Press dispatch dated October 16, in this morning's Globe and Mail. It quotes only one line from about nine paragraphs that,I said, and I did not even say that. I was objecting to the method of reviewing railway policies. It says that the setting up of the committee on government-owned railways was opposed by me. That is not correct. When the motion was made for the setting up of the committee 1 knew that the motion was debatable but I was ruled out of order when I started to speak to the motion. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has always been a fine supporter of the railway employees and their war work, and I am sure that my hon. friend for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who also referred to this, wishes to be fair. They will note that on September 11, speaking in the house, I was the first to pay tribute this session to the transportation employees of Canada as reported at page 88 of Hansard, in these words:
I wish to say a word by way of tribute to the transportation employees of Canada, whether they serve on land, at sea or in the air. I was talking the other day to a conductor on a train who told me he had been working eighteen hours a day continuously. These employees have made a magnificent record in this war and should receive ample compensation and reward and all other allowances for a fine work well performed.
{Mr. Chevrier.]
I have always, in this house, been a supporter of public ownership of the railways run from the commercial point of view, and not from the point of view of politics. I would call the attention of the hon member for Rosetown-Biggar to the fact that I have never, as this article says, had day by day criticism of the Canadian National Railway system. I think he will be fair enough to admit that I have a record for consistently working in this house on behalf of the railway employees and for the system being run from the commercial aspect and free of politics. I just want to keep the record straight. Further, I said the motion was made subject to the right of the committee of supply as to the voting of public moneys.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we need protection from some of the press, because according to our rules a libel on a member is a libel on the whole house of which he is a member. I have the strongest grounds for protesting against this garbled report of what I said in the house.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word? I had no intention of reflecting upon what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) said, but I was most anxious to place before the house the point of view that we should refrain from allowing politics to enter into the operation of these government-owned organizations.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before leaving
motions I would ask the indulgence of the house to direct a question to the acting Minister of Finance. It is a question that I might ask on the orders of the day, but we may not reach them to-day as this is private members' day. I think the question is important enough for me to raise it now. It has to do with the tabling of two reports that were referred to by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) in his budget speech, as reported at page 1007 of Hansard, and also referred to by him in answer to a question by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure). The reports are those of the royal commission, on the taxation of cooperatives and the royal commission on the taxation of annuities and family corporations. On September 27 the Minister of Finance, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Queens, indicated that the report of the royal commission on the taxation of cooperatives had been received by

Questions
the government on September 25 and would be .printed and distributed as soon as possible. In his budget speech the Minister of Finance also referred to both these reports. Someone near me says that one of the reports has already been tabled. If it has, I have not seen it. In view of the importance of these reports and the desirability of their being in the hands of members before the budget debate begins, will the acting minister table copies of the reports either at once, or say to-morrow?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I received a few moments ago a note from the hon. member of the opposition dealing with the report of the royal commission on the taxation of cooperatives. I immediately communicated with the officers of the department and was informed that it had not yet been received from the printer, and that the printer would be immediately communicated with to expedite the printing. All I can say is that just as soon as it is possible to get it from the printer I will see that the report is tabled.


John Bracken: Would it not be possible for some of us on this side to see that report before we proceed with the budget debate? It may not be possible to make it available to every member of the house before the budget debate, but I think that before important speeches are made on the budget we should have the opportunity of seeing that report.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think that the request made by the hon. leader of the opposition is quite fair. I will communicate with the officers of the department and see if there are not copies that could be made available to the hon. member and to such other members as may wish to see it, unless of course, I am assured that the report will be available in print almost at once.


John Bracken: Perhaps copies could be
furnished to the leaders of the groups on this side at least.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)

Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	Has the government received a request from the people of the Peace River block, that the benefits of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act be applicable to that territory?
2.	If so, what action has been taken or proposed ?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As hon. members will know, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act applies only to what is known as the Palliser triangle in the three western provinces. Two sessions ago, I think it was, a report was made by a committee of this house to the effect that the principle of the act be applied to all parts of Canada. That matter has been under consideration and the whole question has been submitted to the dominion-provincial conference and will still be under consideration when the conference resumes.


RESEARCH ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	What is the total expenditure made by or on behalf of Research Enterprises Ltd., Leaside, for purchase or acquisition of, (a) land; (b) buildings; (e) machinery and other equipment?
2.	How much of the same has been sold, and to whom, and at what price, as compared, in each case, with the original puichase price?
3.	What undertaking or agreement has been given or entered into by any purchaser of any of the said buildings as to, (a) employment of employees of the said company; (b) maintenance of rates of wages; (c) union recognition?
4.	How many persons were employed by Research Enterprises Ltd., (a) at the peak of employment; (b) the day before V-E day;
(c)	the day before V-J day; (d) on October 1, 1945?
5.	(a) How many persons (by countries) were
brought to Research Enterprises Ltd., from outside Canada to work at the company's plant at Leaside; (b) how many of them (by countries) have been released from such' employment in 1945;	(c) how many of them (by countries)
still remain in the company's employment;
(d)	what provisions or plans have been made by the government to retain the services of such persons in the class of work on which they were engaged at the said plant?
6.	What provisions or plans have been made by the government to continue at the said plant processes and techniques carried on and developed at the said plant during the w'ar?
7.	What provisions or plans have been made by the government to retain the services of employees at the said plant?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	(a) Land, $134,992.72;	(b) Buildings,
$3,525,181.77; (c) Machinery and other equipment, $5,400,053.70.
2.	Building #14 was sold to Corning Glass Company; price $150,000.00. The original purchase price was $522,000.00.
3.	None.
4.	(a) 7,518 employees; (b) 5,552 employees; (c) 4,986 employees; (d) 3,187 employees.
5.	(a) 15. From the British isles 13, from the United States 2; (b) None; (c) All; (d) No definite provisions or plans have been made.
Questions

6.	An effort is being made to sell portions of the plant to owners who will continue the development of similar processes and techniques.
7.	Arrangements are in progress to transfer a few employees having special skills to the laboratories of the National Research Council.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-SASKATCHEWAN
[Stage Direction]
2.	Jas. Pendergast, Federal Building, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on small water development work.
Raymond Youngman, pasture supervisor, Secretan, Saskatchewan, who makes a periodical inspection of Wolverine Community Pasture No. 340.
3.	Answered by questions 1 and 2.

Mr. BURTON:: 1.	Is there an inspector in charge of P.F.R.A. work in the rural municipalities of Leroy, No. 339; Wolverine, No. 340; St. Peter's, No. 369, and Humboldt, No. 370, in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what is the name of such inspector and where are his headquarters?
3.	If not, when will one be appointed?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes, on small water development work and on land utilization work (community pasture).


Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many persons are in the employ of the government as lighthouse keepers on the British Columbia coast?
2.	What is the wage or salary paid in each position, stating, (a) the amount paid in money; (b) the amount in shelter, food, fuel, etc.?
3.	What are the number of duty hours per week for each position?
4.	Are annual holidays provided in the conditions of employment?
5.	If holiday leave is granted, is it with pay?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Forty-five.
2.	(a):
Number of Positions	Salary range (Annual)	Bonus (Monthly)	Bonus for assistants (Monthly)	Special Allowance towards payment assistants (Monthly)	Living Allowance differential Prince Rupert district (Annual)	Allowances other services (Annual)3	$2,700-$3,060 2 assistants required	$18.42	$15.30-20.40	$25	-	-1	"	6.51	15.30-20.40	25	$240	Up to $6001	$2,100^2,280 1 assistant required	13.19	6.80- 9.35	25	240	Up to 6004	SI, 860-12,040 1 assistant required	18.42	3.40- 5.95	25	"1	"	18.42	3.40- 5.95	25	240	2	18.42	3.40- 5.95	25	-	Up to 6001	6.51	3.40- 5.95	25	-	Up to 1,2006	$1,800-SI,980 1 assistant required	18.42	4.25- 6.38	25	1	"	18.42	4.25- 6.80	25	240	1	6.51	4-25- 6.80	25	-	Up to 6001	$1,740^1,920 1 assistant required	6.51	4.25- 6.80	25	240	360 Up to 600X	18.42	3.40- 5.95	25	7	$1,260-31,500	18.42	-	5	it	18.42	-	-	240	1	18.42	-	-	2403	SI, 110-SI, 200 plus $36.00	18.42	-	-	-	1	SI, 110-SI,200 plus $37.50	18.42	-	-	240	-1	$1,110-31,200	18.42	-	' 	240	1	$1,020-31,110	18.42	-	-	240	1	$930-$1,020 plus $36.00	17.37	-	-	240	-1	$360-3420	5.95	-	-	-	1	$180-$240	2.55	-	-	-	-


AIR TRANSPORT BOARD
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	Who are the members of the air transport board?
2.	What salary is paid to each such member?
3.	What are the qualifications of each such person?
4.	Are any of the members in receipt of pension or superannuation in respect of previous government service?
5.	If so, how and what is the amount of such pension or superannuation?
Mr. Mcl-LRAITH:
1.	R. A. C. Henry, chairman; J. P. R. Vachon, member; A. Ferrier, member.
2.	Chairman, $12,000 per annum "provided that, for a period to December 31, 1945, during which time it will be necessary for him to devote part of his time to his business activities, his remuneration shall be at the rate of one-half the aforementioned salary". (Ref. P C. 6974); members, $8,000 per annum.
3.	R. A. C. Henry, CMG, chairman, B.A., BJSe. McGill, many years in engineering and administrative posts, especially in the transportation and public utility field; director of bureau of economics of Canadian National Railways 1923-1929; deputy minister, Department of Railways and Canals 1929-30; vicepresident and general manager of Beauharnois Light Heat and Power Company, also vicepresident, Montreal Light Heat and Power Consolidated. During war years, held several very responsible posts under Minister of Munitions and Supply from 1940 to 1945; has recently resigned the post of deputy minister
of reconstruction, to which post he was appointed October 13, 1944. Member of Engineering Institute of Canada. Member of Corporation of Professional Engineers, province of Quebec.
J. P. R. Vachon, member; served in the Royal Canadian Navy during the first great war and afterwards joined' the Royal Canadian Air Force. On release from that force, he has been in civil aviation from 1921 and has had a long and varied experience as technician, pilot and executive in both scheduled air transportation and in charter flying in the bush; was awarded the McKee trophy in 1938 for the most outstanding contribution to Canadian civil aviation for his work as operations manager of Quebec Airways from 1934-38. From 1938-45, he served on the staff of Trans-Canada Airlines in various responsible posts and, at the time of his appointment as a member of the air transport board, was a special representative with an office in Montreal.
Air Vice-Marshal A. Ferrier, GB, MC, retired, member; B.Sc. McGill, diploma of the Imperial College, Royal Engineers 1914-19, after 2 years civil engineering joined Canadian Air Board 1921; commissioned in C.A.F. 1922; 1937-39 on loan to Department of Transport as chief aeronautical engineer; during the war, after successive posts became member of the air council in charge of all aeronautical engineering and maintenance for the R.C.A.F.; chairman of the associate committee on aeronautical research of the National Research Council; fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society; member of the Engineering Institute of Canada and of the Institute of Aeronautical Sciences.
4.	Yes.
5.	A. Ferrier, $71.99 a month in respect of 28 years service in the permanent force (subject to income tax).


WAR ASSETS-DEFENCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED- SALABERRY ISLAND
Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: 1.	Are the buildings used by the Defence Industries Limited, at Nitro, on Salaberry island, for sale?
2.	If so, by whom and in what manner will the sale be made?
3.	If not, what will be their future use?
4.	Will the houses built for the workers employed at Nitro plant be sold? If so, in. what manner?
Questions


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Dominion government arsenal.
4.	Consideration is being given to this matter but no decision has yet been made.


POSTAL RATES ON PARCELS OVERSEAS
Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: What are the postal rates for parcels weighing from one to eleven pounds sent from Canada to the following countries:	Great Britain.
France, Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, Sweden, and Luxemburg?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: From Canada to:
Switzer- Nether-	Luxem-
Britain	France	Belgium	land	lands (direct route)	Sweden	bourg1 lb.	
$ .24	$ .60	$ .55	$ .50	$ .30	$ .75	$ .652 lb.	42	.70	.65	.65	.40	.85	.803 lb.	60	1.05	.85	1.00	.60	1.00	1.204 lb.	78	1.15	1.10	1.10	.70	1.45	1.305 lb.	96	1.30	1.20	1.25	.85	1.55	1.456 lb.	
1.14	1.40	1.30	1.35	.95	1.70	1.557 lb.	
1.32	1.55	1.45	1.50	1.05	1.80	1.708 lb.	
1.50	1.85	1.70	1.75	1.25	2.25	2.009 lb.	
1.68	2.00	1.80	1.90	1.35	2.40	2.1010 lb.	2.10	1.95	2.00	1.50	2.50	2.2011 lb.	
2.50	2.25	2.05	2.10	1.60	2.60	2.35Note:-	-Limit of weight for gift parcels to Great Britain temporarily restricted to	5 lb.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-RENTAL OP BUILDINGS FOR STORAGE SPACE


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East) :: 1.	What are the names of all persons holding: the rank of air commodore, or higher, who have been retired from the Royal Canadian Air Force since January 1, 1943?
2.	What was the date of each such person's, retirement?
3.	What annual pension or superannuation has j been granted to each such person?

Questions


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1, 2 and 3.
Air	
force	Rank at
number	retirement
C.9	Temporary A/V/M
C.ll	Temporary A/V/M
C. 18	Temporary A/C
C.19	Temporary A/C
C.23	Temporary A/V/M
C.30	Temporary A/M
C.31	Temporary A/V/M
C.33	Temporary A/V/M
C.38	Temporary A/C
C.39	' A/M
	(A/C/M
C.40	Temporary A/V/M
C.42	Temporary A/V/M
C.44	Temporary A/C
C.46	Temporary A/C
C.50	Temporary A/V/M
C.59	Temporary A/C
C.65	Temporary A/M
C.66	Acting A/V/M
C.68	Acting A/V/M
C.235	Honorary A/M
C.450	Acting A/C
C.585	Temporary A/V/M
C.621	Temporary A/V/M
C.640	Acting A/C
C.686	Temporary A/V/M
C. 1253	Temporary A/V/M
C.2047	Acting A/C
Name
Cowley, A. T. N.
Ferrier, A.
MacLeod, E. L.


Hull, A. H.
[Stage Direction]
Cuffe, A. A. L.
Edwards, H.
Stevenson, L. F.
Howsam, G. R.
Mossop, N. F.
Breadner, L: S. effective 25-11-45)
Anderson, N. R.
Brookes, G. E.
Grant, R. J.
Collis, R.
De Niverville, J. L. E. A. Ashton, A. J.
Croil, G. M.
Godfrey, A. E.
Shearer, A. B.
Bishop, W. A.
Irwin, G. N.
Naim, K. G.
Raymond, A.
Russell, A. H. K.
Sully, J. A.
Collard, R. R.
Clappison, H. G.
Gross annual pension Date of (subject to recovery retirement of unpaid pension dues)
12-7-45	S4.668.53
23-3-45	5,027.65
1-9-44	4,636.03
10-8-44	4,581.58
1-7-44	5,026.80
29-9-44	5,845.25
9-7-45	5,477.04
5-2-46	5,026.80
10-3-46	4,438.81
25-11-45	6,786.61
11-12-45	5,332.49
22-11-44	4,770.33
3-9-44	4,07251
29-10-44	4,671.78
11-2-46	5,443 85
21-5-45	4,751.26
2-7-44	5,600.00
8-6-44	5,830.40
1-10-44	4,999.96
23-2-45	*
1-2-45	*
28-4-45	*
Retirement pending	*
13-2-45	*
27-6-45	*
28-2-45	*
Retirement pending	*
* Not pensionable under Militia Pension Act.

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many people have been, (a) killed; (b) injured, on highways in Canada since the beginning of the war in 1939 to August, 1945?
2.	How many fatal accidents from drowning have there been in Canada during same period?
3.	How many, (a) fatal accidents; (b) injuries, have been caused at level crossings in Canada during this period?
4.	How many have been killed or injured from other causes in Canada for the same period?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.
(a) Total accidental deaths	1939 6,063	1940 6,314	1941 7,409	1942 7,202	1943 7,385	1944(1) 6,806Motor vehicle accidents 	1,584	1,723	1,852	1,409	1,437	1,365(a) Collisions with trains .	(2)	(2)	116	135	95	(2)(b) Collisions with street-cars 	(2)	(2)	18	8	25	(2)(c) Automobile accidents or street-cars) 	(excluding	trains	(2)	(2)	1,690	1,241	1,287	(2)(d) Motorcycle accidents mobiles) 	(excluding	auto-	(2)	(2)	28	25	30	(2)
(1) Preliminary figures. (2) Information not available.
Questions

(b)	1940	
29,504*	1941	
30,9841942	
22,8091943	
20,3901944	
20,228
Reported by provincial motor registrars, police, etc.
2.(1) 1939	 869
1940		 807
1941		 979
1942		 960
1943		 1,001
1944 (2)
(1)	Excluding drownings where a motor vehicle was involved.
(2)	Information not available.
Motorists	Killed Other	(b) Total	Motorists	Injured Other	Total1940 	
93	19	112	338	32	3701941 	16	136	397	33	4301942 	
122	15	137	390	34	4241943 	
96	18	104	364	34	3981944 	
118	17	137	336	15	351
Reported by steam railways.
4.	1939	
3,6101940	..:	
3,7841941	
2,7261942	
3,4241943	
3,510
1944(1)
(1) Information not available.


*WAR ASSETS-SHOE MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT
Mr. ISXOR:: 1.	Has the federal government, through the War Assets Corporation, sold to the Saskatchewan provincial government, or to Saskatchewan Leather Products Corporation, or to any other crown company of the province of Saskatchewan, equipment suitable for the operation of a shoe factory?
2.	If so, what was the cost of said equipment to the federal government or to the federal crown corporation purchasing same?
3.	What price was paid by the province of Saskatchewan or its crown corporation for same?
4.	What are the details of such equipment?
5.	Was the sale by tender? If so, (a) how many tenders were received; (b) from whom; (c) what was the amount of each tender?
6.	Is any more similar equipment available?
7. If so, (a) where may this equipment be inspected; (b) will it be sold to others on the same basis and price?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Answered by No. 1.


POSTAL SERVICE-NEW BRUNSWICK OFFICES
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1. What was the revenue of the following post offices in New Brunswick for the year ending March 31, 1944: Atholville, Bath, Gagetown, Hillsboro, Rexton, Rogersville, St. Leonard, South Nelson?

2. Are the above post offices located in a government-owned building or in a rented building? If in rented buildings, what is the yearly rent paid?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1. Atholville, N.B	
S3,380	19Bath, NJ3	
4,871	25Gagetown, N.B	
2,967	19Hillsboro, N.B	
4,455	36Rexton, N.B	
3,307	26Rogersville, N.B	
2,686	90St. Leonard, N.B	
4,070	25South Nelson, NJ8	2,644	78
2. All are in government owned buildings.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT-CONTRACTS
Mr. WRIGHT:: What are the names of all individuals, firms, or corporations with which the government has entered into contracts under sections 15 and 16 of the National Housing Act, 1944?


Mr. MAYHEW:: None.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What commitments have been made by the federal government to compensate for damage done in Halifax on V-E day?
2.	What commitments have been made by the federal government to compensate for damage done in Halifax area by the recent explosions?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Return tabled.

Redistribution


SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-DISPOSAL TO OTHER NATIONS
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	What quantity of, (a) new war equipment; (b) used war equipment, or supplies have been disposed of by the Canadian government to other nations since V-E day?
2.	What quantities of equipment have been delivered to each of these nations to date?
3.	Under what terms was this equipment or supplies disposed of?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
INCOME TAX-INDIVIDUALS Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough);
For a statement showing the number of individual income taxpayers, the amount of net income on which assessments were approved and taxes assessed during each of the fiscal years, 1939 to 1945, inclusive, classified according to income class groups; and the percentage amount which the number of taxpayers in each group, and the amount of taxes assessed against individuals in each group bears to the total number and the total taxes assessed, respectively.
Mr. MoCANN: There is no objection to the passing of the motion, but I should like to ask the hon. member in whose name the motion stands if he will accept, as sufficient to meet his needs, the personal income taxes reference book of the dominion-provincial conference. I believe that it contains all the information asked for in his motion.
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough); That will be satisfactory.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay) moved:: Whereas, on July 5, 1943, a resolution was adopted by this house that an Address be presented to His Majesty the King for the purpose of securing an amendment to the British North America Act as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1940, it shall not be necessary that the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons be readjusted, in consequence of the completion of the decennial census taken in the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-one, until the first session of the parliament of Canada commencing after the cessation of hostilities between Canada and the German Reich, the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan.
This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1943, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1940. the British North America Act, 1907, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1943.
And whereas the first session of the parliament of Canada following the cessation of hostilities between Canada and the German reich, the kingdom of Italy and the empire of Japan, is now under way;
Therefore be it resolved,-That, in the opiniop of this house, the government should conform to the aforesaid resolution and take into immediate consideration the advisability of proceeding during the present session with representation ot the provinces in the House of Commons, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in July, 1943, when the house decided to amend our constitution for the postponing of the redistribution, I was one of the few members who opposed that amendment. I believed at the time, and I still believe to-day, that the reasons given in support of that amendment were futile, and that the measure created an injustice to an important part of the Canadian population. That is the reason why, at the beginning of this new parliament, I thought it was my duty to present this resolution.
Before coming to the merits of the resolution itself I should like to emphasize certain ideas which are at the basis of this motion.
We are just out of the most terrible war that humanity has vever experienced. The united nations have fought it to keep in this world the civilization which we have enjoyed in the last centuries, and also to safeguard the democratic system and the responsible government. Everybody knows that democracy is essentially based on government by the representatives of the people. There are to-day in the whole world two great systems of democracy : the British commonwealth of nations and the United States of America.
We in Canada must admit that we enjoy the most perfect system of democracy that has ever been known in the history of the world; and I do not hesitate to declare that every single individual living in this country expects to enjoy, in the full, this freedom for the attainment of which we have suffered in the past.
One of the essential elements of this democratic system is the right of every individual to be represented in the parliament of the nation, and to have, through his representative, the right to make legislation in the interest of the whole community. Therefore, each individual in the country must be placed on the same footing, because he has the same right as any other in regard to representation in the House of Commons. There cannot be two or three different classes in Canada with certain classes having superior rights over others.
In our country this problem presents some peculiarities on account of our system of representation which was adopted in the British

Redistribution

North America Act. In fact, since the very beginning of the struggle of our forefathers for the establishment of a responsible government in this country, it has been contended that the representation of the country in parliament should be based on territorial divisions known as provinces.
Even under the union government of 1840 the representation in the parliament established for the two Canadas together was based on the two previous provinces, that is, Upper Canada and Lower Canada. At that time, in spite of the protest from Lower Canada, the same number of representatives was allotted to the two provinces; notwithstanding the fact that the population of Upper Canada was much less than the one in Lower Canada.
The period of 1847 to 1867 is remarkable for the struggles of Papineau, Lafontaine, William Lyon Mackenzie, Baldwin and Howe, in favour of the establishment of responsible government.
I wish to cite here a page of' that most remarkable book of the joint law clerk of the house, Doctor Maurice Ollivier, entitled "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty", page 7 of the introduction:
From 1840 until now, Canada and the other possessions have struggled without cease in favour of autonomy. The inauguration of the period of responsible government in 1848 at the time of the reorganization of the Baldwin-Lafontaine ministry, the putting of tariff barriers on British merchandise in 1859 by Sir John A. Macdonald, the struggles and successes of Cartier, Macdonald and Blake, at the moment of confederation and during the years which followed, all the questions relating to the right of the dominion to govern itself without the intervention of the mother country are highlights, at the end of the second period, of our progress towards independence.
From 1867 to the present day, there must be noted also the series of events either relating to the powers of the governor general or to our right to negotiate our own treaties, or to adopt, without external intervention, the legislation required in this country. The progress accomplished is reflected and recognized in the course of the diverse colonial conferences from 1907 to 1930.
A few years before confederation, namely, around 1862, the people of Upper Canada, desiring more and more the full enjoyment of responsible government, started to make representations to the effect that the mode of representation, in parliament, which had been established by the Union Act of 1840, should be changed on account of the continuous increase of population in that part of the country; they had come to the point where the population of Upper Canada outnumbered that of Lower Canada. Then they conceived the idea of another constitution, and in 1864 a convention was held in Charlottetown for the purpose of studying the project of a new constitution.

This convention was soon followed by another one in Quebec, where seventy-two resolutions were adopted to be used as a basis for the future constitution. It is noticeable that at each of these conventions every decision reached was on the basis of territorial divisions known as provinces.
Out of the seventy-two Quebec resolutions, one may notice that six of them had reference to the representation in the House of Commons, and it never was in anyone's mind that this representation should be established on another basis than the provincial. Therefore we must admit that at the very beginning of the discussions relevant to hhe representation in the House of Commons, nothing but a provincial representation was considered. This gives the people of this country the right to see to it that, in this parliament, each province is represented in proportion to its population as enacted in the British North America Act.
Two years later, in 1866, the representatives of the Canadian provinces gathered in London, where new resolutions were drafted based on the Quebec resolutions. There again one may notice that special consideration was given by all the representatives to the representation in the House of Commons by provinces, and again we do not observe that there was any discussion on this matter. Everyone knows that these London resolutions were used as the basis of the British North America Act.
It is worth while here to draw attention to the preambles of the Quebec and the London resolutions which read as follows. Quebec resolutions:
Report of resolutions adopted at a conference of delegates from the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the colonies of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, held at the city of Quebec, October 10, 1864, as the basis of a proposed confederation of those provinces and colonies.
London resolutions:
Resolutions adopted at a conference of delegates from the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, held at the Westminster Palace hotel, London, December 4, 1866.
This goes to prove that the statemen who drafted these resolutions were essentially representatives of the several provinces of Canada and not the representatives of Canada as a whole.
After having finally agreed on the terms of the new constitution, the British North America Act of 1867 was adopted by the British House of Commons on the 29th of March, 1867. Here again it is very important to look at the preamble of this act, which reads as follows:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion

Redistribution
under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom:
And wdiereas such a union could conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British empire:
And whereas on the establishment of the union by authority of parliament it is expedient, not only that the constitution of legislative authority in the dominion be provided for, but also that the nature of the executive government therein be declared:
And whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the eventual admission into the union of other parts of British North America:
Be it therefore enacted and declared by the Queen's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
I do not need to emphasize the care that has been taken to establish as the basis of this constitution the agreement between the Canadian provinces.
Now, we come to section 51 of this act, which deals with the representation in this House of Commons. I deem it proper to cite here this section 51. familiar to everyone, but so important, in the course of a discussion like this, as to justify its being cited again:
On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time, as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
1.	Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members:
2.	There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained):
3.	In the computation of the number of members for a province a fractional part not exceeding one half the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded; but a fractional part exceeding one half of that number shall be equivalent to the whole number:
4.	On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one twentieth part or upwards:
5.	Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing parliament.
Now if we come to examine the actual representation in the House of Commons in the light of this section, we come to the following conclusion:	We have now 245 members divided as follows: Prince Edward Island,
4; British Columbia, 16; Saskatchewan, 21; Nova Scotia, 12; Manitoba, 17; Ontario, 82; New Brunswick, 10; Alberta, 17; Yukon, 1; Quebec, 65.
If we had an exact proportional representation, as no doubt it was intended to establish at the time of confederation, we should have at the present time the following number of representatives for each province:	Prince
Edward Island, 2; British Columbia, 16; Saskatchewan, 17; Nova Scotia, 11; Manitoba, 14; Ontario, 74; New Brunswick, 9; Alberta, 16; Yukon, 1; Quebec, 65. That is to say, a total of 225.
But, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of section 51, and also to the amendment of the constitution of 1915, the number of representatives must be as follows: Prince Edward Island, 4; British Columbia, 16; Saskatchewan, 17; Nova Scotia, 12; Manitoba, 14, Ontario, 82; New Brunswick, 10; Alberta, 17; Yukon, 1; Quebec, 65. That is to say, a total of 238.
The first conclusions that one must draw from the figures I just gave is that the citizens of this country are not on the same footing as regards the representation in the House of Commons. This constitutes an injustice and is contrary to the basis of responsible government and democratic system. One may ask himself if the fathers of confederation acted wisely when they inserted in the constitution this fourth paragraph of section 51.
I am bound to come to the conclusion that, in this matter as in many others, it is always the province of Quebec that must suffer from such conditions. However, I personally believe and, according to the general opinion of the people of the province of Quebec, I can state that we are ready to abide by this disposition of the law. On this point, like on any other, we do not demand more than that the law be respected, but we insist upon this. That is why I took it upon myself as a duty at the beginning of this first session of a new parliament to place on the order paper the resolution that is now before the house. I do not intend to go all over what was said during the debate of July 1943, when the amendment to the constitution was adopted by this house, as I am of the opinion that the whole question was fully disposed of at the time. I must, however, for the sake of full comprehension of my argument, refer to the resolution itself, which reads as follows:
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that you may graciously be pleased to
Redistribution

cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:
An act to provide for the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons of Canada consequent on the decennial census taken in the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-one.
Whereas the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled have submitted an address to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth,
Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
1. Notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1940, it shall not be necessary that the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons be readjusted, in consequence of the completion of the decennial census taken in the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-one, until the first session of the parliament of Canada commencing after the cessation of hostilities between Canada and the German reich, the kingdom of Italy and the empire of Japan.
I think it timely to set aside right now an argument that could come to some hon. members' minds to the effect that, as the government has not yet decided to declare officially the end of the war, this should be a reason why the redistribution could not be submitted to the house during the present session. On this point let me remind you that this is not a measure that was passed under the War Measures Act. It is altogether different and apart from all the decisions taken by the government under the War Measures Act. The decision referred to was taken by parliament itself. It is not a matter of considering what the government has in mind, or deciding about the official end of the war; rather it is a matter for parliament to state if the conditions mentioned in the amendment of 1943 are fulfilled. Thus, the only question is: is the present session the first one after the cessation of hostilities? The reply cannot be other than affirmative. On this point I do not wish to refer to any other authority than that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who, speaking on October 2, said, as reported at page 680 of Hansard:
Actual hostilities have ceased, but the state of war still exists at the present time.
And a little further down, referring to the powers delegated to the governor in council, he said:
They will be diminished; they have been diminishing by the cessation of hostilities.
Also in a speech delivered in this house by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Gibson), on October 4. as reported at page 763 of Hansard, he said:
[Mr. Dorion.l
Following the cessation of hostilities in Europe. ..."
And on Friday last, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) said as reported at page 997 of Hansard:
A budget which is the first to follow the cessation of hostilities, both in Europe and in the Pacific.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I contend that it is the duty of this parliament, particularly the duty of the government, to proceed, during the present session, to the redistribution of the representation in this House of Commons. If we want the people to believe in parliament, we must adhere to the decisions of parliament.


Mr. PAUL EDMOND GAGNON (Chicoutimi) (Translation):: I am pleased to support the resolution moved by the hon, member for Charievoix-Saguenay (iMr. Dorion) and I am glad to have an opportune to champion the rights which the British North America Act confers on the provinces, in connection with their representation in the House of Commons.
May I first tender my hearty congratulations to the hon. members who, in 1943, protested so energetically and eloquently against the spoliatory measure then introduced by the government, and to express the wish that the seeds they have sown may produce an abundant harvest at the end of this debate.
Reading again the motion moved by the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) on July 5, 1943, I find that one of the main reasons put forward by the authorities for postponing the proper readjustment and delimitation of electoral divisions was the fear that the differences of opinion to which that measure might give rise would harm our war effort. So, Mr. Speaker, under the pretext of national unity and good understanding, a serious injustice was done to the province of Quebec, and parliament

as was then said by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand)-"took the means at its disposal with a view to checking the influence which Quebec was entitled to have on the political destinies of this country". In order to avoid stirring up the resentment of orangemen and imperialists ever ready to cry shame and to assume a "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to granting to the French Canadians that to which they are entitled in the legislative, economic and cultural spheres, the government sacrificed on the altar of race and creed prejudice the sacred principles of the Canadian constitution.
The time has now come to rectify the mistakes made in 1943 and I hope that other fallacies will not be put forward for delaying

Redistribution
the redistribution of electoral divisions in accordance with the procedure clearly stated in section 51 of the Confederation Act.
In asking and demanding that the government observe the provisions set forth in the British North America Act, we are requesting not a privilege, or a favour, but simply and solely full respect for the prerogatives which were guaranteed to us by the Fathers of Confederation. It is important that the hon. members who represent the maritime provinces, the western provinces and Ontario should not forget that the injustice done to the province of Quebec affects them directly inasmuch as it established as a precedent through which the government will later be enabled to mete out to them a partial and arbitrary treatment.
We do not intend to bother anyone with this problem which must be solved without delay. Every day since the opening of the session, the house has heard hon. ministers complain of the hard times we are going through and admit their helplessness in transforming the dictatorship they inflicted on the country in war time into a real working democracy. I have every sympathy for the government and am willing to cooperate with them so as to ease their burden, but these feelings of mine cannot make me forget that those who brought about the present social and economic chaos are the very ones who now complain of the logical results of the instructions, enactments, orders and abuses approved or issued by them as the case may be during the past six years.


Mr. LESAGE:: To what great economic
chaos is the hon. member referring?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Because of weakness or childish fear, no one would assume, in 1943, the responsibility of guaranteeing to each province the fair share of representation to which it is entitled. We waited in the hope that time would settle everything and that the people, burdened by war and unable to cope with the impending crisis, might, in 1945, allow the central authority to solve the problem as it saw fit. Unfortunately, the evil, to which the wrong remedy was applied, still remains very acute.
The temporary measure voted by the government in 1943 has now reached its date of expiry since it is clearly mentioned in the bill submitted to the privy council that the amendment to the constitution ceases to be effective at the first session held by parliament after the end of the war between Canada on the one side, and Germany, Italy and Japan on the other. I understand that according to the figures obtained through the 1941 census, Manitoba and Saskatchewan will now
have a smaller number of representatives in the House of Commons; the former will elect only 14 members instead of 17, the latter 17 instead of 21. I maintain, however, that as long as the provisions of the British North America Act are not modified, we must abide, in every respect, by the terms of the pact agreed to by the fathers of confederation. At this time, it may be fitting to recall that in 1881, the province of Nova Scotia had 21 members; in 1891, 20; in 1901, 18; in 1911, 16, in 1921, 14 and in 1931, 12. Therefore, if in Nova Scotia, we applied the principle of representation according to the 1867 basis, it is only fair, nowadays, to put the law into effect as regards Saskatchewan and Manitoba. When this latter province joined confederation, it was granted a representation of 4 members and, in 1881, if the legislators of the time had abided strictly by the figures, Manitoba would have been entitled to only three members while it was allowed 5. The same thing holds for British Columbia which secured, on joining confederation, the privilege of sending to Ottawa 6 members representing no more than 40,000 inhabitants. Nowhere is it mentioned in our historical records that these favours brought about any revolution, raised the race cry or destroyed the harmonious understanding of the Canadian people. At present, under subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act, which provides that the number of representatives of a province shall not be reduced unless its population decreases by one-twentieth of the Canadian population, the province of Ontario will still elect the same number of members, 82, that is, one per 46,191 inhabitants, while the electoral quota of the province of Quebec is one member per 51,213, inhabitants. As I said a while ago, however, this advantage in favour of Ontario which, normally, would be entitled to only 74 representatives, will be detrimental to Quebec and the other provinces of the dominion as long as the constitution has not been amended.
In order to amend the constitution, the unanimous consent of the provinces is required. The former minister of justice, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, pointed this out in the House of Commons in 1925 when he stated that confederation is the result of a pact between the provinces which reached a compromise and relinquished certain rights to the central authority, and the dominion cannot amend its constitution without securing the consent of the provinces which have created it and which complement the dominion government in the exercise of their powers. Sir Robert Borden stated during a debate several years ago; "that there is no reason to modify in any way the terms of our constitution and I am inclined to think that it is necessary to consult the
Redistribution

provinces". This was also the view held by Mr. Arthur B. Keith, an authority on constitutional law, who wrote in his book entitled "Responsible Government and the Dominion", that it was expressly recognized in 1907 by the imperial government that confederation is a pact which cannot be amended, except with the consent of the provinces. Lord Carnarvon and Viscount Haldane, jurists of repute, have shared that view, as well as the fathers of confederation, Sir John Macdonald, George Brown and Mr. McGee who said: "What we have on the clerk's table is a contract."
And yet, in 1943, not only the advice of the provinces has not been sought, but those from Quebec who protested were told that the matter concerned the dominion authorities only and that the prime minister and the leader of the opposition of the Quebec legislature had nothing to do with this matter.
I trust therefore that if some day it is decided to amend further the pact of 1867 more concern will be given than in 1943 to the legal procedure to be followed.
In the meantime, however, political or sentimental considerations should not be allowed to delay further the adoption of this resolution, and I trust that this house will deem it its duty to support wholeheartedly this resolution based on justice and security.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct a question to the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). But, before I would say that I am not opposing the basic opinions he expressed in his speech, because I feel that the redistribution of electoral seats by provinces should be attended to as soon as possible. In the course of his statement, he spoke of the economic chaos attributable to the present government. I wish to know what exactly is this chaos; let him define it; by economic chaos does he mean the present condition when, in Canada, the purchasing power is higher and more fairly distributed than ever?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I do not intend to make another speech in answer to the question of the hon. member for Mont-magnv (Mr. Lesage) concerning the present economic condition of our country. We may-have another opportunity of dealing with this matter in the budget debate.


Mr. RENE JUTRAS (Provencher) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) who has just spoken.
I have been greatly pleased to hear his eloquent words, for they have been doubly gratifying to me, for having been uttered in (Mr. Gagnon.]
French. I must admit that I concur, in a large measure, with the views expressed by himself and the hon.. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion); however. I must say' that I do not agree with these hon. gentlemen as to the means to attain the results sought.
(Text) I wish to deal with this subject briefly-, Mr. Speaker, and more or less from the western point of view. We have just heard the question discussed more or less from the point of view of the province of Quebec. We have a great deal in common-


Mr. LALONDE:: The hon. member for Chicoutimi was speaking for himself, not for the province of Quebec.


René Jutras: That general view is held in some quarters in eastern Canada. When this question came before the house, I believe in 1943. I was away and did not have an opportunity of discussing it, so that I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to place on record a few facts in connection with redistribution.
Personally I feel it is unfortunate that this resolution has been brought before the house at this time, because we are not in position to deal with it as it should be dealt with. There are many great problems that we have to face at the present time. The budget has not yet been discussed, and none of the main estimates have come before the house. There is a certain feeling of unrest throughout the country, and I think it would be best to leave this matter, which is bound to be contentious and will raise many sharp differences, until a later day. To my mind this presents a serious problem and it is something that should be discussed fully and not rushed through the house. It is not just a matter of arithmetic, dividing and subtracting-mostly subtracting, in the case of the west; it is a technical problem, a problem which almost assumes constitutional proportions.
I should like to deal briefly with the census of 1941, which would be the basis of redistribution. What value has that census? We must not forget that it was taken when the country had been at war for a little over two years. Many of our young men had enlisted in the armed forces, and while those who took the census tried to show the original domicile of those men, there is no doubt a large number of them were registered in provinces other than their own. There was also a considerable migration of population from one province to another, and I shall attempt to show that this migration was to the detriment of the western provinces.

R edistribution
Many of our people left the western provinces to take war jobs in the industrial plants of eastern Canada or on the west coast, and there is no question that many of them were registered as living in those provinces. I do not think we can criticize the western provinces for allowing their people to go to the other provinces. They left to work in war plants and thus make their contribution to the war effort of this country. While the census may be true for Canada as a whole, I hold the definite view that it is not true as far as the individual provinces are concerned, especially when it is considered in the light of the relevant circumstances.
What was the trend in the population of the western provinces from 1931 to 1941? As I pointed out before, the census of 1941 does not present a true picture of the population trend in western Canada. The west went through some dark days in the decade from 1931 to 1941. It suffered severe drought periods during that time, and no doubt some of the younger men lost heart and moved to other provinces. We also went through another difficult period known as the grasshopper period, although that was nothing new in Manitoba. I was reading the other day that the first crop failure suffered by the Selkirk settlers in Manitoba was on account of grasshoppers. Then, like all other provinces, we in the west went through a severe economic depression which no doubt had a certain effect upon our population.
To-day the picture is altogether different. As everyone knows, agriculture is on a stabilized basis. The prairie farm rehabilitation scheme has done much to prevent drought, and I do not think we shall see a repetition of that difficult period. Just in passing, I should like to say that the story of the prairie farm rehabilitation scheme has not as yet been fully told. When it is, I am sure all hon. members will be impressed by what has been done. It fills a glorious page in the history of western Canada; it is something that is truly to the credit of the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).
The quality of farm production has greatly improved, and during the war years production was on a more varied basis than it had been before. Safeguards have been set up against destructive pests such as the one I have mentioned. Farmers are better organized, and on top of all this we have the herculean efforts of the government to provide more steady and larger markets for the products of western Canada. I mention all this in passing simply to show that the figures of the bureau of statistics do not convey a true
picture of present conditions. No doubt many of those who left during the war will return to the west in a year or so, if they have not returned already.
Therefore the conditions that exist to-day are entirely different. But these economic and climatic conditions do not account for the glum picture of population trend in the prairie provinces presented by the 1941 census. It is noticeable that not one of the three western provinces during this decade retained its natural increase of population. Saskatchewan had an actual decrease of 25,793. Let us compare the natural increase with the actual increase or decrease in the three western provinces. While Manitoba had a natural increase of 70,000, she had an actual increase of only 29,000-I am giving only round figures-which would mean that Manitoba experienced a loss of 41,000 in that decade. Saskatchewan had a natural increase of 129,000, but an actual decrease of 26,000, making a total loss of 155,000. Alberta had a natural increase of 95,000, but an actual increase of 64,000, and consequently a total loss of 31,000.
These figures show' that the actual increase in all of the three western provinces would be approximately only 60,000, and if we consider both together it means that western Canada lost in that decade pretty close to one-quarter of a million people. So that, as I mentioned before, the picture presented by these statistics is certainly not a bright one, and I still contend that it is not a true one. But even if the picture were adopted as the one upon which to base redistribution, if we accepted these statistics for the lack of better, what would be the results in the matter of redistribution?
I shall not quote again the section of the British North America Act because that has already been done by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), but I would just refer the house to section 51, subsections 1, 2 and 3, which provide that Quebec is to have a fixed number of sixty-five representatives and there is to be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec. The other subsection is to take care of the fractional part that may be left.
Let us take the population of the different provinces: Prince Edward Island, 95,047; Nova Scotia, 577,962; New Brunswick, 457,401;
Redistribution

Ontario, 3,787,655; Manitoba, 729,744; Saskatchewan, 895,992; Alberta, 796,1|69; British Columbia, 817,861; Quebec, 3,328,815.
Dividing Quebec's population of 3,328,815 by 66, according to the section, we get a unit of representations of 51,2,13, and that would give to Prince Edward Island, two members; Nova Scotia, eleven; New Brunswick, nine; Ontario, seventy-four; Manitoba, fourteen; Saskatchewan, seventeen; Alberta, sixteen; British Columbia, sixteen, and Quebec, of course, sixty-five.
There is the other amendment which was also quoted iby the hon. member for Charle-voix^Saguenay, the amendment made in 1915, providing that the number of members from a province shall not be less than the number of senators representing such province. If we apply that amendment to the, figures I have already quoted, it changes the picture quite materially because then Prince Edward Island, instead of having two members, would have four; Nova Scotia, instead of eleven, would have twelve; New Brunswick, instead of nine, would have ten; Ontario, instead of seventy-four, would have eighty-two; Manitoba, with fourteen, would still have fourteen; Saskatchewan, with seventeen, would still have seventeen; Alberta, with sixteen, would have seventeen; British Columbia, with sixteen, would still have sixteen, and Quebec's number naturally would not change. That makes the picture altogether a different one, because if we repeat the operation we performed when we first started and were to divide the population by the number of representatives, we would get an entirely different quotient from the one we started with of 51,213. The quotients for the different provinces would vary, in round figures, anywhere from 24,000 to 53,000, and that 53,000 applies to the province of Saskatchewan, and 52.000 to the province of Manitoba. So that Manitoba, which gets a reduction of three members, and Saskatchewan, which gets a reduction of four members, still have the highest unit of representation of all the provinces.
According to that picture, if we were to take, for instance, the Prince Edward Island ratio of representation, Manitoba would be entitled to twenty-five members, Quebec would be entitled to 139 members and Ontario to 158 members. That is one extreme.
Suppose we take the ratio of the province of Ontario, that would give Manitoba sixteen members instead of fourteen, and would give Quebec seventy-two members instead of sixty-five.
I am in full agreement with the hon. member who has just spoken. The province of Quebec at the present time under the. consti-

tution is left with sixty-five members, with a population of 3,329,000, as against 3,778,000 in Ontario, and yet has seventeen fewer members than Ontario. That to my mind does not really give a fair representation.
It is quite apparent that the fathers of confedration when they put these sections in the British North America Act had the full intention of providing representation by population, and I contend that the constitution at the present time does not carry out that intention of the fathers of confederation. If we are to proceed with redistribution at the present time, fair play should be given to all the provinces, and if we embarked upon redistribution obviously we would have quite a problem to face. I still contend that this of all times is not the time to deal with redistribution at this session, because it certainly does not affect, the present representation in this house. That cannot be changed until after the next election; and so far as the western provinces are concerned, we are having a census next year, which may throw a good deal of light on the subject. I would therefore strongly urge that the enactment of this legislation, if it be done at all, be delayed until such time as we can do full justice in this house to all the provinces in the light of all the circumstances.
One of the main arguments which were brought forward at the time that the amendment was presented to the British parliament for ratification was that a time of war was not the proper time to do such a thing. That was really a good argument and a serious one. It was felt also that the matter was too contentious to be dealt with in war time. I fully agree. I still ask myself the question, why enter into such a discussion at the present time? I for one fail to see why the western provinces should be penalized for having allowed their young men and their young women to go and work in the war plants of eastern Canada and the west coast. Some allowance should be made for these circumstances. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the question is one that is full of implications and likely to give rise to sharp and acrimonious differences, and I most sincerely suggest that neither is this an opportune time to consider the motion, nor have we time at present to do it full justice. For these reasons I submit that we should delay the matter until some later occasion.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I had not intended to speak at this moment. I had been informed that several others wished to take part in the debate. But

Redistribution
I should not like the motion to be put without having had an opportunity of making some observations to the house.
I fully appreciate the interest of hon. members in this important matter of proper representation of the people of all the provinces in this Canadian parliament, but I do not think it would be proper for the house to adopt this motion in the terms in which it is couched. The operative part of the motion is in the following terms:
Therefore be it resolved,-That in the opinion of this house, the government should conform to the aforesaid resolution and take into immediate consideration the advisability of proceeding during the present session with representation ot the provinces in the House of Commons, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act.
Although I am at the present time a member of the government, I am also, and first of all, as a qualification to be enabled to participate in the government, a member of the House of Commons, and it is my view that it is not the government that controls redistribution, but that it is the Canadian parliament, and that to pass this resolution in the terms in which it is drawn would be indicative of an abdication of the rights and privileges of this house. There is nothing in the British North America Act which gives the government of Canada any control over the representation of the Canadian people in this parliament. The government is charged with the execution or the carrying out of the laws passed by parliament. But the matter of determining the proper proportional representation of the public of Canada in this parliament is within the jurisdiction of parliament itself, and I do not think it would be a democratic expression of opinion to say that it is for the government to provide -for redistribution. That is the first observation I wish to submit to the consideration of hon. members.
Of course the government is composed of members of this house, and consideration was given to this matter of redistribution when it became apparent toward the end of August that there was likely to be unconditional surrender of the Japanese armies to the allied forces. At that time the legislative programme for this session of parliament had been determined; and I think the experience of all of us is that there is a pretty heavy legislative programme to be dealt with. Although we have been in session for some considerable time, there is on the order paper and there has been forecast in the speech from the throne a number of matters which have not yet been dealt with, or at any rate fully dealt with, and which require our attention at this session. Nevertheless, personally 47696-78
I was disturbed over the recollection I had of the terms in which the amendment to the British North America Act had been drawn in 1943, and I discussed the matter with other members of parliament who happened to be also members of the government. The situation was envisaged in the light of the legislative programme which had been prepared and. which it appeared necessary to have parliament act upon at the earliest possible moment. I then asked the law officers of the Department of Justice to consider the matter of the terms of this 1943 amendment. Their opinion conforms with that expressed by hon.. members who so far have taken part in the? debate. We do not propose to be technical,, but the expression used in the statute is "the cessation of hostilities with the German re-ich, the kingdom of Italy, and the empire of Japan." I think that for the purposes of ordinary comprehension most people regard the unconditional surrender of Japan as amounting to a cessation of hostilities. That would not be a cessation of the state of war as envisaged in the War Measures Act; but, as has been pointed out by the hon. member who moved the resolution, this matter is in no wise connected with the interpretation or application of the War Measures Act, and the cessation of hostilities as expressed in the 1943 statute is, I think, a matter of fact and not a matter of a technical declaration of the existence or non-existence of a continued state of war. It is well known that the existence of a state of war according to international law does not end with the surrender of one of the participants in that war. I do not think that that technical existence of a continued state of war after the actual- surrender of one of the participants in the war is identical with the situation described by "cessation of hostilities". I assume we should take it for granted that when the unconditional surrender had been made and accepted we could regard active hostilities as having ceased, and it was on that basis that I asked the law officers of the department to examine the question whether or not there was an obligation, not on the government but on the Canadian parliament, to provide at its first session for a redistribution of its membership to become effective at the expiry of that parliament.
It really is a question of law rather than one of any practical consequences, because a redistribution does not operate for -by-elections during the life of a parliament. It comes into effect only at the expiry of the parliament that makes the redistribution. Perhaps I may have been optimistic, but I did not anticipate that there would be another

Redistribution

general election immediately after this session of parliament. I did not anticipate that there would not be, before another general election, opportunity for one or more sessions of parliament, during which parliament could discharge its responsibility of providing for the redistribution of its membership.
But the technical legal question did give me some concern. The opinion that was given to me by the law officers of the department is almost in the language that was used by the hon. member, the mover, and his colleague, the seconder of the motion: that the effect of the 1943 amendment expired with the cessation of hostilities, that parliament then fell back upon the situation as it existed under the terms of section 51 of the British North America Act, and that that did not mean that redistribution had to be provided for at the first session. It meant that there was no longer any special legislation in force which prevented the application of section 51, but that after the effect of the special legislation disappeared, section 51 operated, as it always operated after every previous census which has taken place, and that parliament provided for redistribution, but not necessarily at the first session when it would be legally possible to carry it out because the census results had been compiled and published.
The note that was given to me is that the British North America Act, 1943, provides that it shall not be necessary that the representation of the provinces be readjusted in consequence of the completion of the 1941 [DOT]decennial census until the first session of parliament commencing after the cessation of ihostilities. Section 51 of the British North America Act, 1867, provides that on the completion of each decennial census the representation shall be readjusted.
The amendment of 1943 relieves the duty imposed by section 51 until after the cessation of hostilities, and thereupon the duty imposed by section 51 again arises, that the representation be adjusted on the completion of the census. Subject only to section 51, the readjustment can be effected in any session after the cessation of hostilities. Legislation for decennial readjustments was passed, after the 1931 session, in 1933.


Mr. MacNICOL:: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister
if this house has not on one or more occasions passed legislation to the effect that no province shall have its membership reduced below the number of senators allowed to such province by the constitution? Because of that Prince Edward Island was allowed to retain four members to conform to the four senators; New Brunswick, which ordinarily would have lost membership in this house, was not to be reduced below ten the number of senators that come from that province, and similarly Nova Scotia was not to have fewer members than senators.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The hon. member is
quite right. That was provided for by an amendment to the British North America Act which was made in 1915. There was a special provision enacted that year that in no case was the number of representatives for the people of a province in the House of Commons to be fewer than the representatives that that province is entitled to have in the senate. That, of course, had to be done by a statute of the parliament of Westminster, because it was a modification of the British North America Act. It is because the statute of Westminster of 1931 was, at the request of the provinces, declared to be inapplicable to the amendment of the British North America Act that it was necessary in 1943 to have the 47696-78J
parliament of the United Kingdom say that this parliament would not be required to proceed with redistribution during the war.
If there were to be any other change in the application of section 51, as it exists and as it has been construed, it would require legislation of the parliament of the United Kingdom to give it effect.
But to proceed with the argument I was trying to develop when the hon. member suggested his question, this language used by the privy council has been applied to the whole of rule 4 of section 51. Rule 4 provides that the representation of a province will not be reduced after a census unless its proportion of population compared with the population of the whole of Canada has diminished by as much as five per cent.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Five per cent of the
previous proportion?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Five per cent of the previous proportion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is pretty complicated.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, it is quite complicated; but the part of the rule which has brought about the situation described by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) is due to the construction put upon its terms by the privy council in 1905. It means that although there may be an accumulated difference of more than five per cent of the proportion, but if it does not occur in one decade it is ineffective. If it happened to be four per cent for five successive decades, amounting in all to as much as twenty per cent, it would still be inoperative because no five per cent of it would have taken place within a single decade.
The application of the rule has worked in the manner which has been described. When I spoke on the resolution in 1943 I cited the cases of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. There is one that I did not mention at that time. According to the returns of the last census, the population of British Columbia is 817,861; that of Alberta is 796,169. As a result of the application of this rule, in the next parliament, if no change is made in the rule, Alberta will have seventeen representatives and British Columbia, sixteen, although British Columbia has, according to the census of 1941, a larger population than Alberta by some twenty thousand. As has been already pointed out, on a strictly proportionate basis the number of representatives for several provinces would not be the same as if the redistribution proceeded upon the basis on which it will have to proceed if no constitutional change is made.
Redistribution


John Ritchie MacNicol: To complete the record,
is the minister able to give the citation for the special consideration given to the Yukon?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I know that the
Yukon is entitled to at least one representative, but I do not happen to have the text at hand which provides that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not determined by
the British North America Act; it is within the competence of parliament to decide. I quote from the document published in connection with that matter.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Therefore I am not
making any plea to-day for any special interest or issue; I am merely suggesting, as one of the members of parliament, that when the matter of redistribution comes up I would expect parliament to give consideration to the question whether or not the old rule should continue to be applied, or whether there would be at that time a proposal to put representation back on a proportionate basis for each and every one of the provinces. I would expect that to be a matter which would be given serious consideration by parliament because, speaking personally and not as Minister of Justice, I think there is a good deal in the suggestion that this is what was intended by the fathers of confederation. We do not personally remember what the controversy was in regard to "rep by pop," but we have all read about it and we all know that the desire of Upper Canada to have proper proportionate representation was one of the motives which started the discussions for a new constitution to replace that of the union under which both Upper and Lower Canada were given the same number of representatives in their joint parliament.
The matter of redistribution certainly will have to be dealt with iby parliament, or parliament will be failing in the responsibility which results from the constitution itself. In 1943 the government took the responsibility of recommending to parliament an address to His Majesty to have an amendment passed postponing redistribution until after the cessation of hostilities. There has been no thought in the mind of anyone to take the responsibility of requesting a further postponement of redistribution. It may well be that this house itself will wish to take that responsibility if it comes to the conclusion that it would be unfair to carry out a redistribution which would bring about the results that have been indicated' by some hon. members. That is something which will have to be determined by the house itself, by the members of the house; and whatever the determination is, I confidently expect that there will be a redistribution which will contMr. St. Laurent.]
form with the constitution either as it is or as it is made to be after proper amendment. It is my earnest hope that when this is done it will not be regarded as a government proposal, but as something done by the parliament of Canada itself to discharge its responsibility to those who elect members to this house, something that will be done completely without any partisan feeling, because we all owe it to our constituents to do everything possible to keep this institution in the high regard to which it is entitled as a truly democratic, representative institution of the people of Canada. I think it would be detrimental to the best interests of Canadian democracy to have it felt that this was being dealt with as a football to be tossed about in partisan discussion or conflict. It is much more than that. It is the true representation of the Canadian people in a free parliament which is required, and that should be the only object each of us will seek to attain when we come to deal with the redistribution of its membership.
I wished to mention one further point, although not for the purpose of raising any controversy about it. The suggestion has been made that there can be no amendment of the British North America Act which would affect the representation of the people of the provinces in this house without the consent of the provincial legislatures.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does that not mean only the consent of the four provinces which originally entered into confederation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not sure what it means, but even if it means that much I would not agree with it, because in my view that is not something which by the British North America Act is confided to the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. The provincial legislatures have to deal with matters assigned to them by that act; but the representation of the Canadian people in this parliament, no matter in what province they live, is not something which has been placed under the care of the provincial legislatures. It is within the jurisdiction of this house and of the members elected to this house by the inhabitants of the several provinces.


John Bracken: Before the minister sits down I wonder if he would mind making clear the answers to two questions. His remarks satisfied me on these points, but perhaps he will not object to making himself perfectly clear with respect to them. These questions do not deal with the technicalities of the present situation but with the practical matter of whether or not we are to have redistribution before the next election. First, does the minister recognize a responsibility on the part

Redistribution
of tlie Canadian parliament to have redistribution before the next election? Second, will the government say now that there will be such a redistribution?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: To the first question I would reply in the affirmative without the slightest hesitation. As to the second question, I would hope the government would take the initiative in having that responsibility of parliament to the people of Canada satisfactorily discharged before another election.


John Bracken: From some remarks of the minister in the earlier part of his speech I gathered there was some responsibility devolving upon parliament as distinguished from the government. Surely the minister does not mean to leave the impression that there is a responsibility upon parliament which the government itself can avoid?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not at all. I hoped I had clearly stated that those who are members of the government, with the exception of its leader in the other place, are members of the house. They all, I think, feel their responsibility, not only equally with other members of the house but probably to a greater degree, because they have some control over the disposition of the time of the house in dealing with legislation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If I may I should like to ask the minister one more question, because I did not quite understand his reply to the observation I made a few moments ago as to the necessity of obtaining the consent of the legislatures of the four provinces originally entering into confederation before the British North America Act can be amended, in regard to any amendment pertaining to anything to which they consented when they formed confederation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Of course I am not making a judicial pronouncement; I am merely expressing my own opinion. In my opinion there is no necessity to get the consent of any of the provincial legislatures in regard to any amendment which would affect the representation of the people in this parliament.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I had not reference to the representation in this parliament but to any amendment of the British North America Act pertaining to matters to which the four original provinces consented when they formed confederation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: On that point I do not think the jurisdiction which was assigned to the provincial legislatures by the British North America Act can be taken away from them in any way without their consent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I agree.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Dorion) and the seconder of the motion, also the hon. member for Prov-encher (Mr. Jutras), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who have spoken so well on this matter. I congratulate also the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and my good friend, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), upon the very able questions they have put to the minister in an effort to clarify the situation. That having been said, may I be permitted to express the opinion of the man on the street. In doing this I shall try to keep away from subtleties and legal distinctions, but I shall remind the house of what happened in the past.
In the first place, let me say that the present system is unjust. Why is it unjust? It is unjust because it was pronounced to be unjust by the Liberal party in 1933. I remember what happened when the Redistribution Act was brought down by the federal government of that day. It was a shame. The whole thing was wrongly done. Those in charge for the province of Quebec were a gentleman who was a minister at the time and who is now a judge, and another gentleman who has since died. He was a millionaire and he now rests in the Lord, I hope. They were together and they helped to frame that awful and shameful piece of legislation. That is the system that is at present in force.
The minister was very candid when he said that this matter should1 be considered from a high plane. Theoretically he is right, but practically it has been done otherwise except by the Liberal party, which has always been just and fair. Hon. members should read in Hansard of the Tory genymander of 1893, which was described by no less a person than Sir Wilfrid Laurier as gerrymander with a vengeance. What did he do in 1903 when he was Prime Minister of Canada? He saw that it was corrected. Then we had the same experience in 1933. Mr. Bennett thought that he would remain in power by carving the constituencies into the most incredible designs. It would be interesting if hon. members of the house would go to the office of the chief electoral officer and ask for plans of the constituencies to see what was done to bring a Tory parish into another constituency in order to give an unpopular member a chance to be elected against the will of the people. All non. members complained about it in the session of 1932-33, and I remember the last week of that session was spent in discussing this very matter. Of course the government changed nothing.
Redistribution

I know about it because somebody had been asked by the party to do the work on the committee. I had asked to sit on the committee but someone else from Montreal was appointed. He was my deskmate at the time. He had played golf with the Prince of Wales. One day he had to make a speech on the Ottawa agreements. He was a very hard worker. He read four pages of a speech made by Mr. Bennett, who was Prime Minister, and then he read four pages of a speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who was then leader of the opposition; he read those eight pages and concluded by saying, "I agree with my chief, the leader of the opposition, against the leader of the government," and he sat down. That was his speech. He met the man who was sitting on the committee for the province of Quebec, a solicitor who worked very hard, but he did not work very hard.
One day I was coming up to the house and the late Mr. Lapointe met me. He said, "Jean-Frangois, you will have to do that work." I said, "I was not put on the committee; I know it is going to be a hard job, but I have not been appointed." Finally I gathered all the old statutes from 1853 to 1923, which was the time of the previous redistribution, and I prepared a history of the redistributions during those eighty years. I prepared the story of the effect of each redistribution upon each constituency in the province of Quebec. I gave it to the late Mr. Lapointe and to Mr. Cardin, and it was used in discussing the matter with the two Tory bigwigs who were representing their party. I supplied the stuff that they had to work with. Many hon. members expressed their opinions about the whole matter and described the gerrymander as a scandal, which it was.
We should have changed it after the Last census. However, we were at war, and what humiliated me profoundly was the fact that this parliament approved a motion to kneel down humbly before the British government to ask them to make an exception and allow us to wait until the war was over, to permit the dominion government not to proceed at once with the redistribution which should have been done by virtue of our constitution. Some one has said that business is pressing, that there are many things to do, but in my humble view the first thing we should do is to comply with the constitution of this country.
The legislation which was passed two years ago exists no longer. That legislation passed by the imperial parliament was good only for the time of the war. As soon as the war was over with our three enemies, Germany, Italy and Japan, that legislation, which changed the

constitution for a limited period, no longer had effect. We are now in this absurb situation: the time to revise the boundaries of the constitutencies, otherwise to pass a Redistribution Act in accordance with the census, has passed; the limited period of delay granted to Canada by the imperial parlament has passed, and nothing has been done. That is an anomaly. It is something that cannot be explained. We are in a false situation.
Whether elections take place in the near future or at a later date, the fact remains that at a time when economy is being preached everywhere we have in this House of Commons twenty members who would not be sitting here if the constitution were being applied. Therefore we are expending twenty times $6,000, or $120,000, plus travelling expenses, which should not be expended at this time.


John Bracken: Where do you get the
$6,000?


Mr. POULIOT:: I am an optimist. Even putting it at $4,000, we have a total of $80,000. That is a lot of money to pay to gentlemen who are not entitled to sit among us. Moreover, we should take advantage of the rules of the house to point out these strangers, not in the gallery, but on the floor of the house. Who are these strangers? Here again it is the old story. We have to please first one and then another province, instead of doing what is right. That is the thing I have always complained of. Here we are to please or not to displease some one province or other. When we have something to do which is the right thing to do, we should do it. It is of no importance at all for us to consider: Let us please, let us be pleasant, let us appease somebody or other. That was Chamberlain's motto-let us appease. When you appease one province, then you have to appease another. It is no good to appease Manitoba, let us say, at the expense of Quebec, and afterwards to appease Quebec at the expense of another province. Let us be more serious. Let us abide by the constitution. Let us go on our knees to London to the least extent possible by way of asking them to change our constitution on such a pretext as was used the last time. The war was made the pretext, but the real reason was not to indispose Saskatchewan, And what was the gratitude of Saskatchewan to the government for that? None at all; it was not appreciated. Probably it would have been much more in the practical interests of the government to act in accordance with the constitution and to have that redistribution submitted to the house. The government would have lost no seats by that, and per-

Redistribution
haps it was precisely because the fair-minded people of Saskatchewan were offended by that encroachment upon the constitution that they defeated more Liberal candidates at the last election.
Here we are discussing legal subtleties, citing a section here and a paragraph there, a subsection here and a subparagraph there, so the whole thing has to be examined with a magnifying glass to see where is the legal light hiding under the bushel. Let us be more practical than that. Let us stand by the constitution, or let us change it entirely- and let us do the work ourselves here at Ottawa, not have it done outside. It is an absurd situation, as has been described by all hon. gentlemen who have spoken before me, including my good friend the Minister of Justice. The situation is absurd, but it will not be absurd any longer once we have the guts to correct it.
It has been suggested to the mover of the motion that, it should be addressed to parliament instead of to the government. That is a little too Philadelphian for me. The purpose of the motion is to ask the support of the house in pressing upon the government the urgency of such a redistribution. One has only to read the motion to understand it.
The complaint has also been made that this motion is brought in before the estimates have been considered. It is obvious that there is a good reason for that, because once we start to consider the estimates, private members' days will be over and no such motion as this could be brought before the house.
As my good friend the Minister of Justice has spoken on the subject in such an unprejudiced and unbiased way, and considers it as being above partisan considerations, I hope that a redistribution will be brought in by the government before the end of this session. In 1943 the Prime Minister said that we would have a redistribution. It was mentioned in the speech from the throne that year, but we had none. This year the government have said that we cannot have a redistribution. I hope that the reverse of what happened in 1943 will take place and that the government will give us a pleasant surprise before the end of the session by bringing in a redistribution measure. It is very easy; the thing is most simple. The government has only to appoint a committee to study the past redistribution act and correct it in accordance with the last census. Otherwise where shall we go?
You know, sir, that we have some powers by virtue of the constitution, and those powers are completed by other statutes passed by this parliament. The first of these is the redistribution statute establishing the boundaries of the constituencies, the polling stations and where the electors shall vote. There is also the Senate and House of Commons Act and some other acts, but the Senate and House of Commons Act applies for the most part after the member is elected by virtue of the redistribution act and the elections act-The elections act has been improved a lot. The only thing wrong with regard to the election of members of parliament is the Redistribution Act. Let us correct it in order that there shall be no complaint about any member of parliament who sits in this house.
To conclude, sir, I sincerely hope that this government will reconsider, not its decision, because no definite decision has been reached, but its views on this matter. I hope the government will reconsider it in due course and give a good example of complying with the law.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house very long, but one or two things have been said in this debate on which as a member from Saskatchewan I wish to make some comment.
The original provision of the British North America Act, as has been stated, was based upon the idea that there should be representation by population, but because of the provision that was put in the act in section 51, subsection 4, and the interpretation placed upon it by the privy council, which has already been referred to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), a great discrepancy has crept into our representation. As I pointed out to the house in February, 1943, if a redistribution were made on the basis of the present act the only provinces which would have representation on the basis of population would be Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In other words, as has been pointed out, Prince Edward Island would have two more members than she was entitled to, Nova Scotia would have one more, New Brunswick would have one more, Ontario eight more, and Alberta one more.
I have no quarrel at all with the provision giving a minimum representation to provinces like Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, for this reason, that in Saskatchewan particularly we are beginning to run into the very thing that makes some such minimum requirement fair. The basis of the redistribution is the population of the province of Quebec, and we find that as Quebec rapidly increases in population, the unit of representation is rapidly rising, so that to-day it is 51,213. In provinces like Quebec or Ontario, where there are large cities, certain seats in the cities can be given much larger populations
Redistribution

and the rural constituencies in those provinces can be kept down to a reasonable size. We find that that is happening in the last redistribution of the population. For example, Ottawa West seat to-day contains 94,746; Eglinton, Toronto, 72,953; Spadina, 86,431; Montreal St. Mary, 83,444; Montreal Mercier, 85,380. Thus provinces which have large industrial centres can keep the areas of their rural seats to a reasonable size. But in the case of a province which is almost entirely agricultural, the principle of basing the unit of representation upon populations which are increasing because of the rapid growth of industrial centres means that rural seats-in Saskatchewan for instance-will soon be so large that members cannot do justice to their constituents. That is the consideration which I think justifies the minimum requirement provision which obtains in the case of the maritimes and should apply, I suggest, also to the prairie provinces. As has already been pointed out. Prince Edward Island has four senators, and has been protected for some time by the regulation to which I have referred. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have each ten senators; one of them will be protected by that regulation in the next redistribution, and the other is in a position to receive the protection right away. But, in the wisdom of those who set up the representation for western Canada in the senate, it was provided that all that section of the country should have twenty-four senators. That means that the representation of Saskatchewan in the senate is six. Therefore there is very little protection for Saskatchewan in that provision, and I submit that some consideration should be given to that aspect of the situation.
The present population of the seat which I have the honour to represent is under 40,000, which means that that seat, already so large as to occupy me pretty continually in keeping in touch with it, will have to be increased in size over twenty-five per cent. As I see the population of Quebec increasing, partly because of the big and1 growing metropolis of Montreal, I recognize that as a consequence the seats in Saskatchewan will be enlarged to such a size that it will be almost impossible to have them adequately represented in parliament. That does not apply quite so much to Manitoba, because that province contains the big city of Winnipeg. They can therefore provide, as they have done, that the city seats shall have a much larger population, so that the country seats do not have to be quite so disproportionately enlarged. For example, Winnipeg North has a population of over
[Mr. Tucker. 1
70,000. As regards British Columbia, of course it has the two cities of Vancouver and Victoria.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Manitoba constituency of Churchill is a very large one.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes; it is a very large seat, but of course the population is mainly to be found in a few areas. The whole problem is one to which any committee assigned to study it will have to give close attention. Alberta is in somewhat the same position as Saskatchewan and Manitoba, except that its two cities of Calgary and Edmonton have a tendency to grow fairly fast, and that helps them out in some measure.
I have here some figures which I found very interesting and which I thought I might bring to the attention of the house. I do so because at one time I thought of suggesting that our representation should be based upon the result of the quinquennial census which will be taken in western Canada next year. Therefore I tried to get some figures on the trend of population in western Canada in the last three years. The only figures I could get from the bureau of statistics were based on the issue of ration books, and I found to my disappointment that the trend which had set in after the outbreak of war up to the taking of the census in 1941, consequent upon so many of our young people having come east to take part in industrial work and the war effort in general, had continued in increasing measure up to 1944. According to a study made by the bureau of statistics, in the period 1941 to 1944 the migration from Saskatchewan amounted to no less than 86,000. If we do not give time for that situation to cure itself-and it will not be cured by the time the quinquennial census is taken next year-if we base ourselves upon that census, instead of losing four seats in Saskatchewan it looks as though we might lose even more, which accentuates the importance of giving consideration to the argument I have already advanced.
The house might be interested in the trend in regard to other provinces.


John Bracken: Perhaps the hon. member could give the numbers that left Saskatchewan before 1939. Does he have them?


Walter Adam Tucker: No; I just have them from 1941 to 1944. I do not think it would be possible to obtain figures for the period 1939 to 1941, because the statistics which were furnished me were available on account of ration books having been issued, and that gave them the chance to study the trend.

Redistribution
As regards the other provinces, in the period 1941-44,	7,000 left Prince Edward
Island, 8,000 had gone into Nova Scotia,
19.000	had left New Brunswick, 11,000 had left Quebec, 58,000 had come to Ontario, and
90.000	went to British Columbia. I found these figures very interesting as showing the migration of the population within Canada. They do not take into account at all the position of the armed services. This is just civilian migration within Canada and it indicates that there is a very important problem which will have to be faced by this house in regard to redistribution.
I urge the house not to take away any of the rights of representation granted the mari-times, but I suggest that if it is found proper to protect the powerful province of Ontario from losing her representation, so that, if we are to redistribute on the basis of the present law, she will have eight members more than she is entitled to-


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I interrupt the hon. member to point out to him that the fathers of confederation, when they drew up the British North America Act, were not specifying for Ontario only. The hon. member can never miss taking a fling at Ontario.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend is entirely
wrong. I am not taking a fling at Ontario; I am pointing out the manner in which the British North America Act has worked out. I think that fair members from Ontario will go along with me when I say that if the constitution has worked out in such a manner that the powerful province of Ontario will be left with eight members more than the number to which it is entitled, if calculated on the basis applied to a province like Saskatchewan, then something should be done to safeguard the position of a province like Saskatchewan which will lose four seats.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Ontario's representation has gone down from ninety-two to eighty-two, but we did not holler about that.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes; but if you insist that we have to go entirely on the basis of our population, then you should be willing to go on the same basis yourself.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We did lose ten.


Walter Adam Tucker: And you have this added advantage, that you have big cities in the province of Ontario, and in those cities you can set up seats that are very populous, giving the right to rural districts to have adequate representation. We have not that safety valve in Saskatchewan, and I think it is very important that this whole situation should be carefully considered.
Incidentally, it irks me to think that, in order to provide for the representation of our people in this parliament, we have to go to the parliament at Westminster to get that change. That, of course, is not the fault of the parliament at Westminster because it was at our own request that it was done; but my own feeling is that soon we shall have to provide some means whereby we can amend our own constitution, thus relieving the parliament at Westminster of what sometime may prove to be an embarrassing job. I think it would be better for them as well as for ourselves.
I simply rose to make that point and I wish to reemphasize, to my hon. friend the member for Davenport and other Ontario members, that when I cite the case of Ontario I am just citing what appears to have been an anomaly that has developed on the basis of a section in the British North America Act which has been interpreted by the privy council. I am sure that the fathers of confederation could not have intended that Ontario should have the right to retain -eight-and perhaps, as the years go on, an even greater number than that-more seats than she is entitled to on the basis on which the number of representatives is fixed for other provinces. I suggest that if that right is to be retained to protect Ontario in the possession of these eight extra seats, then in all fairness some such provision as has been found to protect the maritime provinces should be written into the British North America Act in order to protect the prairie provinces in the possession of adequate representation in this house.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: It is perhaps easy for one to say that one agrees entirely with the contents of the resolution presented by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), but I cannot sympathize with the impatience shown in having redistribution, as indicated in the words of the motion that "immediate consideration" be given to the advisability of proceeding during the present session with representation of the provinces in the House of Commons.
I do not believe I have the power, but I think I have the right, to suggest a tentative session or date. Personally, I believe that the year 1947 would be appropriate for reasons which I shall mention later on.
I listened attentively to the mover of the resolution, and I was certainly impressed by his sincerity and his force as to what may happen as far as redistribution of the representation in this house is concerned. I do rot know whether all members realize how lifficult it is to belong to a racial group
Redistribution

within a nation. It is true that in the province of Quebec the racial group to which I refer is in a majority, but I am speaking of that racial group a3 a minority in the rest of Canada. Even under the best conditions, there is always some fear, although for my part I do not allow myself to cultivate those fears, because I do not believe in them. I believe implicitly in the fair-mindedness of the Canadian people as a whole, and that applies particularly to my own province. I was glad therefore that my hon. friend the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay made no criticism with regard to the representation of Prince Edward Island, which has four members in the House of Commons and four senators. I may say that I represent in my constituency more people than there are in the whole of Prince Edward Island. I represent nearly 125,000.
In our section of the country we are perfectly satisfied with the pact of confederation, and I suggest that if we study it carefully we shall find that it was very largely a matter of give and take. There were many sensibilities that might have been offended, and there was room for friction, racial and religious; but the fathers of confederation found it possible to build their structure, and they builded better than they knew. They built, not on quicksand but on understanding, an understanding of what true Canadianism is.
In that regard I am fully in agreement with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. While members from Quebec put the case for that province as forcefully as they can, so far as federal representation is concerned, I suggest that they must see to it that equity and justice shall prevail not only in the interests of Quebec but for the representation of the country as a whole.
I make {hat statement deliberately because I was astonished in 1943-and if I had not been Deputy Speaker I would have said a few words prior to the passing of the resolution-when the Quebec legislature passed a resolution indicating fear that there might oe some injustice in connection with the redistribution measure which would be placed before parliament. I stated a few days ago here that in my opinion every member of this house is primarily what I call a municipalise because primarily every member is proud of his own locality, the towns and cities in his own district. There exists, for example, a rivalry between Hamilton and Toronto-I cannot profess to know a great deal about Toronto, however; between Toronto and Montreal, between Halifax and Vancouver, and in my opinion that is a healthy state of affairs. Second, I suggested

that we are provincialists, every one of us, because everyone of us is proud to belong to his individual province and would be the last to allow this federal government to impinge upon and be unfair to that province in respect of any question affecting its interests. That is why I was surprised at that resolution, although I know that it was proposed in good faith.
I wish to say a few words with regard to the fine presentation made by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). I cannot agree with some of the statements that he took occasion to make. For instance, he said that financially speaking-those are practically his words-we were in bankruptcy. The hon. member knows much better than that. He knows that this country is not bankrupt; the allies are not bankrupt. It is true we have a huge national debt, but we have preserved our natural resources. But more than that, we have the finest, most industrious and intelli-genet population in the world. .With that great asset we do not need to worry about the future. If the activities of our population are directed through the proper channels we shall not need to worry about the future. I resent the statement very much.
On many occasions it has been said that my French-speaking compatriots of the province of Quebec are hewers of wood and drawers of water for the rest of the population. If that were so, Mr. Speaker, and if we are in a state of bankruptcy, then we are all starting in from scratch and the people who make those statements should be happy that we are in that position. But it is not true and it cannot be true so far as Canada is concerned. If our efforts are directed in the post-war period as they were to the winning of the war we shall not have any bankruptcy in Canada; we can be positive of that. I make that statement to show how careful our compatriots ought to be in making statements of that kind, whether they be made on the floor of the House of Commons or in a provincial forum.
When we come to the matter of redistribution, perhaps we shall have to make some further amendments. Like the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), I should like to see Canada in a position where it could deal with that matter itself. I say that not because I have any resentment against the British government. The British government and people would be most happy if we were to deal with all of our own domestic affairs and political problems. There is no doubt about that.
With regard to the question of representation, there exists a certain amount of danger. I well remember when I lived in Quebec in

Redistribution
my youth that the population of Ontario was almost double that of the old province of Quebec. To-day there is a difference of only a few hundred thousand, and perhaps when the great mining development is carried on in northern Quebec in the near future, as it is bound to be, the popuation of Quebec may be equal to that of Ontario. Can you visualize, sir, the people of Ontario being satisfied with a representation of only sixty-five members in the House of Commons? There will be some commotion then, and we must of necessity prevent that. It should be possible to find ways and means, and not merely on a mathematical calculation, of treating the Canadian people as a whole unit. Let me give an example. Suppose some day that Quebec has a population of five million people and Ontario a population of three million five hundred thousand. You would then have a contracted parliament. Instead of a parliament consisting of 245 members there would only be 150 or 175. As my colleague, the hon. member for Rosthern, said a few moments ago, I believe that most members of parliament find their hands full to-day doing the work they have to do. I know that I find it a twenty-four hour job to represent 125,000 people. The fathers of confederation never expected that the representation should become more and more contracted instead of becoming more and more expanded. That is one of the thoughts I wish to leave with the House of Commons at this time.
I should now like to refer to some of the statements that were made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I believe the best remedy for gerrymandering in a redistribution would be the formation of a judicial redistribution commission. I know that some members of parliament would say that wTas taking away some of the prerogatives of parliament. That may be true. I am just leaving that thought with the members of parliament and with the country as a whole. We are all human. You cannot change human nature. It is a wonderful thing that you cannot change it altogether. No doubt in a redistribution there would be jerrymandering again, whether it be done by a Liberal administration or a Conservative administration. Surely it should be possible, when dealing with a matter of national importance such as redistribution, to leave politics on the doorstep of the committee and to work for the welfare of the provinces and of Canada as a whole.
As far as I am concerned I should be very glad indeed to have redistribution carried out at an early date, but again I do not see the
urgency of it. I am sincerely convinced that, generally speaking, members of this parliament do not want an election next year. They certainly do not wish an election this fall, or at least until we enjoy some of the benefits that were granted to us last week. I know that most hon. members will agree with me on that score. I believe the country as a whole expects parliament, regardless of its political affiliations, to deal with the important matters that are before us and to work for the solution of the post-war problems.
To perform that task will test the energy, ability and capacity of every member of this house and of the cabinet. It is a man's job; it is a national job. I believe I speak for a large percentage of the population of this country when I say that, because I received a fine mandate from my own people. They told me, regardless of party affiliation, to come to Ottawa and to work with all I had within me for the solution of the problems which this country is bound to face in the post-war period.
I say these things because I believe that redistribution during the present session will trouble the minds of hon. members too much. It is too late anyway. I know it is not the intention of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay to have redistribution accomplished before the end of this session. I doubt if it will be accomplished before the session of 1947. My main reason for saying that-and it is corroborated by the statement made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) and also by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker)-is that our population, generally speaking, is in a state of flux. Take my own constituency, particularly the gold mining section of it. It was practically a war victim. They took a lot of our trained and experienced miners to British Columbia, Sudbury and to other mines throughout Canada. To-day these people are coming back, and they are coming back in greater numbers than ever. The same thing applies to our rural population. Most of our young men and women who were not physically fit to go into actual active military service went to the industrial centres of central Canada. Most of them are not back yet. Our young men will not be entirely demobilized from the three armed forces for at least a year and a half. Surely this should be a sufficient argument to make parliament realize that it would be most unfair to hundreds of thousands of young men and women in this country to carry out redistribution at the present time.
Redistribution

Let us not forget this, that the young men and women who went into uniforms have benefited by their experience in the past six years. Not only have they suffered but they have studied. They learned something about life and they will be keener in public affairs than ever before. That statement is borne out by the representation in the House of Commons of young men who served in the armed forces in the present war. Again, I repeat, we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to our people not to go too fast. So far as the maldistribution of the population is concerned it is bound to be rectified in the very near future. I believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to the mover of this resolution. Hon. members will readily realize how useful private members are. Their resolutions usually bring about nation-wide discussion outside the realm of politics. These discussions generally are constructive and conducive to better legislation and to better government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to discuss the resolution. If I were I would first congratulate the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) upon his splendid speech and upon bringing the matter before the house. But I am sorry to say that from my point of view the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker) shows such an animus toward the province of Ontario that on any and every matter that pertains to Ontario he cannot help-


Walter Adam Tucker: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has no right to say that I have an animus toward the province of Ontario. My father was born in this province and I have the very kindest feelings for it; but I do say they should not ask for special privileges over other people.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, we are not asking for any advantage over the other provinces.


Walter Adam Tucker: I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw the suggestion that I have an animus toward everything in connection with the province of Ontario.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The province of Ontario had nothing whatever to do-


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like a ruling on my point of order; and I believe the hon. member is out of order anyway.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member is hurt by my interpretation of his disposition toward the province of Ontario as animus I am happy to withdraw it. He is a big, good-natured man, and I know he would not display

any animosity toward the province of Ontario unless he was not feeling very well at the time he made the statement.
I think it is imperative that Hansard should record the clause which was placed in the British North America Act by the fathers of confederation, not particularly for the benefit of the province of Ontario. I do not know whether this clause was fathered by the delegates from the province of Quebec or by the delegates from either of the maritime provinces; or by the delegates from Ontario. I do not know, but I have always thought whoever fathered it exercised pretty good judgment in the way they laid it out. I will read it; it is paragraph (4) of section 51:
On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number ot the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at - the then latest census to be diminished by one twentieth part or upwards.
On the basis of that provision the representation of the province of Ontario has been reduced from ninety-two to eighty-two.


Walter Adam Tucker: If I may ask a question, would the hon. gentleman suggest that if by a clause of this kind in the confederation pact a big province like Ontario in the result got, as perhaps it may ultimately, twenty more members than it is entitled to have, the province of Ontario should rely on that provision and hang on to those additional members?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, a moment ago I withdrew the remark about the hon. gentleman's animus, but unless he remains in his seat he will continue to show it. He can hardly rise in his place without showing that feeling against Ontario and he is better sitting down.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is a well known rule that if you cannot answer your opponent's case you should aibuse the opposing lawyer.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is not a well known rule that the hon. member for Rosthern should be permitted to take part in everything that comes up in this house. I want to tell him that the people of Ontario, and I am one of them, have the very warmest feelings toward the western provinces and all other provinces.


Walter Adam Tucker: They should have.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You never hear anyone from Ontario denouncing the other provinces; they are too big for that. Paragraph (4) of section 51 is why on one occasion, or perhaps

Redistribution
on one or two occasions, the province of Ontario suffered a loss in its representation from ninety-two to eighty-two, and may lose again not after the last census but after the one following that. That is a result of the fluctuation of the population. If our population does go down I hope it will come back again at some future time. I sincerely hope that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, both of which apparently are due to lose some seats if redistribution is carried out on the basis of the recent census, will come back in their population and gain seats. I for one want to see the population of the western provinces greatly increased, thereby increasing their membership in this house.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising at this late hour to say a few words on the motion now before the house I am perhaps motivated more by the spirit of being against something than is usually the case when I rise in this chamber. I hasten to say to you, sir, that in my opposition to this motion I am impelled more by the implication which it arouses indirectly than by the fact that I am a representative of one of the provinces whose representation will suffer if redistribution is carried out in accordance with the existing practice.
This question of redistribution brings very sharply into focus a problem which concerns all of us in this house and the whole of Canada; that is, the right of the Canadian people to amend their own constitution without refer-_ ence to the parliament at Westminster. I am not a lawyer, and I am not prepared to discuss the legal aspects of that question. I believe, however, that I represent the feeling of a very large proportion of the people of my constituency and, indeed, of the people of Canada when I say that important matters, such as the one confronting us in this motion, should be capable of settlement and solution without reference to any body outside our dominion. Therefore I am opposed to the motion, for the same reason that in 1943 I suggested that in the wording of the recommendation which then went to Westminster the house should defer all consideration of redistribution for two years following the conclusion of hostilities. I shall do what I can during this session or otherwise to bring about such deferment for at least this period of time, if that may be possible. I am opposed to consideration of redistribution at the present time, because I am opposed to any loss of representation from the prairie provinces on the basis of the 1941 census, for the reasons given by other speakers this afternoon and for the further reason that within the next year another census will be held which will give us a much more accurate picture of the population trend in those provinces. I shall oppose the reintroduction of this motion or any other motion with the same intent at this or any subsequent session of parliament, the result of which would be to reduce the representation of the prairie provinces at this time; and I shall be prepared to advocate and support, if the present system is to continue, such necessary amendment of the British North America Act as will secure to the people of western Canada at least the moderate representation they now have.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.