1946-06-06

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): On behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I wish to table copies of two agreements for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and with respect to duties on the estates of deceased persons between Canada and the United Kingdom, signed in London yesterday and being tabled in the House of Commons in London to-day. I understand that the Minister of National Revenue has a statement to make in regard to these agreements.
Mr. BRACKEN:: Has the minister copies immediately available?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Copies have been mimeographed, and I have tabled three of them.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Could they be printed in Votes and Proceedings so that they would be available? Are they too long for that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are quite long, they are printed in the treaty series of external affairs and will be available in pamphlet form for the convenience of members of the house.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Thank you.


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: I wish to make a statement with reference to the agreements which have just been tabled. The above mentioned agree-63260-140
ments, inter alia, affect, as to Canada, income tax, excess profits tax and succession duties; as to the United Kingdom, income tax, excess profits tax, national defence contributions, and estate duty.
Income tax, excess profits tax, national defence contributions:
(a)	As to both countries, the industrial and commercial profits of a branch are to be initially taxed in the country of source, with credit for the tax so paid in the country of receipt, if the same profits are there subject to tax;
(b)	Profits of ships and aircraft are taxed only in the country of residence of the taxpayer;
(c)	Canada may deduct up to fifteen per cent at the source in respect of dividends, interest and other like income going to the United Kingdom;
The United Kingdom forgo their claim for surtax on income arising in the United Kingdom coming to Canada.
Each country will give credit for the taxes paid in the other;
(d)	Both countries exempt copyright payments from taxation at the source, except rents and royalties in respect of motion picture films;
(e)	The salaries of Canadian civil servants shall not be subject to tax in the United Kingdom, and vice versa;
(f)	Canada will not tax a United Kingdom resident who earns income in Canada through personal presence in Canada if he is not in Canada over 183 days, and vice versa;
(g)	Pensions and annuities arising in the United Kingdom, payable to residents of Canada, other than government pensions, shall be exempt from United Kingdom tax, and vice versa;
(h)	Professors and teachers shall be exempt when temporarily in one. of the countries for periods not exceeding two years;
(i)	A student or business apprentice of one of the countries while in the other country for educational or training purposes, shall be exempt from tax on payments for his maintenance from the country of his permanent residence;
(j)	There shall be reciprocal exchange of information on request but for reason either may refuse to give the information;
(k)	The agreement may be extended to colonies or protectorates imposing taxes substantially similar to those mentioned herein, but the subsequent cancellation of any such agreement does not affect the agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada;



REV'I BED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
(1)	The duration of the agreement shall be three years, and may be terminated thereafter following a clear six months' notice and one year thereafter.
The main parts as to succession duties, or estate duty as it is called in the United Kingdom, are:
(a)	The situs of the property substantially follows the general law of situs;
(b)	In the country of non-domicile the duty shall be based, as to rates and collections made, only on the assets having a situs in such country;
(c)	Credit shall be allowed by the country in which the deceased was domiciled of the tax paid on the assets situated in the other country, within certain limits;
(d)	Refund claims must be made within six months from the date of death;
*(e) Information may be exchanged which is available under the laws of the two governments;
(f) The duration of the agreement shall be for three years and may be terminated on sixty days' notice or longer.


[Stage Direction]
On the order of motions:
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the house that His Excellency the Governor General, accompanied by General Crerar, landed in England this morning by R.C.A.F. plane. They left Ottawa at four o'clock yesterday afternoon, and after a stop at Goose they arrived at Northolt airport at 10.26 this morning, eastern daylight saving time, within six minutes of the estimated time of arrival.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Lillian Audrey Atkinson Jackson.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Bernard Cook. -Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Estelle R. Warhaft Slobod.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Alexander Fitz Ormonde Spooner.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Eleanor Williams.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Joseph Henri Veaudry.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Amelia Jezik Pascas.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Cyril Mackir -Mr. Maybank.

Bill No. 174, for the relief of Carol Gordon Class Planche.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Eveline Richmond Sykes Lacoe.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Miriam Vine-berg Perel.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Paul Kraw-chuk.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Henry Arthur Creates.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Stephanie Tymchuk McLean.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Annie Spivack Prosterman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Kenneth Edwin Morrison.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Almeda Mabel Hartry Ritchie.

Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Margo Ismena Graydon Heubach.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Erika Gossen Tenzer.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Isabel Green-shields Biggs.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Henri Edme Bernard.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Nellie Harrison Andersen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Marie Irene Clementine Elizabeth Ash.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Alexander Grant.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Thomas Beach. -Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Fanny Miller Astrofsky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Grace Ellen Rafter Munro.-Mr. Maybank.

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

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What claims have been paid in connection with the explosion at the naval magazine, Bedford Basin, Nova Scotia, in July, 1945, stating the amount; to whom paid, and for what reason?
2.	What claims have been rejected, and for what reason?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1 and 2. To answer these questions as they are presently worded would involve the examination of approximately 12,000 files and the extraction of material therefrom. The hon. member has kindly agreed to these questions being answered in a general manner.

Questions
To May 31, 1946, 9,989- claims have been appraised in an amount of 84,729,600, or an average of $473.48 per claim. It is estimated that an additional 1,731 claims in an amount of $545,400 remain to be paid.
To May 31, 1946, 323 claims have been rejected for the following reasons: Duplications, 226; no damage, 31; consequential loss, personal injuries and government property, 66.
It is estimated that 555 claims presently under review will be rejected because (a) not owner of property, and (b) no reasons given for not having filed claim prior to cut-off date of January 31, 1946.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE -PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	Who is employed?
3.	What salaries are they paid?
4.	Is a departmental paper published? If so, what is the cost of publishing same?


Mr. CLAXTON:: The following is the
information asked for:
1.	$26,516.40, based on current annual salaries (including cost of living bonus, if any).
2 and 3.	Annual salary
(including cost of living bonus,if any)
Rowse, F. A	
$3,120	00Ferguson, Miss F. M	
2,598	12Herron, D. M	
2,598	12Young, J. C	
2,598	12Holmes, H. W	
2,298	12Graham, G. C	
1,721	04Clarke, Miss L. M	
1,661	04Clost, D. V	
1,601	04Hamilton, Mrs. M. J	
1,474	20Burns, R. A	
1,404	00Fulkerson, Mrs. E	
1,183	20Cooke, Mrs. G	
1,193	40Bergeron, Miss A	
1,042	80Bouvier, L. M	
1,040	40Olding, Miss N. A	
982	80
4. Yes; approximately $1,700 per monthly issue.


CHINESE IN CANADA
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How many Chinese have been permitted to establish residence in Canada since 1923?
2.	How many Chinese have been permitted to enter Canada as tourists since 1923?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	Nine persons of Chinese origin have been admitted to Canada as immigrants since 1923.
2.	Information not available, as persons entering Canada under non-immigrant status are not recorded statistically under various sub-classifications.
63260-140J


FINANCE DEPARTMENT-PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Finance Department?
2.	Who is employed?
3.	What salaries are they paid?
4.	Is a departmental paper published? If so, what is the cost of publishing same?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1. $95,260 per annum.
2 and 3.
Name	Salary
Mr. R. S. Mackay	 $5,000
Mr. J. W. Sivers	 3,800
Mr. W. J. Geldart	 3,600
Mr. O. Robitaille	 3,120
Mrs. B. M. Cameron	 3,000
Mr. E. M. Chantler	 3,000
Mrs. T. W. Taschereau	 2,400
Mrs. E. J. Jamieson	 2,400
Miss Mary I. Turner	 2,700
Mr. L. R. Daigneault	 4,500
Mrs. H. W. Cunliffe	 3,000
Mr. G. M. Grant Smith	 3,000
Mrs. A. Senecal	 2,700
Mr. M. Sainte-Marie	 2,400
Miss F. Belair	 2,400
Mr. H. Dutil	 3,000
Mr. W. J. Maynes	 2,700
Mr. K. F. Pettis	 3,600
Miss Jean Love	 3,000
Mrs. E. Harvey	 2,400
Mr. A. G. Smith	  3,600
Mr. R. Kenvyn	 2,820
Mr. G. R. Bothwell	 2,520
Miss M. A. Gamble	 1,800
Mr. T. M. MacPhail	 1,620
Miss B. May	   1,920
Miss H. R. Cookson	 1,680
Miss M. H. Macdonald	 1,620
Miss S. B. Middlebrook	 1,380
Miss H. E. Dawson	 1,380
Mrs. J. Jackson	 1,440
Mrs. G. Maillet	 1,380
Miss D.	Valiquette	
1,200Miss M.	F. Brisbois	
1;140Mrs. A.	McMorrow	
1,080Miss L.	Ouelette	
1,140Mrs. A.	Stokes	
1,080Miss E.	M. Bradley	
720Miss M. Brooks	
900Miss J. Chouinard	
900Mrs. V. A. Daze	
780Mrs. H. P. Hobbs	
780Mrs. F. F. Cohen	
600Total	
$95,200
4. No.
Note.-The answers to questions 1-4, above, relate only to the wartime prices and trade board. This is the only branch of the Department of Finance that employs publicity personnel.
Questions


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-IRRIGATION DAM ON SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
Mr. THATCHER:: X. Have P.F.R.A. officials located a suitable site, on which to locate a dam, for irrigation purposes on the South Saskatchewan river?
2.	Are any surveyors, engineers, or other officials engaged at the present time on the South Saskatchewan irrigation project?
3.	If so, how many?
4.	Have any contracts been let, or tenders called in connection with the above project?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No. Several sites are under investigation.
2.	Yes.
3.	Four survey parties and three drilling outfits.
4.	No, except for exploratory test drilling.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: X. How many employees are there in the National Film Board (a) in Canada; (b) outside of Canada?	.	,
2 (a) How many offices are there m the United States; (b) how many employees are there in each of said offices; (c) when were said offices established, and for what reason.


Brooke Claxton: The information asked for is as follows:
1. (a) 731 as of April 30, 1946; (b) 20 as of April 30, 1946.
2. (a) Three; in New York, Washington and Chicago.
(b)	Number of employees in New York- 3 as of April 30, 1946; number of employees in Washington-3 as of April 30, 1946; number of employees in Chicago-2 as of April 30, 1946.
(c)	The New York office was established on May 23, 1943, for the purpose of facilitating the commercial and noncommercial distribution of films with film companies, distribution agencies and government information services having headquarters in New York and also assisting in producing films.
The Washington office was established in April, 1943, with a view to assisting the Canadian embassy in its information work, to furthering co-operation in film matters between departments of the Canadian and United States governments and to represent the board in its relations with the headquarters of national organizations interested in the use of film.
The Chicago office was established on January 1, 1943, to develop nonAheatrical distribution throughout the United States and particularly to encourage the use of Canadian films by educational film organizations with headquarters in Chicago and the middle west.

All these offices have assisted in the exhibition and production of films in connection with international conferences.


Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Did the National Film Board within the past five years secure and (or) distribute films depicting (a) collective farming in Russia; (b) collective health services in Russia?
2.	If so, in what sections of Canada were these films shown?
3.	Did the National Film Board cooperate with or assist any of the provincial adult education organizations in securing and (or) distributing films referred to as above? If so, in which provinces?


Brooke Claxton: The information asked for is as follows:
1.	(a) No, except for a short passage (ljj minutes) in one national film board film- "Inside Fighting Russia", which was produced in 1942 dealing with Russia's part in the war,
(b) No.
2.	All sections.
3.	There is no record of such cooperation.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. HARKNESS:: 1.	What are the names of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act inspectors who operated in the Battle River, Alberta, riding in 1945?
2.	How many reports were made by each?
3.	What was the salary and expenses paid to each?
4.	How many inspectors have been working in this constituency during 1946?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
seamen's STRIKE-DISRUPTION OF TRAFFIC ON INLAND WATERWAYS
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I should like to repeat a question I asked of the Acting Prime Minister yesterday respecting the tie-up of traffic on the great lakes, a question which in his absence was answered, or at least to which a reply was given by the Minister of Labour, who indicated that he was meeting the operators yesterday afternoon. I am wondering if the minister could give us any information as a result of that meeting.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I met the operators yesterday afternoon, and am meeting the seamen immediately after the orders of the day are through to-day. My hon. friend came from Winnipeg; I think he has knowledge of industrial disputes and how they can be settled, and he knows that sometimes they take time.

Fruit Wastage-Containers


REFERENCE TO REPORTED REMARKS OF MR. IAN MACLAREN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: On June 4, I asked the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply a question in regard to a- statement made by Mr. Ian MacLaren to the effect that we would have widespread unemployment because of the coal situation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: All right; you can call "order" if you wish, but I think it is a pretty serious thing if the deputy coal controller says we are to have widespread unemployment because of a shortage of coal.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. According to the rules the hon. gentleman may not make a statement on the orders of the day. If he wishes to put a question he may do so.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Very well, Mr. Speaker. The minister is not in his place, but perhaps the parliamentary assistant can tell us something about it. My question is, what are we going to do to prevent widespread unemployment in this country?


Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made two statements on the subject of the coal shortage. Apparently they were not noted by the hon. gentleman, though I can turn up the references quite easily. He has answered the hon. member's question on June 4 arising out of the statement of the deputy coal controller. As to the other part of the hon. gentleman's question, I suggest the answer is to keep this government in power.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask a supplementary question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The parliamentary assistant asked me a question, so I should like to ask, how long is this government going to be in power?


EXPORT OF TRUCK SPRINGS TO DETROIT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: May I ask a question based upon a telegram I just received? I am informed that steel truck springs are being exported from Canada by War Assets corporation and Ontario Steel Products to Detroit Steel Products, where a strike is in progress; and in this'telegram the charge is made that this is being done in order to break that strike. In view of the shortage
of steel required in this country for automotive and farm equipment, would the minister look into the matter and report to-morrow?


George James McIlraith: We had no notice of the question, and I cannot answer it at the mome.nt, but we can get the information to-morrow.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I received the telegram only just now.


LUMBER INDUSTRY-STRIKE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Is the Minister of Labour in a position to state whether both parties to the dispute in the lumber industry of British Columbia have accepted the report of Chief Justice Sloan?


Humphrey Mitchell: The operators have accepted it, and the union have turned it down.


BRITISH COLUMBIA BERRY CROP-THREAT OF WASTAGE THROUGH LACK OF CONTAINERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: I should like to direct a question to the government. I do not know which department it comes under so I have given notice to three ministers. My first question is, what steps are being taken to save thousands of tons of berries worth over a million dollars now under contract to the United Kingdom from being lost, owing to the lack of barrels and containers? The second question-and these are straight questions-is, will the government grant an immediate export permit for five hundred tons of raspberries to the United States-


James Horace King: Order. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman put his question on the order paper.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I could not hear what you said.


James Horace King: I suggested that the hon. gentleman put his question on the order paper, as it appears to be quite lengthy.


George Alexander Cruickshank: These berries are rotting on the ground to-day. If that is not urgent I do not know what is. May I ask my question?


James Horace King: If the hon. gentleman insists on asking his question I suggest that he be brief and to the point, as required by the rules of the house.
Fruit Wastage-Containers


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am getting advice from all around here, but I am asking a question which is very important to British Columbia. The second part of the question is, will the government grant an immediate export permit for five hundred tons of raspberries to the United States, barrels and containers for which will be supplied by the United States purchasers, thus permitting raspberry barrels on hand to be used for the present emergency in the marketing of strawberries? That is a straight question, and it is a vital one for the people of Canada.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The first part of the question has to do with a contract which has been negotiated by the special products board of the Department of Agriculture with the United Kingdom. On two or three occasions we have made inquiries when these matters were under discussion.
The information we have is that if the harvesting of the berries proceeds in an ordinary manner, and if other conditions exist which do not result in great quantities being available for shipment at an unusual time, there are sufficient barrels and containers to take care of the situation. We cannot go very far beyond that at the present time, not knowing exactly what the crop is going to be, and not knowing exactly how berries are going to be marketed. If they are marketed according to the usual practice, then there are containers to take care of them so far as these contracts are concerned. But the other question has to do, indirectly, with the same matter, namely whether berries can be marketed somewhere else.


Angus MacInnis: That is not a very fruitful answer.


FOOD WASTAGE THROUGH LACK OF CONTAINERS- MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31
George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the immediate threat of wastage of the current crop of small fruits, tree fruits, vegetables, butter and egg production and the fish pack in the province of British Columbia, because of the lack of necessary wooden or wood product containers.


James Horace King: The hon. member's motion is out of order. He should have put his motion
IMr. Speaker.]	.
before the house before the orders of the day were entered upon. If he will read standing order 31 he will see the following:
31. (1) Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order 15) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are the orders of the day called?
Some hon. MEMBERS- Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: The motion of the hon. member is out of order.


Mr. MAI  HEW@: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe asked the Acting Minister of Finance


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order; I am appealing the ruling.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that I declared his motion out of order. After I did so, he resumed his seat, and before five members had risen I gave the floor to the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., who proceeded to reply to a question which had been asked. I understand many members rose, but the hon. member did not then have the floor.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not have an opportunity. I appealed Your Honour's ruling.


James Horace King: The hon. member did not say he was appealing my ruling.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, I did.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do it now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I appeal Your
Honour's ruling. My colleagues stood, about twenty of them. I appeal Your Honour's ruling.	.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The rule is clear. At a certain time any hon. member has the opportunity of moving the adjournment of the house, but that opportunity was not taken advantage of on this occasion. Moreover, according to a previous decision in 1932-I am sorry I have not the decision before me at the moment-there is no appeal from Mr. Speaker's ruling in this regard.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am appealing your ruling.
Mr. MACKENZIE There is no appeal.

Meat*-Price Ceiling


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, Mr. Speaker is in control of the house; I am appealing his ruling.	[DOT]


John Bracken: May I make a brief comment on the point of order? The hon. member for Fraser Valley has moved the adjournment of the house to permit the discussion of an urgent problem facing his community, and Your Honour has ruled that at this point it is out of order. The same decision has been made on similar occasions previously, and supported by the house. I should like to make the observation that immediately before the orders of the day are called, the motion would be in order.


Mr. ILSLEY:: That is right.


John Bracken: We have not yet come to the orders of the day. But immediately prior to that-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, we have.


John Bracken: Prior to that it may be moved.	'


James Lorimer Ilsley: I suppose it is purely by indulgence of the house that I speak to the point of order. However, there seems to be a feeling among hon. members that the ruling is wrong, or that it is not justified. May I point out that this same ruling has been made time and time again. The standing order states:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order No. 15) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
And if one refers to standing order 15 he finds out what is meant by "the ordinary daily routine of business". One finds this:
The ordinary daily routine of business in the house shall be as follows:	Presenting reports
by standing and select committees; motions; introduction of bills; first readings of senate bills.
The ruling has been made repeatedly in the house, as it has been to-day, that the motion must be made after the ordinary daily routine of business, as defined in standing order 15, is concluded.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will move it tomorrow.


TAXATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the budget is in course of preparation, would the minister kindly accept and give consideration to twenty-two telegrams directed to him by
farmers in my area having to do with the adverse effects of the present taxation policy upon farm production?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I am receiving about four hundred suggestions each day with regard to the budget. I shall be very glad to add those to the list.


REMOVAL OP PRICE CEILINGS FROM RED AND BLUE BRAND BEEP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Speaker, if I may now proceed with the answer I began somewhat earlier, I would say that yesterday the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) asked the minister if it was true that the recent order removing the price ceiling from red and blue brand beef applies only to government-inspected beef shipped from abattoirs. Then he asked, whether if it was true that the order applied only to government-inspected beef, whether the government would take into consideration making the same provision in respect of prime carcasses of beef produced from other sources. The answer to the first question is yes, at wholesale levels only. The second question is answered by the first.
I think it would be well at this time to place on Hansard the press release of May 26, 1946, from the wartime prices and trade board, which states:
In an effort to facilitate the movement _ of cattle and provide a better beef supply during the present seasonal shortage, price ceilings at wholesale on beef carcasses grading "red" brand or "blue" brand according to government standards will be temporarily suspended from May 27 until July 20, wartime prices and trade board announced to-day.
The retail price ceiling on both these grades and on all other qualifies will remain at the present level and no higher prices will be paid by the consumer. Present pricing regulations governing retail prices of commercial quality beef will apply to all sales at retail of blue brand beef. Ceiling prices at both wholesale and retail of all grades and qualities other than the two mentioned above will remain unchanged.


REDISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for an address to His Majesty the King praying that a measure be laid before
Redistribution
[Stage Direction]
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.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall not read the resolution, because it is before you. There are great and vital issues facing this country to-day which require solution by parliament. There are questions having to do with the burden of taxation, with food, with housing, and with labour which may very well not be considered at this session of parliament because of numerous other matters that are being brought before parliament at this time.
In 1943 the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) said that the debate might very well give rise to differences of opinion that might cause serious divisions in this country. If that is so, the debate will be a long one. Many Canadians believe there is no reason for adding to the membership of the House of Commons at a time when expenditures should be decreasing rather than increasing. Opinion is widespread in this country that since we have now waited for several years for redistribution the matter might well be postponed until 1952, because it will have to be considered again in that year. I do not intend this afternoon to deal with these phases of the matter.
May I at the outset say a word on behalf of the prairie provinces. In 1943 when the Minister of Justice brought before the house a resolution for an address to amend the British North America Act, he pointed out, as reported on page 4337 of Hansard of July 5 of that year:
It is argued on behalf of Manitoba and Saskatchewan that some of their population has been drained away as an effect of enlistments in the armed forces and of a drift from certain portions of those provinces to war plants in Ontario and Quebec or British Columbia. As to the men who enlisted, though efforts were made in taking the census to credit all these men to their own respective provinces, it undoubtedly did happen that some of them had changed their homes since enlistment, and there is no doubt that a great many had changed their homes to go to war plants in other centres. It can be argued that these provinces should not be penalized be-these facts, but to make a redistribution at this time and not to make it along the lines above indicated would require an amendment to the constitution.
The Minister of Justice stated also in 1943 that-
The effect of employment in the production of munitions of war was to remove large numbers of the population from their homes. to reside temporarily in other parts of Canada. If it was unfair in 1943, as it was, is it not equally unfair to-day? A census is now

being taken, in the western provinces, and it may show a return to those provinces of residents who left for war services in other parts of Canada; yet the redistribution is to be based upon the census of 1941, which the Minister of Justice said in 1943 would be an unfair basis.
Let me point out that between 1931 and 1941, having regard to the natural increases in population, Manitoba lost 48,478 persons; Saskatchewan, 157,545 and Alberta, 41,841. If the 1946 census establishes that that population has returned, those provinces would be entitled to the representation they would have had had the people not left. They would therefore be penalized by this measure.
It is not with this phase' of the matter, however, that I intend to deal particularly on this occasion; it is rather with the broader aspects of the constitutional issue involved in the amendment to the British North America Act as contemplated by the resolution now before the house. It has a much broader significance then the mere matter of redistribution. But I wish to deal this afternoon not with the fairness or unfairness of the provisions of the resolution or the desirability of achieving a greater measure of representation by population, but rather with the method employed by the government to secure an amendment to the British North America Act.
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.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Duplessis.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate the attitude of my hon. friends. When they speak I am courteous enough not to interrupt, and I ask them for the same consideration unless there are questions that they wish to ask.
The material subsections of section 51 of the British North America Act are as follows:
(1)	Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members;
(2)	There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained).
(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-

R eclistribution
Those subsections were the essence of the basis upon which the provinces entered confederation. If they are to be repealed-and they will be, because the imperial parliament will accept the recommendation of this parliament-then a different basis of representation will be established than was contemplated either by the Canadian delegates in London in 1866, or earlier at Quebec. I read the pertinent sections of the resolutions passed at' the city of Quebec on the 10th of October, 1864, as the basis-as the report itself	says-of a proposed confederation.
Section 20 says:
For the purpose of such readjustments-
That is, readjustments after succeeding censuses:
-Lower Canada shall always be assigned sixty-five members.
That was the basis upon which the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick entered confederation.
For the purpose of such readjustment, Lower Canada shall always be assigned sixty-five members, and each of the other sections shall at each readjustment receive, for the ten years then next succeeding, the number of members to which it will be entitled on the same ratio of representation to population as Lower Canada will enjoy according to the census last taken by having sixty-five members.
Then of the essence of confederation was this section, No. 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.
That five per centum was changed in the British North America Act to one-twentieth. Later, on the 4th of December, 1866, there was a conference in London of delegates from the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They made some changes in the resolutions passed at the city of Quebec, but while they made certain alterations they stood firm on those two sections, renumbered 21 and 22, which read as follows:
20.	For the purpose of such readjustments, Lower Canada shall always be assigned sixty-five members, and each of the other sections shall at each readjustment receive, for the ten years then next succeeding, the number of members to which it will be entitled on the same ratio of representation to population as Lower Canada will enjoy according to the census last taken by having sixty-five, members.
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.
It is significant to note that it was on the basis of the Quebec resolutions and on the basis of the resolutions passed in the city of London that the foundation stones were laid and the requisites for confederation established.
I am not going to enter into a discussion to-day, interesting though it might be, of the question whether the British North America Act is a pact, a treaty, a statute or a contract. There is a division of opinion on that. Professor Kennedy, of the university of Toronto, and others, take the stand that we should get away from the idea that it is a contract or treaty. They say it is not so, either in history or in law. Doctor Maurice Ollivier, a law officer of the crown, in an outstanding book entitled "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty" refers to the evidence of the Clerk of this house, Doctor Beauchesne, who before a committee of this house strenuously denied that the British North America Act was a contract. He pointed out, at page 360, after referring to a discussion that took place in the committee set up by parliament in 1935 to discuss the question of amendments to the British North America Act:
From the preceding dialogue 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. If the British North America Act ought to be amended, it is better that this be done with the consent of the province and that it take its part of the responsibility rather than that it should see the changes made without its knowledge.
That statement, I respectfully suggest, applies to all the other original parties to confederation, and to the provinces that have entered since. Other outstanding leaders have taken the point that the British North America Act is a contract. The Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, when premier of Ontario, wrote a letter to Mr. Bennett on September 20, 1930-I am not going to quote the whole of it; it is set out in detail in Dawson's "Constitutional Issues in Canada"-in which he said in part:
The province of Ontario holds strongly to the view that the agreement should not be altered without the consent of the parties to it.
And he attached a memorandum in which it was submitted that the rights of the various provinces to equal voice concerning any contemplated changes in the law or the convention of the constitution of the dominion rest upon fundamental considerations and historic facts which are as binding to-day as ever they were upon all the parties to confederation.
There are others who maintained that the British North America Act is in the nature of a treaty. Sir John A. Macdonald took that



Redistribution
view, Sir George Etienne Cartier took that view, and Sir Robert Borden took that view; for on February 10, 1014, when the question of redistribution was before the House of Commons, he used these words, at page 612 of Hansard:
The terms which were then fixed between the four original provinces undoubtedly constituted a compact between those provinces, and up to the present time they have, of course, been carried out according to the true intent and meaning of the statute.
Let me give some references to the statements regarding amendments to the constitution made by outstanding leaders right down to 1935. I might refer to Cartier, Blake, Laur-ier, Borden, Meighen; and what the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, who was a constitutional authority, said on more than one accasion in this house about the dangers of serious amendments to the British North America Act without consultation with the provinces.
I refer first to what Sir Robert Borden said in 1914 as to the desirability of an address being submitted to the parliament of Great Britain to assure that the maritime provinces-should at no time in the future have a lower representation in the House of Commons than in the Senate. This is what he says:
Speaking for myself, I do not see how it would be possible for this parliament to attempt any alteration in the representation of the provinces without the consent of the provinces themselves. It was in that connection that the question was taken up before the Interprovincial Conference held last autumn in the city of Ottawa, and the result of the proceedings of that conference amounted to this, that the conference declined to take any action on the subject, saying that the matter was one for consideration of parliament.
Apparently the provinces agreed on the fairness of the terms of the amendment in 1915, because there'was no objection taken. I repeat that Sir Robert Borden contended that there can be no alteration of the basis of confederation as to representation unless it is made with the consent of the provinces.
I pass on to what Mr. Meighen said on February 19, 1925. I quote from Hansard, page 335 of the debates of that year:
Undoubtedly, the pact of confederation is a contract and there are rights involved therein not represented by the parliament of Canada. We could not put ourselves in the position of asking that rights so secured should be disturbed on our motion alone. The speech of the Minister of Justice determines, I think, without power of dispute, that there should never be suggestion of amendment affecting other parties to the contract save after conference and consent of those other parties.
I will now read, for the benefit of hon. members who interrupted a moment ago, what was said by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Throughout the years he stood in the House of Commons
fMr. Diefenbaker.]
as the representative of the rights of the people, as the champion of the constitutional privileges of minorities in this country, and as one who raised the standard of public life as few others have done. What did he, say in 1906-7? He was followed by Sir Robert Borden, whose words, as quoted in Hansard of that session, page 2199, are these:
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.
I pause to refer to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) said the other day, because Sir Robert Borden answered him in the succeeding words. The Minister of Justice said on May 28 last, as reported in Hansard, page 1936:
The provinces, that is to say the people of the provinces, are all represented in this parliament, and for the purposes of such matters as are confided to the jurisdiction of this parliament it is by those representatives here that the people of the provinces speak.
Well, I give you not my opinion but that of a great constitutional lawyer, one time prime minister of Canada, Sir Robert Borden.. He said this-Hansard, 1907, volume 2, page 2200:
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.
This answers the argument that because in the House of Commons there are representatives from the different provinces, the provinces who entered into the pact, and their successors, should not be consulted in regard to any constitutional change in the basis of confederation.
No one can say that Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe would be a prejudiced witness. I quote from what he said in the House of Commons on February 18, 1925-Hansard, page 297:
If confederation was a pact, an agreement, is it possible for one of the parties to the agreement, or rather for the body which resulted from the agreement, to amend, to alter the conditions of that pact without consulting and without securing the consent of the parties to the original agreement?
He does not restrict the consent of the provinces to matters coming within sections 91 and 92 and possibly 93, but covers the entire ambit of the act. Further on he says:
As regards the United States as well as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, they all agreed at the time of the enactment of the statute creating their constitution that they would have the right to alter it. They possess

Redistribution
that right because it was made one of the conditions of the statute constituting them a state. Not so with Canada, because there were special conditions and difficulties in the way. I ask my hon. friend this question. Confederation was achieved and the new parliament was opened in 1867. Does he believe that two years afterwards, in 1869, for instance, this parliament could have fairly and reasonably amended the British North America Act or have asked the Imperial parliament to amend it without the consent of the four original provinces?
I ask the Minister of Justice, when he speaks, to answer that question. Does he answer it in the affirmative? Mr. Lapointe goes on:
Could he fairly say that that Could have been done two years after the opening of this parliament? If it could not be done at that time, could it be done twenty-five years afterwards, or even fifty years afterwards, without the consent of the contracting parties in the pact of confederation?
Then he comes to the conclusion that we cannot ask power to alter, without the consent of the provinces, a constitution which is theirs as well as ours. That was the stand which he consistently took. Later, on March 20, 1924, as reported in Hansard of that year, page 520-I do not want to tire the house, but I want to trace this matter through because it shows the attitude taken by the great leaders since confederation-he said this:
It is a treaty between various colonies which entered into an agreement. They fixed what the powers of the central parliament should be, and they also fixed what the powers of the various provinces which succeeded the colonies of that time would be, and this was ratified and accepted by the Imperial parliament of the time. Everything we have or have not is because we wanted it so. Now this treaty cannot be changed, it has been the contention of many constitutional authorities, and I think it is only fair that no change should be accepted, without the consent of all those who were parties to it. It is a sacred treaty just as is any other treaty; it is no "scrap of paper".
All through Mr. Lapointe's life his view was that if the rights of minorities were to be protected against an overwhelming majority in this house and in the senate, there could be no change of the pact of confederation without consultation with and the consent of the provinces. In that view he was not alone. I am not going to read the next quotation I have here, but I shall give the page. Mr. Lapointe said the same thing on February 18, 1925, and he was supported by a minister who a few short months ago sat where the Minister of Justice now sits. He was supported by a statesman, wise in experience and in years of public service, Mr. Crerar, who on February 19, 1925, said, as reported at page 318 of Hansard:
63260-141 j
My hon. friend the Minister of Justice yesterday argued that confederation was in the nature of a treaty, and I agree with him in that assertion. That being the case, his suggestion that the matter be approached through the avenue of a conference with all the provinces is the first step that should be taken in dealing with it.
Further on he said:
I can quite appreciate the anxiety, or, shall I say even the fear, that my hon. friends from the province of Quebec may entertain as to the position which that province would be in in respect of the peculiar rights it enjoys under the constitution to-day, were we placed in the situation in this country where the constitution could be amended by the ordinary means of majority rule.
Sir, how times do change! In 1920 the Prime Minister of Canada brought up the question of the amendment of the British North America Act, and on March 16 he said, as reported at page 469 of Hansard:
The government should consider the advisability of an address being presented to His Majesty to have powers given to the parliament of Canada, subject to the concurrence of the several provinces of the dominion, to amend the constitution of Canada . . .
I point out that the Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, said this:
. . . in such particulars as may be agreed upon as a result of conference between the-provincial and federal authorities and approved by this parliament and the lgislatures of the different
provinces.
In that, sir, the Prime Minister went somewhat farther than any other leader has gone. A while ago there was an interruption to the effect that I was taking a sectional stand, one which was unfair, or unjustified, ingenious, or something of the kind. But this is not the first time a question has arisen with regard to section 51, subsection 4, and the desirability or otherwise of changing the basis of representation by virtue of which Quebec receives sixty-five members. It has been discussed on a number of occasions. Again I must refer to the views expressed by Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe, in 1932, in which he gave a better answer than I can give to the resolution now before the house. He recognized that the provinces should be consulted. He condemned any other method, which would have the effect of changing the basis of confederation. Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, now Viscount Bennett, accepted the view expressed by Mr. Lapointe against amending section 51 before the calling of an interprovincial conference. Mr. Bennett said that the conference was being called in view of labour conditions in the dominion and that the time then was not opportune. The very stand we take to-day was the stand taken by Mr. Lapointe in 1932, at pages 1592 and 1593 of Hansard. This is
Redistribution

what Mr. Lapointe said in reply to the suggestions now made by the Minister of Justice, in this resolution:
I have tried to find in the debates on confederation and elsewhere the reason for the exception in subsection 4 of section 51, but have been unable to do so.
As a matter of fact no one seems to know why that section was placed in either the Quebec conference articles or the London conference articles. During one of the debates Mr. Bennett said that he had tried to ascertain the reason for it, and the only conclusion to which he could come was that it was meant to protect the representation of some of the maritime provinces, although there was no evidence to support that view. After reading the subsection he said:
Why this provision? I cannot find why it appears; I should be pleased if some one could give me a reason. Perhaps it was inserted to help some of the smaller provinces, but when it works the way we see it will work this year, certainly it is an anomaly which works unfairly. I am sure hon. members from Ontario want only representation by population.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; that is what Mr. Lapointe said, but he gave warning of the dangers which would follow the course which is being followed here. He knew - the difficulties, he knew the unfairness, and he pointed them out. I shall quote his words, in order to place the record fairly before the house. He said:
Before confederation they fought for it, and that should be the principle governing that province. What amazes me is that this same principle is not working the other way. Why should not the representation decrease when its proportion of population with regard to the whole of Canada has not decreased by one-twentieth? Why should it increase if the number is increased by less than one-twentieth? As it is, any other province which would come under the same conditions keeps its representation, not on account of its own increase, but because of decreases in other parts of Canada,-and not of Quebec, which is taken as the pivot.
He mentions the same difficulties as were referred to by the Minister of Justice the other day in what I think was a masterful address. Mr. Lapointe saw the difficulties in 1938, but he also saw something else, the dangers. I continue with what he said:
A suggestion was made that in order to equalize with Ontario, the number of representatives from Quebec should be increased. I do not think that would be a fair way of settling it. I believe the representation of Quebec should remain at sixty-five, as fixed by the British North America Act, but that subsection 4 of section 51 should disapper. Then we would have a real representation by population.

With that point of view is there disagreement? How, then, are we to change it? This is where Mr. Lapointe, with his farseeing vision, portrayed the situation, realizing as he did that representation by population was not being achieved under that section.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Ralph Maybank: Suppose the method
which has just been suggested were followed, with which the hon. gentleman says he is in agreement, what would be the effect of it? Has the hon. gentleman worked out those figures?


John George Diefenbaker: These figures were given by the Minister of Justice. A perusal of Hansard by my hon. friend will give him the information he is asking for.


Ralph Maybank: Thank you.


John George Diefenbaker: I continue with Mr. Lapointe's remarks:
The right hon. gentleman opposite has stated that before parliament meets again at the end of January there will be an interprovincial conference. There are certain changes in our constitution, and with regard to taxation, which seem desirable. I submit the Prime Minister should place this matter before the premiers from the various provinces. If that were done I believe they would come to the conclusion that subsection 4, which certainly works unfairly, ought to be repealed.


Mr. BRIDGES:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I do not interrupt often, and I assure him I will not do it again. Is it the hon. member's contention that no amendment to any section of the British North America Act can or should be made without the unanimous consent of all the nine provinces?


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the
minister has not been following the argument I have been advancing. I have been quoting the views expressed by his hon. friends, and after I establish that a departure in constitutional practice is being made in the resolution now before this house I will come to the situation he has in mind. Looking ahead a few years, this may well be a measure as a result of which the rights of minorities subjected to a majority in parliament will be destroyed. What did Mr. Lapointe say? He said the matter should be submitted to the provinces. He took that stand in 1932, and gave his successor in 1946 the answer as to the method to be adopted in order to secure fairness in representation. Not only did Hon. Mr. Crerar take that view, but Hon. J. L. Ralston took the same stand-and possibly this will

Redistribution
answer the Minister of Fisheries. Speaking in, this house on November 25, 1932, at page 1594, Mr. Ralston said:
I submit, Mr. Speaker, although it cannot be done in connection with this bill, that the suggestion of my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe)-[DOT]
That suggestion, was a submission, to the conference of provincial premiers.
-might well be accepted by the right hon. Prime Minister, the matter might be made a subject of discussion at the interprovincial conference, and in view of the fact that constantly during the last two or three sessions there has been forecast the possibility of amendments to the British North America Act, it seems to me this subject is one which might well engage the attention of those framing these amendments and discussing the subjects to be dealt with thereby.
Mr. Lapointe's view was the view of Mr. Ralston. It was the view of Mr. Crerar too.
Now, I have cleared away the situation as I see it by bringing before the house the views expressed by outstanding statesmen, and I could multiply those expressions almost without number. I have not referred to similar statements made by Sir John A. Mac-dlonald, Cartier, Blake, Sir Allen Aylesworth, Mr. McCarthy, former ambassador to the United States. All the way down the line minister of justice after minister has taken this view.
I suggest that a mere reading of Hansard will show that whether you regard the British North America Act as a contract, a statute, a treaty, or a pact, without exception-I repeat, without exception-outstanding leaders since confederation have agreed that no material alteration may be made without consultation with the provinces. I submit that what is proposed is a material alteration of a provision which was founded on the Quebec conference, reiterated at the London conference, and made part and parcel of the British North America Act. It was so viewed by Mr. Lapointe and by all the other leaders up to that time. As I have already said, section 51 was born in the deliberations of the Quebec conference, and it was confirmed at the London conference, which did not adopt all the recommendations of the Quebec conference. One of the recommendations of the Quebec conference was that the provinces should look after the redistribution and the determination of the boundaries of the constituencies. Section 51, by the very circumstances connected with it, ratified as it was by all our leaders since confederation, is of the essence of the contract, pact, treaty, or call it what you will, of confederation. I warn this house and the country that if parliament passes a resolution for an address changing a
basic section of the British North America Act without consultation with the provinces, it is doing what the leaders of the past up to and including Mr. Lapointe said could not be done without consultation with the provinces, namely, changing the basis of representation of any province.
For the moment the membership from the maritime provinces will not be decreased; but if that pouplation, in relation to the whole population, decreases what is to prevent some future parliament, without consulting Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, from passing an amendment removing the present limitation that the membership of a province may not fall below its representation in the senate? As a matter of fact Mr. Woodsworth, the distinguished predecessor of the present leader of the C.C.F. party, stated at page 1592 of Hansard for November 25, 1932:
There cannot be two or three different classes of Canadians in this country, with certain classes having superior rights to others. If a mistake was made in giving a fixed number of representatives to Prince Edward Island there is no reason why we should follow a bad precedent. The way to get away from that is to amend the British North America Act so that Prince Edward Island would have only its due number and not a number out of proportion to the rest of the country.
In. this extraordinary resolution, Mr. Speaker, a precedent is being asked for the amendment of the confederation agreement and its basis. Parliament is being asked to change one of the sections-not a section thirty-one years old, but one going back to confederation itself -upon which confederation was based. The Conservative party, and the Progressive Conservative party, since confederation has believed in change based upon experience; but it believes that the constitution is the bedrock of the rights of minorities and will resist changes in that constitution, without consultation with the provinces, under which the rights of the provinces will be affected or under which minorities may be affected. Parliament is being asked to pass an address which to-morrow will become a precedent which may be used to destroy the rights of minorities if in this house there should be a majority desiring to do so. This is an example of the dangers inherent in not requiring consultation with the provinces about amendments not directly concerned with the division of powers between the dominion and the provinces, which by the way are the only ones the Minister of Justice says cannot be amended without the consent of or consultation with the provinces. Under the procedure of amendment in the address section 133 and many
Redistribution

others might be repealed or altered by means of an address passed by a majority in parliament. This, sir, indicates the dangers inherent in this haphazard manner, this novel scheme which is now before the house, of amending the constitution.
The Minister of Justice has argued that the representation of the various provinces in the House of Commons is a matter exclusively for the federal authority, in that the provinces are represented here. Earlier I answered that argument with a quotation. He indicates, too, that the rights of the provinces are not interfered with. I answer that simply by saying that by increasing the membership of the house the relative influence of the provinces is altered. This resolution seems to comprehend merely an innocuous change in representation, but closer examination of its terms reveals the dangers with which the method to achieve it is fraught.
The minister endeavoured to make answer because, like all resourceful counsel, he anticipated the arguments which have been made. The resolution contains all the artifices of a political dodge. It dangles a bait designed to catch political favour, but destined if accepted to achieve a drastic change in and a dangerous departure from the very basis of confederation.
The change advocated may be designed with a view to securing equality of provinces, the foundation stone of confederation, and to achieve a greater measure of representation by population; but however desirable the objectives may be, the means taken to that end are in my opinion dangerous in the extreme.
Let ius take one example. Suppose the communist party were to attain power in this country; parliament would be setting a precedent, under which every section of the British North America Act but sections 91 and 92, and possibly 93, according to the interpretation placed thereon by the Minister of Justice could be changed by a simple majority vote. Some will say that that is an extreme case, but it is illustrative of how cautiously and carefully amendment should be considered.
I do not hold out against constitutional changes, but I am unalterably opposed to constitutional changes being effected in the haphazard manner of this resolution.
No one can contend-I know some will say that we are opposed to amendments to the constitution-that the British North America Act should' not be subject to amendment. Events and changes since confederation have shown the necessity for amendment. The . dead hand of the past must not control the living present. But having, regard to the

events which culminated in confederation, and the arguments which were advanced-I have read and reread them-and having regard to the divisions of our country racially and geographically, the British North America Act should not be amended by any means in the nature of a subterfuge that will open the door * to a denial of the rights of minorities by the decision of a majority in parliament.
I have referred to the historical background. I have referred to the dangers inherent in the resolution. Do I believe in *change? Do I believe in necessity for reform? Has the government any monopoly on that? When the government convened a dominion-provincial conference, only financial matters were brought before it, and that at a time when the people of Canada were demanding national action, and when other amendments were asked for. Yet there was no consultation when consultation was available.
I could do no better than to quote the words of Mr. Lapointe when he said on February 18, 1925:
Mr. Lapointe: . . . As I have said, I would not like to leave the impression that my own view is that no changes should be made at any time, or that no changes are possible. I agree that we are living in 1925, and not in 1865. The problems of Canada must be settled in the light of the present situation.
Mr. MacLean (York): By the men of to-day.
Mr. Lapointe: By the men of to-day, yes.
I am not one of those who are riveted to the past and who are prepared to deny to our children the liberty of the future, but those changes the necessity for which may be seen as a result of our experience of sixty years cannot be made unless you proceed in a legal and constitutional way; they cannot be made arbitrarily.
I repeat those words in this year of grace 1946. Changes should be made in a legal way; changes should be made in a constitutional way; changes should not be made arbitrarily. Then Mr. Lapointe said:
They cannot be made only at the will and at the request of the dominion parliament; but those who are just as much interested as the dominion parliament in this matter must have their say, must be consulted, and must give their assent.
In this he went as far as the Prime Minister went in 1920, in the quotation I placed before the house earlier.
The stream of freedom must be preserved. Our constitution is the custodian of freedom. Widespread invasions of that freedom have taken place, and we have seen this happen in recent years. This address, if passed by parliament, will undermine constitutional safeguards, and in doing so will drive the first wedge that may well lead to the destruction of the liberties of the minorities among our people.

Redistribution
Admitting that this section of the British North America Act may be amended by a majority of parliament, all that remain outside the sphere of this parliament, according to the Minister of Justice are those sections dealing with the division of power between the dominion and the provinces. I quote the words of Junius as to the operation of precedent:
One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday was fact, to-day is doctrine.
I say to the house and to the country: look at this measure not for what it immediately achieves, but for the dangerous potentialities of any such precedent as this. The Prime Minister of Canada once said, as reported in Hansard of January 21, 1935:
We have looked upon the constitution of our country as the safeguard of its liberties and as the home of its freedom.
That is the test, I respectfully submit, parliament should apply to the resolution now before the house-the test of looking not at the advantages of the present to be achieved by this short-cut method of amendment of our constitution, but rather at the grave potentialities inherent in making a precedent for amendment of our constitution by a majority of parliament. The great danger of attractive measures such as this is that of the people and the people's representatives, by reason of the very attractiveness, giving up the substance for the shadow.
This party subscribes to the view expressed by Edmund Burke, in a speech on the reform of representation, when he said:
Our constitution is like our island, which uses and restrains its subject sea; in vain the waves roar. In that constitution, I know, and exultingly feel, both that I am free, and that I am not free dangerously to myself or to others.
Believing as I do in proper safeguards against tyrannical acts of majorities who would deny tolerance, and believing that these basic rights in the constitution should not be interfered with without consultation with the provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith):
That the motion be amended by deleting the *words: "A humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words:" and substituting therefor:-
And whereas it is desirable that the government should consult with the several provinces -in-*,respect of the said matter.
-^jbfow (jjlrefore be it resolved that the govern-*a^tttint b^^jquired to consult at once the several pjlivinces and upon satisfactory conclusion of '^such consultations be authorized to present an humble address to His Majesty in the following terms.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss this resolution, and the amendment thereto, not as a lawyer but simply as a layman and a member of parliament who seeks to do what is best for the country in which he lives.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) quote Edmund Burke's reference to the British constitution. The glory of the British constitution is that it does not exist in the form in which we know constitutions, and that it is ever amenable to the will of the majority of the representatives of the people. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that if this parliament decides that something should be done in the interests of all the people of Canada, and it is within its constitutional right to do so, the will of this parliament should prevail. From my reading of Canadian history, from all that I have read of former debates in the House of Commons, and in spite of all the quotations that have been placed before us this afternoon, I am of the opinion that this address to His Majesty is within the rights of this parliament.
Actions speak louder than words. Sometimes politicians shift their position according to the side of the house on which they happen to sit at a given moment. If we look back over the history of our country since confederation we find that important amendments have been made to the constitution. One in particular which upset the whole basis of representation was made in 1915. At that time a resolution was placed before the house by the Right Honourable Sir Robert Borden, Conservative prime minister of that day, which was much more explicit in its references to the British North America Act than anything contained in this proposal. That resolution was moved by Sir Robert Borden on June 11, 1914, one year before the house adopted it. Let us look at its terms. It read:
Resolved, that a humble address be presented to His Majesty praying that he may graciously be pleased to give his consent to submitting a measure to the parliament of the United Kingdom to amend certain provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, in the manner set forth in the draft bill hereto attached.
An act to amend the British North America Act, 1867.
Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
I would draw attention to what followed:
1. Notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act, 1867, or in any act amending the same, or in any order in council or terms or conditions of union made or approved under the said acts, or in any act of the parliament of Canada;

Redistribution
Then it went on to alter the whole basis of representation in the Senate. That was a much more fundamental change, because the Senate has always been regarded by the minority-I think they lean upon a broken reed- as having been established to protect the rights of minorities. The resolution proposed also to alter the proportionate representation of Quebec in the upper chamber. A new and fourth division of the dominion was agreed upon, and the western provinces were to be represented by twenty-four Senators instead of the number by which they were previously represented. This was done in 1915 under the leadership of a Conservative prime minister and may I pay tribute to Sir Robert Borden by saying that he was possibly one of the greatest constitutional lawyers who has ever sat in this house. This was done by and with the consent of all the parties in this house. Therefore I a-m amazed to see in 1946, thirty-one years later, an amendment moved in this house which would bring a new basis into confederation. We who represent the western parts of this country are extremely anxious to see that the representation in this parliament of the western provinces shall be adequate. I believe it is the intention of the government to try to give that representation at this time. On the basis of representation by population according to provinces I shall support the resolution.
My hon. friend spent a great deal of time trying to frighten the house with what might happen in the future if the communist party came to power. Let me tell my hon. friend that if the communist party comes to power- I do not believe it ever will-it will come to power, with the approval of the majority of the people of Canada. If it comes to power, this parliament will disappear; there will be no constitution, and there will be no parliament. My hon. friend is setting up a straw man to knock down and to frighten old ladies of both sexes. I apologize to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum), who does not fall within the category either of being old or of being frightened.
My hon. friend brought forward some arguments other than from the constitutional point of view. He said that we were making an increase when economy demands perhaps even a decrease in the membership of this house. Perhaps it would be stating more nearly what he said to say that there are some people in the country who advocate a decrease in the membership of this house. The most important institution in this country is parliament. To my mind representation in this parliament is the most important privilege that the people of Canada have. If representation is to be

adequate and real, then the members of this house must keep in close touch with their constituents. A decrease in the membership of the house would mean an enlarging of the size of the constituencies in some parts of Canada, which would militate against the democratic procedures of which we approve. So that argument surely was unworthy of the speech, fine in many respects, which my hon. friend has just made. Certainly it is not in accord with the desires and the wishes of the people of the part of Canada from which we both come. Delay until the next census? My hon. friend has argued to-day that we have to stand by the constitution. The constitution requires that a redistribution shall be made after every ten-year period. Then he rises in this house and urges the government to delay in carrying out the provisions of the constitution for another few years.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I never advocated such a thing. I said that there were those who said these things, but I was dealing with one particular thing. My hon. friend has placed words in my mouth that I never used.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am sorry if I misinterpreted my hon. friend but I think a good many members of this house must have found the same difficulty as I had in listening to him. I coufd not tell when he was reading quotations and when he was reading prepared parts of his speech. But if I have done him an injustice I regret it.


John George Diefenbaker: Speaking of reading speeches, you are doing it right now.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am not reading my speech. I was just referring to notes I made while my hon. friend was speaking.


James Horace King: Order. I would remind all hon. members that they must address the chair.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to notes I made when my hon. friend was speaking.
It is true that there has been a serious loss of population in the western provinces and particularly in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In 1941 this house gave approval to deferring redistribution in the hope that when the war ended and people had returned from the armed services and from industry to their home constituencies our population might have been recovered. I do not know wln^her it has or not. There is a quinquennial census in the west this year and the question whether our population has decreased or increased may be settled by that enumeration. But in fairness to other mem-

Redistribution
bers of the house who agreed to deferring redistribution in 1943 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.
The hon. member for Lake Centre has preached this afternoon what is in effect a new doctrine. In 1915 only one province, according to Doctor Skelton, took advantage of the privilege of appearing before the special parliamentary committee on amending the British North America Act, and his comments in the case of that amendment are as follows:
Object:	To increase the number of senators
and alter the main senatorial divisions.
Procedure:	The procedure adopted was that
the act was passed by the United Kingdom parliament following an address by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada. Prince Edward Island made representations before a House of Commons committee, which were not accepted. Other provinces were not consulted and made no representations. The suggestion was made in the House of Commons by Mr. O. Turgeon, now Senator Turgeon, that the provinces should be consulted, but it was not acted upon.
That is the position regarding the fundamental change which was made at that time.
I shall not attempt to answer the legal arguments of hy hon. friend. I am not a lawyer and I leave it to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and other lawyers in the house to deal with the legal aspects of this question. But the thing that presents itself to me is this. Is Canada a nation? Or is Canada merely a collection of individual provinces, each one willing to go its own way? That is the question which occurs to me. Is Canada to be another Balkan peninsula of warring states, or are we to build this great country into a nation? I say that arguments, constitutional or otherwise, such as we have heard this afternoon serve no useful purpose in promoting national unity in this country. Of course they undoubtedly reflect the point of view of certain sectional interests. It is not an unknown phenomenon for my ultraimperialist friends of the Progressive Conservative party to be in secret alliance with sectional interests in one of the great provinces.


Mr. FULTON:: Where are the frightened old women now?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am not frightened. I say the same thing in Ontario and Quebec and all over.


John George Diefenbaker: That will be a new experience.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: My hon. friend says, "That will be a new experience." I say the same thing in all parts of Canada. Perhaps
my hon. friend does not know that I have been followed by the same newspaper men right across Canada who found that I said the same things everywhere. I do not refuse to call this country Canada in this house and then, within a week, speak of the kingdom of Canada in the province of Quebec. So I say it is not a strange phenomenon because the same thing has been observed in the past.
If my hon. friend's argument of this afternoon were accepted it would result in the two provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan losing seven seats after the next election.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Seven seats after the next election, because I am convinced of this, that it would be difficult indeed to get certain provincial premiers to agree to this proposal. Premier Drew of Ontario sees that Ontario now has-what is it?-seven or eight seats more than she is entitled to according to population. I give that just as an example. There might be other premiers who feel the same way about the matter. But in my opinion, to do justice to the western provinces, representation by population is the only basis upon which justice can be done.
We are told that we run the danger of the rights of minorities being lost. Is there a right of any minority involved in the resolution that is before the house? I would say there is, and that is the right of the minority to have adequate representation in this house as against the majority and against overrepresentation by one province.
My hon, friend quoted from a former leader of this movement, the late Mr. J. S. Woods-worth. I took down the page number he gave, but I am afraid he made an error in the number, or maybe I did not hear him correctly. The page which I think he gave was 1692 of Hansard for 1935. Mr. Woods-worth is not reported on that page, but that is immaterial. I will take it for granted that Mr. Woodsworth said that. But what I will add is that Mr. Woodsworth may have said that, and in logic he was sound, but in the matter of representation in parliament regional representation may be as important as population representation. For example, I believe that the northwest territories are entitled as well as the Yukon to a member in this house, because of the mining, trapping and other interests which are unrepresented here in the sense in which they should be represented. On the same basis, I believe the maritime provinces have a right to regional representation; and in spite of what Mr. Woodsworth said in 1935 my opinion would be that the
Redistribution

provision in the act is not unfair and does not seriously impair the argument that we should have representation by papulation.
What are the minority rights guaranteed in the act? Is one of these rights that the basis of representation shall be along the present lines? I think not. The minority rights written into the British North America Act are surely the religious, educational and certain other rights of a minority. We are in no way interfering with those rights. Let us bear in mind that there were three provinces which entered confederation: Canada-united Upper and Lower, subsequently called Quebec and Ontario-Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. In the long agitation, from 1840 np to 1858 and beyond, while confederation was being discussed1, the argument was that there should be adopted a basis of representation by population. That was the incentive in the minds of many of the fathers of confederation, especially George Brown. We are now endeavouring to carry out the principle of representation by population. Why was sixty-five adopted by the province of Quebec as the basis of representation? Surely merely as a convenient yardstick. That was all.


Mr. REID:: It has worked out fairly well, though.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: It has worked out fairly well, but we find in these days, owing to the evolution of our constitution, it is not working out as well as it might have worked out. Consequently it is now suggested to do what the fathers of confederation intended we should do, have a parliament based more nearly on representation by population. The maritime provinces-and I am not complaining about this-are safeguarding their representation. But the present redistribution, if carried out on the old basis, would be, as I have said, unfair to the western provinces, and as we see from the resolution and its preamble, it is now designed to rectify that wrong.
There is something else I should like to say. There were three conferences which led up to confederation: Charlottetown, Quebec and London. When the fathers of confederation or a delegation of them went to London, did they go there bound by all that was laid down at Charlottetown and Quebec? They did not. In London a number of changes and adjustments were made to the resolutions which had been adapted with the approval of the various provinces, indicating clearly that, having come to a basis of agreement, that agreement in detail might be varied outside Canada' and apart from consultation with

the home provinces. That was the situation in London, and adjustments were made there. So I say that the contention that the provinces should be consulted in matters which lie within the competence of Parliament is a new contention. As I indicated earlier, the House of Commons committee which was set up in 1915 received representations from only one province; no other province thought it worth while even to appeal against what was a fundamental change in the basis of representation in the senate.
My hon. friend quoted to-day from Sir Robert Borden. As a matter of fact I happened to run across the same speech, but if I read it aright it confirms the position I am taking and does not confirm the position which my hon. friend takes. I may quote a little more extensively from it. This is what Sir Robert Borden had to say in introducing the resolution, the preamble of which I read in part: Hansard, 1914, page 5278:
So far as the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are concerned, we are agreed on both sides of the house that the parliament of Canada has the constitutional power to increase the representation of the senate of each of those provinces from four to six as is proposed.
"We are agreed on both sides of the house" -and no one demurred-that the parliament of Canada had the right to vary the representation in the senate; in other words, that this parliament had a right to change the constitution in the very particulars which we are discussing to-day. That is what Sir Robert Borden said.


Mr. BROOKS:: But not as far as the British North America Act is concerned.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: No. It is true that as far as Manitoba and British Columbia were concerned they were on a different footing. As far as Alberta and Saskatchewan were concerned this parliament had the right to vary that representation. They did more than that. If you will read the amendment of 1915, as I imagine most hon. members have done, you will find that parliament not only settled the representation in the senate of the provinces which then existed in Canada, but went farther and actually provided for representation in the senate of a new province which might come into Canada, specifically mentioning Newfoundland, and laying it down that in the event of admission to the union Newfoundland would have an additional six members of the upper house. I do not think those who argue as my hon. friend argues have, in the light of what has been done, a leg to stand on. The whole history of this country since confederation surely points to the fact

Redistribution
that this parliament has the right to deal with representation in this parliament. We do it when we redistribute the seats; we have done it in connection with the senate, and now we propose to do the same thing again in connection with representation in this house. It is, I take it, our right to do it.
May I quote from Sir Robert Borden's remarks of June 11, 1914, at page 5278 of Hansard? Hon. members who have read this debate will recollect that it took place right at the end of the session. There were certain amendments suggested by the senate, and the following year the address came before the house again. There was a short debate and the address was adopted. This is what Sir Robert Borden said in connection with it:
My_ right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, in the course of the debate upon these bills, suggested-what had occurred I daresay to some of us before-that a fourth division should be constituted, which should comprise the four western provinces of the dominion, namely, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. He suggested to me-
That is, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
-that the better course would be this: that we should not proceed with the bill at this session; but that, inasmuch as legislation was necessary for the purpose of increasing the representation of the province of British Columbia in the senate, we should accomplish that result as to all the provinces in that way; and that, further than that, we should constitute a fourth division and ask for the necessary amendment to the British North America Act for that purpose. My right hon. friend also suggested to me that he thought that, in case of the future constitution of any additional province in Canada, it was desirable that that province should be represented by not less than six members in the senate. We have the power to deal with that under our constitution at the present time.
That is the statement made by Sir Robert Borden. Let us now turn to the same debate and see what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said. I shall quote from page 5280 of Hansard in the same debate on. June 11, 1914. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said this:
There can be no doubt that this parliament as constituted has the power to increase the representation of those two provinces.
That is the senatorial representation of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Therefore I am at a loss to understand why in 1946 we should go back to a position which was not held by the leaders of the two great parties in 1914, or why we should reverse the practice which has been in effect throughout the years, of this parliament passing a humble address to His Majesty from time to time, praying for amendments to the B.N.A. Act when this house felt they were needed, namely, amendments in the interests of all the people of Canada.
I think I have said pretty well all that I wish to say on this matter at this time. But before taking my seat I should like to say that surely if this country is to be regarded as a nation, matters which are assigned to this parliament by our constitution must be within the right of this parliament to deal with. We have no right to interfere with something that has been assigned to one of the provinces without that province's consent. That I readily grant, and with that I agree, But I maintain that we would stifle this parliament completely if we accepted the position that my hon. friends are accepting and agree that, before we do something which, according to Borden and Laurier, in the important debate to which I have deferred, the last time that change in representation was made in one of the two house of parliament, lies within our rights, we should for one moment do other than exercise that right of our own volition, and appeal to the people of Canada when the times comes to validate the action that we have taken.
Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-
Saguenay): I must state at first that I find myself in a peculiar situation regarding this resolution. In fact I am strongly in favour of the principle which is at the basis of it and I believe that it will be supported by the great majority of the population of the country; but I cannot agree with everything that the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) said when he introduced the resolution. I am further convinced that any amendment of our constitution should be discussed with and by the provincial governments before it is acted upon, especially when it deals with the representation which, according to the terms of the resolution, must be calculated on a provincial basis. If it had been possible to settle the redistribution without being obliged to amend our constitution I would have more heartily supported the resolution; but when I notice that the result of the amendment will be the disappearance of the grave injustice created by paragraph 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act I cannot do otherwise than admit that, notwithstanding the defects of procedure, the resolution carries with it the remedy to a serious condition for the people of the country.
I wish, however, to take this opportunity to make some remarks on the question of the procedure of amending our constitution. I have listened with great interest to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I deeply regret that he did not make a similar speech in 1943, when the constitution was amended in spite
Redistribution

of the opposition of a very few members in this house. We based our objections on the very same grounds raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre. At the time he was in favour of amending the constitution.
We have read and heard1 many suggestions regarding the procedure to be adopted for the amending of our constitution. Different points of view have been expressed by experts, politicians and laymen. But there is one point on which I believe everyone agrees at the present time, namely, that the time has come for our country to adopt, once and for all, a procedure which would enable us to amend our constitution, when necessary, without being obliged to have recourse to another country; provided, however, that this procedure does not come into contradiction with the principle which was at the basis of confederation, namely, a compact between the two races, the French and the English.
The history of the confederation movement, together with the Quebec and London resolutions, indicates clearly that the provinces of Canada could not have united in 1867 except on the basis of a federal constitution, and also on the basis of effective guarantees for the interests of the French minority, especially in respect of language, civil law and religion.
At this time I should like to cite some declarations of persons in authority. As early as 1920 in this very chamber, the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), said, as reported at page 468 of Hansard:
But I would like to submit to my hon. friends opposite that perhaps it would be more in accord with the status which Canada has as a self-governing dominion or nation within the British empire if, instead of presenting an address to His Majesty to ask His Majesty's consent to the parliament of the United Kingdom amending the British North America Act in the two particulars mentioned, the government shoul consider the advisability of an address being presented to His Majesty to have powers given to the parliament of Canada, subject to the concurrence of the several provinces of the dominion, to amend the constitution of Canada in such particulars as may be agreed upon as a result of conference between the provincial and federal authorities and approved by this parliament and the legislatures of the different provinces.
I have here a copy of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and of the Dominion of New Zealand. Both Australia and New Zealand have the right to amend their own constitutions in the particulars mentioned therein. Why should this parliament not have the same powers to amend its own constitution, subject to the safeguards that are necessary to comply with the spirit of the act of confederation, as have these other nations within the British empire?

In the course of the same debate, Hon. Mr. Doherty, Minister of Justice, speaking for the then Conservative government, said at page 479:
Now nobody has ever disputed that legally the legislative power is supreme in the parliament of the United Kingdom and it follows that the British North America Act-though in reality and in substance a compact between the provinces is in form an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom. Such being the case when that act has to be modified we have to go through the form of addressing ourselves to that parliament of the United Kingdom. But to suggest that that throws any doubt upon our constitutional status as a nation within this empire I think only implies a confusion between what may be the requirements of the law and what, side by side with those requirements of law, may be the constitutional rights of the nations or peoples within the empire. We have the two things, we have the law and the constitution, and they do not always agree

sometimes they are in absolute contradiction.
He went on to say:
The hon. gentleman went on to say apropos of this condition, that what we ought to have, instead of what we are asking in these resolutions, is a power in this parliament, subject to the concurrence of the provinces, to amend our own constitution. In that I am most heartily at one with the hon. gentleman.
Since then, many other debates have taken place in this house, and I believe I can state without fear of contradiction that every time this question was raised the official policy of the Liberal as well as of the Conservative party remained the same; that is to say, that to complete our status as a sovereign nation within the British commonwealth we should not suffer the humiliation of being obliged to humbly request another country to amend our own constitution. I did not deem it necessary to report any declarations by members of the C.C.F. party, because it is a well known fact throughout the country that since its foundation the leaders of that party have expressed their views on this matter on many occasions. The late Mr. Woodsworth, first leader of the C.C.F., and also its present leader have not only seized the opportunity but grasped eveiy occasion to claim for our country this element of soverignty.
I deem it proper to recall a principle which is at the basis of our constitution and which has been clearly stated by jurists as well as by political leaders on many occasions. This constitution, like that of all countries connected with the British empire, is partly written and partly unwritten. In the course of the 1926 electoral campaign the Prime Minister took advantage of several occasions to emphasize the soundness of the confedera-tive pact. In Le Soleil, mouthpiece of the

Redistribution
Liberal party in Quebec, we find in the edition of August 24, 1926, the following declaration made by the Prime Minister at Sherbrooke:
We stand for the rights and freedom of the people and I hope that the Conservatives will follow me.
Our opponents talk about annexation and accuse me of such intention. . . . We have but one aim, the defence of the constitution. We desire to be one nation among the self-governing nations of the British empire, no more no less. This British constitution for which we fight is the most precious heritage won by centuries of fighting. The tie uniting Canada to the British empire has been strengthened by the means of war sacrifices and British immigration. . . .
The constitution is something sacred, partially written and partially unwritten. It has its source in a far off past and tangibly shaped itself in our traditions. It is founded on the customary right and is moulded by means of precedents, of grand charters and peoples' rights. Nobody has seen it and nobody can wholly define it; but one can feel its presence whenever peoples' freedom and rights are threatened, because it is the result and the deed of the best British tie born out of secular struggles. Throughout the dominions, it constitutes a component part of loyalty. It is a pendulum against any tendency of severance or annexation.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Who was that?


Mr. DORION:: The present Prime Minister, in 1926. I believe it is an indisputable fact that our constitution is founded not only upon the British North America Act but also upon precedents which have Ijecome, so to speak, part of the constitution. It goes without saying that these precedents cannot be in contradiction with written text, but they have been accepted as an explanation of the letter of the text. This is why they have come to be accepted as the written law itself. It is in the light of this principle that I intend to show that the procedure of amending our constitution must be carefully studied so as to protect the rights of minorities and of the provinces.
I do not need to recall that our country is the only one in the world that cannot amend its constitution in its own way. Many reasons can be given to explain this anomaly, but the fact is that this situation does exist at the present time. That is why on so many previous occasions the Canadian government has thought fit to study the question. The first occasion this question was discussed was, I think, in October, 1887, when a conference was held of all the provinces except Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. In the course of this conference special consideration was given to some proposed amendments of the British North America Act. The representatives of the provinces made many suggestions as to the amendments they wished adopted; yet they flid not touch the main
question of the procedure to be followed for the amending of the constitution. They seem to have taken it for granted that the only W'ay to amend it was by imperial enactment. Later, in 1927, a dominion-provincial conference was held in Ottawa from November 3 to November 10. According to official reports, the question of "procedure in amending the British North America Act" was the subject of discussion during an entire session of the conference.
This dominion-provincial conference was held shortly after the imperial conference at which the status of the British dominions was finally established according to* the terms of the Statute of Westminster. It was then clearly stated that the present method was not consistent with dominion status, and the question was asked whether Canada should not have the same powers over its constitution as had the sister self-governing dominions. It was then admitted that the constitution could not be regarded as rigid and inflexible and must be subject to change with the changing times. It was therefore only a question of the best procedure to be adopted under the circumstances. At the conclusion of this debate it was stated that the government would carefully consider all opinions on the subject.
In April, 1931, before the passing of the Statute of Westminster, the provinces were consulted through the medium of a conference with the dominion, for two reasons: first, because a question arose whether the removal of the barrier of the Colonial Laws Validity Act should extend to provincial legislation as well as to dominion legislation. The dominion was having that barrier removed and the provinces stated they also wanted it removed.
The other reason was that the report of the 1930 imperial conference which was to be the basis of the statute of Westminster, was figuring to preserve the status quo with regard to the distribution of powers between federal and provincial governments and to the way in which the British North America Act was to be amended. No resolution was adopted at this conference with the provinces as to the method of amending the constitution, because it was announced at that time that a conference would be held between the dominion and the provinces at a later date when the whole question would be taken up. All that was sought to do in 1931 was to ensure that, for the time being, the status quo was not altered by the statute of Westminster, as regards constitutional amendment.
The fourth time this question was considered by the authorities was in 1935 when,
Redistribution

at the session of that year, a special committee on the British North America Act was set up. This committee held many sessions from January, 1935, to June of the same year. Many experts in constitutional law were heard as witnesses, and finally a report was made to the House of Commons on the 19th of June, 1935. I wish to quote two paragraphs of this report, which will show that, even if they did not come to a final conclusion on the question, it was considered as very important, and it was thought advisable that the question should be finally settled as soon as possible.
I quote from the report:
The committee recognizes that there is a divergence of opinion with respect to the question of whether or not the British North America Act is a statutory recognition of a compact among the four original provinces of the dominion and as to the necessity or otherwise of provincial concurrence in amendments. Without expressing any opinion upon that question, the committee feels that in the present case, and at the present time, it is advisable in the interest of harmony and unity that there should be no consultation with the provinces with respect to the adoption of a definite mode of amendment or the enactment of amending legislation which might seriously alter the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces and the dominion.
The last part of the report reads as follows:
In view of the fact that the several provinces did not feel it advisable to give the committee the benefit of their views with respect to the method of procedure to be followed in amending the constitution, the committee is of the opinion that before any decision upon the subject matter of the resolution is finally made, that the opinions of the provinces should be obtained otherwise if at all possible and for that reason recommends that a dominion-provincial conference be held as early as possible in the present year to study the subject matter of the resolution. The proposed conference should have ample time in which to study every phase of the question.
In view of the above recommendation the committee expressly refrains from recommending any form of procedure for amendment so as to leave the proposed conference entirely free in its study of the question, except that the committee is definitely of the opinion that minority rights agreed upon and granted under the provisions of the British North America Act should not be interfered with.
One may ask himself why the fathers of confederation did not provide in their project of constitution the ways and means of amending it. I do not think any explanation can be found anywhere for the lack of this provision. The most probable reason was that thpy believed the terms of the confederation were broad enough for the settlement of any problem that could arise in consequence of the establishment of Canadian confederation. They must have thought that the clause regarding the residuary powers would make all the problems very easy to settle. There

is one thing- certain: neither in the Quebec resolution nor in the London resolutions was there any question of adopting a procedure for the amending of the constitution.
It was not very long after the confederation that this question of amending the constitution arose. The first amendment took place in 1870 when the Manitoba Act was passed. Since some diversion of opinions had arisen on the question of constitutionality of section 146 of the British North America Act, the Canadian parliament in 1871 petitioned the imperial government to present to the parliament of the United Kingdom a law to dissipate any doubts.
In 1875, the imperial parliament adopted an amendment along the lines suggested by the governor general in council for the changing of section 18 of the British North America Act.
The third amendment was passed in 1886 when there was adopted a law intituled "an act respecting the representation of the parliament of Canada in territories which, for the time being, formed part of the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any province." In other words, the object of the amendment was to empower parliament to provide for representation of territories in the Senate and-House of Commons.
In April, 1907, the House of Commons and the Senate adopted a joint resolution asking the imperial parliament to pass a fourth amendment to permit the increase and regulation of federal subsidies to the provinces.
In 1915, another amendment was passed to increase the number of the senators and to alter the divisions of Canada in relation to the constitution of the senate.
An amendment was passed in 1916 to extend for a year the duration of the parliament elected in 1911. In 1930, a new amendment was passed to return the national resources to the western provinces. In 1940, an amendment was adopted by the parliament of the United Kingdom (to institute unemployment insurance amongst the class of subjects enumerated in section 91 of the British North America Act).
Finally, the last amendment was passed in 1943 under the following title: "an act to provide for the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons of Canada consequent to decennial census taken in the year 1941."	-
A few words of comment on these amendments will be, I think, worthy of interest. It must be noted, first, that the amendment of 1875 was passed by the imperial parliament at the request of the Canadian government, without any resolution of the parliament itself.

Redistribution
This was the only time that such a procedure-was adopted, but once is enough to show that the lack of procedure in such an important matter may lead to any sort of abuses.
On this occasion Sir John A. Macdonald declared that he deprecated any infringement upon the provisions of the British North America Act in a manner which would interfere with the rights of the different provinces of the dominion. He believed, however, that there were occasions when parliament might address Her Majesty in regard to bills, the validity of which were questioned, without referring to the provinces, but with the greatest of circumspection. In all the other instances, the amendments of the British North America Act were passed after a resolution of the Canadian parliament.
There is also, as regards these amendments, another aspect of the question that should be carefully considered. As I said a few minutes ago, there was an amendment in 1907 regarding the grants by the dominion government to the provinces. This was an amendment of section 118 of the British North America Act in which it is clearly stated that " such grants should be in full settlement of all future demands on Canada."
In 1906, there was held in Ottawa an interprovincial conference at which the provincial governments passed a resolution to the effect that a measure would be submitted to the parliament of Canada for an increase of subsidies and that an amendment is judged necessary.
Following this interprovincial conference, a resolution was passed by the Senate and House of Commons requesting from the imperial parliament an amendment of the above-mentioned section 118 of the British North America Act.
However, British Columbia opposed this resolution. Objections of this province were conveyed to the secretary of state for the colonies in London; but in spite of this opposition, the imperial parliament passed the act requested, with some minor changes. Therefore, in this instance, the imperial parliament adopted an amendment of our constitution, notwithstanding the opposition of one Canadian province.
Furthermore, in 1943, objection was raised by the leaders of the two political parties in the province of Quebec against the proposed amendment regarding the redistribution. Even then, in spite of these objections, the resolution was passed by the Canadian parliament and the amendment was granted by the British parliament.
We must admit, as demonstrated at the beginning of my remarks, that precedents form part of our constitution, and taking into
account what has taken place as regards the amendments to our constitution since 1867, we must conclude that the British parliament can amend our constitution, even when serious objections are raised by the provinces and even when the only request is made by the Canadian government.
Therefore we have the right to contend that our constitution has become an ordinary law which can be changed at the request of any political party which happens to be in power. This is a serious situation, and that is the reason why we must see to it that some protection be given to this constitution of ours, because we have here in Canada provincial rights as well as minority rights that are the basis of confederation. These rights should be preserved at all costs.
I do not intend to discuss the procedure itself which should be adopted for the amending of our constitution, but I Should like to show the necessity of setting up a commission to study this procedure. One of the main reasons why the special committee set up in 1935 by the House of Commons could not arrive at a better conclusion was that the provinces had not been called to take part in the setting up and the proceedings of the committee. Messages were sent to all the provinces in the following terms:
The special committee of the House of Commons on the British North America Act desires to have the views of your government with respect to methods of securing amendments to said act. The resolution referred to the committee follows:
"Resolved that in the opinion of this house a special committee should be set up to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act may be amended so that while safeguarding the existing rights of racial and religious minorities and legitimate provincial claims to autonomy, the dominion government may be given adequate power to deal effectively with urgent economic problems which are essentially national in scope."
While the committee does not object to the personal attendance of a representative of your government, it was thought less costly to ask for a written submission. Copies of proceedings have been sent you, please intimate when we may expect to receive your submission.
In the replies of all the provinces one may notice a similar point of view which can be summarized as follows: This matter should be approached by a conference of representatives of provinces and dominion. That is why my suggestion is that if a commission can be set up it should be with the concurrence of all the provincial governments.
I should like, however, to point out that special care should be taken to the effect that all the major political parties representing the people should collaborate with the provincial governments in each province in the appointing
Redistribution

of the provincial representatives to this conference. Special care .should also be taken to have on such a commission representatives of provincial minorities. I would also suggest that the deans of law faculties in the dominion be called to participate personally, or through representatives, in the work of this commission.
As regards the representation of the dominion government, I should think that some of our experts in constitutional law could be called upon to form part of the delegation. I should like to mention especially some of the outstanding experts like Professor Kennedy, Mr. P. C. Edwards, Doctor Beauchesne and Doctor Ollivier.
One may object to such a proposal on the ground that the personnel of this commission might be too numerous. After having given full consideration to this matter, I came to the conclusion that this objection would be counterweighed by the fact that such a commission would receive satisfactory appreciation by the people of the country. This would also be a way of expediting the business in organizing some sub-committees who could prepare the suggestions for the commission itself.
The last important point I should like to submit to the attention of this house is that the report of this commission should be adopted by each of all the provinces, as well as by the Canadian parliament. I sincerely believe that with the concurrence of all the interested parties there surely can be found a way of amending our constitution which would meet with the agreement of every province.	.
Therefore, to summarize my contention, I should like to say, first, that the Canadian government must take, at the earliest opportunity, the initiative of setting up a commission to study the procedure of amending our constitution; second, that the provinces must be invited to collaborate in the setting up of this commission which could not be organized if any of the provinces objected to it; third, that the deans of law faculties throughout the dominion should be invited to collaborate in the work of this commission; fourth, that the report of this commission should be sent to the dominion government and to the governments of all the provinces at the same time and, fifth, that to come into force, this report should be adopted by the dominion parliament and by each one of the provincial legislatures.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that in voting in favour of this resolution I sincerely hope it will be the last time we are called upon to discuss a resolution of this kind.


Mr. ROCH PINARD (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of these remarks I wish to express the astonishment I experienced when I noted how some hon. members have decided to oppose the present resolution. I had thought-I trust my naivety will be excused-that this resolution would be adopted unanimously, that is to say without a single dissenting voice. As a matter of fact it appeared to me strange that any of the people's representatives in this chamber could oppose the principle laid down in the measure we are considering, a principle by virtue of which the very one who fights it has the right to speak in this house.
This principle constitutes the very basis of our system of government. When I heard certain of our opponents state their intention of voting against the resolution I could not keep from thinking of the injustice of their attitude. By their opposition to this measure they wish to deny to others the right they at present enjoy of speaking in the name of the population after having been chosen by a certain number of citizens who have the right to demand a representative who will be their spokesman in this parliament.
I know that several of those who have opposed the resolution have stated that they are not fighting its underlying principle or spirit, and I will go so far as to say that nobody in this house can take exception to the essential feature and purpose of this measure. But I firmly believe that all those who have taken upon themselves to join battle with us by raising objections on the score of delay or for the sake of appearances perform nevertheless the same job and seek the same result, which is to prevent each of the provinces making up this country of ours from having in the House of Commons the number of representatives to which its population entitles it.
There are several ways of combating legislation which one does not wa"nt to see adopted or approved. Exception can be taken to its spirit, or one can attack its substance and its form; one can bring forward amendments thereto, or again one can suggest postponements -or formalities before it is adopted. When legislation involves the enunciation of a principle which it would be dangerous to deny or to ignore, such as is the case here, they go about it more skilfully. Opponents insinuate that they unhesitatingly accept the principle laid down; they even go so far as to pretend that they are its only true champions. Then some parliamentary means or expedient of procedure is contrived to combat the measure and one often obtains the result sought after. In certain cases it is even

R edistribution
claimed that the principle at stake is not vigorously enough defended, but the result nevertheless is to prevent its application in a practical form.
Such really seems to be the attitude, of most of those who oppose in this house the adoption of the present measure for the redistribution of electoral ridings. All opponents declare themselves in favour of the principle but they devise means of preventing the adoption of the resolution.
The principal means our opponents resort to consists in stating that the Canadian parliament has no right to ask for an amendment of the constitution without having previously secured the consent of the provinces. In the present resolution the Canadian parliament asks the imperial parliament to amend the constitution by changing the terms of section 51 of the British North America Act, which relates to the representation in the House of Commons, and making therein the modifications set out in the resolution.
Utilizing this makeshift means with that much skill our opponents, among whom we even number, strange to say, the premier of Quebec, who thus is a party to their attitude, once again wave the flag of provincial autonomy and shout about the spoliation of provincial rights.
In the first place, I venture to declare that the attitude of the premier of Quebec is all the more singular since it is not supported by the few friends he has in this house. He knows the provisions of the resolution we are now considering; he knows that its purpose is to increase the number of the representatives of the province he directs; he knows that the measure would increase the number of federal members of the province of Quebec from sixty-five to seventy-three; he also knows, I presume, that this resolution is the one and only means of increasing Quebec's representation in Canada's parliament. He must conclude, as I do, that, failing this resolution, the figure of Quebec's deputation would remain unchanged.
Finally and especially he must know the injustice that, would ensue if, notwithstanding the increase in its population since the census of 1931, the province of Quebec retained the same number of members at Ottawa and consequently suffered1 a real injustice by comparison with the other provinces of this country.
It is all one to him; what seems to count with him is that he resorts to the cry to which we have become accustomed over a span of several years, namely, that he claims once again that Ottawa is attacking Quebec's
autonomy. He states in open letter to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) that the provinces must be consulted and yield their consent before the Canadian parliament seeks the proposed amendment from the imperial parliament.
In other words, the premier of Quebec exacts that Ontario, British Columbia and the other provinces should agree and give their assent before the Canadian parliament does justice to the province of Quebec. He wills and requires that the other provinces say yes before the parliament sitting at Ottawa is authorized to increase from sixty-five to seventy-three the number of federal members from the province of Quebec.
If that is the premier of Quebec's way of defending his province and the French minority it constitutes in Canada, if it is by surrendering its destinies to the decision of the other provinces that the premier of Quebec wants to protect his own province, I prefer the stand I shall adopt by defending with all my strength in this house the resolution now under consideration and the principle it sanctions.
I shall better defend the minority to which I belong; I shall better understand the spirit of the constitution and of the Canadian confederation; I shall better protect my compatriots, and I shall better do them justice by enabling them to secure the additional representatives it is their right and their duty to demand. Facing' my conscience and mindful of my oath of office, I shall thus better understand my duties toward my province and toward the other provinces.
As for the attitude of the other opponents of the resolution, of those who in this house combat it by also resorting to the same means, I believe such an attitude is unjust and illogical. When they ask that the provinces be consulted and their assent secured, I say to them that the House of Commons is master of its own destinies. I claim that the Canadian parliament alone must decide who shall represent the population of this country at Ottawa. I believe that it is not incumbent on Canada's parliament to consult the provinces in order to alter the electoral districts.
Finally, I declare that the parliament of Canada is no more required to have recourse to a consultation or to seek consent any more than the provincial legislatures have done so or are bound to do so when it is a question of altering their representation in the provincial assemblies. I acknowledge, however- and I want my attitude in this respect to be clearly understood-that the provincial parliaments are also sole masters of their destinies. I declare that the central parliament has no
Redistribution

right to do anything or enact any legislation that could interfere with their true autonomy. If ever the parliament of Canada manifested its intention of amending the Canadian constitution to the detriment of certain rights, privileges or prerogatives of the provinces, and if it decided to take such action without their explicit consent, I would be the first to rise against such an attitude.
I was not elected to this house to have a hand in sabotaging the constitution. I never want to become the opponent and the enemy of the rights of minorities and of the provinces. I shall never be a party to a measure the purpose of which is to take away from my province or from the other provinces their respective privileges and rights. On the other hand, when it shall rest in my power within this parliament and on the floor of this house to have a hand by my attitude, by my words, or by my vote in correcting an injustice done to a minority or to a province; when it shall be given to me to defend the weak and the oppressed in this Canadian democracy, I shall not shrink from my responsibilities and I shall record my vote in support of the measure that shall seek that end.
If, as in the present instance, it is once again my party that takes this initiative of righting a wrong or correcting an injustice; if it is my party that constitutes itself the defender of minority rights or of the true prerogatives of the provinces; if it is my group that takes upon itself to be the real champion of true autonomy I shall be proud and happy to belong to it. Such is, I believe, the stand which every Canadian should take in respect of the present measure, and here is a true means of defending Canadian democracy in this chamber.
When opponents of this proposed redistribution had occasion before to discuss the problem, they did not always take the same stand. That is why certain facts connected with the position taken by our opponents of the Progressive Conservative party should be pointed out. They clearly show how inconsistent are some of their present statements.
The present measure is not new. It has been discussed every time there has been a question of redistributing the electoral districts. After each census, the government of the day, in order to abide by the constitution, was required to introduce a redistribution bill, and on every occasion such a bill was the subject of discussion in the House of Commons. On the occasion of each of those discussions or debates when it was Canada's good fortune to have a government directed by the party to which I belong, that government always took the same stand. It always

strived to have redistribution carried out with all necessary dispatch and in the same spirit of justice and equity.
It really seems that on this occasion, too, it will fall to the Tory group which has so often changed its name and its leaders, but which has not often changed its policy, to be the first to combat a measure the principle of which is the very keystone of our political institutions and of our system of government. But it is m the attitude our opponents have adopted since the census of 1941 with reference to the very question we are now discussing that their inconsistency appears to us in full light.
In the course of the year 1943, especially, the Minister of Justice had to introduce in this house a resolution asking that the adjustment of the representation from the provinces be postponed and redistribution deferred until the war against our enemies, Germany, Italy and Japan, had been brought to a close. As in the present case, the resolution proposed a change in the provisions of the British North America Act. I think it will serve a useful purpose to refer thereto and to read that part of the resolution so that we may fully grasp the change' then sought in our constitution. This is the text of the preamble of the resolution introduced on July 5, 1943, which I shall now read:
Whereas provisions of the British North *America Act require that, on the completion of each decennial census, the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons shall be readjusted . . .
Then, further on, at the conclusion of the petition itself, I read this:
Notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts ... it shall not be necessary that the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons be readjusted, in consequence of the completion of the decennial census taken in the year 1941, until the first session of the parliament of Canada commencing after the cessation of hostilities between Canada and the German Reich, the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan.
So, Mr. Speaker, I contend, by that resolution the provisions of our constitution were directly affected, as is the case in the present resolution. In fact the Minister of Justice was then seeking much more than he now seeks by the resolution under consideration. He asked for something more than an amendment of the British North America Act! He was asking the imperial parliament to allow the Canadian parliament not to carry out the terms of that constitution. He asked that parliament ignore the provisions of section 51 for a period of time which it was then impossible to determine. He asked that the application of our constitution to the then existing

Redistribution
situation be suspended and that one of its essential provisions be set aside at least for a time.
The question gave rise to a long debate, a debate in which several hon. members who are to-day opposing the resolution under consideration took part. What was the attitude of the official opposition? What was the attitude of our opponents then led by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) ? All without exception voted in support of the measure and consequently went on record in favour of this essential modification of our constitution. Did none of them feel the scruples that seem to beset them to-day? Did none of those members of the opposition who to-day object to the resolution protest at that time because the provinces were not consulted? Did any of them raise the objection that the provinces had to consent to a suspension of the application of the terms of our constitution?
What was the attitude of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who to-day claims to be the champion of the rights of the provinces? What did the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) say, who to-day will claim to want to prevent the provinces from suffering an injustice? What were the views expressed by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), whom the autonomy of the provinces, especially that of Ontario, I suppose, seems to concern so deeply to-day? Silence. Not one word from them was heard during the debate in July, 1943.
What stand did the house leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Peel, take in the matter? Speaking for his party, he then went on record in support of the resolution and we did not hear him voice a single word of protest over the failure to consult the provinces or the provincial parliaments.
Was it because at that time the resolution asked that the constitution be altered but on that occasion so as to defer redistribution? Was it because, when that first resolution was introduced, certain aggrieved provinces were prevented from securing justice and others were allowed to avail themselves of a situation contrary to equity and to the very text of the constitution? Was it planned in 1943 to deny for a time to democracy its sovereign rights, only to refuse again in 1946 to acknowledge them? Was it planned at that moment to postpone redistribution because of a state of war, or was it simply because the sponsors of the resolution preferred to take delight in illegality and injustice? I believe there is cause to be astonished at the attitude of our opponents who to-day adopt a course
from which they refrained yesterday when the situation was the same but the goal sought was different.
Amidst these contradictory, attitudes, these dilatory tactics, these fiery speeches on the autonomy of the provinces, what becomes of the great principle on which the resolution now under consideration is founded? All seem to recognize the truth it holds; all want to see the provinces treated justly, but the attitude of several runs counter to their statements and to their so-called wishes.
I revert for a moment to the position taken by our opponents in 1943. Not only did none of them then declare that the provinces should be consulted as a preliminary step; not even one objected against the application of section 51 being postponed. On the contrary, all those who took part in the debate at the time declared themselves in favour of redistribution. This often happens elsewhere; one subscribes readily to a fundamental truth when one knows beforehand that it will not be put into practice. Redistribution and an equitable division of representation in each province were supported at the time with great emphasis. But this was no doubt owing to the fact that it was known at the time that the government could not put the measure into effect.
Here is what the hon. member for Peel stated on July 5, 1943, on behalf of the party which he then led in the house. I find his words at page 4343 of Hansard for that year:
We are anxious as a party that no provinces shall have any just grievance in respect to redistribution. Having that in mind, we base our support of this resolution upon the one ground that this is a war-time period when abnormal conditions exist. Because of the war and because of these conditions we feel that it is part of our duty to the nation at large to support the present resolution.
The hon. member-and I underline 'his words-stated that the one ground on which he agreed to delay redistribution was the existence of a state of war. He then agreed to delay redistribution, notwithstanding the constitution and notwithstanding the assent of the provinces. He did not want the provinces to suffer any injustice in j;his respect, he said, and the existence of a state of war was the one ground why he agreed to defer redistribution. To-day, if he finds himself called upon to express his views in line with his statement, he will reaffirm his attitude but this time he will find a way of putting off that which he claims to be his wish.
For my part, I understand differently the importance of the principle the government asks us to sanction by the present resolution. This principle, as I have already said, is basic to our parliamentary system. That parlia-
Redistribution

mentary system was not given to us on a silver platter, with no effort on our part. We had to labour and strive to establish it in this country. To vouchsafe this system to us, our forebears fought with the pen, by word of mouth and even with the sword. They waged notable battles to enable the Canadian people to possess this system and enjoy it. It was in order to guarantee to us the privileges and rights of self-government that men of courage in bygone days did not quail before exile and even death itself. Is it not by reason of that fact that the names of Mackenzie and Papineau and, yes, of other pioneering spirits in the cause of responsible, representative government are inscribed in golden letters in the history of this country and that they will forever remain engraven in the minds of those who love Canada?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Roch Pinard: Before the house rose at six o'clock I was expressing the opinion that a vote against this resolution is in reality a vote against our system of government. It was in defence of our system of government that we had to wage war against those who claimed to derive their power and authority from themselves and not from the people. The allied nations undoubtedly jointed battle with the totalitarian powers for preservation of that very idea. Hence, it is not without cause, I am sure, that we declare to-day that those who died have shed their blood for the defence of democracy and sovereign rights. Again at this very hour, when anxiety grips the minds of peoples throughout the world, at a time when powerful forces seem intent on jeopardizing a peace we have just won, we must realize more deeply than ever the necessity of guarding, protecting and defending those concepts of life we wish to continue to love and respect. It is in that spirit that I shall support the present measure and also because I want to remain a true democrat. I shall vote in favour of the resolution to enable the Canadian people to be heard by all parts of the country equally and with justice within the precincts of this parliament.
I shall lend my support to the Minister of Justice who once again has understood his task and his duties admirably and who wishes to exemplify equity and justice.
Before concluding, I should like to say a few words with reference to the obligation resting upon us to have recourse to the imperial

parliament in order to secure the remedy proposed by the terms of the resolution before us. Every time the occasion arose we proudly proclaimed our complete independence within the commonwealth of British nations. We wish to believe, and we have a right to insist, since our country is now of adult age, that the statute of Westminster be not a dead letter and was not adopted in vain. The most serious obstacle to the proclamation and the recognition of our sovereignty and of our complete autonomy lies in the fact that we do not yet possess our own constitution. Our constitution is embodied in an imperial statute; it does not even constitute a Canadian statute. That is why we must on every occasion undertake, perforce, that pilgrimage to London to ask others to decide upon our own destinies. So long as this anomaly has not disappeared from our national life, we shall not have the right to claim that Canada is a sovereign country.
In 1935, when a committee of this house inquired into the British North America Act, it was suggested that we should at long last give ourselves a constitution that was essentially our own, a truly Canadian constitution. One of those who sponsored this suggestion is none other than Mr. Maurice Ollivier, one of the brilliant legal officers of the House of Commons. In that respect I entirely agree with what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).
In Mr. Ollivier's often quoted volume, "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty", we find the following at page 394:
I suggested, too, that the committee should recommend the establishment of a commission charged with redrafting a new constitution based on the British North America Act. The first step -would be to consider the sections in the act which were temporary and now spent, which therefore should be left out.
The new Constitution Act would then be divided into seven parts, as follows:-
1.	Preamble and preliminary;
2.	Those provisions which affect the federal power alone and where the consent of the provinces would not be required for the purpose of amendment;
3.	Provisions affecting the internal constitution of the provinces and which could be amended by the provinces without the consent of the federal parliament;
4.	Ordinary sections requiring for purposes of amendment the consent of a majority of the provinces;
5.	Certain sections which would require the consent of all the provinces before they could be amended;
6.	A section providing that in case amendments relate to only one or to a restricted number of provinces the consent of that province or those provinces alone would be sufficient;
7.	A section providing, in the manner before described, for a mode of amendment to the constitution. After a new constitution has been devised and agreed upon, it should then be

Redistribution
adopted as a Canadian act, that is, as a dominion statute, and we should then obtain from the imperial parliament their consent to repealing the British North America Act.
I believe, that such a suggestion was essentially progressive, and I would have supported it unhesitatingly. 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 the sovereignty and the independence of a nation, its own constitution. We have witnessed what is occurring at the present time in European countries that bore the yoke of foreign occupation during the war that has just ended. Their first impulse and their first action on recovering freedom were to bestow upon themselves a new constitution to reaffirm to the world their sovereignty and their greats ness. Let us do likewise; for it is also our right and our duty to proclaim our faith in the future and in the greatness of our destinies. We have just enacted the bill that makes us Canadian citizens. I hope that we - shall soon be given a really distinctive Canadian flag.
Let us ever march forward. Let us sanction our rights, our privileges and our national entity by giving ourselves this time a really Canadian constitution.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I wish to register my protest against the cause and effect brought about by this resolution. We of this country have had a fixed policy on representation in the House of Commons brought about, first, by written law and, second, by unwritten, law the unwritten law being, one, agreements, conventions, usages, customs, made by the two original provinces which came together on the Act of Union of 1841, and the other two, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which joined at confederation.
There were certain definite principles laid down on representation in the written law, in the constitution and in the unwritten law consisting of customs, subventions, agreements and all these things that go to make up the written law at the time the common law was adopted in this country by the constitution.
I have great respect and admiration for the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), and I am surprised that he has brought forward this resolution. Who is asking for it? What mandate has the government of the day to bring in a resolution such as this, upsetting all the electoral law we have had since confederation?
I have always been in favour of the principle of confederation, "Each for all and all for each", the old Cornish battle-cry, which I believe is good enough for all the provinces and was so written by the founders of the act of confederation. They were not all of one party fortunately in 1867.
The proposed resolution grows out of what? It grows out of a private member's resolution which was presented in this house last year, and which was not adopted. It never had a chance to be adopted. The government put up certain speakers and the motion was talked out at eleven o'clock. Fortunately it did not come up again.
The people of this country have been very much alarmed at what has been going on in this house ever since the session began. Like so many other matters, this resolution will cause widespread disunity in Canada.
The visit of Their Majesties to this country in 1939, when they were accorded such a tremendous reception by people all over the country, and nowhere more so than in the province of Quebec, showed the tremendous popularity of the monarchy. It also showed the decay of parliament and the decline of the House of Commons. That is a fact. We are talking about representation in the House of Commons, but what does it amount to? It does not amount to very much in the government of Canada. We have handed1 over our rights, franchises, privileges and customs to a whole crowd of people in various central boards, so much so that at the present time we need a. John Hampden in this country. When King Charles walked into the House of Commons and said he was looking for certain birds, only to find that the birds had flown, the Speaker told him, "I have neither eyes to see nor ears to hear but as the house gives me utterance."
We have heard some strange doctrines preached in this house since parliament convened after the last election. I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a remarkable fact in connection with this motion. In 1927 I proposed in this house a resolution concerning parliamentary, constitutional, cabinet and law reforms, and those were the main questions in this country from that year on. The Liberal party calls itself the reform, party. Well, all the reforms for the benefit of the people that have been brought down this session do not amount to the snap of the fingers as far as they go to help the working classes get any relief. What representation have we had in the last number of years? Shortly after my resolution came up in 1927 and before it after
Redistribution

came in an effort to get something for the soldiers, andi to secure federal assistance for the cheap light and power movement.
With regard to this particular form of representation, while one province may be treated in one way, and another province treated in another way, the people will not stand1 for it. This whole doctrine in this resolution is a mistake. Despite all that has been said in this chamber since the opening of the session, not one word has been said with respect to the taking of the census. The government had no policy back in 1M3 regarding census and redistribution.
What did they do? They went overseas and begged the mother of parliaments to be good and kind enough to pass an amendment to the British North America Act, and all that kind of thing, to postpone redistribution until after the war. The minister has referred to section 51 and a case which came before the courts involving Prince Edward Island, which had overrepresentation.
We were promised at the time of the last two elections that there would be senate reform, and we notice in the minister's speech, when introducing the resolution, a further reference to senate reform, and the number from each province. It is, I admit, badly needed. They are here to-day and gone to-morrow, and are always criticizing this chamber. I am referring to the people in another place, to whom the minister has referred. I have to refer to it as "another place"-because it is another place, and has been all the time. However, I am not criticizing them. Indeed, on ten or twelve occasions in this chamber during the war I urged that more work be sent to that other place because there are a large number of men there of great ability, and the Prime Minister promised consideration for my suggestion.
I will admit they do a good deal of work in connection with divorce bills. I am a believer in the second chamber; I want it to be given real work, but I want a real, up-to-date second chamber, one which will do some work, and not always be criticizing this house. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is the keeper of the king's conscience. I know the minister has some conscience, and as a leader at the bar he has given special pleading for this bill, as have others who have spoken.
I have listened to two addresses to-day, two essays which were read, both of which pleaded somewhat the legal situation. The public in this country want real parliamentary reform. First of all, we must rid ourselves of these controls, restore the rights and privileges of

parliament, and have some system of electing members other than we have at the present time.
Let us for a moment look at the election returns since confederation. Have we representation by population? We shall see that some of the ridings were formerly rural, but now they are completely suburban. One can get into a bus or motor car, and within an hour's time or less be at points within a radius of fifty miles of the city. With good roads, electric buses, to which the city of Toronto has contributed greatly, and with the sewers and other public utilities, in light, power and radials, which that great city has given to the working centres, many of the outlying areas have come' closer to the city. Guelph, Hamilton, Barrie, Owen Sound and London are in a similar position. They are not in rural ridings as in the olden sense.
The whole situation has been changed, because nature is changing all the time. This is not a static world. Times change; conditions change; labour conditions throughout the world are changing. "Change and decay in all around I see"-in the house and out of it. Labour is cheap in some places and dear in others. Some new invention may come along and change the whole situation. That has been the case with the last two or three censuses. Great economic changes have come about in that time.
They presented a petition to His Majesty and to the parliament of Great Britain. The government said that it is not the government that controls redistribution, but you find out about that around election time. You soon find out that it is the government of the day that controls the authorities. As I said yesterday, the government are continually trying to keep themselves in office under the present antiquated, dilapidated and outworn representation system which was set up years ago. The best Conservatives that I know of are to be found on the government benches; you will find there some of the best Tories that were ever known. I know a great many of them and I have a great regard for them. I do not take my duties too seriously and I do not like to say anything to hurt a man's feelings.
Where are we going? After all, the mother country saved our shores from the awful horrors of war. But for her the enemy would have come over here and taken the best of our men to work in the mines of Czechoslovakia and other places. After all that was said in this house about the mother country and Great Britain, where are we going now? I was very glad to see the Attorney General of Canada receive the honour he did. He

Redistribution
works very hard and he is a gentleman of considerable courtesy and ability. He may have seen somebody with regard to this legislation when he was over in Great Britain;
I do not know. Let me tell him, however, that Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will have something to say about this proposed resolution, and it cannot be passed by the parliament of Great Britain without their consent.
After all is said and done, the British North America Act as it has been used in connection with this parliamentary reform resolution is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, duplication, provisos, exceptions and qualifications. Every means have been taken to secure federal authority. Federal power in Canada is at its lowest ebb since confederation. Federal power is being administered from the provincial capitals, 'not from Ottawa. That is what they tried to do in 1927 and at that time they were in power in nearly all the provincial capitals. We want a British North America Act for the living, not for the dead. There were no so-called experts in those days. The drafters were only ordinary lawyers.
I wonder who drafted this resolution and the proposed bill? I remember a parliament, called the unlearned parliament in history, that met at Coventry in 1344 to discuss parliamentary reform. They decided that there should.be no lawyers or sheriffs in it; they did not want any lawyers there, and the sheriffs were too busy executing their people. It was said in 1344 the lawyers were not wanted because they were too busy with the idea of getting some customers or clients. However, no doubt they do it for nothing. The Minister of Justice and the law society of to-day know more about that than I do, or than they did in 1344. I have never been before the law society, although I have been a member of the bar for a good many years.
The people in the constituencies back home will not be satisfied with the view that has been given. The Minister of Justice mentioned the senate several times. Representation there was changed so that one province had four senators, another province had a few more and so on. The representation was arranged in geometrical and arithmetical progression. Each province has so many more than the others. When they get over to England, what is the government going to do? I think the mother country has enough to do to look after conditions over there without being bothered by us.
First, let us do something primary. Let us regain our real representation; let us recover the rights, privileges and functions which we .	63260-142
used to have in olden days. Let us go farther and see to it that there is equality of treatment and that we have a real system of representation. The last census caught Ontario napping. Thousands of its citizens were out of the province. There were two regiments in Bermuda and Jamaica. I have looked over the census list and have found a great many mistakes. This resolution should be held over for at least a year.
I believe the system is all wrong. It is not electoral reform. If the government want a reaF electoral reform, let them bring it down instead of bringing down electoral reform for some constituencies and not for others. We should have real representation by population in parliament. Let us put a fair construction on section 51, not the construction put on it in the Prince Edward Island case by the law courts. After all, this is the high court of parliament. The courts of this country are subservient to the legislature. That is one of the cardinal principles of our constitution. If we do not like what the courts do, we can change it. The court that gives substantial justice is the privy council. I believe a litigant can get justice over there. Had it not been for the decisions of that great body, we would not have had the great publicly owned power system in Ontario, nor would there be so many privileges enjoyed by urban workers and farmers and the public generally throughout the province.
I want to see the province of Quebec have justice. It is a great province. It stood by the mother country in other days. As Sir Eugene Tache said, "In defence of Canada the last shot will be fired by a French Canadian." I do not believe it was the view of the fathers of confederation that we should have a makeshift system that would be under the control of the government of the day which has only a slim majority. It has to advocate a great socialist programme in order to keep itself in office.
I urge that this whole matter be shelved for another year. We should not bother the mother country at the present time about our domestic affairs because she is so busy with many local problems. I did not wish to take part in this debate but I believed it was my duty as a representative of the people to do so. Ontario has not sufficient representation in the cabinet and yet she pays 29 per cent of the taxes. That is not real representation by population, at all. There is no such thing as a pure Grit on the government benches. I admire a pure Grit. I remember the other day seeing the grave of Robert Baldwin in the cemetery. He was a clear Grit and for representation by population.

Redistribution

When Baldwin was beaten in York, the great grandfather of the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) gave up his seat in Rimouski to Robert Baldwin, who sat for it instead. I am sorry that the present member for Temiscouata does not speak for real electoral reform. This is not a system of reform; it is a scheme. Perhaps I should not even call it a scheme; it is a resolution. They are going over to beg at the foot of the throne for some further legislation to save the government. After all they said about the authorities over there, they are going back again. This is not the first time; this is not the second time; this is the third time we have sought British North America Act amendments-three strikes and they are going to be out, as it was in the ball game they played out here last night. They have had three trips over there for British North America Act amendments to beg at the foot of the throne for some other system of reform. No doubt this will please some of the newspapers. You do not read much about it in some of them because no doubt they have been putting the soft pedal on this debate and favour this resolution.
The people in the county of York and other counties of Ontario are going to object to this resolution. The province of Ontario is willing and ready to do its duty to confederation, and it wants no favours that other provinces do not get. It wants the system of confederation continued as the fathers of confederation framed it-all for each and each for all-and a fair and just representation.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I think I should place on record the stand of: the Social Credit group with regard to the re&blution that is now before the house. I would have spoken this afternoon but I yielded my place to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), who wished to make his contribution before six o'clock, at which time I understand he had to leave the city.
I have given earnest consideration to the resolution and, generally speaking, I find its provisions are not at all unfair or unjust. I have debated in my own mind, of course, the wisdom of using the 1941 census as the basis for redistribution because of the dislocated population which Canada had in that year, but after careful consideration of all the facts I am convinced that we cannot use that as a successful argument for not proceeding with the redistribution. It would be better in my judgment, if it were possible, for us to withhold action until after the 1951 census, but I recognize that the constitution provides
TMr. Chureh.]
for redistribution after each decennial census. Hence we cannot, perhaps I should say we should not, attempt to hold another election without complying with the terms of the British North America Act.
My studies have convinced me that the proposed change in the British North America Act envisaged in this resolution will remove a number of the anomalies that have existed for some years in Canada with respect to our electoral distribution. I have never favoured any province having any more members in the House of Commons than its just and proportionate share. Everyone knows, of course, that under section 51 as it has stood for some years some of the provinces have had more than their just and proportionate share. But I must criticize the arrangements set out in the resolution on the ground that they are not consistent..
It seems to me that when we set out in any action of this house to remove injustice and anomalies from our present way of allocating members to the provinces of Canada, we should do a complete job of it and not leave any province with more members than her population would entitle her to. By the proposed changes provided for in this resolution to section 51 of the British North America Act we do not do a complete job.
It is pleaded, of course, that we must not reduce the House of Commons representation for any province below the number of senators-that the province enjoys at the present time. My answer to that is this. Let us then reduce the number of senators to the rightful level while we are at it. Or perhaps, on the other hand, representation by population should not be the only factor in the formula that is applied to determine representation in this house. If not, then I say, let us weigh the whole matter most carefully and it may be possible to find some other factors to be used along with representation by population in a formula, the application of which will yield fair and just results in every province. But as long as exceptions to the general rule exist we shall continue to have a source of discontent and disunity within this Canada of ours.
I am anxious to find a way to give the other provinces a more even voice in the affairs of this country with the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. There has always been under the British North America Act as it now stands, a preponderance of voice on the part of these two central provinces, and a great many injustices have continued for many years chiefly because of that uneven distribution of voice. If it is at all possible to find a way of evening things up, then I certainly would like to find it.

Redistribution
The debate thus far, to which I have listened with great care, has revealed the fact that the Liberal party and its spokesmen through the years have been anything but consistent in matters affecting amendments of the British North America Act. They have shifted their ground to suit special occasions as 'they arose. That is quite evident from the information given by a number of speakers this afternoon. However, it seems to me that the constitutional issue has arisen as the battleground in this debate and therefore I should like to state just where I stand with respect to that issue.
Social Crediters have always been known as decentralizers. They have always been consistent in arguing for, speaking for and pleading for decentralization, and they have had good reasons for that. It has not been for lack of vision-not at all; in fact it has been the contrary. However changeable has been their past, it now appears that the' C.C.F. and the Liberals are centralizers, and in saying that I do not believe I am saying anything they would disagree with.
Not only that, but Social Crediters have always been consistent in their stand with regard to the British North America Act. We have fought to prevent hasty and radical changes to that act. We have fought constantly to preserve every safeguard that we had against hasty and radical changes to our constitution. We have not fought change, for we know that there is no more inexorable law than the law of change and the need for change and progress. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when the Rowell-Sirois commission was planned, the Alberta government, the only Social Credit government in the world, headed by the late Premier Aberhart, requested the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) to set up for that commission an agenda which would include more than just financial references. He went so far as to suggest that there be added to the agenda for full discussion amongst the provinces and the dominion the matter of amendments of the British North America Act and that a procedure be arrived at by which those amendments would safely be made. But that was refused. The Prime Minister insisted upon the reference of the commission being purely a financial reference. Later, Premier Manning of Alberta wrote to the Prime Minister suggesting that the agenda for the coming dominion-provincial conference provide for a discussion of amendments of the British North America Act. He felt that any proposals for changes in the act should be brought before the provinces while they were in conference.
Social Crediters have always held the view that confederation was a matter which arose, or was supposed to have arisen, out of the 63260-142i
action of the provinces and that whatever powers were given to the central government were conferred upon it by the provinces. Therefore we have contended that there should be no material alteration in the British North America Act without consultation with the provinces.
I have always considered it to be the greatest responsibility of the members of the House of Commons to confirm every Canadian in his own rights. This can best be accomplished by decentralization. Centralization of power will in time destroy any possibility of so confirming every man in his rights, whether it be in Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia or any other province. There has been for some years a strong movement for centralization of power in this country and, I might say, also elsewhere throughout the world. In fact, some elements have spread throughout the land the doctrine of the inevitability of centralization. Social Crediters have done their best to combat that doctrine, which we contend is inimical to the interests of the individual citizens of Canada. The best guarantee we have against complete centralization of power in Canada is the constitution, the British North America Act. The best guarantee that the rights of minorities will always be respected is the spirit of that same constitution. The best assurance that the constitution will remain a safeguard of the rights of minorities would be to lay down, once and for all, a procedure for amending the constitution, a procedure which breathes the very spirit in which the constitution was originally framed. The foundation of that procedure, ought, in my judgment, to be consultation with the provinces.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: May I ask the hon. member a question? What is the next procedU'i* if the provinces dio not agree?


Mr. LOW:: I do not see how we couitf possibly argue that measures brought before this house should be passed by a majority vote unless we were also prepared to arrange that at such times as consultation on the part of the provinces is sought, the same should be had.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: May I ask the hon. member one more question? I promise that I will not ask another. Is it his view that no amendment of any kind of any section of the British North America Act should be made without the unanimous consent of the provinces?


Solon Earl Low: I have not said anything of the sort. I did say before that no material amendments of the British North America Act should be sought without consultation with the
Redistribution

provinces. I said nothing about unanimous consent. The provinces in consultation would agree upon whatever procedure they thought best.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Who is to determine what is material?


An hon. MEMBER:: Apparently you are.


Solon Earl Low: That is the responsibility of the members of this house, and that is what, I take it, we are now doing. I submit that it -would be a simple matter to refer to subject of the present resolution to the provinces before the next election is held; that is, of course, unless the government has some secret plans to hold an election earlier than some of us think. We all hope that the dominion-provincial conference will reconvene at an early date; -certainly it should reconvene before another election takes place. The whole matter of the procedure for -making any change in the British North America Act should then be referred to the provinces an-d the dominion in their conference for their agreement, rather than that their agenda should be confined to financial references only.
I must emphasize that I do not wish to delay redistribution. Neither I nor the members of my group in this house have any such intention. I think this parliament will have to deal with it; I am speaking now of the twentieth parliament. But I am opposed to any frenzied haste in doing the job, -haste such as we saw here in connection with the Dominion day resolution and the Bretton Woods arrangements, amongst others. There is time, I submit, to refer this whol-e matter to the provinces in session with the dominion before any election needs to be held. Let me suggest also, in fact let me emphasize that we cannot hope to bring about unity in Canada by allowing the federal government to go over the heads of the provinces and to do that consistently and constantly. No one can argue successfully that there is not need for unifying influences in the country, influences which will improve the relationships amongst the provinces so as to achieve something like unity of our people.
Before I close, let me say one word through you, Mr. Speaker, to my friends from the province of Quebec. Your province, it is true, stands to gain most as a result of the bill which will be brought in as the result of this resolution. That being the case, it seems to me that you are in the best position to give a real object lesson to the Dominion of Canada. You are in a position, by supporting a request to have this whole matter referred to the dominion-provincial confer-

ence for consultation, to assist in bringing about real unity in this dominion, rather than hasten into something about which some of you may later -have time to feel somewhat badly. There will come a time, I am sure, when, if we now lay down one more good argument for parliament to use in future, an argument based upon precedent, you will be faced with' something which may cause you to rue the* day when you passed this resolution without giving due thought to consultation with the provinces. 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.
May I just add that I am not supporting the Conservative party in supporting their amendment, or, indeed, any party; I am trying to be consistent with the beliefs which I have always held and with the principles for which social credit stands. I find myself under the necessity of supporting the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), solely because it coincides with my belief, but in doing so I vrould make it abundantly clear that should we be unable to convince hon. members from the province of Quebec that it is their duty not to rush into this thing with undue haste, and therefore the amendment be defeated, I shall have to give support to the resolution of the Minister of Justice (Mr. S't. Laurent).
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two
Mountains) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the proposal nowr submitted to parliament for approval evinces consummate skill. Its sponsor has forestalled any possible opposition to the measure. He has assuaged the feelings of the people from all parts of this country. This proposal provides for an increase from 245 to 255 in the number of representatives in the House of Commons. For that purpose, he requests that section 51 of the British North America Act. 1867, be repealed and that the following be substituted therefor:
1. Section fifty-one of the British North America Act, 1867, is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:
51. (1) The number of members of the House of Commons shall be two hundred and fifty-five and the representation of the provinces therein shall forthwith upon the coming into force of this section and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
1. Subject as hereinafter provided, there shall be assigned to each of the provinces a number of members computed by dividing the total population of the provinces by two hundred and fifty-four and by dividing the population of each

Redistribution
province by the quotient so obtained, disregarding, except as hereinafter in this section provided, the remainder, if any, after the said process of division.
I would be the last one in this house to oppose the carrying out of an act of justice toward each of the Canadian provinces. The latter are entitled to their respective representation in this parliament. This redistribution should have come long ago. If there is a province which has not been treated with fairness, as far as its representation is concerned, it is certainly the province of Quebec. Under this measure, Quebec would have eight more members. This should not be considered as a concession. It means the recognition of a right. Each province has the duty to assert the rights that have been guaranteed to her by the constitution. The dominion government, in turn, has the duty to respect the jurisdiction and the rights of the provinces. Since 1867, the constitution has often been infringed upon for the benefit of the central authority. To-day, we are asked to change a contract without the contracting parties having been consulted. It would have been easy to grant each of the Canadian provinces her full influence in the dominion parliament without any change in the constitution. My view in this respect is confirmed by the third paragraph in the preamble of the resolution which we are now considering.
It reads:
And whereas the said act provides for the readjustment of representation on the completion of each decennial census, and that 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 was right in saying, at the beginning of my remarks, that the government have shown consummate skill in drafting the present resolution. They manoeuvred in such a way as to quench the least opposition on the part of provinces losing members in parliament. They lessened the reduction in the representation of two provinces to a minimum and at the same time abated any opposition to their scheme. They could have achieved the same ends by sticking to the letter of the constitution. But Ontario would lose eight members and the other provinces a total of ten, while Quebec's representation would not change. The total number of federal members would fall from 245 to 227.
But the population of Canada has increased greatly since Confederation and I think it
would be unreasonable and unfair to work on this basis of representation. I am in favour of the bill, provided that provincial rights, are protected. Their constitutional prerogatives must be fully respected. But I refuse-to believe that we. shall never see the day. when the dominion government will give back to the provinces their respective rights, guaranteed by the British North America Act. The time has come when provincial jurisdiction over taxes, education, -civil rights and legislation must be respected. The time has come also to restore parliament to its supremacy, encroached upon by all kinds of boards not answerable to the people. It is no use increasing the membership of this -house if our mandate is taken over by a bureaucracy which has substituted itself to the representatives of the people.
The plan before parliament reminds us of a very humiliating condition. We have never ceased to be a colony. As a matter of fact, the London parliament will decide whether or not we shall amend our constitution. I submit that it is a shame, in view of Canada's heiavy share of sacrifice and all the help we are still contributing to the United Kingdom. But who governs here? Is it London or is it Ottawa? What a shame for a country that has shed its best blood and shaken its economic structure for the sake of United Nations victory to apply to the British parliament because we lack the power to amend our own constitution ! How disgraceful and humiliating for a nation!
But I know of some who will gloat at the thought of our begging on bended knees from the British house of commons the right to amend the British North America Act. They are the selfsame people who, for five weeks, opposed Canadian citizenship; who, in another place, opposed Canada Day, and who tomorrow will fight to the last ditch against the adoption of a Canadian flag.
Why does not the government put an end, once and for all, to this antiquated colonialism, so that Canada may never again suffer such humiliation? Why not ask the provinces, rather than the British house, their consent on the right and opportunity to amend the constitution? Paltry interests and ulterior motives rear their head's in this matter of national concern. Infringements of the constitution have become innumerable. And those infringements have been committed without the consent of the provinces. Breaches of contract invariably stem from an essentially evil prin-
Redistribution

ciple. The government should not have to apply to London. London was not a party to the confederation. The contracting parties are the provinces which signed the British North America Act. Why were they not approached beforehand? Why are they not consulted? There are people who never stop advocating good understanding and national unity; but when the time comes to act they always act in the sense of misunderstanding and disunity. I ask the government what are you seeking in London? A concession? The exercise of a right? As for the Right Honourable Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), where is he now ? His ministers are doubtless anxiously awaiting his return, I had hoped, with so many others, that, his long stay in London, would have spared us this humiliating request to the British house, and that he would bring back with him the original draft of our constitution, which is kept over there.
We shall not be our true selves until we abolish appeals to the Privy Council, until we *can amend our constitution without currying favour from anyone and until we can hoist a truly distinctive flag. But since it is so difficult in Canada to exercise the right of selfgovernment, I feel it my duty to support the government on this measure, provided it manages our affairs without the interference of foreign countries. As all human laws, this one is imperfect. However, I wish to avoid that at some future time, it may be said that I did anything to decrease the influence of my province in this house. Time will improve this project. I endorse it as far as it is fair and beneficial for Quebec and all other provinces of the confederation. I also endorse it because if minorities were to forsake their rights, they would lose them irretrievably. In 1943, I opposed the delay in redistribution for the sake of the very principles on which our constitution is based. I foresaw a grave injustice to my province. I felt that our rights were infringed upon by such a delay. True, at that time, as at present, an amendment to the confederation act was contemplated. Ever since, we have suffered a real handicap because we did not have in this parliament, the full representation to which we were entitled. We are not overly surprised by the fact that, in this house, a group of politicians, ever the same, lead the fight against the claims of minorities. For over twenty years, I have been here a witness to this pitiable exhibition. However, this very same group of politicians claim to be the champions of right. I know them for having seen them at work. Champions of right they are not; rather pillars of the 
empire. I shall carefully avoid the path that leads directly to the forsaking of our rights to the advantage of those very men who never miss a chance of reproving, by gesture and word alike, any measure leading to a slightly fairer treatment of minorities or to a loosening of our colonial bonds. Although consultation with the provinces, on this matter, would have been preferable, I shall support the motion in the interest of the province of Quebec, whose influence should increase in every part of Canada and more particularly in the House of Commons. I want justice for all, with true respect for provincial autonomy and representation. All should be treated alike. The number of members elected to parliament should be according to the population of the country, I also want all Canadians to possess those qualities of fair-mindedness and patriotism without which we can never be a great nation.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a masterly speech. But although he opened to our view some splendid vistas, he kept in the dark others even more imposing. He recalled for our benefit the solemn statements of men who made Canada famous both nationally and internationally; but even though they were builders in many spheres of our political and social life, they failed to achieve that which has eluded us since confederation, that is, to make Canada free and independent with' regard to both her foreign and domestic policies and create a Canadian mentality capable of withstanding the assaults of colonialism and imperialism. During my lengthy career, I have fought on so many constitutional issues that, looking back into the past, considering the present and peering into the future, I wonder whether we shall ever be able to proclaim ourselves a nation. How difficult it is to call ourselves Canadians in this country! Shall we always follow in the wake of the empire? A few days ago I heard in this house invidious words during the debate on Canadian citizenship. A few moments ago I heard similar utterances in connection with our constitution. When shall we be able to hold up our heads and assert ourselves? When shall we be in a. position to amend our own constitution without requesting any permission from London? Everywhere our actions stamp us as an immature nation. We are a country Vithout a flag and I would even say without ' a constitution, since our constitution does not belong to us. It cannot be called ours. We have no right to use it as we see fit. London has the first say in regard to Canada's constitution. The British House of Commons may say to Canada: "Hands off this docu-

Redistribution
ment. You have no right to amend, modify or change it. We are the masters." Do you realize how dependent we are? This unspeakable situation must be remedied without delay. Let us free our Canadian constitution from all parasitic influences. Let us abolish appeals to the British Privy Council. Let us hoist a Canadian flag. Then and then only shall we rightfully claim that Canada is a nation.
Mr. JOHN R. MacNICOL (Davenport) (Text): First, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who this afternoon demonstrated that he is a big man. He could have easily taken the view that was taken by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard), who made me think of a small boy looking in the window of a candy store; if he could only get at the bullseyes and chocolates in there he would be thoroughly satisfied. The hon. member sees, as he imagines, eight more seats for the province of Quebec if redistribution goes through on the basis of the present resolution. But the hon. member for Lake Centre gave a studied, reasoned argument as to why the resolution should not be adopted. It would have been more to his advantage to have the resolution pass in its present form than to the advantage of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, because Saskatchewan is due to lose four seats if redistribution is carried out as proposed. I like a man who will stand up and argue a point of view. He realized that this form of redistribution would make it much easier for him, but he was fighting for a principle. So that I say the hon. member for Lake Centre is a big man. As I see it, the house has before it only two choices: (a) to pass the resolution and (b) to accept the amendment, and to consult the provinces as the government should do. If I can judge from what I read in the press I should think some of the provinces, particularly the province of Quebec, will not likely give much support to the resolution. I should expect that, if the premier of Quebec expresses the attitude of those he represents.
Then we would come back to the other position. I would presume we would have to pass through the house quickly a measure asking the British government to postpone redistribution until after the census in 1951. I am going to do my best this evening to set forth an argument as to why the resolution should-not be passed, and why there should be no redistribution until after 1951, a matter of only five years more.
I said that the British North America Act could easily be amended to permit postponement of redistribution until after the next
census. What is behind this resolution? Why is the government not proceeding with redistribution in the regular way? This is the first time in seventy-nine years any government in Canada has attempted to violate the British North America Act, as this government proposes to do at this time. What is the reason for changing the basis upon which seats are now established?
That basis is set forth in section 51 of the British North America Act, a section which is the foundation and copestone of the whole British North America Act. If that can be violated, then, later on, a majority can violate any section in that act.
I say it is unfair to have a redistribution on the basis of the present census. I see the minister-


An hon. MEMBER:: Of fisheries.


Mr. MacNICOL:: No; I was not looking at the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges). He has not been here long enough to know much about these matters. Rather, I was looking at the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott) who was smiling.


Mr. ABBOTT:: Oh, I always smile when my hon. friend speaks, because I enjoy his speeches so much.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Thank you very much.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I think we all do.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall try to show that redistribution should not proceed on the basis of the 1941 census. In 1941 this country had been two years at war. We had fought during the remainder of 1939 and throughout the whole of 1940. When the census was taken in the middle of the summer we had been two years at war.
I shall try to show that redistribution should not proceed on the basis of the 1941 census. In 1941 this country had been two years at war. We had fought during the remainder of 1939 and throughout the whole of 1940. When the census was taken in the middle of the summer we had been two years at war.
Referring specially to the publication "Canada at War", for 1945, I shall place on record the number of enlisted men in 1941 in the armed~forces. First, I shall take the total number for 1945, shown here as 992,103, of whom Ontario contributed 390,007, or 40 per cent. Then I go back to the number who were in the armed services in 1941 and, in the same issue I find that the number of enlistments stood at 364,000. Ontario's portion of that, at a rate of 40 per cent, stood at 145,000 men in the armed services in 1941.
Redistribution

Although I cannot say I have personal knowledge of each of the persons in question, I can say definitely that from my own constituency there were thousands who had gone to Nova Scotia or to other points, possibly Goose Bay, although perhaps they would not take their wives to that point. I do know for certain, however, that from Ontario many of them went to the maritime provinces and did take their wives and their children with them. Those people were not in Ontario at the time of the census enumeration in 1941. I know I am safe in saying that, counting those who went to the Pacific coast and those who went to the maritime provinces and overseas, there were thousands who were dislocated. So that I say the dislocation of population in Canada in 1941 was substantial. The census enumeration of that year was a most unfair basis upon which to establish parliamentary representation.
Not only that, I know of many who came to my constituency from the western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I have in mind-and I shall not mention names -three ladies whose husbands had come to the east to work in war industry in the city of Toronto. These three ladies lived in the constituency of Davenport. One of them had a family of three children, or a total of five in the family. Another brought her mother with her and, counting her child, made up a family of four. The third was of a family of three. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of similar cases.
Later, I shall place on record figures showing-the numbers who left Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Many of them went to British Columbia and many others came to Ontario. Those enlistments materially affected the balance of population in the three western provinces.
I mention that because I do not believe the government would have attempted to bring in the resolution if two of the western provinces were not going to lose seats as a result of that census. But the government saw that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba would lose seven seats. The government anticipated support from members from Saskatchewan and Alberta, with the exception of course of the brave member who represents Lake Centre-


An hon. MEMBER:: Brave?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, I say that. He stood up like a major-general this afternoon and defended a principle-and it takes backbone to defend a principle, at any time.

The population was badly dislocated, and those two provinces, both Saskatchewan and Manitoba lost .heavily. The result was that the government anticipated that it had friends who would reach out and try to grab or to hold on to the seven seats which they would not have, if redistribution proceeded on the present basis. The government expects support from that quarter.
If one examines the census returns of 1941, what does he find? He finds that Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia are affected one way or another. In looking through this census I direct the attention of the house particularly to the age groups of 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39 and 40-44, the groups from which the working men are taken, or from which people were dislocated and came to Ontario, British Columbia or elsewhere. What does one find in these groups. He finds that of the four western provinces, British Columbia continued to advance rapidly, not in the aggregate, but in proportion to the other three provinces. For instance, in 1941 in the age group twenty to twenty-four years British Columbia had 69,247; Alberta had 78,358; Saskatchewan had 85,097 and Manitoba had 69,273. In that ratio British Columbia had the lowest number, but when you consider all those age groups you find that British Columbia had the highest number of the four provinces, that it had adr%nced more than any other of those four provinces in the age groups forty to forty-five, thirty-five to thirty-nine and thirty to thirty-four and it was only exceeded by Saskatchewan in the age group twenty-five to twenty-nine. What does that mean? It means that a great number of people in those age groups had left the prairie province, either to go into the armed services or to work in the factories of Ontario or British Columbia. The number of people working in factories increased considerably in those two provinces.
It is wholly unfair to have a redistribution that will so seriously affect the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. WTe should not base redistribution on a census taken when so many of their men either were working in war factories or had entered the armed services.


Humphrey Mitchell: They were in Ontario voting socialism.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will give you Ontario by itself. What was the result there? In 1939, prior to the war there were 400,000 unemployed in Capada, but in 1941 the number of those engaged in war work alone was 1,021,000. That showed a great change in what the populace was doing. As I said a moment ago, many of those workers came from the western provinces, particularly Manitoba and Saskat-

Redistribution
chewan, which provinces would stand to lose seven seats. I maintain that it would be wholly unfair to have a redistribution based on that situation.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) asked about Ontario. As the minister knows in his city of Welland, and as I know in the city-of Toronto, large numbers from those provinces came to work in our industries. However, the population of the province did nob go up as much as one would have thought it would considering the ingress of people from-outside. The fact is that Ontario had 145,000 in the armed services, which was 40 per cent of all those in the services in 1941; Quebec-had 17 per cent, and the other provinces had lower percentages. Because of the dislocation? of population caused by those working in war-industries and the dislocation of population through enlistments it would be unfair to redistribute seats on the basis of the census of 1941.
At. one time our American cousins were in the very same boat. This is not a new thing because they have gone through the same experience. However, they handled it in a different way. They took a census in the United States in 1920, and had reapportionment of congressional seats taken place at that time it would have resulted in a number of states losing some of their representatives in congress. They refused to reapportion their seats, and I should like to quote what was said before a committee of the house of representatives which was set up to deal with the apportionment. This shows why reapportionment did not take place in 1920. One of the senior ranking investigators said this:
Mr. Rankin:	Let me make this statement for
the benefit of members of the committee. I do this because I, more than any man alive, am responsible for the failure to reapportion congress in accordance with the 1920 census. That census was taken in the winter time, which was the first time such was done. At the time, it was taken many of the farmers were more or less scattered, it was hard to find them, and therefore the census, in my opinion, was incomplete.
That is just the situation that prevailed when our census was taken in 1941; many had moved away.
Again, it was taken when we were just emerging from the world war and when hundreds of thousands of former soldiers had not returned to their homes.
As a result, if we had reapportionment according to that census, many agricultural states would have lost a portion of their representation, and a very large portion.
That is the same thing we are up against here. Because of the war two western provinces lost a large part of their populations.
Following what they did in the United States, we should not have redistribution. They did not reapportion until after the 1930 census and in the meantime the population of the United States had increased by 30,000,000 from 1910. Were they unfair in not reapportioning? They did not think so. They had some consideration for those men who had not yet returned home by 1920 when the census was taken following the great war. They had consideration for the farmers who had gone to work in war factories.
Everyone in this House of Commons can read that the number employed in war factories was 1,021,000, according to "Canada at War", for 1945. Those people came from everywhere. I know that many went to the United States, because in 1941 that country was not at war and they paid higher wages.
I am trying to show the house that we had the same condition here that prevailed in the United States when they refused to reapportion their congressional seats in 1920. They waited until 1930 before they did that. 1 consider that that was fair play; that was the right thing for them to do.
Someone asked about Ontario. As I said, the enlistments from Ontario were 145,000 in 1941, and this materially affected Ontario's population. Otherwise we would have advanced much more. These men were followed by many of their wives and, in some cases, their families and that affected the population of the province. It is for these reasons that we should not go on with redistribution.
As was said so well this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), so much so that I do not need to say much about it, if the government proceeds with this they will be opening the door for other violations of the constitution if and when some rabid majority gets into power, as may some time happen, and determines to change the British North America Act. Supposing such a majority wanted to change section 92, subsection 12? Subsection 12 of section 92 deals with:
The solemnization of marriage in the province. The provinces have control of that now, but there has been agitation for the Canadian government to have more control over marriage. Marriage is a contract. Can you change it just as you like?
Section 95 pertains to agriculture and immigration. It says:
In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province, and to immigration into the province.

Redistribution

The provinces are doing that now. But that could be changed. This government could take to itself of everything pertaining to immigration.
Section 98 says.
The judges of the counts of Quebec shall be selected from the bar of that province.
That is a special privilege. That also might be changed.
Section 133 pertains to the English and French languages. That might be changed too. I am one of those who believe that all these provisions in the British North America Act should be inviolable. I believe that these sontracts which have been entered into with the province of Quebec and other provinces should not be changed. I do not believe that the province of Quebec would have come into confederation if they had thought that these contracts would be so lightly changed. I am a supporter of this clause preserving the use of the French language and of any other clause pertaining to the province of Quebec. But if you open the door wide to change, then, no matter what anyone else says, each and all of these provisions can be changed if you change the cornerstone and copestone which is section 51. Violate that and all the rest can be violated just as easily. I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre that you have to go very carefully in making changes. It is a serious thing to violate the main clause of the British North America Act.
Representation by population has been mentioned in this debate. I am in favour of representation by population, if fair. I see that my hon. friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Gauthier) is having a good laugh. But the premier of Quebec has announced his opposition to this bill, so that I am in pretty good company in opposing the bill.
So far as representation by population is concerned, are you going all along the line with it if you pass this bill? Let me give some figures to show how alleged representation by population is actually working at the present time. I think Canada is conspicuous throughout the world as one state where representation by population is not observed the least so far as the constituencies are concerned. I know no place in the world where there is less representation by population than in Canada. In Nova Scotia four constituencies have more than the quota of representation, and eight are under the quota. The highest number of people in any constituency in the province is 85,000, and the lowest, 27.000. You would not call that representation by population.

In New Brunswick there are three constituencies over the quota, and seven under. The highest number of people to any constituency is 78,000, and the lowest, 24,000. Lou would not call that representation by population.
In Quebec twenty-seven constituencies are over the quota, and thirty-eight below the quota. The highest number of people to any one constituency is 93,000, and the lowest,
22.000.	It does not seem fair to me that it should require 93,000 people in one seat to balance 22,000 in another seat.


Mr. LALONDE:: That is why we want more members.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That has nothing whatever to do with the matter. In Ontario there are thirty-four constituencies over the quota, and forty-eight under. The highest number of people to a constituency is 113,000, and the lowest, 19,000. There is little representation by population there.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Nipissing):: Which constituency has 113,000?


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is Nipissing. My hon. friend knows that because I told him that. That is why I often said that his predecessor should be given double the indemnity for having so many people to represent. It was not the fault of the last government. I did my best to provide Nipissing with two members, but for reasons that it is not necessary to go into now that was not done.
Manitoba has five constituencies over the quota, and twelve under. The highest number of people to a constituency is 71,000, and the lowmst, 23,000.
Saskatchewan has three constituencies over the quota, and eighteen under. The highest number of electors to a constituency is 59,000, and the lowest, 33,000.
Alberta has five constituencies over the quota, and twelve under. The highest number of people to a constituency is 58,000, and the lowest, 26,000.
British Columbia has nine constituencies over the quota, and seven under, and the highest number of people to a constituency is
77.000,	and the lowest, 25,000.
Nipissing is the constituency in Canada which has the highest number of people,
113.000,	and the lowest is also in Ontario, with
19.000.	There are ninety ridings in all Canada that are over the quota, and 150 below the quota. You will not find a situation like that in any other democratic country. We now have a chance to make a proper redistribution.

Redistribution
In Australia they work on a basis of five, seven and nine. That is, there are five voters in a widely extended riding like Cochrane, seven voters in a riding like South Ontario, and nine voters in the city ridings. Those nine voters in a city riding are considered equal to seven voters representing a riding that is partly urban and partly rural, and equal to five voters in a widely extended riding. I do not believe that we should change from such a basis in Canada at present, but after 1960 this country should get down to a more equitable redistribution. .
In the United States their quota is 304,000 per seat, and they adhere to that as closely as they possibly can. Practically every riding in the United States is within measurable distance of the quota, a little above or a little below. The same applies to the main states of the union. They have no situation like we have in Canada, where one riding will have 113,000 people and another riding 19,000. Nor will you find that in England, where the quota is 70,000. I looked over the first 220 seats in the British parliament and they were comparably close to the 70,000. We have little like that here. So that we have a lot of work to do yet to give a reasonable measure of representation by population in the ridings.
In the United States they are drastic against gerrymandering. We have had a lot of ridings gerrymandered here. In the United States the federal ridings are determined by the states, not by Washington. The state governments appoint a committee which draws up the boundaries for the various federal seats and then they have to be approved by the supreme court of the state. It is shocking to think of what has happened in Canada. We have a great disproportion of representation in this country. How we are going to overcome it, I do not know. But that is one thing we should do.
I read an interesting bit of information about the state of Massachusetts when I was studying this question. I am not in favour of what they do in: Massachusetts; I do not think we should do it their way. They base their representation on the voters' list. I had an interesting time in computing the results in the provinces of Canada if representation were reapportioned on that basis. As I say, I do not favour it because I do not believe it w'ould give us the result we desire, although it would provide the same number of seats as the government proposes, namely 255. However, it was interesting to observe that other jurisdictions have troubles beside our own. Our difficulties arise largely from the way our seats are laid out. There is not much fairness, as I pointed out a moment 63260-1434
ago, in a system which creates such a great disparity between the numbers of people residing in various ridings. A letter on this subject which I received from Pennsylvania indicates that they are not gerrymandering over there. The assistant director of the bureau of elections writes:
It is my personal opinion that the legislature of Pennsylvania will be unable to favour one type of area over another type-
That is, they want the seats to be relatively the same population.
-in the matter of representation in the legislature or in congress. I feel that such apportionment would violate both the federal and state constitutions.
By that he means that, as between a seat which has a population of 113,000, as Nipis-sing has, and one with only 22,000, like Argen-teuil, there is such a disproportion in the value of each elector's vote that it does not seem defensible. As I have said, I am not in favour of a change which would cause a great deal of disharmony, but I believe we could reapportion representation on a basis of 5-7-9; that is to say, five voters in a wide open rural area to seven voters in a semiurban and rural area, to nine in a city. At the present time we are altogether out of proportion.
I believe this matter should stand over until after the next census. What would we lose by it? The Northwest Territories would, lose a seat, and I believe they should have one; how we could give it to them without redistribution I do not know. But there would not be very much change in the rest of Canada. If we go on with the bill what would be the result? Some of the western provinces will lose anyway. That Ontario will have one more seat is neither here nor there; that is a mere bagatelle. As far as I am concerned I am ready to accept what comes as a result of redistribution.
Much of the talk this afternoon seemed to me like an attack on Ontario. Well, we have not violated the constitution. We took what the constitution gave us. We were reduced to eighty-two seats and we have not made any fuss about it. Previously we lost ten, and we did not make any fuss about that; Ontario used to have ninety-two seats, but upon redistribution our representation in comparison with that of Quebec had to be reduced; it fell to eighty-six and then to eighty-two. That was in accordance with the constitution. Now, to avoid complying with the constitution, the government proposes to violate the British North America Act.


Maurice Lalonde: Not violate it. Just
change it.
Redistribution


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is a violation of the crown and pinnacle of the constitution, section 51, a straight violation of the British North America Act, and the main clause of that act, section 51.


Maurice Lalonde: An amendment, not a
delation. There is quite a difference.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is a violation when you cannot amend it, and I do not believe the government have authority to amend it. To support my statement, I will read what Lord Atkin said. The quotation is as follows:
No one can doubt that this distribution is one of the most essential conditions of the interprovincial compact to which the B.N.A. gives effect. If the true position of Lower Canada alone were considered, the existence of her separate jurisdiction as to property and civil rights might be said to depend upon loyal adherence to her constitutional right to the exclusive competence of her own legislature in these matters.
Lord Atkin says that the British North America Act was a compact. Well, if it was a compact between the four original provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, by what right does this government violate it? This proceeding is nothing short of a violation. If, of course, this bill or resolution is submitted to the provinces and receives their endorsement, I shall have nothing more to say about it; there would be nothing to dio but go on with the programme as outlined. But until the government obtain the consent of the provinces I maintain that they are violating-I use that word again-what is the cornerstone of the whole act, that is section 51, having to do with representation in this house. I say to my hon. friends from the province of Quebec that I had expected everyone of them to rise and take a stand such as the premier of Quebec is taking.


Maurice Lalonde: He is one of your good friends.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know nothing about his politics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He is the premier of Quebec, at present in charge of that province; he recently won a by-election, and I believe he will win the one which is pending. Evidently he represents the people of the province, or he would not take the stand he has taken.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


Mr. WHITMAN:: Elected on a minority vote.


John Ritchie MacNicol: So I say that the government's action is a violation of the British
{Mr. Lalonde.]
North America Act, by which violation Quebec has more to lose than any other province.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have said that so often you must be sure of it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I can repeat it many times and still be sure of it, because I believe it is true.	,
I feel the time has come to do a number of things which could be considered when, in due course, we are in a position to go into this whole subject. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should both receive acclamations. It would be a good thing for the country if they did not have to fight a battle in their ridings, as the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had to do at the last election; they would then be free to go around the country and enlighten the public as to their policies. Another matter which we might attend to is to rearrange our seats on a much fairer basis than at present, as they do in the United States. In many other ways we could usefully amend our present ways and methods of conducting our elections in Canada. The way many of the seats are laid out to-day is nothing short of a gerrymander, and it will not provide fair representation in this house. Therefore, I again say to the government, be careful. I say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), since he is fathering the bill, be careful too. I ask him to follow the path that was so well laid out by the hon. member for Lake Centre this afternoon in the quotations hd gave from other ministers of justice and leaders in this country, who, in regard to this particular section, kept their hands off the British North America Act.
By amending this section of the act you are opening the door to anything that might come along. It will serve no useful purpose to go much farther at the moment. In reorganizing our Canadian elections I was going to suggest that we might follow one good thing the province of Quebec has done. I do not know whether it was done by the present or the previous government; but when they call an election they appoint a deputy returning officer in each riding and the opposition party names the clerk. I think that is an amendment we could adopt. That, together with the reconstitution of our seats on the basis of five, seven and nine, or as closely as we could follow it, would result in a great improvement in Canadian political affairs.
Mr. F. W. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battleford): The discussions on this resolution and the subsequent amendment have been interesting so far, but they have been somewhat

Redistribution
philosophic or legal, or in some instances slightly prejudiced because of the home pro'v-ince of the individual who happened to be speaking. May I be allowed to crave the indulgence of the house to go a little further into the north country and deal with a part of our dominion which does not come in the public eye very often unless something extraordinary happens. I refer particularly to that part of Canada knows as the Northwest Territories.
There are four constituencies in Saskatchewan which run a long way north; mine happens to be one of them. It runs up to the sixtieth parallel, which is a long way north. Beyond that there is quite a large territory, possibly larger "than many of us realize. As a matter of fact, it comprises 42 per cent of the total land area of Canada.
So far as this resolution goes, we are more particularly concerned at the moment with the number of seats which we may or may not get in our own particular province. That huge area of land in the Northwest Territories is [DOT] represented in this house by just one member, and the people up there feel, and say, that they should have more than one member.
That great area is divided into four districts, namely, the Yukon, which is already represented in this house, the Northwest Territories which, in their turn, are again divided into three large districts, known as Franklin, Kee-watin and the Mackenzie district. The Yukon district comprises something over 205,000 square miles. It is the smallest district in the north country. The Franklin district is 546,000 square miles in area; Keewatin, 218,000 and some odd square miles, and the Mackenzie district, 493,000 square miles. The total area of that northwest country is 1,463,593 square miles, or 42 per cent of all the dry land of Canada.
The Yukon has 1,730 square miles of fresh water, Franklin has 7,500 square miles; Keewatin, 9,700 square miles, and the Mackenzie district, 34,265 square miles. These figures are all taken from the Canada Year Book. I am dwelling on this because I want hon. members to realize just how much land there is in that northern part of the world. The area of that territory is twelve times that of the United Kingdom and one-half that of the United States. I repeat, that huge territory is represented by one member, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). According to the Canada Year Book, this member of parliament first took his seat in 1904. In 1940, 2,097 votes were polled out of a possible 4,914. The rest of the' territory has a population of some 12,000, but has no representation. The people are now asking for at least one other member, who should represent the Mackenzie district.
A tremendous amount of wealth comes out of that area which we have possibly regarded as being arid, snow-covered and icebound. In 1941, a total of $9,500,000 was taken from that country in minerals, gold, silver, oil and other minerals, or $486 per capita. There is only one other province in Canada which approaches this figure, namely, Ontario, with $551 per capita. In that area they pay a yearly amount of something over $3,000,000 in salaries and wages. Over $3,500,000 were taken out in fur in 1943. Only three other provinces in Canada exceeded that figure. There are two huge lakes in that country, the Great Bear, and the Great Slave lakes, each of which is half as big again as lake Ontario. The uranium deposits on the Great Bear lake have given that district world notoriety. It may well be that that area can be and probably is, if we only knew it, the most important district int the whole world to-day, because our information is that there is only one other place where uranium, the metal which is so valuable and. so important in the minds of all peoples to-day; can be obtained.
The Northwest Territories are governed by a commissioner, a deputy commissioner and four councillors, who are appointed and who have their seat in Ottawa. These men are assisted by various departments of government, but they do not live in the Northwest Territories, and only occasionally do they get up there. Another significant thing is the fact that the stipendiary magistrate, the chairman of the board of trustees, the dominion land agent, the timber berth agent, the registrar of deeds and the mining recorder are all the same man. The residents of the Mackenzie district are not very happy about this; they feel the time has come for a change, and they certainly believe they should have representation in this house.
Another grievance is that they are taxed- of course everyone has that grievance-but they are not given representation, which is not supposed to be a good idea. They also claim that their exemption is no greater than that in force in other parts of Canada, though their living costs are greatly in excess of costs elsewhere. They say that living costs in the Northwest Territories are anywhere from 75 to 300 per cent higher than in other parts of the dominion. They also complain about fuel. In that country, where there is no wood, of course oil is important. When you get up to about 63 degrees north latitude you get pretty well out of the wooded belt, so that oil becomes of great importance, for fuel. My information is that the Canol wells have been closed down. Apparently they now belong
Redistribution

to Imperial Oil, and the residents complain [DOT] that there has been a severe shortage of oil * in that area for the last two years.	.
In reference to transportation they complain that the roads are quite inadequate. There is one road in the making, the Grimshaw-Hay River road, which they do not expect will be [DOT]completed until 1947, and in the meantime no provision has been made for linking existing roads with the Alaska highway. The waterways, such as they are, require dredging from time to time. They particularly mention Slave river and Great Slave lake as being in great need of dredging operations. Air transportation is apparently a monopoly of C.P.A., and they claim their rates are the highest in the country. For example, the single fare from Edmonton to Yellowknife is $126.50, which they complain is entirely too high. The postal arrangements will also bear some looking into: three days a week by air. They claim their position is unique in that parcel rates are higher than letter rates. There is no parliamentary franchise in that country. Though certain letters and papers may be sent from this house to other countries free of charge, if you want to send them to the Northwest Territories you have to pay for them. As I have' mentioned, mining operations are going on up there, and they have a further complaint in connection with mine wages. They say that the federally owned Eldorado mine-and I hope the minister concerned will listen to this-pays the lowest hourly rates underground of any mine operating in that country. Negus, they say, pays $50 for a 48-hour week, while the surface and millworkers are paid a little less. My information also is that the mine managers are hostile to labour organizations.
As far as health and welfare are concerned, their hospital arrangements are inadequate. They have one 15-bed hospital at Yellowknife, with one doctor. Dental service is inadequate and expensive. The Dog Rib Indians, who live in that territory, are said to be poverty stricken. They are at a very low level of culture indeed, and apparently the government is doing very little to look after them.
I have gone through this outline rather hastily just to give a general picture of the situation up in that north country. They are asking for more representation at Ottawa than ihey have at the present time. They are mentioned very casually in the resolution. Apparently some thought has been given to joining the Yukon with the rest of the territories or any parts of the territories which do not belong to a province, and arrangements

are to be made to provide one member for such district when it is set up. They consider this to be entirely insufficient, and ask that the government, and particularly the minister in charge of this resolution, give serious thought to providing a little more consideration for these people living in the Northwest Territories.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have no prepared address to deliver to the house this evening, and in consequence I shall not detain hon. members for any great length of time. However, I do not want this important resolution to pass without placing myself on record about it. I should like to point out that the membership of this House of Commons is based upon the principle of representation by population; yet as a matter of fact this principle has not been lived up to. Indeed, many of our principles and many of our sayings, while they sound well, have to be departed from in one respect or another. It is all very well to talk about representation by population or to say that all men are born free and equal, but as a matter of fact we know that such is not the case.	.
The principle of representation in this house by population has been departed from in several instances. For example section 51 (4), about which there has been so much discussion, provides for a departure from this principle. The act passed in 1915, which provided that the number of representatives in this house from the maritime provinces, as well as from the other provinces of Canada, should never be less than the number of representatives those provinces have in the senate, was another departure from that principle. The fact that we have a member from the YTikon is a further departure. If the amendment proposed in this resolution becomes law, we shall still not have representation by population, for it provides that the maritime provinces and the other provinces shall have at least as many representatives in this house as they have in the senate, and that representation from the Yukon shall be continued.
As a matter of fact, our representation is based upon other considerations besides that of population. We have, as I say, a member from the Yukon. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) this afternoon suggested that we should have one from the Northwest I smtories. I remember last session, or the i *. ssion before, when this matter was being considered, that the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) speaking of repre-

RedistriBution
sentation from Saskatchewan, suggested the principle that there should be not only representation by population but representation by areas or extent of territory. The hon. member who preceded me in the debate this evening, the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. Townley-Smith), made a similar suggestion.
My reaction to this resolution, when I read it, was disquieting. It was disquieting for me to think that when the government comes face to face with a political difficulty it has to perform a major operation on the British North America Act, which is the foundation-stone of our constitution, in order to remedy that difficulty. Surely there must be some safer way, and therefore some better way of solving this difficulty.
If the government of the day-and it matters not what government it may be-comes up against a difficulty of this kind, and says to itself, "We will amend the British North America Act, and fix it up in that way," what foundation have we, or what feeling of security can we have in this country? It seems to me that every avenue should have been explored before taking such a drastic measure as that proposed in the resolution introduced into the house.
I support the view held by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), that the British North America Act should not be changed without consultation with the provinces, or without the provinces being first consulted. That opinion, as the hon. member for Lake Centre pointed out, was the opinion expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, by Sir Robert Borden, by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe and by many other prominent Canadians who have given careful consideration to the subject. The hon. member quoted several statements by these eminent men, and it seems to me they are food for serious consideration.
I hold in my hand, and I intend to quote it, a statement made in the debates of 1943 by an hon. member who at one time occupied a prominent place in the government of this country. I refer to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). This is what he said at page 4356 of Hansard for 1943:
Mr. Speaker, the resolution now being considered by the house contains in my humble judgment, a dangerous procedure to which the House of Commons should give serious consideration before adopting it in the form in which it has been couched on the order paper. For a number of years it has been admitted in all branches of public opinion that no serious change should be made in the British North America Act without the consent and approval of the parties to the contract. I admit that in the past the federal parliament has been dealing from the point of view of its own authority, and
has been amending the British North America Act, without consulting the provinces, which are a party to that contract. -But I repeat that at least within the last few years the opinion has developed throughout Canada that the British North America Act should be considered as a sacred contract among associates, those associates being the provinces, and that nothing should be done to modify it without the approval of the contracting parties.
I think it is quite clear that whatever powers the dominion government possesses were given it by the provinces. Perhaps I should modify . that statement because we have an unwritten as well as a written constitution. But I can say that a great many of the powers the dominion government possesses were given it by the provinces, and that the dominion has no right to change the constitution without consulting the provinces.
Reference has been made in this debate to the Quebec conference and the Quebec resolutions of 1864, which followed the Charlottetown conference. To keep the-record straight, and perhaps for historical reasons, I should like to point out that in 1865 the people of New Brunswick rejected the Quebec resolutions of 1864 at the polls by a very large majority. In the same year the province of Canada sent a delegation to London to ask the British government to force New Brunswick and Nova Scotia into a union with her based on the Quebec resolutions, which the British government refused to do and replied in effect that it would not sanction a union unless the provinces first arranged a properly authorized agreement of union.
In 1866 the newly elected legislature of New' Brunswick passed a resolution authorizing the appointment of delegates to arrange a union under terms and conditions which would protect the rights and interests of that province with special reference to the Intercolonial railway. In the same year the legislature of Nova Scotia passed a similar resolution without reference to the Intercolonial railway. In December of the same year delegates of the four provinces met at the Westminster Palace hotel, London, came to a properly authorized interprovincial agreement and sent this agreement to the colonial secretary with the request for a conference with him.
Early in 1867 this joint conference was held with Lord Carnarvon as chairman, Lord Tring drafting the necessary legislation. In the same year the British North America Act 1867 and the Canadian Railway Loan Act 1867 were passed by the British parliament to give effect to the interprovincial agreement 1866-not the Quebec agreement, but the London agreement
Redistribution

-and at its first session the federal parliament, passed the Parliament of Canada Act and the Intercolonial Railway Act, and by so doing undertook its obligations to carry out the interprovincial agreement of 1866, also not to legislate in any manner that is inconsistent with or repugnant to what is written in the 1866 agreement and the imperial legislation that gives effect to it.
I would point out that the proposed amendment of the British North America Act is not in the interests of the maritime provinces. We have twenty-six members from the maritime provinces in this house out of a total of 245. If this resolution carries we shall have in the next house twenty-seven members out of a total membership of 255. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to section 52 of the British North America Act, which reads:
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.
I contend that if this resolution goes into effect it will disturb the present proportionate representation of the maritime provinces in this house. At the present time the maritime provinces have twenty-six members out of 245, and if we are to have only twenty-seven out of 255 when this resolution becomes law then the proportionate representation is being changed and section 52 is violated. Not only only that, as time goes on our representation will change even more. It will be only a matter of time, I believe, before the province of Nova Scotia will have as its representation in this house only the number of representatives it has in the senate. That will probably be the result should this resolution carry because of the increase in population that will take place in other parts of Canada. Nova Scotia would then find itself in the same position as Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I think we are going beyond the provisions of section 52 of the British North America Act in proposing the amendment contained in this resolution.
I want to see Quebec have the representation it is entitled to, and I want to see the other provinces fairly represented. Under the present set-up and with the conditions that prevail at the present time, the representation appears to be unfair. When the minister introduced the resolution he said that up until the turn of the century everything went all right, that it was only since the turn of the century that any discrepancy or unfairness had crept in. This thought has occurred to me. Were not the fathers of confederation right? If we take a long-range view of it, may not the*

present arrangement work out all right in the end? The London resolution and the B.N.A. Act were intended to last more than a genera-* tion. The act worked all right prior to 1900; may it not work all right again?
In any event, I want to see Quebec fairly represented in this house; I do not want to see any province unfairly represented, or have more members than it is entitled to. I submit, as I have already submitted, that this proposed amendment is violating section 52 of the British North America Act.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, in order that all sides of an argument may be fairly presented it is necessary to deal with many different points of view. Earlier in the day we heard the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), in which he developed the historical side of this argument. Later, we had what was referred to by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. Townley-Smith) as the philosophical side of the argument developed by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). Then, later, we had the legal side of the argument developed and elaborated by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) who has just spoken. Then we have had the administrative side developed, and reference was made to the difficulties of those who live in the great undeveloped areas of the north, the large number of men who went to work in the great mining areas in the Mackenzie basin just before the last election and were deprived of their franchise.
So far the practical side has not been touched upon, a study of the point of view of the man in the street. At the risk of falling a victim to the verbal claymore of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), I should like to refer for a few minutes to what I would call the practical side or the point of view of the man in the street. It is the man in the street who has to pay out money for such legislation or government as he receives, and for many years past he has thought that this country is overgoverned. He stops to think of the federal government, the provincial governments and all the municipal governments, and he keeps on saying that this country is overgoverned.
If he were to look at this little book called the Parliamentary Guide he would find, if his figures agreed with the rapid calculation I have made in the last few minutes, that in the senate there are some ninety-six seats, with one or more vacancies.


Mr. HACKETT:: There are plenty of candidates to fill that.

Redistribution


George Randolph Pearkes: I am told there are plenty of candidates but I am not one. In the House of Commons there are some 245 members. Then in the provincial legislatures there are the following memberships:
Alberta	 60
Manitoba	 55
British Columbia	 48
New Brunswick	 48
Nova Scotia	 30
Ontario	 90
Prince Edward Island	 30
Quebec	 91
Saskatchewan	 55
According to the rough calculation I have made, that gives a total of 507 members in the nine Drovincial legislatures. I would hesitate to make even a rough guess as to the number of people exercising government in the various municipalities stretching across the country, but it must run into thousands. Is it any wonder that the man in the street suggests that perhaps we are overgoverned? What will his reaction be when he sees that the government is suggesting that there be ten members added to this house? I am afraid that he will start to figure up the costs, and his very first reaction will be: "I, the man in the street, raised their salaries by $2,000 last session, and now they want to do less work by having ten more men to help Ahem out."
It will mean that these ten additional members will receive the indemnity that we here receive, and the first rough calculation would show that this means another $60,000 added to the taxpayer's burden. But it does not end there, because we are fortunate enough to get free railway transportation, and if we come from any great distance the taxpayer is kind enough to give us our travelling expenses. We also get free mail and a lot of free literature. If we are to add another ten members to this house, there will be an increase in the amount of that literature,, which will mean that there will have to be an increment in every single department in order to provide those extra ten members with this information which is given out so freely by every department of the government. There will have to be ten extra stenographers. There will have to be extra waitresses in the cafeteria or in the parliamentary restaurant, as the case may be.
I have to share an office with another hon. member, who irritates me intensely at times because he has a loud voice and invariably speaks over the telephone, while I hardly use the telephone at all, and I shudder to think of having another member also put into my office. There are already not enough offices to go around. I thoroughly believe that if
you are going to give ten more members to this house, we the Progressive Conservatives will get at least one of those ten-I hope so- but I dread to think of having another member put into my office because there just will not be room for three. So that I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the next step will not be to suggest enlarging this building if we have ten more members and you -have to find ten more offices or even five more offices to accommodate them. Will it not be necessary to build an additional floor or, as my hon. friend besides me suggests, a lean-to on this building?


An hon. MEMBER:: Put the Tories in the cellar.


George Randolph Pearkes: So while I said at the beginning that I felt quite reasonably certain that I might fall a victim to the bowie knife, I have run that risk with my eyes open because I believe that there are a great many humble men throughout this country who really will wonder whether they are justified in paying out more money in order to be governed. I leave it there, and I ask the government to give consideration to that foolish point of view perhaps, because the man in the street is not a philosopher; he is not a lawyer; he is a practical man who has to pay out the extra money if he is to be blessed or cursed, as the case may be, by an additional ten members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) was speaking, and as the clock pursued its inevitable course toward eleven o'clock I wondered whether it would reach it before the time arrived when I would have to rise in my pl;ice in the house, and I could not avoid being impressed with the thought aroused by the trend of his argument that ten more members would probably mean ten more speeches, or, as my hon. friend the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) suggests, perhaps a hundred more, depending upon how many times they spoke. I see the Minister of National Defence has caught the point.
It seems to me that one obvious feature has so far emerged from the debate. The question has come to the fore on what grounds the various parties in the house base their stand for or against the resolution. Since it is almost eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Labour Conditions

Friday, June 7, 1946.