1946-06-12

UNITED STATES EMBARGO-MOTION FOR ADJOURN- MENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the United States embargo placed on coal and fuel on the great lakes, and the grave peril of Canadian homes being without any supply during next fall and winter, and as to the announcement on 63260-153
June 11 by the Ore and Coal Exchange of Cleveland of said embargo in view of the Canadian lake shipping strike.
This is a very grave emergency, as grave as in 1917. A year ago we had a coal pile of
800,000	tons in the ship channel in my constituency. On Sunday I visited it and it was down to 10,000 or 12,000 tons, and the coal piles of other municipalities are down in about the same proportion.
I understand that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) is away today. I do not wish to interfere with the business of the house, but perhaps I might be allowed to speak for three or four minutes.
I	am doubtful, however, whether in that case the discussion could be revived to-morrow because of standing order 31 (6) (c). But as there is a grave national emergency, the worst in our history, I suggest that I might be allowed to speak for a few minutes.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman has asked for leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the United States embargo placed on coal and fuel on the great lakes, and the grave peril of Canadian homes being without any supply during next fall and winter-I emphasize those words, "during next fall and winter"-and as to the announcement on June
II	by the Ore and Coal Exchange of Cleveland of said embargo in view of the Canadian lake shipping strike.
I wish to make a comment, for the benefit of the house more especially, on one point made by the hon. gentleman on the question of urgency. Urgency within the meaning of the rule is not a question whether a matter proposed to be discussed is of urgent importance. It may be of infinitely urgent importance to those affected. The question is whether it is urgent within the meaning of citation 239, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms; in other words whether it is a matter of such urgency that harm would be caused to the public interest if by the ordinary opportunity provided by the rules of the house an hon. member were not able to bring the subject before the house soon enough. In the present case I am of the opinion that there is no urgency to adjourn the house today to discuss the subject, because the minister of the department concerned is not in the house this afternoon. Consequently I would rule the motion of the hon. gentleman out of order.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, in reply I would like to say that we get our coal very largely

Questions

from lake Erie ports, from Buffalo, Cleveland and others, and as a result the situation of our people is a matter of great urgency.


James Horace King: Order. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman, if there is no other opportunity to discuss the matter, should wait until the minister is back in the house.


Thomas Langton Church: Under the rules, Mr. Speaker, you have the responsibility of deciding whether a matter is urgent or not. Surely, in view of the condition prevailing in Toronto, and all Canada, the urgency is more important than adherence to some rule made three hundred years ago, particularly in view of some of the secondary subjects with which we have dealt since the beginning of the session.


James Horace King: Order. I have explained why in my opinion the motion of the hon. gentleman is out of order, and I would ask that the house proceed with its business.


Thomas Langton Church: I understand from Your Honour's statement that I may bring the matter up to-morrow when the minister returns. That is satisfactory to me.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	On what date was it decided that class 1-A wave lengths now being used by privately-owned broadcasting stations would be reserved^ for the ultimate use of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	Were the privately-owned stations operating on such wave lengths advised of this decision? If so, when?
3.	Do licences of such private stations carry an endorsation to that effect? If so, since when?


Mr. McILRAITH:: In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
1.	April 16, 1937.
2 and 3. When the North American regional broadcasting agreement came into force on March 29, 1941, three of the six class 1-A channels assigned thereunder to Canada were already in use by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The remaining three class 1-A channels were assigned provisionally to station CFRB at Toronto, station CKY at Winnipeg, and station CFCN at Calgary.
The licences issued for these stations for the fiscal year 1941-42, which were dated April 1,
1941, and were forwarded to the respective licensees under covering letters dated May 15, 1941, bore the following endorsation:
"This frequency is assigned subject to the provisions of regulation 15 of part II of the radio regulations issued by the minister in accordance with section 4 of the Radio Act, 1938."
Regulation 15 provides as follows:
"The allotment of a frequency or frequencies to any station does not confer a monopoly of the use of such frequency or frequencies, nor shall a licence be construed as conferring any right or privilege in respect of such frequency or frequencies."
Licences issued for these stations for the fiscal years 1942-43, 1943-44, and 1944-45 carried the same endorsation.
Licences for these stations dated April 1, 1945, bore the following endorsation:
"The frequency of _______Kc/s per second
being a clear channel is definitely reserved for the national system of broadcasting and this station is authorized to use this frequency provisionally until such time as it may be required for and assigned to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation."


WARTIME HOUSING-YORKTON, SASK.
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What different types of houses are being built in the city of Yorkton by Wartime Housing Corporation?
2.	How many of each different type will be built under the present contract?
3.	What will be the cost to the government of each tyne of house?
4.	How many of these houses are being built with basements?
5.	Has any arrangement been made whereby these houses will be exempted from municipal taxation?
6.	If so, for what period of time?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Three types: 4-room, 5-room and 6-room
houses.
2.	Type	Number of houses
	Project No. 1	Project No. 2
4-room	23	95-room	21	126-room	6	450	25Type	Estimated	unit priceProject No. 1	Project No. 24-room	S3,671 44	$4,090 485-room	4,720 42	5,250 576-room	4,812 95	5,360 16
4. None.

Questions
5.	These houses are the property of His Majesty the King in the right of Canada and therefore exempt from taxation. Under agreement between the municipality and Wartime Housing Limited, however, the latter agrees to make annual payments in lieu of taxes of $24 for each 2-bedroom house and $30 for every house with more than 2 bedrooms; also $1 per house per annum for street lighting.
6.	For project No. 1, period is to March 31, 1960; for project No. 2, period is to October 31, 1961. Both projects numbers 1 and 2 are subject to the following provision made in the escalator clause:
"Should the cost of construction of each house exceed or be less than $4,000 the period provided in the agreement shall be increased or decreased by one year for each full amount of $200 by which the said cost exceeds or it lessens $4,000."


NATIONAL. FILM BOARD-WORK IN SOUTH AMERICA
Mr. FULTON:: 1.	Did the National Film Board send a party including a M. Andre de Tonnaneour to South America to make a film?
2.	If so, how many were in the party and what are their names and their duties for that trip?
3.	What is the approximate mileage to be covered, and expected duration of the trip?
4.	What is the estimated cost of this trip, and of the film when it is completed exclusive of salaries of those who are engaged in making it but including any expense accounts arising by virtue of the voyage?


Mr. CLAXTON:: The information asked for is as follows:
1,	2, 3 and 4. No. Arrangements are under consideration to send a cameraman, M. Andre de Tonnaneour, on a 7,000 mile trip in a schooner which is sailing from Gaspe to Rio de Janeiro at an expense of $125 per week for not more than 20 weeks. This would result in a coloured film on the voyage and places visited at a cost of approximately $6,500, besides several thousand additional feet for use in future films for the cost of film stock and processing.


GOVERNMENT COMPANIES
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	What are the names of all government companies?
2.	When was each incorporated?
3.	What are the powers of each?
4.	Who are their directors and senior officers?
5.	What was in each case the cost of operation or profit or loss during the last year of record?
6.	Are any of these companies dormant at the present time?


George James McIlraith: I would point out that the answers to parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are to be found in order for return No. 49 which was 63260-I53i
tabled as sessional paper No. 136 on March 15 of this year. I think the full information will be found in that order for return. As to part 5, the information is in the public accounts report tabled in the house. I suggest that the question be dropped.


James Horace King: Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4, answered.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Numbers 5 and 6 are unanswered, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: It is answered.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Well, what is the answer?


George James McIlraith: The answers to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are contained in sessional paper 136, tabled in the house on March 15, 1946. The answer to part 5 will be found in the public accounts.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not know the names of all the government companies, and I ask the minister to supply the information. Furthermore, I might say to the house that we do not have secretarial help for all the digging that we would like to do, and we are entitled to some help from government departments in answer to reasonable questions.


Gordon Graydon: These things are all buried, and the hon. member wants them exhumed.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: With reference to the question standing in my name, Mr. Speaker, I did not catch what your final ruling was on parts 5 and 6. Are they answered or do they stand?


James Horace King: The question has been answered.


Gordon Graydon: Officially answered;
unofficially not answered.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is impossible for me-


James Horace King: Order. The matter is not debatable.
GRAIN-ASSISTANCE TO ARGENTINA	.


Mr. ARGUE:: 1.	Has the Canadian government, since 1939, given assistance in any form to the government of Argentina, or to any persons or companies located in the Argentine, for the purpose of improving the production, handling, grading, shipping, storing or milling of grains in the Argentine?
2.	If so, in what way was the assistance given?
3.	What was the cost of such assistance in each year since 1939?
4.	What benefits will Canada receive from the provision of such assistance?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have had inquiries made at several of the departments which might be concerned in what is referred to,
Questions

and the information I have obtained is that the only assistance, if it can be called assistance, which was made available is five or six samples, each of four or five pounds of wheat not more than half a bushel in all which were delivered in 1945 to Doctor Vivot, who was then the ambassador here, and that that was done as a usual courtesy and bn the understanding that it was the kind of thing which is reciprocal. If the hon. member has in mind anything further and can give us any indication which would be helpful in making searches, I will have further searches made, but from what I have been able to learn, that is the only assistance which was given to Argentina in connection with any of the matters referred to.


Mr. COLDWELL:: The hon. member (Mr. Argue) is not in his seat this afternoon, and I suggest that the question stand so that the hon. member may give the information to the minister.


Mr. MITCHELL:: The information is on the record.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member will see the answer, and if he has further indications he can give us we will be glad to have them followed up.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS
Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	How many loans have been made to date by the Industrial Development Bank since its inception in each of the three prairie provinces?
2.	What is the total dollar value of such loans made in each of these provinces?
3.	Have any new manufacturing enterprises been started in the above provinces, through making loans from the Industrial Development Bank?
4.	If so, how many, and what was the nature of each?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1 and 2. The Industrial Development bank is not a branch of the dominion government but a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada.
Section 29(1) of the Industrial Development Bank Act requires that "The bank shall, within twenty-one days following the end of each calendar month, make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance in such form as he may prescribe, a statement of its assets and liabilities at the close of business on the last day of the preceding month." This statement as at April 30, 1946, appeared in the Canada Gazette of May 18, 1946, and showed Loans and Investments (excluding dominion government securities) at $3,174,342.64.
In addition, section 29(2) provides that "The bank shall make up and transmit to the

Minister of Finance at least once in its fiscal year or more frequently if so directed by the minister, in such form as he may prescribe, a classification of loans and investments and of the loans guaranteed by it." This return, tabled in the House of Commons on December 6, 1945, showed that on September 30, 1945, there were 80 authorized credits on the books of the bank totalling $3,198,050, of which $871,752 was outstanding as shown by the balance sheet.
The classification of loans and investments by provinces at September 30, 1945, was shown by this return as follows:
Authorized Outstanding
Prince Edward Island ..	$	$
Nova Scotia		115.000	
New Brunswick	200,000	66,064Quebec	. 1,052,500	459,912Ontario 	1,192,550	212,189Manitoba 	335,000	105,000Saskatchewan 	30,000	17,100Alberta 	135,500	British Columbia and Territories 	137,500	11,487$3,198,050	$871,7523.	Not of government record.4.	Answered by No. 3.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, WINNIPEG
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	On what date did the dispute between the typographical union and the newspaper publishers in Winnipeg start?
2.	On what date was the department made cognizant of the dispute?
3.	On what date was Mr. Justice Major appointed as a commissioner to investigate the dispute ?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	The stoppage of work affecting the international typographical union and the Winnipeg Tribune and Free Press commenced on November 8, 1945, being the culmination of a dispute which had been developing for some weeks previously because of failure to agree on the terms of a new agreement to replace one which had expired September 30, 1945.
2.	On October 31 my department received information that a dispute existed and that a strike was possible. On November 1, the publishers of the two newspapers requested the intervention of either a conciliation officer or an industrial disputes inquiry commission. A conciliation officer was appointed on November 2.
3.	Mr. Justice Major was appointed a commission on November 9.

Questions as Orders for Returns


WAR EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE
Mr. POULIOT:: Referring to the statement of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance at page 1881 of Hansard, May 27, 1946, was the difference of $2,557,559,903 between the war debt until March 31, 1945, and the total war revenue until February 28. 1946, on one hand, and the non-war expenditures and war appropriations from September 1, 1939, to February 28, 1946, on the other, a surplus?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No, a surplus is an excess of revenues over expenditures. In the period September 1, 1939 to February 28, 1946, total
[DOT]	expenditures of the government were 822,069,226,313, and total revenues were 812,681,719,279. resulting in a deficit of 89,387,507,034.
The figure of $2,557,559,903 which is the difference between the increase in total debt from September 1, 1939 to March 31, 1945, together with revenues in the period September 1, 1939 to February 28, 1946, on the one hand, and total expenditures in the period September 1, 1939 to February 28, 1946, on the other, represents an excess of receipts (including borrowings) over expenditures. This excess would be reflected in the books of the government by increases under various accounts classified as active assets (cash, loans, investments, etc.)



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Approximately how many miles of the all-Canada highway come under dominion government jurisdiction, and how many miles of this is in each of the provinces of Ontario. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia?
2.	How many miles of this highway are still unfinished in the province of (a) Ontario; (b) Manitoba; (c) British Columbia?
3.	AVI: at is the estimated amount spent to date by the dominion government on this highway?
*	4. AVhat is the estimated cost required to complete this highway (a) to build the remaining portions; (b) to repair and put in shape for travel, those parts allowed to deteriorate?


POSTAL SERVICE-TOWNS OP LESS THAN 6,000
Mr. DROPE:: 1.	Are there any towns in Canada with a population of less than 6,000, which have a letter carrier delivery service?
2.	If so, what are the towns and their populations?



SHIPBUILDING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McGREGOR;
1.	In how many yards in Canada were boats built during the war?
2.	In each case, by whom were they owned?
3.	What boats were built in each of such yards since September 1, 1939, by whom were they built, and what was the cost in each case?
4.	How many of such boats have been disposed of by the government, to whom was each disposal made, and what was the disposal price in each case?

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	AVhat is the total cost of dominion royal commissions that have been appointed since September, 1939?
2.	What commissions were appointed and what was the total cost in each case?



DOMINION GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONS

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	How many dominion government commissions, other than royal commissions, have been appointed since September, 1939?
2.	AVhat commissions were appointed and what was the total cost in each case?



POTATOES-IMPORTS AND SUBSIDIES

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	AVhat quantity of grade 1 table potatoes were imported into Canada from the United States between January 1 and May 31, 1946?
2.	How much subsidy, if any, was paid on these potatoes?
3.	What quantity of small size potatoes were imported into Canada from the United States between January 1 and May 31, 1946?
4.	How much subsidy, if any, was paid on these potatoes?
5.	Have our farmers been offered any subsidy to encourage them to increase their crop of potatoes?



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I sent to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply notice of a question which perhaps I may address to his parliamentary assistant. In order that the standing committee on radio broadcasting may inquire fully into the extent to which the regulations under the Radio Act (1938) are enforced, will the minister make available to the committee information from licencees of stations for the year 1945 as outlined in regulation 31(A)
(d), approved by the minister and dated June 23, 1943?


James Horace King: Order. I do not think the hon. member is in order in putting to the minister questions that should be asked in the committee.
Mr. COLDA\rELL: I suggest that this question mi '/A be asked of the minister before the
Labour Conditions

information necessary for the committee can be obtained, and that is why I chose this way of putting it.


James Horace King: The hon. member is out of order. If there are any questions to be asked, they should be asked by the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I have given notice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: Yesterday, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), I stated that I hoped to be able to make an announcement regarding the appointment of a commissioner in the steel industry to investigate differences between the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, Sydney, Nova Scotia, the Steel Company of Canada Limited, Hamilton, Ontario and the Algoma Steel Corporation, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and their employees, represented by the united steelworkers of Canada.
I am pleased to announce, with the concurrence of the Ministers of Labour of Ontario and Nova Scotia, the appointment of the Hon. Mr. Justice W. D. Roach, of the Ontario Appeal Court, an industrial disputes inquiry commission, under the provisions of section 8 of P.C. 4020.
The commissioner, who expects to begin the inquiry very shortly, is required to investigate the dispute and to endeavour to bring about a settlement of the matters at issue, failing which, he is to report to me with his recommendations.
Mr. Justice Roach has a very successful record in dealing with industrial relations problems. Recently he was chairman of the conciliation board which effected a settlement in the dispute betwen the International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited and the mine, mill and smelter workers' union.	[DOT]


Thomas Langton Church: Has the government any new legislation to control these strikes in the public interest? Does it intend to bring down any legislation? There is no use playing with the question any longer. They have not done so in Washington; action has been taken there to protect the consumer and get results.


Humphrey Mitchell: Our record with reference to strikes is probably better than that of any other country in the world where freedom
'Mr. Co!dwell.]
exists. My Conservative friends smile. I do not know whether they like strikes; that is for them to say. But you cannot have a perfect record, and I believe that with the machinery we have, given cooperation on both sides, there is no valid reason at the moment for any dispute to exist in the dominion. If my hon. friend has any better machinery, I wish he would give it to me. Those are the people we want.


Thomas Langton Church: I appreciate the fact that the minister has done quite a bit, but I suggest that he bring in more modern and efficient legislation to cover these strikes, in the interests of the suffering public.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for an address to His Majesty the King praying that a measure be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to effect an amendment to the British North America Act with respect to readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, in considering the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and the readjustment required by the British North America Act, it is necessary to consider the censuses that have been taken, and it is enlightening to have the information which those censuses have revealed, indicating what the population of each of the provinces has been, and the ebb and flow of population from one province to another. To assist the members of this house and provide them with the necessary information-
James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt, the hon. member, but there is so much noise in the house that it is impossible to follow him.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: It is all behind the curtains.


Mr. HACKETT:: I shall not read subsection 3; it merely says that if the fraction is less than one-half, it is not counted; if it is more than one-half, it is counted as a whole number.
Subsection 4 is the one which we have to interpret; it reads as follows:
(4) 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 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.
I submit that this subsection means that there shall not 'be any reduction in the representation of any province unless the fraction representing its quota of the population of Canada is reduced by five per cent. Let me take an example. Let us assume that in 1931 the population of this dominion was ten millions. Let us assume that the population of British Columbia was three millions. The proportion of the population of British Columbia would be thirty per cent. It would have thirty per cent of the population of the dominion; and if on that proportion it had twenty members it would hold those twenty members until when?- until that thirty per cent was reduced by five per cent. Five per cent of thirty per cent is one and a half per cent; therefore the representation of British Columbia in this house would remain at twenty members until its proportion of the population was reduced to 28} per cent. That is the meaning of this section. I submit that it can mean nothing else. People have wondered why it was inserted. The reason for which it was inserted is clear to me. The reason was that it was not the intent, it was not the desire, of the fathers of confederation that changes should be made in representation every time that there was the slighetest shift in population. The fathers of confederation said that once an allotment of a specific number of members had been made to a province it should keep that number until there was a substantial change in the proportion or the fraction of the whole population of Canada represented by the population of the province in question. That is simple; it is reasonable, it seems to me almost beyond dispute.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Would the hon. member permit a question, to clarify his illustration? In the illustration which he used, if the province in question were to lose just one per cent in three successive decades, would it then lose any of its members?


Thomas Langton Church: That is irrelevant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is very much to the point.


John Thomas Hackett: I thank the hon. gentleman for asking me the question. I do not wish him to think I am discourteous. I shall answer it, but I shall answer it a little later.
I am going to ask the house to bear with me while I read subsection 4 from the French version of the act.
En proe^dant a une repartition, on ne reduira pas le nombre des deputfe d'une province...


Mr. BRACKEN:: May I ask the hon.
member what 'he is reading from now?


John Thomas Hackett: I am reading from the British North America Act, the French version.


John Bracken: Not the document he previously referred to?


John Thomas Hackett: I am reading from "Acte de 1'Amerique du Nord britannique et lois connexes" from 1867 to 1944. I am reading subsection 4 of section 51.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member will permit a question, does he suggest that the version issued in French can have any effect upon the construction of the act? My understanding was that the act was passed by the imperial parliament in English only, and that there is no official text in anything but the English language; that any translation which may have been made for convenience was the best effort of the translator to reproduce the meaning of the English text. Does the hon. member agree with that?


John Thomas Hackett: I am prone to agree with almost any proposition of law that may be advanced by the right hon. gentleman, but I am going to say to him, with the greatest respect, that I shall deal with that particular problem in a moment. At present I should like to read the French text. Subsection 4 of section 51 of the French text is in these terms:
(Translation):
On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced . . .
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 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:
(Text): There we have it thrown into even bolder relief that what determines the right of a province to more members, or what determines the right of other provinces to see a

Redistribution
certain province reduced in membership, is a comparison. There is no dispute that one side of the comparison is the last census, that of 1941; but how far back must we go? Here I come to the question put to me a moment ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). You go back as far as it is necessary to go to get to the point where, to use the French expression, "lors de l'attribution precedente des sieges a la province" and in the English version, "to the last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province." I submit that you must go back to the last time the members were reallocated to the province; not to the last census but to the time the twenty members were allocated to British Columbia, in the example I gave a few minutes ago. Let us assume that British Columbia had twenty members assigned to it by the census of 1911; and again to answer the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, let us assume that British Columbia had lost one and a half per cent in one decennial period and two and a half per cent in another decennial period, and that finally in the third it lost a fraction sufficient to make the total five per cent. Then in my submission the fourth subsection of section 61 of the act would come into play and the reduction in number of members must follow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has it worked that way in case of Ontario?


John Thomas Hackett: It has not worked that way, and that is just my complaint. A few moments ago I said I considered that the sub-section is beyond criticism. I wish I could say as much of those who had to do with its operation. I submit that the act itself provides for representation by population, with certain exceptions which we are not discussing at the moment; I say to the minister that under the act this house should be reduced to 230 members, and that this may be done by observing the text of section 51, without amending it in any respect whatsoever. The minister has put on record the number of members who would be allotted to the different provinces if the act were followed, but I do not agree with him when he gives the province of Ontario 82 members. It is my suggestion that the province of Ontario is entitled only to 74 members; and again to answer the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it was entitled to 74 members and no more at the last redistribution.
Here someone may say to me, "Well, you were in the house at that time. What did you do about it?" I was in the house; like 63260-154
the majority of those who sit opposite I sat on a back bench, and I had just about as much to do with the policies of the country as they have at the present time. Now let me say this. I have read the debates carefully. Eight Hon. Mr. Bennett spoke of a reduction of one-twentieth in population as being the requisite to the application of subsection 4. Mr. King sat opposite, and he was much more concerned in working parishes and townships into electoral divisions and matters of that kind than with the principle of readjustment of the number of members among provinces. Mr. King acquiesced. That good and honourable gentleman who has gone to his reward, Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe, said, "I wonder why this subsection 4 was put in. I can find no reason for it. I think it should be deleted." At that time nobody referred to the Prince Edward Island case, which I am going to discuss. Possibly it required the deep knowledge of the law and the intimate acquaintance with, the decisions of the privy council which is possessed by the right hon. Minister of Justice to bring that to the assistance of his government; but at no time until he came on the horizon was it mentioned. In November, 1932, they seem to have proceeded on the basis that because the province of Ontario had not. lost five per cent of its population, this subsection did not apply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They proceeded on the assumption that Ontario had not lost that percentage in the ten-year period.


John Thomas Hackett: Yes, and that was all they considered; the ten-year period. I went to the trouble of looking up the bill. In those days bills contained a great deal of information on the fly-leaf. There I found set out the article of the British North America Act and a great deal of other information. Nothing was said about the Prince Edward Island judgment, but I do find on turning to the census of Canada, volume 2, at page 3, that in 1911 the proportion of the population of Ontario to the whole population of Canada was 35-07.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The second volume of which census?


John Thomas Hackett: The census of 1941. The representation of Ontario in this house could not be reduced under the section of the act I have read, unless that proportion or percentage of 35-07 per cent was reduced by one-twentieth, or five per cent. If one takes his pencil in hand, he will find that five per cent of 35-07 per cent, which was the fraction of Canada's population which represented the population of Ontario in 1911, amounts to 1-75

Redistribution

per cent. If he subtracts 1-75 per cent from 35-07 per cent he will find that the fraction is 33-31 per cent, and that Ontario was entitled to eighty-two members until the proportion of its population was reduced to 33-31 per cent. In 1931, according to the same book and the same page, it was reduced to 33-07 per cent. At that time the representation of Ontario in the house should have been reduced. It should be reduced to-day, under the terms of the act, unless we are going to say that there is something which limits the computation to the ten-year period between censuses.
Here I must tell the house how amazed I was when reading this bulletin No. A.IOput out by the Department of Trade and Commerce, which cites verbatim section 51 of the British North America Act and its subsections in the English text, to find in the French text in the place of subsection 4 I have just read, the following:
(Translation):
(4) On'any readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the population of that province bore to the aggregate population of the dominion has diminished by at least one-twentieth part from one census to the next.
(Text): That is an entire perversion of the sense of subsection 4 of section 51; and not only is it a perversion but it is a denial of its sense and meaning. It is a substitution of the word "census" for the word "readjustment," or in the French language, the words, attribution de la 'population.
I should like to add another word in support of the interpretation I have put forth. I know this probably is not the place where one might hope to make a protracted legal argument. But I submit to the house that unless the interpretation I have given to these words is the real interpretation, then the words found in the third to the last line of subsection 4 are entirely superfluous; they are:
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 of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding-
Not census, but-
-readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained-
And so on. If we were to interpret this act, as it is being interpreted for the purpose of this redistribution, the words "of the number of members for the province" would be entirely superfluous, because they add nothing to the sense of the sentence, and the same result would be achieved without them.

I want to say one further word about the interpretation. With the exception of section 51A enacted to protect the maritime province0, by the amendment of 1915, the fundamental theory of this section is representation by population. Any interpretation of this subsection which would exact the loss of one-twentieth of the population between two succeeding censuses would be a complete denial of the theory of representation by population. As suggested by the hon. member from Winnipeg, it would mean that a province could lose 4-99 per cent of its proportion or percentage in one ten-year period, and the same in the next ten-year period, and the same in the next, until a period was reached where there might not be enough population in a province to supply the members to which it would be entitled under the section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In principle that is the way it has been done.


John Thomas Hackett: It has been done that way once. I believe it was done that way in 1932. We had a leader and men in the front benches, as we have them to-day, who were overwhelmed and harassed, at a time when we were in the depths of depression. Things were hurried through, and possibly, good lawyer that he was, the leader of that time did not realize what was happening.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh I


John Thomas Hackett: Well, one may laugh if he wishes. But I have not been critical of men on the other side of the house when they have made misstatements and when they have taken positions which they have had to abandon within a few minutes, because I knew that they were overburdened with work, that they were harrassed by strikes and troubles and endless worries. I submit that is a possible explanation for what happened in 1932 so far as the leader of the government is concerned. I should have to stretch my imagination a little further to find an excuse for the seeming negligence of the leader of the opposition and those who sat beside him at that time.
In 1905 the privy council handed down a judgment in the Prince Edward Island case. People from that province, and from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, felt that the act was working a hardship on them; their grievances were heard on reference to the supreme court of Canada. Prince Edward Island submitted this question to the supreme court- and just listen to it:
Although the population of Prince Edward Island as ascertained at the census of 1901 if divided by the unit of representation ascertained by dividing the number of 65 into the population of Quebec is not sufficient to give six members

Redistribution
in the House of Commons of Canada to that province, is the representation of Prince Edward Island in the House of Commons of Canada liable under the British North America Act, 1867, and amendments thereto, and the terms of union of 1873, under which that province entered confederation to be reduced below six, the number granted to that province by the said terms of union of 1873?
The supreme court answered in the affirmative, and said that its representation must be reduced below six. The. privy council answered the same way. Its answer is found in just a word. The privy council found that it was stipulated that the representation of Prince Edward Island in confederation would be determined by the act and by the section I have read. Then the privy council went on to say m what I call an obiter dictum-not something which had any bearing on the question, not something which was necessary for its decisions, not something which had been submitted, although there had been a reference to it when a judge of the supreme court had asked a question and Mr. Newcombe had answered it but the question had never been raised as an issue, so the statement of the bench is purely an obiter dictum which was never argued and is not a binding authority:
This argument assumes that there has been no readjustment for any province unless there has been alteration. Their Lordships think this is to give too narrow a meaning to the word. In their opinion, when as a result of a census the representation of the provinces is reconsidered and the necessary changes, if any, made to bring it into harmony with the results of the census, that is a readjustment within the meaning of subsection 4, whether there be or be not any change in the case of any particular province. Their Lordships, therefore, think that the answer of the supreme court to the question submitted to it was correct.
That is an obiter dictum. It has no bearing on the case then at issue. It was not argued. Mr. Newcombe did say in the supreme court that he considered that the count to determine if the proportion had been reduced began every ten years.
We are not here dealing with petty matters. We are dealing with the most sacred thing we have in our national life, our constitution, and are we going to amend it without some serious reason? We have before us an agency which enables us to effect redistribution and deal fairly with each province of the dominion. I have an idea that this motion is just another phase of the old feud between the provinces and the dominion, and that the dominion is seeking to exact by promises, by gold, and by favours of different kinds, the assent of the provinces to the proposition that the British North America Act may be amended by the mere whim, by the smallest 63260-1541
majority of a political party in the two houses of parliament. I say, Mr. Speaker, that such practice, if tolerated, is prejudicial to parliament; it is prejudicial to our national life. It is in my estimation the first note of the requiem of confederation.
There may be another reason for introducing this act. It may be to save the face of those who were asleep at the switch in 1932. The government may now seek to make it appear that the amendment is necessary to go behind the census of 1931, to warrant a reallocation of seats to the provinces. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no reason to amend the British North America Act. Its terms are explicit; they are clear. I admit that an advocate and a great advocate, in the supreme court, taken by surprise, did answer a question in a way which might be construed as contrary to the view that I have expressed here. The statement in the P-E.I. case was an obiter dictum of the privy council in a case where this question was not argued and where it was not in issue and where it has not authority.
I ask is there a reason for us, we here in adult Canada, to seek an amendment to our constitution when there is no provision for amending the act? The other day when we wanted to amend the act to incorporate in section 91 the subject of unemployment insurance we went to each of the provinces and got them to acquiesce. Oh, it may be said, but that was a provincial matter. The people of this country, peoples and nations, do not deal in subtleties of that kind. If there is a right in parliament alone to have the constitution amended, there will always be those who are clever enough and subtle enough to make a good case for the amendment, whether it affects provincial or national issues. I agree with what was said last night on the point by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard). No means have been provided to amend this act, and until those means are found we must in the interval proceed warily. The only way in which the act can be amended decently and properly is with the consent of the high contracting parties, the dominion and the provinces.
My hon. friend the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) argued the case in the house the other day and put on the record the statements of every great constitutional lawyer. I would mention just two or three of them. There was Doherty; there was Borden; there was Blake; there was Meighen; there was Laurier; there was Lapointe-and not one of them said that this act could be altered without the consent of the provinces
Redistribution

and it should not be altered now without their consent for purposes which appear to be highly strategic.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate because I realize the full import of the resolution now before us. First may I congratulate the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) upon his masterly presentation of the redistribution resolution on the 28th of last month. If I read public opinion aright, from the press and the opinions of my own constituents, this resolution has been wonderfully received by almost every section of our population. It deals with an important problem. So far as I am concerned I strongly support the resolution.
I listened attentively to the learned address made by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), and as I listened to him my conviction strengthened that our redistribution arrangements should be changed. It would be impossible, I should think, for any member to explain in a way that would be grasped clearly by most of our people what was meant by subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act. No one can challenge or be against representation by population. It is a primary principle which has been adopted by all nations that call themselves democracies. It is the only just and fair way to decide the number of our representatives.
The previous speaker mentioned that Ontario under the present system had more members than she was entitled to for at least ten years. But let us take the 65 members assigned to the province of Quebec, and suppose that twenty years from now the population is 20,000,000 people, If Quebec then has a population of 6,000,000 the unit of representation will be 92,300 people per riding. That would give the rest of Canada 152 members, or a total for the whole country of 217 members, and that process would be accentuated as time goes on and our population grows. The present method of representation by population, dividing the population of the province of Quebec by 65 to give the unit of representation, has worked fairly well up to the present, but it will not work in the future, and it has not worked well under certain circumstances and conditions.
I am also in favour of the resolution because it confers no special privileges and is not unfair to any province. If I thought it would help or would be partial to the province of Quebec, for example, 1 would be against it, or if I thought it would help the province of Ontario, I would be equally against it. I

believe that this resolution is the very bestway to rectify an anomaly in our present system of representation-I do not want to call it an injustice-and to bring about a fairer representation so far as the whole country is concerned.
Before I proceed any further I want to quote a statement by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), which in effect is endorsed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). Speaking on June 6, the leader of the C.C.F. party said, as reported in Hansard, page 2236.
But in fairness to other members of the house who agreed to deferring redistribution in 1941 I am not at this moment asking that another privilege of that kind be granted to western Canada. I believe that the proposal placed before the house by the government at 'the present time is fair, just, sound and constitutional.
Those are the words of a true Canadian. On a discussion of this kind it would be very easy indeed to arouse the passions even of members of parliament; very easy for them to speak in local or provincial terms. Those two hon. members did not do that. They may have some arguments against redistribution based on the census of .1941, as was so well expressed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) in 1943 when we asked for an amendment of the British North America Act, on account of the shifting of population from the western provinces to the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts and also to the two central provinces. It would have been easy for these hon. members to make a passionate appeal to their own people and demand that we take as a basis the census which is at present under way in the western provinces. They did not do that, and I want to praise them for their attitude on that score. It shows a real federal spirit.
As to the amendment brought in by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) I am strongly against it. My views in this respect are influenced by section 52 of the British North America Act, which reads as follows:
The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate representation of 'the provinces prescribed by this act is not thereby disturbed.
In this section is given to the federal representation all the authority and responsibility that could be required. I for one am not going to throw away the prerogatives of members of this parliament for a mess of pottage. I for one am going to take the full responsibility imposed on me in accepting the mandate to represent my people in the federal house. I for one will always deal with any

Redistribution
matter on which we have full jurisdiction, not in a local or regional way but in a truly national way, as was done by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the hon. member for Peace River and several other hon. members during the discussion. If the amendment brought in by the Progressive Conservative opposition were adopted, it would simply stultify the federal prerogatives and shackle the activities derived from our national autonomy, and I for one would be the last to be a party to that. In this instance, as in many previous ones, we have the spectacle of the premier of Quebec talking of provincial autonomy and alleging centralization under the federal government. It is an old bugbear which has been worked time and time again, in many instances with absolutely no reason, and generally speaking the people of Canada are getting wise to that situation. In many instances these charges are simply political dodges, and are advanced so as to embarrass the central government, purely for partisan and political reasons. We have here all the safeguards needed for the preservation of political autonomy. As was so well stated by the Minister of Justice, the members of this house come from the different provinces of the Canadian confederation, and along with our great and overpowering loyalty so far as the nation is concerned, we are yet primarily what may be called municipalists. So far as I am concerned I have a great pride in living in my own little town of Cochrane, in northern Ontario. I am proud of it, and I will work and fight for it. We are also what may be called regionalists. I like the region in which I live; I like the section in which my constituency is located; I like northern Ontario and am loyal to it. I will fight its battles, I will participate in everything which is for its benefit. And then I am a provincialist. I am proud to belong to the great banner province of Ontario and to have fought, as I will continue to fight, some of its battles. I am proud of all the governments we have had with their headquarters in Toronto, and I am not averse to proclaiming that pride even in the federal field. But beyond all that I am, like other speakers whom I have mentioned, also a federalist. I believe that federation is what made this nation. It was found possible in times of hardship and turmoil for four provinces of Canada to get together and lay this wonderful foundation of Canadian confederation. Every member of this parliament is proud of confederation. I repeat, however, that there is no necessity for Mr. Duplessis to raise the old scarecrow of provincial autonomy or to charge that the dominion government wants to centralize everything.
For many years I have been a member of parliament, and whether Conservatives or Liberals were in power I never saw in the action of any of our governments any suggestion of overcentralization. I never heard from any member of parliament, no matter from what section of the country he came, any advocacy of [DOT] intensive centralization. There have always been within our constitution safeguards for the provinces and safeguards also for the national government. No federal member would dare to do anything which would tend to weaken or abolish those safeguards. I say these things with some feeling, because we have heard in the past and will probably hear again in the future that the central government is a great octopus which seeks to spread its tentacles into every section of our provincial life. That is not true, and it does not voice the opinions of the people of Canada as a whole. One might say that the best safeguard, as indicated in the present discussion of the redistribution bill, is that two parties in the House of Commons are ready and willing to surrender to the provinces some of the prerogatives which are given to the federal government by the constitution. That shows the spirit which animates on many occasions the federal representation, which at times will go as far as to throw away our own prerogatives.
There has also been an objection from some quarters that we should be very careful about an application to the British parliament for an amendment of the Canadian constitution. I am going to speak very briefly on a subject which is in the minds of a great majority of the Canadian people, and has been for many years. To some of them it is still puzzling why we should have to request the British parliament to amend our constitution. It is true that it is a British statute, but in the full sense of the word it is really a Canadian statute. No doubt the British people and the British government have long been surprised that we have not been able yet to find a formula which will enable us to become masters of our own destinies, of our own legislation. I say that it must be puzzling to our British friends, because we speak a good deal, and rightly, of our autonomy, more particularly since the statute of Westminster. Somewhere something is lacking; but it must be within the powers and the intelligence of our people to find the necessary formula.
Consider, for example, the state of our dominion-provincial relations. Looking into the last two or three dominion-provincial conferences, what do we find? What happened at the last one which was held in April of this
Redistribution

year? Seven provinces were willing and ready to come to an agreement with the federal government, but apparently the two central provinces did not find it possible to accept the agreement. Many Canadians asked themselves, "What is the principle that governs us in these matters? Is it not true that the majority of the provinces, if not a majority of the total population of the country, were willing and ready to agree with the central government? What then is the reason for the failure to come to an understanding? That is the question that must be settled." At the next dominion-provincial conference we must devise some means whereby agreements that are acceptable to the great majority of the provinces will be endorsed without the necessity of complete unanimity. What machinery will be adopted. I do not know, but surely that question calls for our earnest consideration. Will one province have the power to veto an agreement arrived at by the rest of the dominion, or will two provinces be able to brush that agreement aside, or on the other hand will the question at issue be decided on the basis of ratio of population represented by the indivdiual provinces? These are problems that we shall have to solve.
The moment this country finds a formula whereby it can request the British parliament to facilitate our dealing with our own constitution, it will, I believe, be an easy matter to bring this about, and I do not think there will be any objection on the part of the British parliament. But in the meantime any appeal that is made to the British parliament must come from the central authority here, because precedents have been established and judgment has been rendered in one case whereby it is not possible for any individual province on its own initiative to make such representations before the British parliament.
It is the view of many Canadians that we should move cautiously in making any change in our constitution such as I have suggested. Are we prepared now to set up a commission representing every section of the population for the purpose of considering the question of the Canadian constitution? There will be some reactions from minority groups. No doubt the rights pertaining to the French language will be protected, just as the rights with respect to education being left entirely in the hands of the provinces will be safeguarded; and this applies also to the question of a civil code so far as the province of Quebec is concerned.
My own belief is that we shall soon be ready to play the part of masters of our own destiny. I think it must be puzzling to the British gov-

ernment itself as to why it is that we in Canada have not yet reached that stage where we can really call ourselves our own masters in regard to the constitution. I remember hearing some years ago certain striking remarks made by the then member for Labelle, Mr. Bourassa, in a speech which he delivered on minority rights and appeals to the privy council and to the British parliament for amendments to the Canadian constitution. One statement that Mr. Bourassa made at that time has always remained vivid in my mind. Let me try to repeat, if not his exact words, at least the meaning he sought to convey. Speaking of minority rights he said:	We
know that at the foot of the British throne, before the privy council, the French Canadian people, generally speaking, will receive justice in an impartial way. But suppose some of the rights of those people were crushed by one ' particular province in the Canadian confederation. Do we in Canada expect that Great Britain would send troops to defend those rights?
At the time I realized the full import of the statement by the then member for Labelle. He meant that if it were not within our own competence to solve the question of minority rights we could never expect to have that problem solved in any physical sense by Great Britain. That, I believe, was a strong lesson to the Canadian people, and I have tried to learn it. As far as I am personally concerned, I hope that within a period of ten years at most we shall have an all-Canadian constitution and that that constitution in its spirit and application will consist of more than merely written words.
It has been well said in this debate-it was said at an earlier stage of the debate by the member for Rosetown-Biggar-that the great glory of the British constitution lies in the fact that it is unwritten. There is profound meaning in that statement. It means that in the heart and mind and soul of the British people the ideals of democracy, the ideals of justice, are ever uppermost. I believe that these wonderful qualities are just as strong in the Canadian people. Canadians are just as much imbued with them as the British.
I myself belong to the minority of French descent, but I have no fear of the future. I am acquainted with nearly every section of our population, and I can say that I have never suffered by reason of my racial affiliations or of my faith. In my section of northern Ontario that circumstance has never been thrown up to me. I know something also of my own native province; and I would leave this thought with hon. members. Observe any English-speaking person who has resided for a

R edistribution
number of years in the old province of Quebec and who returns to one of the English-speaking parts of the dominion, and you will notice that he carries with him evidence of some of the finest characteristics of that old province of Quebec because the people there are naturally fairminded and broadminded. In a word, they are naturally Canadian, just as the people in the other sections of our Canadian population are Canadian.
It is for' this reason that I say the time is almost ripe, if it is not here already, for the formation of a commission to deal primarily with the structure of our dominion-provincial relations and to study the question as to what should constitute a majority, so far as compromise is concerned, as to what should constitute a veto, and what should be the actually functioning of such relations. I believe that the Canadian people generally are thinking a great deal about what happened at the last dominion-provincial conference, and they feel that because seven provinces out of the nine were ready to come to an agreement, some action should have resulted from the conference. The question is left completely undecided.
I submit that we must put our own house in order before we can go to the British parliament and ask them to amend the British North America Act in order to provide us with a new Canadian constitution. I do not wish to elaborate this argument; I think I have said enough to convince my own compatriots that there is no reason for entertaining any fears for the future. Safeguards with respect to minority rights must of necessity spring from ourselves, from the fair-mindedness and the spirit of justice of the majority; for if those safeguards do not come from that source, we shall not find them anywhere. I believe we have it within ourselves to provide the solution. We all come from stocks that believe in the principles of democracy and justice-stocks from old France, from central Europe and from Britain, transplanted to this half of the north American continent-and I for one shall rejoice in the day that we are masters of our own constitution. I say that for the reason that in my opinion it is within ourselves, within our own ability, to deal with all matters of this sort in an impartial and Canadian way.
Before I conclude I wish to quote from an article that appeared in Saturday Night on June 8, 1946, entitled "Provincial Veto." The title of the article is illuminating. It may give a new angle to this question which may also prove illuminating. I quote:
Mr. Duplessis seems to us to have chosen a bad moment for the assertion of the right of the provinces to veto proposed amendments to the Canadian constitution. If the principle which he invokes is sound to-day it will still be sound next year, by which time a better occasion for raising it may have presented itself. For we have to note that numerous occasions for raising it have presented themselves in the past and have not been utilized, and that neglect has not prevented Mr. Duplessis from raising it now; so presumably one more neglect would not damage it for the future.
The reason why we think this is a bad moment for Mr. Duplessis is that by raising it now he is claiming for Ontario-which has just as much veto power as Quebec-the right to veto a proposal which adds eight parliamentary seats to Quebec and leaves Ontario unchanged. On Mr. Duplessis' principle the present proportions are just as much the perpetual right of Ontario, removable only with Ontario's consent, as the sixty-five seats of Quebec are the perpetual right of Quebec. (We do not ourselves regard either right as perpetual, but Mr. Duplessis does.)
The situation is very embarrassing for Mr. Drew. Either he goes along with Mr. Duplessis, in which case he maintains the right of Ontario to veto the amendment, and will scarcely dare to accept the responsibility of not vetoing it, or he splits with Mr. Duplessis and abandons a rather substantial part of that concept of provincial supremacy in which the two premiers have been in agreement for several years. Mr. Duplessis is in no such dilemma; he has no objection to the redistribution as redistribution, and all he asks is the right to say "O.K." But Mr. Drew cannot say "O.K." if he has a right to say "No." The redistribution takes away something which, if Mr. Duplessis is right, is the indisputable and irremovable property of Ontario, and no Ontario government, however devoted to Rep. by Pop. and however friendly to Quebec, would dare to toss away eight seats which are Ontario's indisputable and irremovable property, even if the retention of them can only be defended by throwing Rep. by Pop. into the discard and explaining (as the Globe and Mail's Ottawa correspondent explained the other day) that Quebec should not have the same proportional representation as Ontario because its people are too much addicted to voting in "a solid bloc.
If the last part of the statement, which is taken from the Globe and Mail, were applied it would not show the true Canadian spirit, the spirit of tolerance that I mentioned a moment ago. If we followed that principle it would mean that Saskatchewan, because it voted C.C.F. at the last federal election, should not have the representation to which she is entitled. It would also mean that because Nova Scotia voted almost solidly Liberal at the last federal election she should not have the representation to which she is entitled. That kind of attitude is not Canadian; it is not even good Canadian journalism. So far as I am concerned I shall highly resent any appeal to passion on the question of redistribution. I shall always resent that any so-called national paper should have the audacity to say to the rest of Canada that Quebec has
Redistribution

not the democratic right, the national right, the individual right, the personal right, to have the representation that she has, because during the last few years she happened to vote solidly Liberal. If the Globe and Mail correspondent knew the history of Quebec, he would also admit that years ago, and for a long period of time, that old province voted almost solidly Conservative. These are things we must keep in mind. This is no time to raise one section of the country against the other. It is not Canadianism; it is not conducive to the making of a Canadian nation. I know whereof I speak, sir, because I live in a section of the country which has a mixed population, and it is typical of the rest of Canada. It is typical of the fine city of Toronto. In Toronto they have tolerance too. There are right-thinking fair minded people there. Statements of this kind are not conducive to tolerance, and we do not want to hear them when we are dealing with a bill having to do with redistribution.
I am sometimes shocked at the attitude of the historical-no, it is not historical, because it is too new-Progressive Conservative party on matters of this kind. I do not understand their amendment, particularly when they are willing and ready to destroy the prerogative and initiative of the federal representation. Why do they do it? It is not even good politics. I cannot understand why they do it, particularly in view of the fact that at some time in the future they may be called upon to assume government responsibility. If that time comes they will be caught by their own motion; they will be caught by their own resolution; they will be hamstrung by their own action; they will be caught by the statements they have been making from time to time in trying to destroy the prerogative and the initiative of the national government, without adding anything to the rights of the provinces.
I hope the Canadian people are getting sick and tired of the bugbear, often put out in the form of political propaganda, that the federal government is trying to centralize more and more in this country. Why do they do it? The activities of our provincial, federal and municipal governments are well defined, particularly provincial and federal, in our constitution. Individually no federal member will ever agree to any government trying to infringe upon provincial activities or autonomy. There may be some borderline cases in which the central government must of necessity seek advice and cooperation from the provincial governments, but that does not apply in all cases, and certainly it does not

apply at the present time. These are things that are worth remembering in questions of this kind.
I am completely in favour of the resolution, for one simple reason, namely, that I am convinced in my own mind that it does not favour any one province or any particular section of our population, but it is fair because it follows the principle of representation by population; and no matter what the learned constitutionalist or the learned debater may say, or what anybody else may say, they cannot destroy the argument for the justice and the fairmindedness which is implied in representation by population, implemented in this resolution.


Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: First, I should like to congratulate the previous two speakers this afternoon on their' fine presentations. One can easily see what an advantage a lawyer has in this chamber. I am going to speak briefly as a layman because the motion before the house is one which directly affects my province.
Unless the present provisions of the British North America Act are changed, Saskatchewan will shortly see her representation in this chamber cut, and cut unfairly, from twenty-one to seventeen members. This group does not believe that such a loss can be justified. Originally the British .North America Act was meant to provide representation by population. However, in recent years, because of certain protective clauses, discrepancies have crept into the representation. Under the act, redistribution would unjustly deprive Saskatchewan of four members and Manitoba of three, and at the same time it would give Ontario eight extra members, to which, on a population basis, she is not entitled. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Alberta would each receive one extra and Prince Edward Island two extra. In other words, the present provisions of the British North America Act do not give us representation by population. Therefore the members of the C.C.F. group would not be satisfied with redistribution under the act as it stands at present.
We think the resolution we are now discussing would help to rectify the situation. It would provide for fairer representation in the House of Commons. Nonetheless we also believe that the proposed amendment has certain shortcomings, and I should like to deal briefly with them. Before doing so, perhaps I should comment on the position of the Conservative party in this matter. So far, no speaker of that group has actually criticized the resolution. Rather in principle, they have argued that the Canadian parliament

Redistribution
has no right to ask for an amendment to the constitution without having previously secured the consent of the provinces. To me this attitude does not seem logical. Furthermore such a principle might actually be vicious. It might mean that one province could veto progressive legislation which would be to the great benefit of the other eight provinces. Certainly in the past, if I have read my history correctly, there have been numerous occasions when the federal government amended the constitution without the consent of all of the provinces. For instance, in 1915 Sir Robert Borden sponsored a constitutional amendment to increase the number of senators from western Canada. On that occasion Prince Edward Island objected; yet the amendment was proceeded with. Again in 1943, as has been pointed out, Quebec objected to an amendment on redistribution, but again the amendment was proceeded with. I think it is significant that in both cases the Conservative party took a completely different stand than from what they are taking to-day. On those occasions they voted to amend the constitution, despite the opposition and dissent of one province. It seems to me they are not being consistent. We believe the Canadian parliament alone must decide who shall represent the people at Ottawa. This is purely a federal matter. We can see no reason why parliament should first consult the provinces. Those who are opposing this resolution, whether it be directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally may prevent some of the provinces of this nation from having their fair number of representatives in the House of Commons.
What are the shortcomings of the resolution? First, as the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. Townley-Smith) has suggested, we believe that because of its size and wealth the northwest territories should have at least one specific representative. Second, the proposed amendment contains no reference whatever to a change in the other branch of government which was set up by the British North America Act, the Canadian Senate. In my opinion this is unfortunate, because there are even more glaring inequalities of representation in the Senate than in the House of Commons. For instance, in 1941 the three maritime provinces had an approximate population of 1,130,000 persons; and they have twenty-four senators. All western Canada, including the northwest territories, Yukon, British Columbia and the three prairie provinces, had an approximate population of 3,300,000 persons, or three times that of the maritimes, yet it also has only twenty-four senators. To be even more
specific, the province of New Brunswick, with an approximate population of 450,000, has ten (senators. The province of Saskatchewan, with about 900,000 people or double the number of New Brunswick, has only six senators. The resolution before the house to-day makes no provision for fairer senate representation. Apparently old inequalities in that body will be allowed to continue.
As hon. members know, this group has always favoured abolition of the senate. If and when a C.C.F. government is elected to power, one of the first questions with which it will deal will be such abolition. In the meantime, however, if the senate must be continued, we think it should be reformed. Such action has been talked about for many years but nothing has ever been done about it. I am told that as far back as 1891 the Liberal platform contained a plank called "senate reform". When are we to have this reform? I suggest that we should have it at once. The motion before us proposes to amend the British North America Act to rectify injustices in House of Commons representation. Why should it not also rectify injustices in Senate representation?
Aside from unjust representation there are a number of other serious shortcomings in the. Canadian Senate. Hon. members know those shortcomings probably better than I do, but I should like to take several minutes to run over them. In the first place, senators are appointed rather than elected. They are in no way responsible to the people. It i: conceivable that some senators might bs appointed not so much for their ability as for their past party service. I say that it is conceivable. Certainly it is a fact that in the past the senate has been a haven for exmembers of parliament, cabinet ministers, and ex-members of provincial governments.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that he should not refer to the other place in what I might call uncomplimentary language. I think I have allowed him considerable latitude.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am not referring to the present senate in any way, Mr. Speaker. I believe that subsection 3 of section 51 bases the number of the members of the House of Commons in certain provinces upon provincial representation in the Senate, and therefore I submit that the Senate is related to the resolution we are discussing. However, I am not referring in any way to the present Senate.


William Ross Macdonald: My point is that the hon. member must not reflect upon the other place in any way.
Redistribution


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Veiy well; I shall not be offensive. In the second place the members of the other house are appointed for life, and I think the lack of any age limit robs that body of its freshness and youth. For instance, not so long ago I read in the paper where one of their hon. members died at the age of ninety-six. In the third place, minor political parties have no representation in that body. It has been stated that it was set up to protect minority rights; yet Canada's smaller political parties, such as the C.C.F. and Social Credit, have no representation. Finally, this non-elected body has the power to frustrate the declared will of the Canadian people for a period which may run to several years, and it has done so on occasion in the past. I need not go into the matter farther-


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member is now reflecting upon the other place, and I must ask him to discontinue.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I shall not go into the matter farther at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I would remind the house that only last October one hon. gentleman from the other house described that body as the finest old age pension club in the world. As I have said, our group favours the abolition of the senate, but if the government is not prepared to do that at the present time I suggest that it bring about much needed reforms in the Senate. May I suggest that, first, it should rectify unfair representation in that body; second, it should put an age limit on the members; third, it should make the Senate an elected body, and, fourth, it should place a curb on its power to veto parliamentary legislation.
The resolution before the house to-day is good as far as it goes, but in my opinion it does not go far enough.


Mr. JEAN LESAGE (Montmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, I listened *with the greatest interest and admiration to the magnificent constitutional study given this afternoon by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). I also commend the spirit of justice which inspired the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette); let us hope that a great majority of the members from his province will follow him. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) also made a practical and interesting contribution to the debate.
Every hon. member is familiar with the sections of the British North America Act dealing with redistribution. They are sections 51 and 52. I submit it is important that we first study the origin of the sections in order to distinguish between principles and procedure. The Quebec conference which led to

the adoption of the Quebec resolutions was held in October, 1864. At page 32 of annex IV of the report to the honourable the Speaker of the Senate of Canada by the parliamentary counsel of the senate, referring to the enactment of the British North America Act under the title, "The .Quebec Conference of 1864", I find the following:
Although the Quebec resolutions cannot, in my opinion, for reasons assigned and to be assigned, be accepted as the basis of the British North America Act, it does not follow that they, or the minutes of the conference or any available records of discussions thereat, are not quite material to the purposes of this report. What *was resolved at Quebec and what was afterwards resolved at London differed not much in principle, although it differed immensely in detail. That the union should be one of a federal character-that the legislative residuum should be in the central parliament-that parliament's power should be general and provincial powers local-that there should be an upper and a lower house-that there should be three districts in the confederation, each equally represented in the upper house-that the commons representation should be based upon population . . . was all easily settled.
It is important to note, for the benefit of the argument I intend to develop that what was resolved at Quebec, and afterwards at London, did not differ much in principle, although it differed immensely in detail, from the British North America Act itself. The Quebec resolutions dealing with representation in the House of Commons were numbered 17 to 22 inclusive, and also 25. I shall read them, as a basis for my argument:
17.	The basis of representation in the House of Commons shall be population, as determined by the official census every 10 years; and the number of members at first shall be 194, distributed as follows:
And then follows the distribution, which I need not quote. Then, they continue:
18.	Until the official census of 1871 has been made up, there shall be no change in the number of representatives from the several sections.
Provinces were called sections, in the Quebec resolutions. Then:
19.	Immediately after the completion of the census of 1871, and immediately after every decennial census thereafter, the representation from each section in the House of Commons shall be readjusted on the basis of population.
20.	For the purpose of such readjustments Lower Canada shall always be assigned 65 members, and each of the other sections shall at each readjustment . . .
And then follows the readjustment, as set out in section 51. Then:
21.	No reduction shall be made in the number
of members returned by any section, unless its population shall have decreased, relatively to the population of the whole union, to the extent of five per centum.	_	.
22.	In computing at each decennial period the number of members to which each section is entitled, no fractional parts shall be considered.

Redistribution
unless when exceeding one-half the number entitling to a member, in which ease a member shall be given for each such fractional part.
25. The number of members may at any time be increased by the general parliament, regard being had to the proportionate rights then existing.
It is our section 52 of the act. The London resolutions were approximately the same, except for some minor changes, and also for the fact that they were renumbered. We find that 17 became 18, and 18 became 19. Some inconsequential words were added. Then, 19 became 20, and 20, 21 and 22 were renumbered as 21, 22 and 23. In each instance the word province was substituted for the word section.
Let us compare the London resolutions dealing with representation and redistribution with the text of the British North America Act. We cannot find section 18 in the text of the act. I offer it as my opinion that it was the most important one regarding representation in the House of Commons. Resolution 18 contains the very principle of representation in the House of Commons. Although I have read it I shall read it again:
The basis of representation in the House of Commons shall be population as determined by the official census every 10 years.
Two things: First, basis of representation shall be population; and, second, as determined by the official census every 10 years. The other sections 19 to 24 inclusive are reproduced in the statute in their spirit if not in their form. They are sections 51 and 52. They do not deal with the principle of representation, but they deal with the procedure of redistribution.
It is of the utmost importance that we distinguish between principles and rules of procedure to implement those principles. The principle or basis of representation in the House of Commons is not expressly worded in the British North America Act; but it may be inferred from sections 51 and 52, especially if one refers to the Quebec and London resolutions. That is most probably why so many people have always felt that the basis of representation was the number of 65 members for Quebec. Even the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) the other day as reported at page 2229 of Hansard said, when dealing with section 20 of the Quebec resolutions :
For the purpose of such readjustment Lower Canada shall always be assigned 65 members.
Then he went on to say:
That was the basis upon which the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick entered confederation.
It has not and never has been a basis. It is only a means of attaining the implementing
of the principle which is, and always has been, proportionate representation by provinces according to population.
This afternoon the hon. member for Stan-stead contradicted the hon. member for Lake Centre when he said that the basis of representation is population. If the number of 65 members for Quebec was the principle on which the fathers of confederation intended to base representation in this house, what, then, is the use of section 52 of the British North America Act, which reads as follows:
The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this act is not thereby disturbed.
Everyone will admit that the rules of interpretation of statutes require that a meaning be given to any section in any act. A section cannot have been enacted just for the purpose of putting words one after another. Section
51	already provide a mechanism which may bring about, and effectively brought about, an increase in the number of members when the population of provinces other than Quebec increase more rapidly than that of Quebec.
If paragraph 62 refers to the same occurrence it is useless, unless one concludes that because only the word "increase" is used, no decrease can be made if the population of Quebec grows more rapidly than that of the other provinces. Nobody has ever thought it could mean that, because, first, section 52 would contradict section 51; and moreover it would be in direct contradiction of the principle of proportionate representation by provinces according to population.
The only meaning we can give to section 52 is that not only is the figure 65 for Quebec not the basis of representation but it could even be increased without amending the constitution provided-and I quote from section 52:
. . . proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this act is not thereby disturbed.
I do not want and I do not think it is necessary to discuss that point at length. It may be that some other meaning can be given to section 52. But I sincerely wonder which one, if we follow the rules of interpretation. The least we can say is that the wording of section
52	emphasizes the principle of representation which has to be inferred from sections 51 and 52. If what I have tried to show is true, namely, that the principle or the basis of representation is "proportionate representation by provinces according to population" and that section 51 contains the rules of redistribution to put the principle into effect, the question
Redistribution

that comes to our mind is the following: Have the said rules been so interpreted or have they worked in such a manner that the principle of representation has been safeguarded? The answer is certainly no, and everybody admits it. A great injustice has been created by the actual interpretation and working out of the rules. One province has so benefited by the interpretation of one rule that eight of its representatives in this house should not be here because they represent nobody according to our principles of representation. Here we have a resolution that will bring us back to the application of the true spirit of confederation and that will give the same measure of justice to each province.
I was much surprised to hear the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) state in the house the other night as reported at page 2250 of Hansard:
It is a political bill. It is not in the interests of the constitution or of real parliamentary representation. It is a half-baked scheme that will lead to more disunity than anything else.
I wonder which is the more political, the bill or his speech. How would one characterize what he added as reported at page 2251 of Hansard:
You will not have in this country any longer one province the representatives of which will continue to urge all the things they have urged since the beginning of the session, small secondary matters which do not result in any effective legislation.
I resent deeply that last part of his speech. I contend that any member from any province may urge any measure in this democratic parliament. Even the hon. member for Broadview cannot be denied this right. We do not contest his right to expound his antediluvian ideas about the status of Canada; we only discuss his opinions.
I repeat that the interpretation given by a tribunal, which is not Canadian, to subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act has implied the creation of a privilege for one province to the detriment of all the other provinces. The decision of the privy council has always been considered as binding, whatever may be the considered opinion of the hon. member for Stanstead. Subsection 4 must disappear if we want to reestablish the true principles of representation as set forth by the fathers of confederation. Not only that, but the number of 65 members laid down in 1867 for Quebec when confederation embraced only four provinces and when the population of Canada was very small, is not convenient any longer. As was said by Mr. Georges Henri Dagneau:
[Mr. Lesajse.l
(Translation):
In 1867 the extent of Canada's future development was surely not and could not have been fully realized. That is precisely why by and by, the precautions taken in 1867 in favour of Quebec became useless and, I would say, detrimental to that province. Mr. St. Laurent's argument regarding the injustice of the clause under which a province stands to lose one or more members because of events which have led to an increase in another province's population, seems irrefutable. Quebec's population increases so rapidly that the quotient rises steadily, with the result that certain provinces whose development is held up, for some reason or other, witness a decrease in their representation at Ottawa.
(Text):
As far as I am concerned I cannot conceive that the rules of representation should permit a decrease in the number of members in this house when the population of the nation increases.
The resolution that we are now studying offers the only means of returning to the real spirit of the constitution. Mr. Lorenzo Pare made one of the best comments I have read. I quote:
(Translation):
Canadians are attempting to repair a part of the democratic machine which has become warped through wear. They are trying to restore an essential right of free citizens, inasmuch as the time has come to restore to each the democratic authority to which he is entitled within our parliamentary institutions. At the same time they are trying to respect, according to the spirit of the constitution, a right of which the French-Canadian minority was deprived by the very letter of the constitution. Indeed, the object and the principle of the bill introduced J'esterday in the House of Commons by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, is to restore the democratic function of our dominion parliament, by reinstating representation based on population.
(Text): It has been said that we should not base redistribution on the census of 1941, that it would be unfair and that any redistribution should be postponed until after the census of 1951. If in 1943 redistribution was postponed for special and serious reasons it cannot be said that the situation is the same to-day, and I feel most strongly that the fear of small changes in population since 1941, which changes have always occurred in any previous period of ten years, is no reason for delaying redistribution any longer. It is our duty to proceed not only to amend the rules of redistribution but also to proceed with the actual process of redistribution itself.
I say this because if the number of 65 members set for the province of Quebec was only a means of attaining the realization of the principle of the proportionate representation of population by provinces, the requirement that redistribution should be proceeded with after each census is part of the principle

Redistribution
itself. I have already read resolution. 18 of the London resolutions-resolution 17 of the Quebec resolutions-but I think it is important that I should read the resolution once more to emphasize that last point:
The basis of representation in the House of Commons shall be population, as determined by the official census every ten years.
Consequently, not only do I approve this resolution, but I ask that redistribution according to the new rules should be proceeded with as soon as the amendment to the constitution is approved by the British parliament.
An important amendment to the resolution we are studying has been introduced by the hon. member for Lake Centre. His amendment is to the effect that the provinces should be consulted on the expediency of amending section 51 and that no such amendment should be made unless a satisfactory agreement is reached at such consultations. His amendment is based on this claim, and I now quote what the hon. member for Lake Centre said, as reported at page 2228 of Hansard:
One of the most consequential provisions of this resolution is the proposal to amend section 51 without consultation with the provinces which will be affected.
I admit that it is a difficult and important matter, and that it should not be dealt with without due consideration. The question is, can a majority of this house ask for an amendment to the constitution without any consultation with or the concurrence of a majority or of all the provinces?
First, let me say that if we amend section 51 it will not create a precedent. Section 51 has been amended many times since confederation at the request of both houses of this parliament and never has there been consultation with the provinces. In an able speech delivered in this house and recorded in Hansard, at page 2239, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Sa'guenay (Mr. Dorion) proved that point beyond any possible doubt. I do not intend to repeat what he has already said, but let me remind the hon. members for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and Peace River (Mr. Low) that I was astonished to hear their sudden solicitude for the province of Quebec; we could not but listen with scepticism to the warnings they addressed to us with pathetic voices. It is surprising, or is it surprising to hear them raise the point for the first time when the proposed resolution is necessary to correct an injustice. In 1943 two of the hon. members I just mentioned were in the house when an amendment was introduced to postpone redistribution, but they did not oppose it. Is this good faith? I will go so far as to say that the mere fact that they
take the stand they do convinces me that the present resolution should be adopted. However, I want to discuss for a few minutes the constitutionality of the proposed method of amending section 51.
Is the B.N.A. Act a contract, a treaty, a compact, a compromise, or a statute? That question has been the subject of lengthy and profound studies by constitutional lawyers, able professors and great statesmen in this country. I am not in a position to give a final word, but my opinion is that the B.N.A. Act is a statute based on an understanding which may be called a compact or a compromise between the two great races who were here, in Canada, in 1867.
At the time of confederation, neither Lower Canada nor Upper Canada was satisfied with the working of the system of union and they desired another constitution. Representatives of the province of Canada and of the maritime provinces met in Quebec and London, England, to establish a system of federation in which the rights of the dominion and the provinces would be divided and the rights of the minority would be protected.
The fathers of confederation, when they met at Quebec and afterwards in London, did not write the statute which is now our constitution. They passed resolutions which contained principles. In reality, they made a compromise between the two races, but they did not write the statute, which was in fact written by what I will call a third party. Our constitution is not even part of our own statutes. We have to make a distinction between the compact itself which was the work of the fathers of confederation and the statute adopted by the British parliament.
It is of the utmost importance that We distinguish between the spirit of the compact and the letter of the statute.
I have already tried, and I hope, succeeded, at the beginning of my remarks, to establish that the principle or basis of representation in this house is proportionate representation by provinces. I have already read section 18 of the London resolutions, and I am sure hon. members still have it in their minds.
The other resolutions and section 51 provide only for the mechanism set out at the time, in 1867, according to the then existing conditions, to arrive at the realization in fact of the principle which is part of the compact.
If the principle, the basis, of the compact is not recognized any longer because of an interpretation of the statute which is not ours, and because of a change in conditions which affects the expected result of the procedure, then I say that we must request a change in the
Redistribution

letter of the statute so that the letter of the statute is in accordance with the compact. Let me emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that in asking for the change in the statute as we are now doing, we are far from breaking the compact; on the contrary, we are preserving it. Not only is it the right of this house, but it is its duty to take all means to ensure the preservation of the compact. We cannot risk the refusal, not of one province, but of a provincial government or legislature, especially if that province has been privileged owing to a departure from the principles of the compact.
One may ask, who shall decide the issue? Where does the letter of the statute differ from the spirit of the compact? Who shall decide whether a proposed amendment to the constitution is on a question of principle or on a question of detail, on a material or on a subsidiary issue? Up to now, it has been up to this parliament. All the precedents that we have were "des cas d'espece." This time, it is once more "un cas d'espece."
In his speech last week, the hon. member for Lake Centre quoted Doctor Ollivier a3 follows: Hansard, page 2229:
.. .it is easy to understand the danger in which the province of Quebec stands if it lacks the right to take part in deliberations on the subject of our constitution.
I will answer that in his most remarkable book, " Problems of Canadian Sovereignty," and in his testimony before the committee of 1935 on the B.N.A. Act, Doctor Ollivier divides his proposed new constitution into provisions which, amongst others, could be amended without the consent of the provinces because they affect the federal government alone and others which may require the consent of one, of the majority or of all the provinces, as the case may be.
It is important to note that Doctor Ollivier was referring not to amendments as they have been made since confederation, but to an ideal method of amending the constitution upon which the dominion and the provinces were asked to agree. He was not by any means suggesting that when a certain method has been in use for many years it should be repudiated the moment that the issue is one of rendering justice and fair play to all the provinces.
As I have already said, all previous amendments in matters of representation were "des cas d'espece" which tended to lead us away from the principle agreed to at the time of confederation. Now that the time has arrived to reestablish the principle, should we raise any objection to the same method of amendment which has been followed in the past?
[Mi. Lesage.]
But I do not say that we should necessarily proceed in the future as we proceeded in the past. I approve the proposal made by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay to set up a commission to study the procedure for amending the constitution. Moreover, we should have the right to amend our own constitution without suffering the humiliation of having to apply to London every time we want a change made.
I concur entirely in the words of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville in his interesting speech on the present resolution, as reported at page 2249 at Hansard'.
Our country now has the right to proclaim to the world its complete sovereignty. It owes to itself, by reason of the reputation it has acquired, alike at home and in international councils, to have that document which characterizes most of the sovereignty and the independence of a nation-its own constitution.
Before I close my remarks, I want to answer the plea, addressed directly to members from the province of Quebec by the hon. member for Peace River. After having opposed the procedure set forth in the resolution, he asks us to join with him in approving the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre. He said, as reported at page 2256 of Hansard:
Members from the province of Quebec have an opportunity now to strike a blow for unity and good feeling amongst the people of this country.
Let me answer, respectfully but firmly, the leader of the Social Credit group, that we will not follow him. He is asking us to strike a blow for Canadian unity in striking a blow to our own rights. Of course, it would be very' easy to save Canadian unity if one of the two main racial groups who compose this nation would bow to all ihe wishes of the other. We have here a perfect case where Canadian unity will be preserved by applying the full measure of justice. The proposed resolution does not carry any disproportion of privilege to anyone. It gives a full measure of justice. That is the way of reaching Canadian unity, and I stand by it. The hon. member for Peace River asks us to abandon rights for the sake of Canadian unity. Did we not at all times make concessions for Canadian unity and were we not criticized by our own people, and especially by his own supporters in my province, for not having resisted with sufficient energy the requests of the majority?
I will ask the hon. member for Peace River to try to inspire his own party with the same desire for unity and sincere cooperation that has inspired the policy of the party to which I am proud to belong. There is no one in

Redistribution
this house who wants unity in Canada more than I do. Unity in this country is a great end to attain because of the very difficulties involved in giving to each and all an equal measure of justice. Let us hope that all together, with all our good will, we shall bend ourselves to this great task so that Canada will become an example of unity in the divided world of our time.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: For the few minutes left this afternoon I am pleased to give my opinion on the resolution which is before the house. First, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) on the brilliant speech he made this afternoon. I am sure that those who followed his remarks will consider that he gave one of the most logical interpretations, if not the most logical, of subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act. I hope I shall be pardoned if I confine my remarks mostly to the effects of this resolution upon the maritime provinces.
I do not intend to deal with the resolution in general, but I shall try to point out how it will affect the three provinces by the sea. I may say at the outset that, in my opinion, if any section of Canada will be more adversely affected than others it will be the three maritime provinces. The maritimes are, as we all know, to-day only a very small section of this great dominion. We have not the importance that we had in the days of confederation. As a matter of fact, one great Canadian statesman said that we were just the rags and tatters of confederation. This, of course, we do not consider to be a fact. However, we sometimes feel that, in view of the treatment we receive, possibly there are others who hold the same opinion.
This question of confederation, which is one that gave our provinces at the time of confederation the greatest concern, has given us also great concern ever since. The strict application of the letter of confederation, as laid down in the British North America Act, has resulted in the representation of these three provinces being reduced materially from the days of confederation. I would point out that we are the only section of Canada which has really lost in representation.
As a matter of history, the province of New Brunswick in 1867 had a population of 250,000 and at that time we had fifteen members. In 1941, with a population of 453,000 we had, as we still have, ten members, a reduction of five members or one-third of our representation. The province of Nova Scotia in 1867 had a population of 364,000 and nineteen members.
In 1941 their population had increased, to
577,000	and they now have twelve members. Prince Edward Island, as hon. members know, had six members at confederation and to-day it has four.
The point I wish to make is this. While the population of New Brunswick has increased 80 per cent from the days of confederation, the representation of our province has decreased 33i per cent, despite the fact that these three provinces have sent people all over Canada to build up the great west. Possibly more than any other section of the Canadian pop ulation, the people of the maritimes have helped to build up the west and this great Canada of ours.
We have protested on two different occasions against the reduction in our representation. The hon. member for Stanstead this afternoon cited the case of Prince Edward Island's representation before the supreme court of Canada and the judicial committee of the privy council. We thought that we had good grounds, that we had solid arguments. I am not going to repeat them here but the fact remains that we lost out in those courts. We are not finding fault to-day with this decision. The question of representation, as I say, was decided by the courts of the country, by the supreme court of Canada and by the judicial committee of the privy council. The letter of the law possibly was correct, but we feel that the spirit of the constitution, as represented at the time of confederation, was not carried out. The decision was made on the status, not the intention of the parties, and we are satisfied that it was not intended by those who drafted the British North America Act in 1867.
Quebec was selected as the unit, not because, as someone stated here, it had the largest population, but because the variations in that province would possibly be less than in any other province At that time, however, it was not anticipated that there would be a great increase in the territory of Quebec. The Quebec of to-day is not the Quebec of the days of confederation. Quebec has increased greatly in her territory and the unit of representation so far as Canada is concerned has been greatly increased. As I say, it was never anticipated that there would be such an increase in the unit of representation that the smaller provinces would have their original representation reduced.
I should like to read a quotation which was given by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the other day. It consists of a statement made by the Hon. George
Redistribution

Brown at the time of confederation when he introduced a resolution with respect to representation. He said:
The practical result will be that while Lower Canada certainly will not be less-
I would point out that it has not been less. Quebec has had sixty-five members from the days of confederation; she has sixty-five to-day. I continue with the quotation:
-and the lower provinces may increase in population, they cannot decrease in the number of representatives.
That was the intention of the act at that time, whether it was the letter of the act or not.
I should also like to quote what Sir Alexander Galt said three years before confederation when the terms were being considered. He said:
We have supposed that the population of Lower Canada being tolerably equable in its character, would afford the best basis. But having respect to the rapid increase of Upper Canada, we think the lower provinces should not be reduced if they do not increase in the same ratio. Therefore the lower provinces would have the same as they have now-unless in the very improbable case of any one falling off by five per cent or more.
I would point out that both these men did not anticipate that there would be a decrease, or such a decrease in the representation of the maritime provinces. We have heard this afternoon an explanation of why this five per cent was put in the act. We have heard other statements that it was doubtful just why it was put there. If hon. members would read the history of confederation they would come to the conclusion that five per cent was put in the act to protect the maritime provinces. I confess that it has not acted in that way. These men did not have the vision or possibly the foresight. It has reacted to the benefit of the great province of Ontario, but it has never reacted in any way to the benefit of the three maritime provinces.
I am also satisfied that had the two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which formed two of the great pillars of this confederation and to which this country owes possibly more than is realized by many hon. members here, known that their representation was to be reduced even to what it is to-day I do not believe that they would have joined confederation, and I do not believe that there would be any Canada to-day. We lost all along the line. We lost our trade. Before confederation, the maritime provinces were perhaps the most progressive and the most prosperous parts of the British part of North America. We traded with the New England states; our ports were busy; our farmers

received good prices and markets for all that they produced. This was all lost after confederation. We lost our manufacturers. Every small city and town in the maritimes had its manufacturing interests. After confederation, they all moved to Quebec or Ontario. We have now lost our representation and our United States trade.
When I was in London a little over a year ago I had the honour and the pleasure of visiting Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, who, as hon. members will remember, wrote the Duncan report on the rights of the maritime provinces. He asked me what part of Canada I came from. I said: "I come from the province of New Brunswick." He said: "Well, there is only one thing I can say about you people in the maritime provinces. You are the most long-suffering people that are to be found most anywhere in t'he world." He told me that the Duncan report had never been implemented; that we had in no way received from the rest of Canada the rights to which we were entitled, and which he recommended.
After confederation, we expected our province to increase in population. For instance, Saint John was told that it would be the Liverpool of America. Anyone can go to Saint John to-day and see how the trade of that port has decreased, except in war time. I might also point out that before confederation Saint John was the fourth largest shipping port in the world.
A few moments ago I mentioned that the yardstick of representation had been increased. I would point out that in 18118 100,000 square miles were added to Quebec. In 1012 another
400,000	square miles were added to that province. The unit of measurement became completely out of line.
There has been an increase in population in other provinces out of proportion to the maritime provinces, because not only did Quebec receive a great increase in territory, but Ontario was greatly increased. All this northern country, these great rich mines which Ontario and Quebec have to-day, were given out of the realm of this country which belonged as much to the maritime provinces as it did to any other part of Canada. They purchased from the Hudson's Bay company great stretches of territory. This territory was purchased with money belonging to the people of the maritime provinces and from other parts of Canada. We in the maritimes cannot increase in area; we are circumscribed by the sea. The little province of Prince Edward Island is an island. There is no possibility of its increasing its territory. Nova Scotia is almost completely an island. She cannot increase in area. New Brunswick

R edistribution
could not increase in area unless we took a part of Quebec. If we took part of Quebec we would have to take over the constituency of Temiscouata, and as everyone knows that would only be borrowing trouble for New Brunswick, much as we would feel honoured by having the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) a representative of the province.
Some people think our provinces are not densely populated, but to show the house that we have the most densely concentrated population in Canada I shall read from the Canada Year Book of 1941, which shows that in that year the number of persons per square mile was as follows: Prince Edward Island, 43.52, the highest in Canada; Nova Scotia, 27.86; New Brunswick, 16.65; Quebec, 6.36; Ontario, 10.43; Manitoba, 3.32; Saskatchewan, 3.77; Alberta, 3.20 and British Columbia, 2.28. From these figures it will be seen that while the population of our provinces has in no way reached the saturation point, yet we have far more people to the square mile than has any other part of Canada. There is no possibility of increasing our territory and we cannot hope for a greater population-because, as I say, we are the most densely populated part of Canada to-day. They speak about representation by population. That sounds very good, but I should like to ask when we have ever had in fact representation by population in this country. If hon. members will read the history of Canada they will find that such has not been the case. For instance, when Manitoba came into confederation in 1870, according to her population and taking Quebec as the yardstick she was entitled to only one member, but she was given four. In other words, her representation was four times that to which she was entitled. In 1881 she was entitled to three members and was given five. In 1873 Prince Edward Island was entitled to five members and was given six. At confederation British Columbia was entitled to two members and was given six.


Mr. REID:: Three.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: British Columbia was given six members at confederation.


Thomas Reid: Three members of parliament and six senators.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My understanding is that British Columbia refused to come into confederation unless she was guaranteed six members; and if the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) will look up the records I think he will find that to be the fact. In 1881, quite a number of years after British Columbia came in, she was entitled to only two members, but she still had six.
I mention these facts to show that while we speak about representation by population, that theory has never been followed in this dominion. Population has never been the exclusive yardstick.
We may be told that the maritime provinces are given special consideration under the provisions of this resolution. We have had those special provisions since 1914. Nothing new is being given the maritime provinces; as a matter of fact, if we analyse it, something is being taken away In 1914, I think it was, Mr. E. N. Rhodes was responsible for the inclusion, in the petition then being sent to Westminster, for the following:
Notwithstanding anything in this section, if upon completion of a computation under rules one - and two, the number of members to be assigned to a province is less than the number of senators representing the said province, rules one and two shall cease to apply in respect of the said province, and there shall be assigned to the said province a number of members equal to the said number of senators.
This principle, though perhaps not in those words, was enunciated by Mr. Rhodes, and he was responsible for the consequent amendment at that time. As I tried to point out a few moments ago, we do not consider our representation fair and adequate in view of the importance of our three provinces. In the first place, they are important from a geographical point of view. I ask hon. members to think what Canada would be without the maritime provinces. We have just passed through a great war, during which the great port of Halifax in the maritime provinces played a part as important as that played by any port in the British empire or possibly any of the allied nations. I have seen from a hundred to a hundred and fifty ships lined up in Bedford basin carrying food, munitions and soldiers. Our soldiers fought a great fight, but the port of Halifax played a great part in preserving liberty not only in this country but throughout the world. I could point also to the contribution made by the city of Saint John in the same way, and to many other contributions we have made of our resources, which were handed over to the dominion at the time of confederation. It is not necessary for me to go into details; I am sure if hon. members will stop and think for a moment they will realize the great importance of the maritime provinces. During the winter, when the great ports of Montreal and Quebec are sealed with ice, the trade of this country depends upon Saint John and Halifax.	.
It may be said that this is not the pact of confederation. Well, I would point out that as far as this pact is concerned the letter of
Redistribution

the bond has not been observed in the past. On that point I should like to quote a gentleman who left this house not long ago, who I consider was one of the great members of this parliament in recent years. I refer to Hon. Mr. Ralston, who in 1933, at page 5519 of Hansard for that year, referring to the British North America Act said:
The letter of the bond has not been observed and nobody has insisted upon it being observed in the matter of relief. The letter of the bond was not observed in the matter of the return of the natural resources which were the property of the dominion. The letter of the bond has not been observed with regard to the extraordinary efforts which have had to be made in order that our people may be clothed and fed and in order that the emergent conditions in which we find ourselves may be met.
Our provinces have always felt that if the spirit of the British North America Act had been carried out, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia would have the same number of members to-day that we had at the time of confederation. Australia, possibly bearing in mind what happened in Canada, took care to see that the smaller states were not affected in this way when that country was united into one great commonwealth. Of the 75 members in their house one state had 26, another had 23, another 9, another 7, and two others 5 each. Their act contained express provision that none of these states should have fewer members than it had at the time of the union, and that provision has been carried out. In 1907, when Mr. Hughes of Prince Edward Island brought up in the House of Commons this matter of representation, many of the leaders of that time, including Sir Robert Borden, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and others, spoke on the question. The hon. member for Lake Centre has placed on Hansard many of the opinions expressed on that occasion by these great statesmen. At page 2202 of Hansard for 1907 Sir Robert Borden said:
I am inclined to think that the larger provinces would answer a question of that kind very much in the spirit which the Prime Minister himself has expressed and would be inclined to give the three maritime provinces, whose population has not increased so rapidly as that of other parts of the dominion, representation which should never be smaller than at the time when those provinces entered confederation.
Instead of the same representation, as I say, our representation is growing smaller as time goes on.
In 1907 Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke in the same debate, and discussed the question brought up by the 'hon. member for Lake Centre, a question which is of vital importance to hon. members from the maritime provinces. I believe it is more vital to us than to the
fMr. Brooks.]
people in any other section in Canada. We stand to lose the most. I hope every member from the maritimes, be he Liberal or Progressive Conservative, will support that which I believe will be in the best interests of our three provinces.


Mr. BRIDGES:: What about Canada?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We are part of Canada.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: What about t'he best interests of Canada?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Let me point out to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Bridges) that he is a representative from New Brunswick; and we expect him to represent that province, and to see that it is looked after.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: And I also represent Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would also point out that the other day when he voted to change Dominion day to Canada day he did not represent more than one-tenth of the people in his constituency. He is a hew member in the 'house-and a very fortunate one. As I told him, when I congratulated him some time ago, it was possibly a Hobson's choice which placed him in the position he occupies to-day.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I am at least a Canadian.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am as good a Canadian as you are.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: You do not show it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to quote the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as they were expressed in 1907:
Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces, but adhered to by all the nine provinces, who have entered it, and I submit to the judgment of this house and to the best consideration of its members, that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on the same.
That was a leader of the party opposite. No one, least of all, I am sure, the hon. member for York-Sunbury, will question the Canadianism of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He continued by saying:
My hon. friend from York, N.B. (Mr. Crocket), stated in the course of his argument that we have announced in the speech from the throne that we are going to ask parliament to alter the financial terms of confederation. That is very true; but my hon. friend should know that we did not come to that conclusion except after conference with the provinces and after all the provincial governments had united in a prayer for the same.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe
That was on a financial matter; and I would say that representation of the people is of far greater importance than a matter of finance.
Then, speaking on the same day and in the same debate Sir Robert Borden said this, as reported at page 2200 of Hansard:
I agree with what has been said by the right hon. gentleman regarding the undesirability of lightly amending the terms of our constitution and am inclined to agree with him on the necessity of some consultation with the provinces, although of course all the provinces are represented here. But inasmuch as this is a federal compact which we are asked to vary, it is only right that each province should be consulted and its decision given, in the right of its separate entity. But I am not inclined to agree altogether in some of the suggestions urged by my hon. friend.
I could go on quoting the words of leading statesmen and, as my good friend the hon. member for Stanstead has said, from the words of the best constitutional lawyers this country has ever produced. One could quote from them all where they have said that in a matter of this kind the provinces should be consulted.
I hold in my hand a quotation from the words of E. M. Macdonald, who at one time was a representative of Pictou in this chamber. At page 2186 of Hansard of the same year, 1907, he stated most emphatically that in a matter of this kind the provinces should be consulted. If my memory serves me correctly, E. M. Macdonald was one of the leading Liberals from that province.
We do not fear so much some of the older provinces in the dominion. We do not fear Quebec; she has been our neighbour since confederation, and I think no one will say that the maritime provinces and Quebec have not got along well together. We feel, so far as that old province is concerned, that with their generous nature we shall be used properly.
We do not fear the old province of Ontario which, too, was one of the cornerstones of confederation. The history of that province is old, like that of the maritimes and Quebec.
So far as the west is concerned, one might say they are new. Possibly they do not have the same ideals as the older provinces have. Those provinces have been populated with people from all parts of the world, to a greater extent than in the other provinces. The ancestors of the families in these older provinces came to them 300 or 400 years ago. But in the western provinces-and I have no criticism in this regard-many of their people came from different sections of Europe. They filled western Canada, and I do not believe
they understand fully the history and traditions of Canada, as do the people in the older provinces.
I am reminded of this when I hear statements such as those made this afternoon by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) who said that when or if the C.C.F. party comes into power, the first thing they would do would be either to abolish or reform the senate. What would it mean to the protection of the maritime provinces, with the section in the act as it now is, if the senate of this country were abolished? What protection would we have?
It is for reasons such as this, that I appeal to the house not lightly to allow a change in the act so that, if by any chance-and God forbid that it should happen-a C.C.F. government should take office, with their ideas of reforms, the old traditions and customs might be preserved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Time marches on.
On motion of Mr. Brooks the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 13, 1946.