1946-06-13

Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the proceedings of the day are entered upon I should like to refer to a matter which I am sure will be of interest to every member of this house. I refer to a report in the morning press that one of our number has been distinctly honoured since we met here yesterday. I wish to take this opportunity on behalf of my associates and myself, and on this occasion I think I can speak for every member of the house, of extending to the Right Honourable Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) our sincere congratulations.
We regard it occasionally as a privilege, sometimes as a right, always as a responsibility, to tell the minister how he can do his job much better than he has done it before or is doing it now. But on an occasion like this, when his war-time service has been recognized by the crown and when it has been expressed in his appointment to the high position of member of the king's privy council, it is one time when we can extend to him our warmest congratulations on this recognition
C oal-E mbargo

of a war-time task well done. I make these comments whole-heartedly on behalf of every member of this group and, I would like to think, of every member of the house. It is an outstanding honour which has come to one of our members, an honour which is richly deserved.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like on behalf of this party to associate myself with the words of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). We may not always agree with the minister in some of the policies which he is placing before the house or has placed before the house in days past. But I think we all recognize that the distinction conferred upon him to-day is a mark of the appreciation not only of Canada but of the British commonwealth of the remarkable services which he made to the common cause during the war.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the members of my group would want me to join with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) in expressing our sincere and warm congratulations to the right hon. gentleman who has been distinctly honoured by being made a member of the king's privy council. It is not inconceivable, sir, that the contribution of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply during the time that he was also the minister of munitions during the war was responsible for the victory of the united nations. I think that that is quite possible. While, as the other two gentlemen have said, we may not always have agreed with the things done by the right hon. gentleman, we must admit that all he does is done with a whole heart and a good spirit and with real intent; and we congratulate him upon his success and upon the signal honour which has come to him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Speech!


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the leaders of the opposition parties for their very kind words on this occasion. I feel that the cordiality of the reception of the news in this house almost equals the honour itself as conferring on me a real distinction. I can only hope that I can continue to serve Canada in a manner worthy of the honour which has been bestowed upon me.



UNITED STATES EMBARGO-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31

Mr. T. L. CHLTRCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mae-

Nicol), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite emergency, a matter of great and urgent public importance, namely, the United States embargo on coal, issued on June 11 to the Ore and Coal Exchange of Cleveland and on account of the great lakes shipping strike, which embargo was temporarily suspended, and also the tie-up of nearly 25,000 hopper coal cars at United States lake ports ready to unload coal for Canada to Canadian ships, and to discuss the grave peril of drastic shortages of supply to Canadian homes without any supply whatever, especially in central Canada next fall and winter, and the urgent need of an all-Canadian national coal policy accordingly.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am not quite sure that this is a matter of urgent public importance, but of course, under standing order 31, if twenty members rise the hon. member may proceed.
And leave having been granted:


Thomas Langton Church: I shall not detain the house for more than a few minutes. I first brought up this important question of a national fuel supply and a national policy for Canada on March 19, 1923. I am not going to repeat now what I said at that time, and what I have reiterated several times since, but I wish to impress upon the government the gravity of 1 he present situation, especially to central Canada. An opportunity will be afforded me, I have no doubt, under the main estimates to go into this matter more fully, but at the moment-
Some hon. MEMBERS1: Louder.


Thomas Langton Church: Louder? Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak for more than five minutes this afternoon, and I want to impress the importance of this matter on the government and on the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. By the way, I knew him when he was a young engineer and I should like to congratulate him now on the honour that has come to him. To come back to the coal question, we are faced with the most awful winter that Canada will ever have experienced. I have urged upon the government from time to time the importance of a national fuel policy. According to the latest reports we have received, we shall be shut out from the United States this winter by embargo as far as a coal supply is concerned. Geologists there say that they have a supply for seventy-five years, and I do not think that Canadians should depend further upon the United States for their coal. Thousands of cars are tied up in the United

Coal-Embargo
States-twenty	or twenty-five thousand
American cars at lake Erie ports-and I suggest that the time has come for us to take action and move them. In Alberta and in the maritime provinces, I suggest, lies the solution to our problem, through a national fuel policy. Although, as I have said, I first brought this matter to the attention of the house on March 19, 1923, little has been done about it by the government. The problem is largely one of transportation, and the shortages are in the central provinces, in which there are no coal deposits. The east should move coal as far west as possible; Alberta should move it as far east as it can, and it is for the government now to take active steps to solve the problem by a national supply.
I would ask the hon. gentleman who is seconding the motion to say a few words on the subject.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) deserves the unstinted praise of the whole country for his energy and foresight in bringing this resolution before the house, and Your Honour also deserves unstinted praise for allowing it to 'be presented for discussion. I wish also to thank the house for allowing it to be discussed.
Before I proceed to address a few words to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) may I pause to congratulate him personally upon the high honour that has been conferred upon him. I have said on many occasions across the floor of the house that he is one minister who invariably knows what he is talking about, who knows all the answers; he has a vast fund of information such as few other men in this house can draw upon. Once more I congratulate him sincerely on the high honour that has been conferred upon him.
A few days ago the minister made this statement, as quoted in this morning's Globe and Mail of Toronto, which brings it up to date:
Unless the production and transportation of coal is resumed in the United States in the near future, the central provinces of Canada are faced with nothing less than a calamity, and our people and our industries may be faced with hardship and distress on a scale never experienced during the war years.
That announcement by the right hon. gentleman has caused in my part of the country very grave anxiety over the possible experience next winter. It was quite right that he should warn the people of the calamity that is facing them, and it devolves upon the whole House of Commons to see
that that threatened calamity is averted, or at least the severity of fuel conditions mitigated as far as possible.
We take up a lot of time in this house on matters of little or no importance, the decision of which is of little consequence to the people, but here is something that is of colossal import to everyone. When I was last at home I went to my old coal dealer and was informed that it was useless leaving my order for coal. I have quite a number of buildings and the comfort of their tenants depends upon me. For their safety I may have to order oil burners. In my own home I have" to take out two boilers and have them replaced with a single boiler equipped as an oil burner. I do not mind doing that, but everybody cannot do it. In my own section of the city there is a large working-class population. It would be certainly financially impossible, for one out of twenty-five to buy an oil burner. They have to burn coal. It is a tremendous problem for these humble homes, in which from ninety to ninety-five per cent of the population reside. They will be the sufferers if they cannot get coal. The other five or ten per cent may be able to purchase oil burners. If they are able to obtain the oil they will not suffer, but the great mass of Canadians, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, which provinces have no coal of their own, are in jeopardy.
I am sorry to learn that the anticipated production of coal in the lignite area of northern Ontario is not to be had. It has been found that the moisture content of the lignite coal there is so great that the cost of production would far exceed the value received. That will be a serious blow to northern Ontario, because, as the hon. member for Timiskaming will say if he speaks on this subject, they have been expecting to get coal from northern Ontario. Therefore from whatever point of view it is considered it is a serious problem and a great menace to Ontario people.
I am now going to speak particularly for the people of Toronto. In Toronto we have an energetic mayor. He is always keenly alive to the best interests of the people. A few days ago he issued a solemn warning which can be found in the Toronto Telegram of June 7, as follows:
The mayor pointed out that last year, to June 6, eighty-six coal-carrying ships had docked in Toronto harbour, with 418,849 tons of coal. This year to date, only twenty-six ships have arrived with 97,440 tons, a loss to date of 321,409 tons.
This is a most serious threat to the comfort of the people of that city during next fall and winter. Within three months time
Coal-Embargo

we shall start burning coal in Toronto. The month of June is half gone. How many homes in Toronto have coal I do not know; I have not any, I could not get it. The great majority of homes in Toronto are without coal, and within three months we shall have to start burning it, because many of the homes in that city are heated in the winter with hot water. That system of heating has the reverse effect in the fall months if the heat is not on. The radiators, being full of cold water, will cool the house down to an almost unbearable degree. Therefore it is a matter of vital importance to these people. The minister is probably doing all he can with the staff under his control, but we have to do more than that. What more can be done at the moment I do not know.
Yesterday the coal controller issued a statement in which he said, according to the Toronto Globe:
The shortage in the central provinces this winter is estimated at somewhere near 5,500,000 tons.
This is a serious problem for the people in the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario. I wonder if hon. members realize what it means for the two provinces to be short
5,500,000	tons of coal. It has been said by some that we might use hydro-electric power. Well, the hydro commission in Toronto issued a statement in which they said that to heat five per cent of Toronto homes would require one-third of the hydro power, which is somewhere in the neighbourhood of two and a half to three million horse-power. It would mean that if the homes of Toronto and environs were to be heated by electricity, one-third of all the power that hydro has would heat only fifteen per cent of all the homes.
I am not going to proceed at any length. I am sure that what will be said by the mover and what will be said by the hon. members will attract the attention of this house. That is what we must do-attract the attention of the house to the serious threat to the health of the people of these two great central provinces-I shall not speak of the other provinces at the moment-I certainly will support the minister in anything he can do to expedite shipments of coal and its delivery to the dealers in Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: There is no doubt about the seriousness of the matter raised by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), but in reading the document that he passed to Your Honour I find that he has it chewed up in such a fashion that it is difficult to understand exactly what subject he wants action on at the moment.

The seriousness of the coal situation in Canada did not develop yesterday or the day before. It has been slowly developing over the last twenty years, and it has been heading inevitably toward what we have at the present time.
In his motion the hon. member for ..Broadview deplores the fact that the United States has placed an embargo on coal. I would not expect them to do anything else. The people of the United States have developed their own resource to take care of their own requirements. In addition, in the last three or four years they have been exporting twenty million odd tons of coal to Canada to help us out. It is an indictment against us. We should not scream because the United States government is protecting its own people in their fuel requirements. The indictment in the statement made by the hon. member for Broadview is against ourselves, in that although, a nation of eleven million people, are in possession of one-half of the north American continent, which has as great fuel resources as has the United States, we have neglected to develop our own resource to meet the requirements of our own people. I have no argument or quarrel with the United States government for seeing that the requirements of its own people are met at this time.
As to overcoming this fuel shortage, I do not expect the minister to do it, because you cannot cure in a short time a disease that has been growing for more than twenty years under both Liberal and Conservative administrations. For the last twenty years particularly I remember pilgrimage after pilgrimage leaving the mining areas, both east and west, and converging upon Ottawa with briefs, the preparation of which cost a great deal of money, pointing out to both Conservative and Liberal administrations the situation which was slowly developing and indicating that the time was approaching when, if Canada did not expand her own resources, we could not expect to lean on the United States. I have said that in this house many times during the last five years. The mechanics of a national fuel policy have been set out time and again by representatives of the miners' union, by provincial governments and by interested citizens. Unfortunately all these submissions went to the archives, and nothing was done.
In my opinion the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) is helpless to do very much at this time. You cannot develop a -mine overnight; you cannot increase production in old, worn out mines. In the beginning of the last war the recommendation was advanced in this house, and in briefs submitted to the government, that new development

should be undertaken in the coal fields. That requires a large capital outlay. The present operators are not going to spend the money; they have made this abundantly clear. No agency in Canada, other than the government, is going to tackle that problem and make the capital expenditure necessary to increase both the quantity and quality of fuel available in this country. The government cannot meet the present emergency, either, because I do not think production can be stepped up in the industry as it exists at present. A royal commission has been set up to study this question, and by this time I suppose that commission knows more than anyone else in Canada about the possibility of increasing production and the problems of marketing our coal. I suggest to the minister that he get in touch with the personnel of that commission and ask for an interim report on the possibility of getting additional production. I do not expect the minister to be able to do anything about it. I do not know what the royal commission would suggest, but I see no possible chance of improving the situation to any great extent from Canadian production; so if we are to depend upon our own production this year a great many people in Canada will go cold. The only solution is to get assistance from the United States, as we have done in the past.
The hon. member for Broadview also points out that some fuel is available in the Untied States, but that because of the strike on the great lakes that coal cannot be brought across to Canada. As I understand the hon. gentleman's motion, there are some 25,000 cars at lake ports. I am not going into the merits or demerits of that strike on the great lakes, though I will say that it too is the result of neglect. I do not think the strike on the great lakes ever should have developed. The only question at issue there is the establishment of an eight-hour day, something every other classification of worker on this continent secured many years ago by .legislation.


Mr. MITCHELL:: My hon. friend speaks of neglect. Neglect by whom?


Clarence Gillis: Neglect by both Liberal and Conservative governments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: They have been in power.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the C.C.F.?


Clarence Gillis: We have not been in power yet. When we are, you will not have any discussion of this kind taking place. If we had been sitting over there when this war broke out there is no doubt about what we
Coal-Embargo
would have done in connection with fuel. Do you know our policy? We would have developed new mines.


An hon. MEMBER:: We would have lost the war.


Clarence Gillis: I get a lot of fun out of this sort of thing. Every time you throw a stone into a pack of wolves you hear a howl from the one you hit. This is just a natural development; I don't mind it. He who has a guilty conscience is very susceptible to criticism.


Mr. GRANT:: You would not have won the war.


Clarence Gillis: Well, if there were enough C.C.F. governments in the world, there would not be any war. There would be no hungry people, no poverty and insecurity, and no reason to go to war. I say to the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), in a kindly way, that the matter has been neglected. As I said a moment ago, most of the other workers on this continent have the eight-hour day by legislation, and have had it for a long time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Coal miners should have it. Why haven't they?


Mr. MacINNIS:: They have it.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the fishermen and farmers?


Clarence Gillis: They regulate their own hours; there is no boss over them with a whip. If a farmer or fisherman wants to get up at four o'clock in the morning, that is up to him. In the field of industry, however, legislation is possible, and the seamen come within that category. I think back in 1919 or 1920 the Canadian government signified by an international understanding that it was favourable to an eight-hour day for seamen. The only point at issue in t'he seamen's strike is the granting of an eight-hour day and the establishment of a three-watch system on the boats.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not like to say this, but my hon. friend should look into the thing. I agree that one of the points of dissension is the eight-hour day, but that is not all.


Clarence Gillis: There are other incidentals.


Humphrey Mitchell: They are more than
incidentals.


Clarence Gillis: I think that is the basic
problem at, issue in the strike. If that question could be satisfactorily dealt with, I believe the other matters of wages and so forth could be ironed out without great difficulty. When
Coal-Embargo

I say it is a matter of neglect, I say any government that entered into an international understanding twenty odd years ago that seamen should have an eight-hour day should have done something about implementing that understanding. Hon. gentlemen to my right had a chance to do something about it from 1930 to 1935, but they neglected it also. In addition to the government not having implemented that international understanding, however, there is t'he problem of our present labour legislation. A few days ago the minister stated-


James Horace King: Order. I wonder if the remarks of the hon. gentleman are relevant to the question before the house. He will see in the motion of the hon. member for Broadview these words:
*-and to discuss the grave peril of drastic shortages of supply to Canadian homes without any supply whatever, especially in central Canada next fall and winter, and the urgent need of an all-Canadian national coal policy accordingly.
An hon. member has the privilege of moving the adjournment of the house to discuss an important and urgent matter, but the remarks made should be relevant to the motion before the house.


Clarence Gillis: I have read the motion very carefully, Mr. Speaker, and I am following it clause by clause. As I said when I rose, the motion is so badly twisted that it is difficult to understand exactly what is required. I do not blame you, Mr. Speaker, for being confused. When I discuss a subject I always try to speak with relevance to that subject. I have read carefully the part of the motion which deals with the embargo-the preamble, one might call it-and I am trying to follow the suggestion contained in the hon. member's motion that there are certain reasons for the shortage of fuel in Canada. The hon. member says this:
The United States embargo on coal, issued on June 11, to the ore and eoai exchange of Cleveland, and on account of the great lakes shipping strike-
That is it.
-which embargo was temporarily suspended, and also the tie-up of nearly 25,000 hopper coal cars at United States lake ports.
One would get the impression that the hon. member for Broadview is telling the house that there are 25,000 cars of coal on the other side of the border which could be made available to the country if the strike on the great lakes were settled. If that is so, 1, believe I am in order in discussing the relevancy of that strike to the Canadian fuel situation, and in suggesting to the minister ways and means

whereby the strike might be avoided and settled, in order to get the coal into Canada by ships.
I had begun to point out to the minister that I believe much of our difficulty to-day in the field of labour has arisen from the fact that there have grown up in Canada during the war a series of emergency measures in respect of labour which, while applicable during the time of war, after the termination of hostilities are not suitable, because we are now facing a completely new problem. The mechanics available in the Department of Labour to-day for the settlement of disputes should be revamped to meet the new conditions. Instead of having to go through all the ramifications of war labour boards, there should be a shorter cut. Those boards create antagonism in the minds of the workers, with the result that we have upheaval. I say the time has come when the Minister of Labour should consider seriously the abandonment of regional and national war labour boards. Instead of having that kind of machinery the minister should have regional and national industrial councils, with equal representation from employers, employees and governments. Then instead of the seamen or the steelworkers or any other group employed on certain specific jobs having to sit down and talk to the members of a war labour board, the chairman of which may have studied law and may be most competent in his own field, but who does not understand judging the merits or demerits of a dispute, they would discuss the matter with those more competent to judge.
In my opinion many of the decisions made to-day are faulty because the problems are not well understood. The minister knows these problems, and I believe if he were meeting with those who have specific grievances, together with representatives from industry and from his own department, he could sit around a table with them and could understand what was being said. Each group would understand what the other was talking about.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just completed a four-hour session before coming to the house to-day, and I have been doing that every day all week.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, but the minister does not make any decisions. His decisions must go back to the national war labour board. I call the minister's attention to the Sydney plant, and the five-cent differential in rate. I know he would have granted that five cents four years ago. But he has not the power; the matter has to go back to the national

Coal-Embargo
war labour board. They rejected it again last week-after four years of discussion. And we wonder why there is trouble!
I am suggesting to the minister the time has come when he should accept more responsibility, by meeting with those concerned, dealing with both sides, talking bluntly and with common sense, to find out which side may be at fault. If that had been done five or six months ago with the Canadian seamen, we would not be confronted now with a strike on the great lakes to-day, and would not be relating that strike to the shortage of fuel in Canada. I ask the minister to consider that seriously.
I believe this strike could be settled; it should have been settled long ago. I do not see how any employer in this country can be permitted to sit down and say, "I am going to tie up the ships on the great lakes because I do not w'ant to recognize an organization, and I do not want to grant an eight hour day to my employees." That is not his prerogative; it is the prerogative of the Canadian government. The eight hour day has been an accepted principle throughout the continent-and was accepted many years ago. When an employer takes the dog-in-the-manger attitude, then I say he is defying the accepted laws of the country. He is being unfair with anyone who is trying to deal fairly with him.
On the other hand if the Minister of Labour, or the government, as indicated a few days ago by the minister, believes that a small group in the leadership of any organization is taking advantage of the fact that the membership are not as well posted as their leaders, and if the minister and government feel that such leaders are manipulating those organizations for political purposes or for their own purposes, then I say the minister should be just as frank with that small group guilty of disruption of production as he would be to the other side. There cannot be any middle-of-the-road policy in a matter of this kind. Neither should one use the big stick on one section and refuse to use it on the other. If the minister takes the position that he is going to be fair to both sides, then he should use the same language to both sides. If the minister believed for a minute that the union was at fault, he should tell them so, and should tell them what they should do. On the other hand he should also tell the employers and owners what they should do, when they say the eight-hour day is not going to be accepted. Let him tell those people that the eight-hour day is accepted, and that it is time they got in line. Let him say: You will fall in with it, or we will put a con-63260-155
troller in and take over your business, so that you can have an opportunity to study labour legislation which has been in existence in other parts of the world for many years.
I am not going to occupy more of the time of the house. I leave with the minister this suggestion, that the time has come when he should be facing the situation squarely, when he should be changing existing laws which in my opinion are promoting strikes. Let him be fair to both sides, if it is in the best interests of the people of Canada. Let him not pull his punches when talking to either side; and if he does that, I believe the Canadian people will support him.
I am sorry to find the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply facing this problem. It pleased me to see that he received some recognition for services rendered by him during the war. My experience in dealing with him has been that he wants to get things done. In this instance, however, he has inherited a problem that has been developing for twenty years, and has now reached a point where there is no easy or early solution.
The minister might as well take time by the forelock and make a large appropriation of money to deal with this matter. Let him tap some of the potentially rich seams in Canada, so that we may get ready for the next generation, and will not be left at the mercy of the United States, when they put on an embargo to protect their own people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to straighten out one or two points, to prevent the discussion in this debate from going too far afield. It has been suggested in the motion that the United States government has put an embargo on coal for shipment to Canada from United States ports. That is not the fact. The fact is that coal has been moving into United States ports in excess of the unloading and yard capacities to handle the cars. The embargo is of a type that is sometimes imposed at the head of the lakes during the grain rush, that is, an embargo against the loading of grain until the congestion at the lakehead could be cleared away. Any boat that can take coal to Canada is being loaded, and coal is moving freely in cars to the extent of the availability of the equipment and the ability of the railroads to move that equipment. I may say that the United States government has always recognized the position of Canada, and is doing so on the present occasion. It is, as it always has been, and is being most helpful in aiding Canada in obtaining her coal requirements.

Coal-Embargo

On several occasions I have sounded a note of alarm with regard to the present position of our coal supply in this country. We entered the summer season with stocks unusually depleted. Canada, owing to the fact that her coal movement must take place in the summer months, has been accustomed to carrying comparatively large stockpiles of coal. The movement of coal was difficult throughout the war, and gradually those stockpiles were reduced until at the beginning of this season of navigation we had very little coal in stock in the country. The movement of coal after the opening has been disappointing. Up to the time of the bituminous coal strike in the United States, the movement had been very much smaller than was usual in any corresponding period in the last few years. The bituminous strike stopped the movement almost wholly. The anthracite coal strike which followed greatly curtailed the movement of domestic coal into this country, and the shipping strike which followed closely on the heels of both has practically brought the movement of coal into this country to a standstill. The result is that we are at least 5,500,000 tons short of the position that we should be in at this season of the year, with no present indication that the situation can be corrected. The fact is that Canada produces 17,000,000 tons of coal and imports 25,000,000 tons, the imports being almost wholly into the central provinces. That coal is imported from the United States.
Much has been said about correcting the situation by mining more Alberta coal, and by shipping more coal from Nova Scotia. The movement of coal from Alberta is limited by the ability of our railroads to move the coal. We have planned for this year a movement of 1,000,000 tons from Alberta to the central provinces, which will be twice the movement that we have ever had in a similar period. That is a phenomenally large movement of Alberta coal to Ontario, and it is all that the railroads believe can possibly be moved. When that coal is moved it will represent one twenty-fifth of the requirements of the two central provinces.
Shipping limitations would make it impossible this year to move more than 3,000,000 tons of coal from Nova Scotia into central Canada. However, we shall be fortunate if we are able to move 1,000,000 tons of coal from the east owing to the fact that production in the maritime provinces provides little surplus over the actual requirements of the maritime provinces. If we could increase the production of coal in the maritime provinces from 5,000,000 tons to 7,000,000 tons, we could

probably ship 3,000,000 tons into the central provinces. But there again, if we are able to do that we would be receiving from the maritime provinces only three twenty-fifths of the requirements of the central provinces.
The cold fact of the matter is that we are dependent for the bulk of our coal supplies in the two central provinces on shipments from the United States, and there is no physical means of replacing that coal from other sources. That is a situation which I have never attempted to minimize. Anyone who interjects any note of optimism into the present fuel situation in Canada is misleading the people of Canada. It is a serious situation. Steps have been taken to increase the supplies of fuel oil, both light oil for domestic purposes and heavy oil for industrial purposes. I am happy to be able to report that some progress has been made in that direction. But there again if the coal equivalent of all the fuel oil that can be brought in and stored in this country, or that can be refined in this country, is added to the movement from eastern and western Canada, it means only a matter of two million additional tons of coal. Once again I say that our position next winter will depend wholly on our ability to move coal from the United States into the two central provinces.
It has been claimed in some sources that Canada has no national fuel policy. As a matter of fact it can be said that since 1928 the government has had a definite national fuel policy. In the years 1928 to 1944 there was paid out as assistance to the movement of Nova Scotia coal to Quebec and Ontario a sum of approximately $25,000,000. During the same period there was paid out for the assistance of the movement of coal from Alberta and eastern British Columbia approximately $10,000,000. In addition, between the years 1931 and 1944 the British Columbia industry received assistance on exports and bunker shipments totalling approximately $1,250,000. Nor is that all. From 1930 to 1945 approximately $3,500,000 was paid to the steel industry of Nova Scotia as a bonus for coal entering into the manufacture of steel, and up to 1944 a further sum of $630,000 was paid out under the Domestic Fuel Act on coal entering into the production of gas and coke. Further encouragement to the Canadian coal industry is provided by a duty of seventy-five cents a ton on bituminous coal and fifty cents a ton on United States anthracite. In short, I say that Canada has had a national fuel policy.
I would point out that it is not practical from a short-range viewpoint, for Canada to become self-sufficient as regards coal. The

Coal-Embargo
present estimated consumption of coal in Ontario and Quebec, practically all from the United States, is around 25,900,000 tons per year. Based upon our experience after the last war ended, considering the immense backlog of orders and requirements for manufactured goods, and the probable necessity of moving large tonnages of grain and other food products for export, it can be expected that our coal requirements in this area will remain over 20,000,000 tons for some years.
With a prospective heavy grain movement from western Canada, the present railway facilities will be pressed to the limit to move east 1,000,000 tons of coal, and this requirement, plus the extra coal needed by t'he railways in the west, will take up practically all available output. From eastern Canada, if production was up to a figure of 7,000.000 tons instead of approximately 5,000,000 tons, it might be possible to move up to 3,000,000 tons. Because of the heavy demand for steel and manufactures of all kinds, it is not practical to consider any substantial increase in railway facilities, since our capacity in that direction will be more or less fully employed in replacing the present equipment that has been worked to capacity during the war. Therefore for some time yet it is simply not practicable to supply our central Canadian coal requirements to any large extent from Canadian sources. The longer range policy is at present under review by the royal commission on coal, and will be examined in the light of the report. An interim report has been requested of the commission, and it is hoped that something will be obtained from that source which will help us in planning a shorter range project. Let me say again, however, that the government cannot change the geography of Canada, nor can it ignore the immutable laws of economics.
The hon. member for Broadview, who introduced this motion, has been for many years an advocate of a national coal policy. I notice that as early as March, 1923, he proposed a resolution in this house demanding that the government institute a national coal policy. I believe that his insistence in advocating such a policy has been a spur to succeeding governments in doing what has been done in that direction. I am only sorry that some steps cannot be taken at this time which will represent an effective short-range policy. But I can assure the hon. member that when the report of the royal commission is received, steps will be taken by the government to see that so serious a situation cannot arise in the future.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion may I make a preliminary observation: I am a little disappointed that the minister rose in his seat just when I did. I am quite happy, of course, to have you, Mr. Speaker, see the minister before you saw me. He has been honoured to-day, and is a much more important gentleman than the hon. member for Macleod. But I might just mention that too often in debates of this kind our Conservative friends are heard, our C.C.F. friends are heard, and then a minister rises as though there were nobody else in the house to be heard. That very often happens.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it clear that I must go to a garden party: that is the reason for my rising when I did.


Ernest George Hansell: We shall have a little party here for a while. The minister is not the only one who wants to go to the garden party. It may be that the group in this corner of the house, speaking, as it does, usually with some authority, causes ministers to rise first in order that they may not be embarrassed by having to answer certain questions which we in this corner might put to them.
However, I am glad that the minister did speak, because what he said is to me an apology for a poor case. He sounded an alarm. He has risen on other occasions and sounded an alarm as to the seriousness of the situation, advising the coal dealers to cut down on their sales because there might be a serious shortage before winter. That is not good enough. We in Canada should have no need of these alarms. Then, again, he tried to focus some of the responsibility and cast some of the blame upon the railroads, on the ground that their capacity was limited. We have had railroads in this country for a good many years, and during the war years they were taxed to capacity, but certainly to-day their capacity cannot be more heavily taxed than it was then. To me, therefore, the minister's apology in that respect was a weak one. He goes on to tell us why this emergency exists to-day. Well, what we rise to tell him is why the emergency should not exist to-day. He tried to convince us; in fact his words were definite, that Canada did have, and has had since 1928, a definite fuel policy. If that is so, it must have broken down somewhere; and if his statement is correct I should like to ask him why it was found necessary last year to bring into existence the Carroll coal commission, whose terms of reference were to study the whole problem of the coal industry in Canada and report
Coal-Embargo

back with some definite fuel policy for the future. His argument there, I am afraid, does not hold water.
The present emergency does not directly affect the Macleod constituency, for we have in that area many mines which can well supply our own people. But it affects my constituency to the extent that we have a large coal mining industry there, in the Crowsnest pass, and that industry is well aware that over the years Canada has not had an adequate national fuel policy. Commissions have been set up, and many committees and boards have reviewed from time to time the coal situation in this country. In fact, we have had a Canadian fuel board whose business it is to go into all branches of research and advise the government on the coal problems of the day. In spite of this, we are in a situation where the people of Canada, a country which produces 18 per cent of the world's coal supply, are likely to go cold and industry is likely to have to stop its wheels of production.
When the war broke out I took a particular interest in this matter, for I recognized that if the coal mining industry did not function properly our war industries would be seriously affected. I took the time to write an exhaustive letter to three ministers of the crown, -the then Minister of Labour, the then Minister of Mines and Resources, and the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I explained in my letter to them that the past records of production of coal in the United States, on which we were dependent for our own coal, showed that should there be any disruption in the coal mining industry there, even to a slight extent, it would seriously affect the industrial war effort of Canada. I put before the minister the seriousness of that situation, for this was before the United States came into the war. I visualized the eventuality of strikes taking place in the United States and I wanted him to guard against the results of any such strikes. I tried to persuade him to tackle the problem before such an emergency arose.
What was the result of those three letters? Tire Minister of Mines and Resources-not the present minister, but the hon. gentleman who then occupied the office-did not reply to my letter at all; and since that time he has been politically rewarded, for to-day he sits in another place. I do not believe the Minister of Munitions and Supply answered my letter, but I may have to stand corrected in that regard because I am trusting to my memory. The only minister who replied was the then Minister of Labour, the Hon. Mr. McLarty. He told me that he had submitted my letter to his officials for study and advice.

I spoke to him personally on the matter, again trying to show him the seriousness of possible events. Eventually I received a reply from him to the effect that his advisers had gone into the matter very carefully and had even gone so far as to interview-perhaps it was by way of correspondence, because I do not recall-the officials at Washington, and he stated that they were not overalarmed about the situation. They thought they had everything under control.
It was just fortunate perhaps that events did not turn out adversely during the war; but the war is over now, and have they had everything under complete control? W'e are now faced with an emergency which might have occurred in those days. Fortunately for us it did not, but we are now faced with it, and the government is at a loss to know what to do.
There are one or two other things that have affected the production of coal in Canada in the past and are perhaps still affecting it. One of these is the taxation policy of the government w'ith regard to incomes, because there are man3- coal miners who will not work six days of the week when by working five days their income remains w'ithin certain brackets, whereas by working the extra day-in fact, it is not an extra day but one of the six days in the week-their incomes jump to a higher bracket and, by reason of taxation in that bracket, they work for much less for that extra day. They say, "What is the use? We will stay at home." The coal mines have stayed open just the same. They do not close down altogether because of that extra day, but many manhours have been lost and a great deal of the production of coal has been curtailed. The result is that we have not mined as much coal because of that particular income taxation policy.
Again, there have been times when coal cars have not been available for the transportation of this coal, and it has not always been because these cars were used for some other purpose. Many times they have stood idle on the side tracks.
The government of this day and governments of the past must take the responsibility themselves for this emergency. No one else is to blame in a country of this kind, endowed with rich coal deposits such as Canada has. There is no excuse for such a situation. If the people of Canada go cold-well, they will not be cold to-day while the minister is at the garden party, but if they go cold this winter, then they should know where to place the blame; they will put it there and they will speak in a voice that political parties will hear at the next election.

Coal-Embargo
There is one other matter I wish to bring to the minister's attention. Perhaps it will be considered as not so important, but there has appeared in some of the newspapers recently the suggestion that a good deal of natural gas in Canada could be piped to our eastern cities. I have not gone into the practicability of that suggestion. I think it is a matter of finance, finding the money to do it. I am quite sure the minister will be able to find the suitable expressions to tell us that it is not practicable, but my constituency happens to take in a part, of the Turner valley oil fields. I have wondered many times, as many tourists must wonder, and many honest Canadians must have wondered, at the tremendous waste of natural gas that goes on in those oil fields. There have been da3's when millions of cubic feet of gas simply burned in the air-every day, as someone says. I have been in those parts and have seen huge flares. You could not get within two or three hundred yards of them without being scorched. There they were burning, day in and day out, year in and year out. I sometimes think such waste is not only a tragedy but an insult to omnipotent creative genius; for the kind Creator has put these things in the ground for the use of his creatures, and what happens? We take them and blow them back in his face.


An hon. MEMBER:: Throw them away.


Ernest George Hansell: We throw them away.


Mr. REID:: May I ask the hon. member
a question? Are these resources not under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, but the provincial
governments do not want this gas to go to waste any more th#n anybody else does. The provincial governments certainly are not responsible for piping the gas to Toronto or Montreal or some other city. That certainly is a federal responsibility. The provincial governments would be only too glad to tap natural gas into the pipelines if only the federal government will see that the pipelines are built. There is another point, of course, namely, that it takes a lot of money to build these pipelines.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It would take $30 million; that is not much.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for
Davenport says it would take $30 million. That is just peanuts, small potatoes, chicken feed, anything that is small, small change, collections. It can be done.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend agrees
that $30 million would not be too much to spend to pipe gas from Alberta?


Ernest George Hansell: Certainly it would not
be too much to spend.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is what I meant


Ernest George Hansell: It would be not only a
cheap experiment, but one which would turn out to be of great advantage to the Canadian people. It might mean a little disruption in something else; some other industry might be affected by it. Well, governments in power have the responsibility to bring in other legislation so that the whole economy of the country can run smoothly year in and year out. In spite of any praise that can be given to the government for that which they may do-and that applies to all governments-I say to the house that they have miserably failed in respect of a fuel policy for Canada and the Canadian people.


Mr. D. A. CROLL (Spadina):: I had originally intended to reply to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). But in the course of his speech he told the story of the three letters which he wrote to ministers, the first one to a minister who became a senator, the second one to a minister who did not reply to him and became a right honourable, and the third minister who replied to him and has now passed to the great beyond; consequently I have decided to leave the matter as it is.
The motion contained two points. First of all, it dealt with the embargo, and, second, with the great lakes strike. The minister's words on the embargo warmed the house when he assured us that there was no such thing as an embargo. Then the question about the great lakes strike comes up for consideration. I appreciate that there is a great deal of confusion in the country as to responsibility. To-day's papers carry the story that the government have laid down a formula which has been accepted by the seamen but has been rejected by the operators. My hon. friend said that the blame ought to be placed where it belongs. All I say is that the house ought to point at the people who are to blame for not settling the strike, and it certainly is not the seamen's union.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to say a few words in connection with this matter. There is no doubt that we are confronted with a grave emergency so far as the coal situation is concerned. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said, it is not something that has developed overnight, and it has not developed because of any one particular circumstance. Undoubtedly what has intensified the situation is the strike on the great lakes. If that
Coal-Embargo

strike should be settled quickfy, perhaps some of the urgency of the crisis would be overcome, but it would not be overcome entirely.
There is a general shortage of coal to-day, pretty well all over the world, and Canada cannot fail to be affected by that to some extent. It is not solely a matter of providing the necessary money. Some mention was made of the fact that $30 million would be required to do certain work in connection with taking natural gas from Alberta and bringing it to Toronto. Perhaps the $30 million could be found much easier for that kind of work than the material and the labour. What the world is confronted with to-day is not that we cannot find the money to do these things. It has been demonstrated that we can find the money. The difficulty which faces us now is that of finding the material and labour, and finding the material is largely a matter of finding the labour to produce the material. It is a matter of organization.
The providing of the necessities of life- and this is one other proof that the providing of the necessities of life can no longer be left to the vagaries of private enterprise which may or may not do the things required [DOT]-is of paramount importance.
The failure in the coalfields began shortly after the last war. The failure of the coalfields to meet satisfactorily the requirements of people in the various parts of the world began after the last war and it has developed progressively ever since. It is a matter of coal competing with another and cheaper fuel, namely electricity. What the government should do now, regardless of how soon the seamen's strike is settled, is to formulate a national coal policy so that this country can make the best of its great natural resources in western and eastern Canada.
I happened to be in Halifax in October, 1938. There I met a delegation which came from the village of Thorburn, Nova Scotia, to meet the government when the proprietors of the coal mine there, the Dominion Steel and Coal company, I assume, had decided to close that mine. By that action they not only deprived the country of a certain amount of fuel but completely deprived the fifteen hundred or so people of that village-I believe there were some three hundred men working in the mine-of their only means of subsistence. This delegation pointed out that while the existing mine was about depleted of its coal, right within that very district there was an enormous amount of the best coal in Nova Scotia which could be developed; but the owners of the mine said they were not going to develop it until times were more propitious

for that to be done. So I repeat that the people of Canada are not going to overcome these difficulties until the government, on behalf of the people, will organize a national fuel policy in order to make available to ourselves the fuel, coal and other fuels, with which this country is so richly endowed.
All I would say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is that of course we should adopt every means possible to settle the seamen's strike quickly. Since the eight-hour day is the root cause of the trouble, it is up to the government to see that the eight-hour day is put into effect on all Canadian ships. That would be the first step in ending this emergency. The next step, as I said, is the creation of a long-term national fuel policy which will make use of all our fuel resources.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with what I had intended to say, might I refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) who has just taken his seat. The hon. member never misses an opportunity of casting a slur against private enterprise. He pretends to argue that if only the mines of Canada were in the hands of the government there would be no difficulty with respect to this coal situation. Once more the bon. member completely misses the point. Even if the government owned every mine in Alberta and every mine in Nova Scotia, if the government were not prepared to subsidize the transportation of that coal into Ontario and Quebec and to adopt other policies which would result in the distribution of Canadian coal throughout Canada, then certainly the government would have no solution of the problem and we would be in exactly the position in which we are now.


Angus MacInnis: Would the hon. gentleman allow me a word, since he has brought my mind into his argument? I think he is the one who is missing the point. I would assume that if the government organized a coal policy for the people of Canada, they would do that very thing.


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member had only said that, instead of continuing his incessant slur against private enterprise, he might get somewhere.


Angus MacInnis: I did not cast any slurs against private enterprise.


John Horne Blackmore: We shall let Hansard decide.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend can come to their assistance if he wishes.


John Horne Blackmore: My hon. friend and I will settle this some time in the future. Just

Coal-Embargo
now we are talking about a coal policy, and the important thing is to keep one's eye on the ball. In this case the ball is to get all the coal needful in Canada mined and distributed to Canadians. Government ownership or private ownership of the mines makes not the slightest difference; there are other matters involved.
A national coal policy for Canada has been neglected up to the present time, as has been pointed out by several hon. members who have already spoken; and because of that neglect we are now facing this dangerous situation. Why has a national fuel policy been neglected? When I first came to Ottawa in 1936 and began to have some contact with ministers of the crown I tried to urge upon those who were then in power the necessity of developing a national fuel policy, for very much the same reasons which were advanced by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). But I found nothing but deaf ears, which quite confounded me. There were thousands and thousands of unemployed in the mining areas of Alberta. The railroads lacked freight to haul. There was every reason that could be conceived why we should develop our coal industry and bring Canadian coal into Ontario and Quebec. Yet I found no interest; or if there was interest there was only a sort of indulgent and helpless shrug of the shoulders and hands, which quite astonished me. I wondered why, and I have wondered ever since. I have wondered if it is because a great deal of Canadian money is invested in certain mining concerns in the United States, and if certain Canadian interests wanted to have the coal from those mines brought into Canada to find a market here. I have never been able to have that question answered to my own satisfaction, but I have heard rumours which would indicate that the thought was perhaps not entirely without justification.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Is that not a slur on private enterprise?


John Horne Blackmore: It is not a slur on private enterprise; it is an instance of mismanagement on the part of the government. Of course private enterprise needs to be taken care of, just the same as any ordinary man driving on the street has to be taken care of. A man driving an automobile has to be taken care of by wise traffic regulations; otherwise he may get into trouble. So we introduce and support regulations to see that an automobile drive does not injure people. Why cannot hon. members of the C.C.F. think straight? How is it they are forever short-circuiting their intelligence like that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


John Horne Blackmore: Some of these days there will be a real free for all between myself and the C.C.F. I will take them all on, if I can get them one at a time. I will gladly take them on one at a time, on this question, at any time, because they are just all wrong in their thinking.
There has been a definite neglect on the part of Ontario and Quebec. It is all very well for hon. members from Ontario to rise now and complain about the shortage of fuel in that province. I deeply sympathize with them. But, Mr. Speaker, Ontario and Quebec have been in charge of the policies of Canada for fifty years now; and if those policies have not resulted in a sane development of our Canadian coal resources, then the hon. members from Ontario and Quebec have no one but themselves to blame. It is quite certain that the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Alberta have been eager to develop a national coal policy at least ever since confederation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I might say that during my first term in this house I advocated a national coal policy.


John Horne Blackmore: I quite appreciate that there have been some men of vision like the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), but I must say I have heard no other hon. member of the Progressive Conservative party advocate a national fuel policy until the present time. On other occasions I have heard hon. members from the maritimes rise and plead for a national coal policy, and I have seen hon. members from Ontario and Quebec leave the chamber and refuse to listen to them. They are now going to suffer for their misdeeds. So let us not entirely blame the government, because, after all, governments are controlled by the people who elect the members who support the government; and the people who elect the members who support and control this government are the people of Ontario and Quebec. Let that be thoroughly impressed upon the minds of the people of Ontario and Quebec in all their anxiety about fuel. The solution is in their own hands.
One of the main reasons why governments in Ottawa have not adopted a national fuel policy has been that for some reason or another those governments have rigidly refused to consider a policy of national self-sufficiency. We see that with respect to every commodity that might be named. I -have faced it for years in connection with the sugar question. One cannot rise in this house and advocate a
Coal-Embargo

national sugar policy for Canada, but immediately the answer is that we must have trade. I suppose the reason we have not had a national fuel policy for Canada is that we must have trade, even if w'e 'have to bring in coal from the United States and run divers dangerous risks in order to have that trade. There has been danger, and there is danger to-day of a serious adverse trade balance between Canada and the United States, a balance against Canada. Every well informed person knows that. Notwithstanding that fact, we have persisted in importing millions and millions of tons of coal from the United States, thereb}'' aggravating the adverse trade balance, instead of developing the coal industry in this country. How can that possibly be excused?
It has been clear to every man charged with responsibility for the last twenty years that there was the greatest kind of danger of an economic struggle in the United States which would tie up production there, and render us vulnerable in the matter of a fuel supply, exactly as has happened to-day. How is it that there has been such a complete lack of vision on the part of those in control of the policies of this country ? It will not be so serious if we can have repentance now.
I speak as a representative from one of the major coal producing areas in Alberta. I say that when coal has been shipped from my province to Ontario, our coal, according to reports reaching me, has been mixed in Ontario with trash, with fine pulverized material, literally muck in some cases, and has been delivered as Alberta coal. The object was purely that of discrediting Alberta coal in the minds of the people in Ontario and Quebec, and especially those in Ontario. Nefarious practices such as that are beyond any possibility of condonement. Those things have happened.
Then, we have seen United States producers dumping coal, with apparently nothing being done about it. I am informed that coal producers in the United States have adopted a policy under which they have sold the coal necessary to supply their own needs, and to give them a profit. Then they have had available a vast quantity of coal to be dumped in Canada at almost any price. That coal has been dumped here, while the government has supinely allowed that to take place, notwithstanding the danger involved so far as Alberta and Nova Scotia producers were concerned.
I am informed that as a result of these dumping practices coal from United States coal fields has been delivered at Winnipeg, a city which unquestionably should be a market for Alberta coal. But that whole process has been allowed to proceed.
[Mr. Blackmore.J
Let me repeat that there is only one group of people in Canada to blame for all this, and those are the people in Ontario and Quebec. While the people in Ontario and Quebec have been buying their coal from United States mines, Alberta coal miners by the thousands have been working only two or three days a week, and Alberta coal producing areas have become distress areas, with resultant bad fortune to Ontario producers of goods. How can that possibly be justified? This sort of thing must change in the future if we are ever to be independent of such mishaps as those from which we are now suffering.
There has been too much of determination on the part of people at Ottawa to look at money rather than goods. They have refused to grant adequate subsidies. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) spoke about a national fuel policy in 1928. What was the matter with that national fuel policy of 1928, and thereafter? It was the simple fact that they would not grant large enough subsidies to make sure that coal from Alberta could be put on the Ontario market in a position to compete with the United States product. At any time they could have increased the subsidy so as to have allowed Alberta to sell her coal in Ontario in any quantities desired. That would have resulted in a fuel policy which would have rendered us more or less self-sufficient, and invulnerable to such mishaps as now confront us.
What has been the real situation with regard to Alberta? We in Alberta have, according to our estimates, 14 per cent of the world's total supply of coal. We have 21 per cent of the coal on the north American continent, We have 72 per cent of the coal in the British empire, and 87 per cent of that in Canada. It is estimated by one authority that in Alberta we have 40,200 million tons of coal, consisting of four different types, namely lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous and semianthracite. Surely, from all those different kinds of coal any ordinary needs of consumers in Ontario and Quebec could have been supplied.
The question arises: What are we to do with this situation? After all, there is no use in recrimination. Now that we are in this time of grave danger, let us look to the future and devise, if possible, some solution of the problem. I must agree with the minister in large measure when he says that a real immediate solution of the problem looks uncertain at the present time. At least, however, we can perform a right-about-face in the matter of fuel policy and resolve that as soon as we have an opportunity, we are going to do something sound about it.

Coal-Embargo
Let the government firmly declare to-day -and I ask hon. members from Ontario and Quebec to listen to this, and see how they agree with this procedure-that it will have a national self-sufficient policy with respect to fuel. How many members from Ontario and Quebec would support the government 100 per cent if it indicated its stern resolve and intention that from this day forward it would have a national fuel policy under which we would use coal produced in Canada? That is the test. If hon. members from Ontario and Quebec would not support the government in an all-out policy of that kind, then they must themselves to-day accept blame for the fact that no sound foundation has been laid for a future fuel policy in Canada, and no real commencement made with respect to providing fuel immediately.
The next question is: Would hon. members from Ontario and Quebec support the government if to-morrow it announced a policy under which it would subsidize Alberta and Nova Scotia coal to the extent that they would penetrate the markets of Ontario and Quebec, and to the extent that they would fill the requirements of those markets? JI wonder how many members from those two provinces would support the government in such a policy.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I can answer for Ontario. For years in this house I have advocated a policy under which the government would bring a million tons of coal from Alberta, store it near Toronto, and send it out from that point.


John Horne Blackmore: If I thought the hon. member for Davenport could speak for the whole of Ontario-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, the hon. member asked Ontario members.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, we have seen one hon. member rise in his place; do I see others? That is the test. As a matter of fact, we people in Canada must have a change in our outlook. We must make up our minds individually, so far as it is possible, that we are going to have a policy of national selfsufficiency, that we are going to produce those things we need, produce them in our own country, and not import them from abroad, or from sources upon which we cannot depend. Until wre do that we shall always be in danger of a situation such as that now facing us.
Then, I wonder if the Ontario and Quebec members would support the government in the establishment of plants in which could be processed Alberta and Nova Scotia coals, 63260-156
bringing the products of those processes into the Ontario and Quebec markets. By that I mean this: Just as the Germans during the last war, and before it, produced a high percentage of their gasoline and oil from coal deposits in that country, so we in Canada could produce our gasoline and oil from coal deposits in Alberta and Nova Scotia.
The question is, would the Ontario and Quebec members support the government if it were to bring in a policy of that-kind? It would be the solution of some problems for the future. Suppose the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply were to rise in his place to-morrow and say to hon. members, "This government has become convinced, because of the crisis facing us, that its policy in the past has been wrong, and from this time forward the government guarantees all members of the house that if hon. members will give their support it will bring in a national fuel policy under which it will subsidize coal from Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and other points, to the extent that those coals will supply the market in Canada, and it will subsidize far enough to make sure that they do, and the government will protect the markets in Canada against dumping by the United States or any other place by such measures as may be found appropriate and adequate. The question is: If the minister were to say that, would the members of this house support the government in so doing? Let the minister further declare: The government will institute a pollicy of processing the coal in various parts of Canada in order to obtain the gasoline and other oils that we need in this country and thus make the country independent of' any outside source."
If the government would rise and do that, do you know what would happen all over Alberta? Private enterprise, which the hon. member for Vancouver East so much deprecates, would immediately take steps to open new mines, to put in new equipment and to train personnel. The railroads would immediately buy rolling stock and lay tracks so that the coal could be delivered in Ontario and Quebec. There would be a market guaranteed and a price guaranteed. We would then be on a way to a solution of the problem. We could perhaps not possibly overtake the unfortunate shortages which have developed, but we could certainly greatly improve conditions as they now are.
There are in Alberta rich mines capable of vast production which are not producing coal to-day. Why? Because it would cost too much to build railroad lines into them or to do certain other things Private enterprise

Coal-Embargo

does not dare to go in and spend the money, because probably by next year there would be no Canadian fuel difficulty and all the equipment that had been put in would be left idle. If the government put in the equipment right away now, then we would have the members of the Progressive Conservative party next year painting the air in this chamber blue because the government had wasted a lot of money on the projects.
There is only one thing to do. We should uake up our minds that we are going to aecome nationally self-sufficient. We must make up our minds that we are going to have an adequate fuel policy, no matter what it costs. We should go to work on that policy. Then we should find that private enterprise would be doing its part. There would be no need of any government enterprise as far as coal is concerned. A great deal of improvement in our situation could be brought about even between now and Christmas, or February.
Let me repeat that the great question is: Are Ontario and Quebec repentant? Are they ready to break new sod? Are they ready to blaze a new trail with respect to a fuel policy in this country? Is this house ready to make new resolutions with respect to a fuel policy? If not, then I must say that we shall just go on in the dangerous way we have been going these many years. I see no other way in the world out of our difficulty.
Before I resume my seat, I should like to refer for a moment or two to the matter of gas wastage which was brought up by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). The hon. member was referring more to the condition which had obtained in the Turner valley before' the Social Credit government took charge in Alberta. At that time there was immense wastage of gas in the Turner valley; there were flares burning all the time. But the Alberta Social Credit government, by its introduction of a wise conservation policy with respect to gas, has reduced the number of those flares to two small ones. In the past four years there has been a laudable curtailment of the waste. Gas which was formerly allowed to escape has been conducted back into the chambers within the earth, so that it will help force the gasoline up through the wells. The whole process is called repressurizing.
Because of this policy there is not nearly as much waste as once occurred. However, the argument advanced by the hon. member for Macleod still holds good. There is in Alberta a tremendous amount of natural gas that could be brought into this part of the country if pipes were laid and a market

guaranteed. We could process the coal in Alberta so that we should have gasoline and other kinds of oil that could be piped to any other part of Canada to supply the needs for these products just as long as those needs exist. All that is necessary is to guarantee a certain market and a suitable price. Then private enterprise will know that when it invests its money it is not going to lose it. If the government invests money the government will not then be accused by some excited opposition of having wasted the country's money. I leave this discussion for the time being at that stage.


Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I come from Cumberland which contains the second largest coal fields in eastern Canada. Our people are interested in the Canadian coal requirements. I have been associated with those who have advocated a national coal and steel policy for many years. The leader of that movement was the late Hon. Gordon S. Harrington, who was minister of mines and minister of labour of Nova Scotia. He advocated this policy in 1925, and from then on, with some success. The result was that a million and a half tons of coal were shipped per year from Nova Scotia into central Canada which had never been shipped before. The people were educated to the use of our coal and they soon began to appreciate its qualities.
There was an oversupply of productive capacity in Nova Scotia and a limited local market. Mines vrere operating only one, two or three days a week and there was an uncertain market for what was produced. Our coal came into competition with cheap coal which was brought from overseas as bunker coal and with coal imported from the United States. At that time we were told that coal was being produced in coal fields in Ohio which had been owned by the Grand Trunk railway and taken over by the Canadian National Railways for ninety-one cents a ton, and later as low as eighty-nine cents a ton.
It was difficult to put this Canadian fuel policy into effect. It was necessary to increase the duty on coal and to pay subventions which were largely paid for by the duty. I was disappointed at hearing the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) state that the production in Nova Scotia is only
5,500,000	tons for the current year; this in the face of a great need for coal.
The production in Nova Scotia was a minimum of 7,000,000 tons, with the expectation of an increase to 9,000,000 or 10,000,000 tons per year. On two or three occasions I have asked
.TUNE 13, 1946
Questions
the minister what efforts were being made to canvass the Situation in Nova Scotia to get greater production. I asked him if the miners and operators were being consulted to obtain more coal to supply the needs of Ontario and Quebec.
One reason for the reduced production in Nova Scotia is that many miners entered the armed forces early in the war. Those were trained miners who were capable of the greatest production. Unfortunately some of them were killed; many were wounded, and some are not willing to go back into the mines. However, I think much could be done to increase production in Nova Scotia if all concerned were approached in the right way. We are fortunate in having a capable royal commission studying the coal question under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Carroll and we are waiting patiently for their report. I am hopeful that when their report is presented to parliament a coal and fuel policy will be agreed on that will not only prove beneficial to the producing areas but will make central Canada more secure in obtaining the utmost supply of Canadian coal.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview); I rise to close the debate. I admit under the rules I have no right to say any more, but I should like two or three minutes to do so. This doctrine of a national fuel supply has been Conservative doctrine since I first introduced it on March 19, 1923. Ontario and Quebec have no coal.


James Horace King: Order. According to the rules the hon. gentleman cannot reply; he can only withdraw his motion.


Thomas Langton Church: I shall speak for only two or three minutes. I did not have any opportunity to say anything in presenting the motion. I say that what I advocate is Conservative doctrine-a national fuel supply. We should have been more active about it and so should all parties have been since 1923; and we should be more active about it now. I am very much disappointed at the government's reply. Coal equivalent to 25,000 United States cars is tied up in the Erie ports, and no Canadian ships to move it. The government must have a policy to move it from the lake ports. By treaty they are required to do so and keep shipping open on the lakes. There will be another opportunity to discuss this matter when the minister's estimates come up. Unless something is done at once we are going to be frozen out next winter to a worse degree than at any time since 1917.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but for him to speak at this time is absolutely against the rule. Does he withdraw his motion?


Thomas Langton Church: I withdraw my motion, but may I say that I have not had any opportunity to discuss it at all.
Motion withdrawn.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	What percentage of grain grown in the year 1942 was marketed in the same year?
2.	What were the main reasons for the carryover?
3.	Were the officials of the income tax department made aware of the amount of the carryover and the reasons therefor?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Crop Year 1942-43
Production		Marketings 1 Aug. 1/42 to July 31/43
	(Million	(Million
	bushels)	bushels)
Wheat	
556-7	273-0Oats ..	
651-9	120-7Barley	
259-2	85-6Rye ...	
24-7	9-8Flax ..	
14-9	11-4Per cent	Increase inMarketings	farm carryoversAug. 1/42 to	on July 31/43 asJuly 31/43 of	compared with1942 Production	July 31/42(Per cent)	(Million bushels)Wheat	
49-04	186-8Oats ..	
18-5	94-2Barley .	
33-02	36-2Rye ...	
39-67	5-8Flax ...	
76-5	[DOT]4
1 Including wheat marketed after July under extensions of 1942-43 permits.
31/43
Questions

2.	The main reasons for limited marketings from August 1, 1942 to December 31, 1942, were:
(1)	Lack of available storage space in country elevators;
(2)	An over-all limitation on wheat marketings to 280 million bushels under the dominion government's grain policy for the crop year 1942-43;
(3)	Limited export demand in relation to quantities of grain available for shipment;
(4)	Limited transportation available for the movement of grain.
3.	No. On March 25, 1946, Hansard, page 211, the following statement was made:
"....With this objective in mind the government has made an arrangement whereby wheat, which producers may not have intended to deliver at the present time, can be marketed and sold over the next three months, with cash settlement made at any time the producer may choose in 1946, 1947 or 1948. The arrangement will become effective on April 1, 1946...."
There was, therefore, no necessity to advise the income tax department in the crop year 1942-43.


DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE- PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Department of Trade and Commerce ?
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. MacKINNON:: 1.	$16,320.
2 and 3.
Advertising and Publicity
B.	C. Butler	 $6,000
S. L. Tilley	 3,600
F.	B. Strong	
1,920K.	Lloyd	
1,620A.	M. Johnson	
1,500G.	Lacerte	
1,260R.	Lafrance	
4204.	None of the kind suggested.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT-FARM DWELLINGS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How many houses are now under construction under the terms of National Housing Act in places having a population of 5,000 or less?
2.	How many farm dwellings under the National Housing Act are now under construction in Canada?
[Mr. MacKinnon.1


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Figures are not available to Show the number of houses actually under construction at a given date in places having a population of 5,000 or less. However, in such places, the number of approved loans to home owners and to builders for sale under the National Housing Act, 1944, up to May 31, 1946, was 2,956 for a total amount of $13,124,025.
2.	At the present time there is one farm dwelling under construction under part III of the National Housing Act, 1944.


PURCHASE OF CANADIAN BONDS BY UNITED STATES AGENTS AND INDIVIDUALS
John Horne Blackmore: How many dollars worth of Canadian bonds were purchased by American agents and individuals in each of the months of 1945 and each month of 1946 to the end of May?


Mr. MacKINNON:: Sales and Purchases of Canadian Bonds and Debentures Between Canada and the United
States Reported Monthly by Canadian Security Dealers and Banks to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics (Millions of Dollars)
Net Sales Purchases by Canada
Sales to	from	to theUnited	United	UnitedMonth	States	States	States1945 January .	9-9	3-4	6-5February .	10-2	3-5	6-7March ...	8-7	2-1	6-6April ....	11-2	1-9	9-3May ....	14-2	1-3	12-9June 	43-5	14-8	28-7July 	22-1	1-3	20-8August ..	19-7	1-8	17-9September	7-2	4-7	2-5October .	10-0	5-0	5-0November	17-7	5-8	11-9December	9-4	3-9	5-5Total, 1945 ...	183-8	49-5	134-31946 January .	19-6	5-9	13-7Februaiy .	42-5	7-0	35-5March ...	21-8	5-5	16-383-9	18-4	65-5
N.B. Excluded from the above statistics are some sales of securities not executed through agencies reporting monthly.
Available incomplete returns for the period following March indicate a falling off in the capital inflow from the high level of the first quarter.

Labour Conditions


A. H. OATWAY V. WHEAT BOARD
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 
Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	The defence of the case of A. H. Oatway vs. the Canadian wheat board was handled for the board by its own legal department. No special or separate legal account was rendered in connection with this case. Mr. J. B. Coyne, ICC., was also employed to collaborate with the board's legal department, but was later retained by the crown. No account has been rendered by Mr. Coyne in this connection.
2.	The solicitors were J. B. Coyne, K.C. (who was also retained by the crown), and H. B. Monk, K.C.


AIR TRANSPORT BOARD-LIEUT.-COL. A. S. MCDONALD
Mr. HODGSON:: What is the salary of Lieutenant-Colonel A. S. McDonald as examiner of the air transport board?


Mr. McILRAITH:: $4,800 per annum.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
Canada's post-war army
Mr. PROBE:: 1.	What are the qualifications demanded by the Department of National Defence for enlistment in Canada's proposed post-war army?
2.	How many applications of pre-war members of Canada's permanent army who being of proper physical standard and who have seen service in any theatre of war during world war two, have been rejected to date for service in the proposed post-war army?
3.	What are the summarized grounds for rejection of the applications referred to in question 2?
4.	On whose recommendation were the above rejections permitted?
5.	What appeal has been or will be permitted to the applicants referred to in question 2?
6.	How many officers from each of the provinces of Canada have been retained for service with the post-war army, as of May 15, 1946 (a) who served with the permanent force pre-war and who had service in a theatre of war; (b) who were in the permanent force pre-war, but who had no combat service; (c) who were not in the permanent force pre-war and who had service in a theatre of war; (d) who were not in the permanent force pre-war and who have had no combat service?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: The leader of the opposition wished me to ask the Minister of Labour whether he could table a copy of a report of the New Zealand federation of labour, referred to in this morning's press, of which a copy is said to have been received here, and also provide members with a copy of the report.


Humphrey Mitchell: My information is that there is only one copy of this report in Ottawa, in the office of the high commissioner for New Zealand. The report has been accepted by the New Zealand government as an official report according to a statement by Hon. Walter Nash, Minister of Finance of New Zealand. In view of the interest in the report, the high commissioner for New Zealand in Ottawa has agreed to make his copy available for duplication. I expect to obtain copies and shall be glad to supply the hon. gentleman with one as well as other hon. members who are interested.
LUMBER INDUSTRY-STRIKE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA	'
On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I wish to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Have the unions in British Columbia offered to return to work in the box industry' and, if so, have the operators refused to accept the offer?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have no knowledge of the information which apparently is available to my hon. friend, but I am in constant touch with Victoria and he can rest assured that I will inform the house of any developments.


INQUIRING AS TO POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING IMPORTS OF ANTHRACITE FROM ABROAD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): May I ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. This afternoon, when reference was made to 25 million tons of coal, did that include anthracite? If it did, is there any possibility of securing anthracite from Great Britain. Belgium or Russia?
Clarence Decatur Howe: The figure did include anthracite. Our total coal consumption is about 42 million tons, of which about 25
Redistribution

million tons represent our total import requirement. There are practically no imports of anthracite from either the United Kingdom or Europe, and there is no possibility of obtaining such imports. The supply of domestic coal this winter will depend upon anthracite supplemented by briquettes from western Canada, coke from the steel industry, such substitutes as can be made available from the western mines, and from certain other coals that are obtainable.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the minister not mean 22 million tons of bituminous and 3i million tons of anthracite?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About that, as far as imports are concerned.


OPERATION OF FISH CREEK MINE, ALBERTA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Horne Blackmore: May I ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply whether he has yet answered the question I asked him on Wednesday, June 5. with reference to the Fish Creek coal mine. Alberta?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I apologize for not having answered the question. I obtained the information, which is that no steps are being taken. The reason is that the nature of the coal, its quality, and the lack of transportation make it unlikely that the particular mine will contribute to the solution of the present problem to an extent that would warrant the dominion government in taking steps to open it up.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the minister be specific and indicate whether he refers to sub-bituminous or bituminous coal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I regret that I have not the documents here. I had them the other day, but the orders of the day were not called until late, and I was absent. If the hon. member will regard his present question as notice of a further inquiry I will undertake to answer it to-morrow.


REDISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for an address to His Majesty the King praying that a measure be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to effect an amendment to the British North America Act with respect to readjustment of

the representation in the House of Commons, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefen-baker.
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: When I moved the adjournment of the debate at six o'clock yesterday I was discussing the assertion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) that if and when the C.C.F. party obtains power in this country one of its first acts will be either the reform or the abolition of the senate, and I was pointing out what effect that eventuality would have upon representation here of the maritime provinces, or if any other party felt the same way. According to the proposed amendment to the British North America Act, the maritime provinces must depend upon their representation in the senate for their minimum representation in this house. If the suggestion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw were an isolated case, possibly we would not need to pay much attention to it, but I should like to quote also from a statement made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the leader of the Social Credit party. I do not use this quotation to cast any reflection on the hon. member for Peace River, as I may say I have always found him fair in debate and possibly one of the most broad-minded men in the house. However, he had this to say, as reported at page 2254 of Hansard:
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.
As I said yesterday, we know what effect it would have in the maritime provinces if the senate were again reduced and the representation in our province were based on the number of senators.
I wish to give another quotation which was used by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he spoke a few days ago. He was quoting from a speech made by the late Mr. Woodsworth. I should like to -say here that I wish to cast no reflection on the memory of this man for whom I, and, I know, every member who knew him, had great respect. Mr. Woodsworth said on November 25, 1932, as reported at page 2299 of Hansard for that year:
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

Redistribution
Edward Island would have only its due number and not a number out of proportion to the rest of the country.


Thomas Vincent Grant: That would be half a member.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I hope that the hon.
member for Prince, who has just spoken, will bear these things in mind when he comes to cast his vote in a few days because, as I have said before, if the British North America Act can be amended without consultation with the different legislatures, we of the maritime provinces stand to lose more than any other province.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is time you did lose something.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the provinces are not consulted a precedent will be established and the hon. member from British Columbia and hon. members from any other part of the country may laugh as much as they wish. We have lost much-


Thomas Vincent Grant: This is not the first time the act has been amended.


James Horace King: Order.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have been reduced from forty to twenty-five members.


Thomas Vincent Grant: This is not the first time it has been amended.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My hon. friend can make his speech, and if he does it will be the first except one he has made in this house in the ten years 'he has been here. We have sat here and listened to him clap his hands and pound his desk like a child and interrupt practically every member who has spoken, but he does not take the trouble to prepare a speech or rise and deliver one in the house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Or read it.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I do not have to read it when I do rise to speak.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Nor do I. My time has practically expired. I do not intend to speak much longer to-night. As a matter of fact, I did not intend to speak as long as I have done, but I felt impelled to speak on behalf of the maritime provinces, and especially the province from which I come.
I should like to give a short quotation used in the speech delivered by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen), as reported at page 2268 of Hansard of June 6: He quoted section 52 of the British North America Act to emphasize the point which he made. Section 52 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.
We of New Brunswick have ten members out of 245 in the House of Commons. If this amendment is passed we shall have ten members out of 255 and, as the hon. member for St. John-Albert said the other day this section of the British North America Act will be violated because the proportionate representation of New Brunswick will be greatly disturbed. As I say, we have ten out of 245. Ten out of 255 is not the same proportion, and any hon. member who will take the time to consider it will see that that is a fact.
I wish to make this further statement. Last night one hon. member suggested that because I was speaking for my own province I was not a good Canadian. I have sat in this house and listened to practically every hon. member from Quebec who has spoken, and each has spoken almost entirely on the effect that this amendment would have on that province. I and no other member would suggest that, on that account, he was not a good Canadian. The same is true of hon. members from western Canada. They have all considered this matter almost entirely from the point of view of their own section of the country, and I contend that when I debate this question as it affects New Brunswick I am no less a Canadian than are those members from Quebec or from any other part of Canada.


Thomas Reid: In rising to take part in this debate, I quite realize that what I have to say will not be popular on this side of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Do not worry.


Thomas Reid: I wish to make it clear at the outset that I intend to vote against the resolution introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). Following the remarks made by the speaker who has just taken his seat, let me make it clear that I am going to deal with the matter from the point of view of British Columbia, and I do not want any taunt hurled at me that I am not thinking as a Canadian. Let us be frank. There is not a man sitting in this house but must and does think provincially. Every hon. member here is thinking of his own constituency and of his own province. Why have accusations hurled across the floor that those who do are not Canadians? The man who does not think of this resolution in terms
Redistribution

of his own province is somewhat derelict in his duty. He is no less a Canadian if he thinks of it in terms of his own province.
I listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Although I am not a lawyer, I think they entirely missed the point of the resolution, and I shall tell the house why. If one looks over the British North America Act he will see that there are certain sections dealing with general clauses and powers given to the dominion. Then there are certain powers specifically defined as powers of the dominion and of the provincial governments. It is my opinion as a layman that if the dominion government were interfering or asking the British parliament to amend any of the sections under which the provincial governments have power they would then have, first of all, to go to the provinces and ask for the right to do so. But under the general clauses dealing with redistribution it is my opinion that the dominion government has the power to bring in this resolution without consulting the provinces. However, I shall say that when the British government read the resolution in its present form they will be in just as much doubt as the members of the house were when it was first introduced, because I doubt whether many hon. members would have understood the resolution had it not been for the explanation given by the Minister of Justice. In my opinion it is extremely clumsily worded and in fact somewhat misleading because it says:
And whereas it is considered that a more equitable apportionment of members to the various provinces could be effected if readjustment were made on the basis of the population of all the provinces taken as a whole.
We are not doing that, I think it is explained in the last two clauses that we are not taking the population of the provinces as a whole, because when we come to divide by 250 we leave out Prince Edward Island, the northwest territories and the Yukon. Therefore the wording of the resolution is certainly misleading in the beginning, and it is not until you get to the end of the resolution that you find the meat of it. I was not at all surprised that the Minister of Justice, when asked by an hon. member how he arrived at the figure 250, should reply, "Well, I don't know\" I doubt if many hon. members could say how that figure was arrived at as a quotient; but I say it was a clever piece of mathematics, whoever was responsible for it.
Before I pass on to some figures and further statements, may I say that in the amendment I believe the hon. member for Lake Centre, if
fMr. Rekt.l
he spoke for his party, inadvertently or otherwise has tied up his party with the principle of the Canadian government going to the British parliament for amendments to the British North America Act. Probably he did not intend to do that, but that is the actual effect of the amendment. Of course I for one believe that this Canada should have the right to amend its own constitution without going to the British parliament.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. party, spoke in favour of the resolution, and I am not altogether surprised at that, since Saskatchewan stands to gain under it. He and every other leader know the troubles that arise when you have to reduce the representation of a province. The hon. gentleman comes to this house with a large number of members from Saskatchewan, and I can visualize his difficulties if he should be told that there would be four less constituencies, for he then would have to say to the members of his party, "Well, which of you boys are going to stay home?"


An hon. MEMBER:: All of them, I hope.
Mr. R.EID:	Then last evening the hon.
member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) gave his views as to what that party would do in regard to the senate, should they come to power. May I say to him and to the leader of the C.C.F., after having looked into the number of members, that if this resolution passes the house and the increased numbers are given the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, the C.C.F. will wait an additional twenty-five years before they take over the reins of government; and I say that in all sincerity.
In regard to the increased representation for the province of Quebec, I think under the present set-up that province has a real grievance. It has been known for years that Ontario has had seven or eight members too many, according to population. Rather than reduce the number of members from Ontario, however, after someone found out how this new proposal would work, * they come along and add one member to Ontario and eight to Quebec. In all kindliness, I want to tell hon. members from Quebec that if they look over the figures they will see that most of the eight members to be added to the representation of that province are likely to go to the city of Montreal and not to the great hinterland outside. Coming back to what I said a moment ago, however, to my way of thinking this resolution has been introduced at this time to, shall I say, placate Quebec because Ontario has had seven members more than it

Redistribution
should, and to help out the other provinces, especially Saskatchewan, which otherwise would lose four members.
The leader of the C.C.F. party spoke about representation by population. I wonder if he has studied the situation in Canada to-day, if he has looked at the great shift of population which has taken place, at the great number of people who have left Saskatchewan, particularly, and who have gone principally to British Columbia. I know one cannot always judge by the number of electors in speaking of representation by population, but if one looks over the figures for the last election he will find that on the voters' lists of the province of Saskatchewan they had only 445,601 names, with twenty-one members in this house, while we in the province of British Columbia had 545,077 names on the voters' lists and only sixteen members. In other words, we had five members fewer than Saskatchewan, although they had 99,000 fewer on their voters' lists.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A lot better members, though.


Thomas Reid: Well, this is one time I think I can agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). Then, when one speaks of representation by population, one should .look at the various constituencies. I know criticism has been offered concerning Prince Edward Island. It has been said, "Oh, they have four members and their total population is not more than 95,000." If one looks over the various ridings in Canada it will be seen that the constituency with the smallest population is not in Prince Edward Island at all but in Ontario. Just consider: in Ontario there is one constituency with a population of something like 18,732, and another with a population of 113,000, and it is not a city constituency.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are those two ridings?


Thomas Reid: The smallest one is Glengarry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Reid: But the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who represents that riding, had nothing to do with the number of people in it. I was a member of the last redistribution committee, and at that time I swore I would never serve on another redistribution committee. I never saw as much selfishness or as much fighting as I saw there. Talk about being Canadians and working for the whole of Canada! In that committee it amounted almost to warfare. I remember one gentleman who has since gone to his reward coming into
this house with the redistribution map and poking his cane right through it; he was so wild. Many hon. members will remember that. I can tell the present official opposition that members from this party had nothing to do with shaping the constituencies. The maps were simply placed before us and we were told, "That's that. Take it or lump it." If anyone cares to look over those maps he will be reminded of one of those cross-word puzzles. The government of that day endeavoured to carve out the Tories from certain districts and the Liberals from others.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not in Ontario.


Thomas Reid: I heard complaints from the province of Ontario.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member has mentioned Ontario, and I said, "Not in Ontario." Thirty-one seats in Ontario were not altered, and, some of the others would not have been altered had it not been for this mess here in eastern Ontario.


Thomas Reid: Well, you were a member of that committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was Ontario chairman of it, and I know what I am talking about.


Thomas Reid: To those who laughed about the constituency of Glengarry, I commend that statement; the hon. member was chairman of the committee for Ontario at that time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know the hon. member wants to be fair, and would not impute anything like that to me. We did our best to put-


An hon. MEMBER:: Be fair.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am always fair. We did our best to put Prescott and Russell together, making one seat, and Glengarry and Stormont together, which would make one seat; but such a hubbub was kicked up in certain places in the east end of Ontario that, sooner than have a political civil war in eastern Ontario, we let it go. You may have to do the same thing.


Thomas Reid: The house will be pleased that the cat has got out of the bag at last. I was on that committee, and I do not want to go on one again, because it was just one of those terrible headaches.


Major James William Coldwell: Would the hon. member favour the setting up of a judicial commission, independent of the house.


Thomas Reid: I am not convinced that a judicial commission would be the solution. But one thing I am convinced of is that we should
Redistribution

be careful about representation in the house; I believe we are overgoverned. I will give an example. I looked up some figures in regard to Great Britain and in regard to some other countries. In Great Britain the unit is 70.000. I know somebody will say that that is only a small country. But let us take the figures in some old country cities. Let us first take the city of Glasgow.


Mr. GARDINER:: How many councillors have they?


Thomas Reid: The Minister of Agriculture asks how many councillors they have. Well, how many councils have we, and how many provincial legislatures have we? We have well over 500 provincial members of legislatures, and councillors in every municipality from Halifax to Vancouver island.
I was about to answer the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The city of Glasgow has fifteen members. The population of that city at the 1939 census, the last one, was 1,280,473. The nearest comparison I can find in Canada is Montreal with its sixteen members and a population given officially as something over 903.000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not for the island; that is for the city.


Mr. HACKETT:: That is not greater
Montreal.


Thomas Vincent Grant: This is not Scotland.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take some other town.


Thomas Reid: Just be quiet. You and I are good friends; and don't be throwing it up to me that I am not a Canadian. I am as good a Canadian as you are. Don't let us fall out, doctor. We have been good friends up to now but-


An hon. MEMBER:: You don't know your Montreal.


Thomas Reid: We will try Toronto, then.


Mr. CLAXTON:: Does the hon. member know if the area for which the population was given is the same area for which the number of members was given in respect of Montreal? It seems to me that the population would be about 1,200,000, to correspond with the area for which there are sixteen members.


Thomas Reid: I have before me the report just out from the chief electoral officer, which show's the figures of population for the island of Montreal. I take it that that comprises all members of parliament in the house from the city of Montreal. The total population- and I may be wrong; but what I say is subject to correction-is 903,370.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: For the
island only.


Thomas Reid: For the island only; that may be correct.
Then, turning to Toronto-and I suppose the Toronto members are waiting to hear what I have to say about that city-I find that Liverpool with a population of 865,688 has eleven members. Toronto has eleven members for 667,491 of population, or a difference of 198,197. I mention this particularly because both the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and I came from the British isles. In his speech he made considerable reference to representation by population. The thought came to my mind: Were they not as well represented there, in the cities in Great Britain, as we are in this country?
However, let us come nearer home, to the United States. What do we find there? We find that they have 435 in their house of representatives, with a unit of 304,000. Will any hon. member say that representation in Washington is not as good for the people of the United States as is our representation in this country? I do not think so.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: How do the countries compare in size?


Thomas Reid: Well, so far as area is concerned, I think Canada is just about the same size as the United States. In fact, I believe it is a little larger. I do not see any point in asking that question. If the hon. member is talking about population, he might have something on that point.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Their unit is 304,000.


Thomas Reid: What about the shift in population? What about the situation to-day? We have at the present time in British Columbia
949,000	people. We have had an increase during the war to the extent of 90,000. In fact, only three provinces have had increases in population, increases from one province to another. Those three are Nova Scotia which, according to the official document I have, had an increase of 8,000 in three or four years; Ontario, with an increase of 58,000, and British Columbia with one of 90,000.
Saskatchewan has been gradually losing its population from 1935. It is estimated that in the past three or four years they have lost something like 97,000. Are we going to take any note of those serious changes in population throughout the country? Are we, shall I say, from British Columbia, with a population of 949,000, going to be content with eighteen members, under the new proposal, as compared with a lesser population in Sas-

Redistribution
katchewan, and their being granted twenty members? Surely there is nothing fair about that, when one considers the matter in the light of the great shift in population which has taken place.
I would have had the temerity to move an amendment; but I understand that such would have been a negative motion, and therefore not in order. As I have said, however, I intend to vote against the resolution for the particular reasons I have outlined. I am going to suggest to the government that they take into consideration deferring this matter until after the next census.
Every member in the House of Commons is sitting here as a result of the census figures of 1941.


Mr. GREEN:: It is 1931.


Thomas Reid: But have there been any complaints? There have been no complaints from members, at all. Why take hold of the British North America Act and cause all the suspicion, and unrest, shall I say, that we are doing something wrong?
I want to say this to the Minister of Justice, that while it is true from a legal point of view, as he will argue-and I will agree with him-that we have the right to go to the British parliament without consulting the provinces, yet in this particular matter-not in other matters, but we have in this particular one-citizens will look upon the request by this government to Great Britain as something that should be made when we consider further social legislation.
I have just looked at a paper which came from the coast, and I find that the editor of the Vancouver Sun, thinking along the same lines, namely, with respect to by-passing the provinces in this redistribution proposal, has this to say:
It would seem on the face of it that this is purely a federal concern, since it affects only the matter of popular representation in the federal parliament. Yet the precedent is of the greatest importance. If Ottawa can establish the principle that a petition from the dominion parliament alone is necessary to win amendment of the British North America Act, then the principle holds good in every matter affecting the jurisdiction of the provinces and dominion.
Some will argue that the editor of the Vancouver Sun is wrong, and I would argue that legally he may be wrong because there are certain sections of the British North America Act-I am not going to delay the house by reading them-in which the powers of the provinces are specifically defined. Most people, when they see that this government is going to London to ask for an amendment to the British North America Act, will ask,
"What for?" They will be wondering why this is being done when they are told in connection with social legislation that the British North America Act prevents certain things from being done unless the consent of the provinces is first obtained.
I am afraid the average citizen-even more than the average citizen, because here we have the editor of the Vancouver Sun taking the same view and asking the same question- will feel that this action does more harm than the expediency which would seem to have prompted it, that is, the fear of having to reduce the representation of certain provinces to what it should be according to actual population.
I am going to plead with the government to defer taking this action until the next census has been taken. This parliament could go on until 1948 or 1949, at which time it would be within a year or a year and a half of the next decennial census, and it would be much fairer if we were to wait until that took place. If we proceed with the present proposal I am afraid that the high sounding phrases which have been uttered during this debate about representation by population will not carry a great deal of weight.
I realize that I am one of the few on this side of the house who is opposing this proposal. I do it conscientiously because I feel that what is being done is not a proper and correct thing to do at this time. I felt it was my duty to rise and state exactly where I stand on the matter.


Mr. LIONEL BERTRAND (Terrebonne) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, a few words will enable me to express my views on the matter under discussion. It would be useless for me to deliver a lengthy speech on a measure which meets an obvious need and in favour of which some fellow-members who are well versed in constitutional law have put forward learned opinions. Besides, it is not my habit to deliver long speeches; this session has already been going for such a long time that I would not wish to delay it further.
When the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) moved in 1943 the postponement of redistribution until the end of the war, I was one of the nine members who took exception to the proposal. I opposed it because it was a departure from the constitution which provides that the redistribution of constituencies must be proceeded with after each decennial census; I opposed it because in the event of an election being called before the end of the war, the government would have enabled seven or eight members to sit in the House of Commons in violation of the
Redistribution

constitution, while Quebec, even with a material increase in its population, had the same number of representatives. I made the following remarks on July 5, 1943:
Do you not believe, Mr. Speaker, that an injustice is being done as regards the rights which the province of Quebec enjoys under the confederation agreement, and that, under the pretext of war the democratic character of our parliamentary system is being set aside? In my opinion, to postpone the redistribution is simply to check the influence which Quebec is entitled to have on the political destinies of this country.
I went on:
I am opposed to this resolution for the reasons which I have just stated. I consider that I have no right to take any other stand; a principle is involved, and it is also a matter of justice for my province. Besides, this resolution interferes with the constitution, and my province is especially affected. The government has no justification for overriding the constitution.
Redistribution was postponed; the reason advanced was that we were at war. I thought at that time that such a reason was unconvincing and I still think so, since the redistribution bill affected neither directly nor indirectly our war effort, but was purely and simply a matter of administration.
As regards the proposal that is now before the house, it has my unqualified approval. My first reason for supporting it is that it does justice to my province. The British North America Act, passed in 1867, was perhaps equitable at that time; the fathers of confederation certainly acted in accordance with the circumstances and with due regard of what were then the best interests of the people. However, time has shown that the British North America Act has not given the expected results. For instance, was it believed in 1867 that the province of Quebec would take such an expansion, as regards population, and that seventy-five years later the constitution would cause an injustice toward Quebec, whose population has increased almost threefold since 1871.
The British North America Act sets at 65 the number of Quebec representatives. With a population exceeding that of Quebec by
450,000	only the province of Ontario now has 82 members, 17 more than Quebec. The new plan will give Ontario one additional member, or a total of 83; Quebec will have eight more members, or a total of 73. The balance will be restored and I for one am quite glad of it.
Under the present rules, Quebec, with a number of representatives permanently fixed at 65, is the province whose population determines the representation of other provinces. The continuation of the present system would

mean a marked decrease in the number of dominion members, which is inconsistent in view of the expansion achieved by Canada during the last twenty years. The new plan gives to the provinces a representation based on their respective population, and that is a matter of fair play for all of them.
The Progressive Conservatives are opposed to the resolution on the ground that the rights of the provinces are infringed upon and that the provinces should have been consulted. They go so far as to move an amendment along those lines. The prime minister of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, was the first to expound that argument in a statement he made some time ago. The Conservatives have taken up the argument, which shows the true feelings of the prime minister of my province, to whom the autonomous mantle affords a poor disguise. The Conservatives, in taking up the argument, do not bare their whole thought. The true reason of their opposition lies simply in the fact that the proposal will give eight additional seats to the province of Quebec. And eight additional seats which will never be theirs because the Conservative party, which has barely kept alive in Quebec since 1920, cannot take a new lease on life unless it discards that fanaticism which is so obnoxious to my province and so much at variance with its typical traditions. That fanaticism is well known. We have had fresh evidence of it, and the electors of Quebec will not forget it.
It is suggested that the provinces be consulted. But why should they be? Learned jurists have established in this house that the central government could legislate in the matter now under discussion without consulting the provinces. Besides, it is plain common sense that if a province may change its own representation without permission from the central government, why should the latter seek provincial consent in order to modify its own? Consultation of the provinces would merely kill the plan. It is well known that certain provincial prime ministers are systematically antagonistic to this government, as was strikingly shown at the last dominion-provincial conference. How could Mr. Drew, for instance, agree to the plan when his friends in this house are dead against it? Could Mr. Duplessis favour it when he was frankly opposing it even before it was brought up in this house? The plan would then be set aside just to please some petty politician and Quebec would lose, in parliament, eight additional units of influence on the destinies of this country. We, federal members, are just as ardent advocates of autonomy as Mr. Duplessis, but with a

Redistribution
broader outlook. True autonomy also consists in minding one's own business. We, Quebec members, have been elected to represent the province of Quebec in this parliament; and it is for us, Quebec federal members to say whether or not the province of Quebec is entitled to have eight additional members in the next elections. Such are my full views in the matter.
I favour the resolution. It redresses an injustice toward the province of Quebec. It recognizes Quebec's development and importance. It grants it, in proportion to its population, the number of representatives to which it is entitled. The only feature I dislike is that we should have to apply to London for permission to make changes in our constitution. This is said to be a mere formality. But it is nonetheless quite annoying. I understand that we can, at any time, eliminate this formality merely by a vote. This we should do without delay. There remains no reason why, as a nation, Canada should seek authorizations overseas. I therefore hope that before long-and the sooner the better-parliament will rid itself of this ridiculous obligation.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Speaker, I first wish to compliment the hon. member for New' Westminster (Mr. Reid) on the address he gave to-night. I believe he has approached this question in the right way. When confederation was first enacted it was viewed, not from the point of view of political expediency, as he said this resolution is, but in a spirit of statesmanship by leaders of both the parties in the different provinces.
I have no written manuscript to-night, but I consider it to be my duty to voice what should be, and I believe are, the views of the electors in Nova Scotia. Someone has the right and the duty to speak for Nova Scotia and, as my seat-mate the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has said, I do not consider that I am any less a Canadian because I do so.
Nova Scotia has special claims to sympathetic consideration as regards her standing in confederation. Nova Scotia has contributed much in relation to the benefits she has received. There have been disappointments; there is dissatisfaction, and if this resolution is carried and put into effect it is going to accentuate the present discontent in our province. I feel that Nova Scotia should be consulted, and they will not be satisfied unless they are.
When confederation was enacted it was approved by the leaders of both the great parties, but there have been public men in Nova Scotia
who have made it a political issue from that day to this, and thereby profited politically. They ran elections on the cry of repeal. They ran elections in Nova Scotia on the discontent as to its relations with the rest of Canada. To this day hardly a week passes but in my province representations are made against confederation and our relation to the rest of Canada. The point I wish to make is that, if that party was opposed to confederation, if they made a political issue of it for almost eighty years, they will support the hon. member for New Westminster and others, and will surely require that the electors, or the legislature, or the government, or the Premier of Nova Scotia shall be consulted. This has been made a political issue from the day of confederation to the present time. The party with which I am associated has suffered. Not long ago I heard the former premier of Nova Scotia, Hon. A. S. MacMillan, say that he would be favourable to erecting a monument in Nova Scotia to that great Nova Scotian, Sir Charles Tupper, not because of what he did for Nova Scotia and Canada in seeing that confederation was enacted, but because of what he did for free schools in Nova Scotia.
Nova Scotia did not derive its legislative authority from the British North America Act, as stated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent); it was constituted a province, with its own legislature, by royal charter years before the Province of Canada-Quebec and Ontario-was finally ceded to Britain. If my memory serves me correctly, it was so constituted back in 1757. It also had responsible government and it had a flag of its own. It is the only province or colony in the whole world which had that status. It had sovereign rights. Although not as large as some other territories, it had sovereign rights, and its part as regards the British North America Act justified it in believing that that was a treaty and that it had equal rights with the federal government in seeing that the conditions of that treaty were carried out down through the years.
The province of New Brunswick was constituted as a province, never as a colony, in 1784, with her own legislature and by royal charter.
Confederation had its genesis in Nova Scotia. The Charlottetown conference originated in Nova Scotia; the Quebec conference resulted from the conference at Charlottetown, the London conference from the Quebec conference, and the British North America Act from the London conference. I repeat, confederation had its genesis in Nova Scotia. Surely, if that is so, and in the light of history, that province has the right to be consulted at
Redistribution

such a time as this when a major change is being made in the constitution of Canada. I will read from the Journals of Nova Scotia, of February 4, 1864, from the King's speech opening the general assembly, paragraph (8):
The importance of consolidating the influence and advancing the common progress of the three maritime provinces, whose interests are so closely identified, has for some time attracted a large share of public attention, and I propose to submit for your consideration-
This is from the speech from the throne.
-a proposition in which the cooperation of the governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island will be invited with a view to the union of the three provinces under one government and legislature.
Here is a further minute from the Journals of Nova Scotia, general assembly, March 21, 1864, page 74:
The provincial secretary presented to the house the correspondence re union of the maritime provinces.
Then again, on March 29, 1864, at page 87:
The provincial secretary moved the following resolution, which was unanimously passed:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency the administrator of the government requesting him to appoint delegates, not to exceed five, to confer with the delegates who were appointed by the governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island for the purpose of considering the subject of the union of the three provinces under one government and legislature, such union to take effect when confirmed by legislative enactment of the various provinces interested and approved by Her Majesty the Queen.
Again, on April 7:
The preceding resolution sent to the legislative council for concurrence . . .
And so on.
Nova Scotia made its full contribution to the formation of Canada and the development of the Dominion of Canada ever since. It participated in the cost of acquiring the Hudson's Bay company's lands, the purchase thereof, out of which lands the prairie provinces were formed. It sent troops to put down the northwest rebellion, and contributed its proportion to the cost of building the Canadian Pacific railway, and that great railway was never granted running rights into Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia's statesman, Sir Charles Tupper, supported by sixteen members from that province, advocated the national policy which was the foundation of industrial Canada, the basis upon which industrial Canada has been built up, under which this country made such remarkable achievements in the first great war and again in this recent great war, the pride of the whole of Canada. The very basis of this accomplishment was the national policy of 1878, which was sponsored by the public men of Nova Scotia.

Not only have we had war industries resulting from this industrial development; we have also the peace-time industries upon which the national income of the country depends. Moreover, the sons and daughters of Nova Scotia have gone to all parts of Canada, to the prairie provinces and to central Canada, to British Columbia, to assist in building up those sections. Just a few days ago the newspapers of Canada lamented the death of that great banker, that great Canadian, Morris W. Wilson, a native of Nova Scotia and head of The Royal Bank of Canada. He was succeeded by Sydney George Dobson, another great Nova Scotian, and they have as their associates other Nova Scotians, Mr. Enman of the Bank of Nova Scotia; Mr. Spinney of the Bank of Montreal; Mr. Logan of the Canadian Bank of Commerce; Mr. Elderkin, who is supervisor or inspector of banking in the Department of Finance, and many others. I mention this to indicate the contributions that Nova Scotians have made in the business life of Canada.
It was through the instrumentality of great statesmanship that Canada has developed and will last for centuries, for thousands of years. Nova Scotia had a prominent part in achieving confederation, and the province has supported all the great measures that have aided in building up Canada ever since. I believe that under a proper legal interpretation Nova Scotia should be consulted in any amendment to the B.N.A. Act. At any rate it would be only the part of decency that it should be consulted before any major amendment is made to the British North America Act, the very basis upon which our sovereign province came into confederation.
Surely our province is not simply to be sacrified in confederation. I consider it an obligation of all members of this house, from all parts of Canada, to see that Nova Scotia prospers in confederation and that her people are happy. That, unfortunately, is not so today. I believe that a special duty rests upon the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Bracken), who inherits the responsibilities of his predecessors, to see that Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces generally are prosperous in our confederation. We get no political kudos because of discontent under confederation. Others do; we do not. We have to justify it, and I am proud to justify it. For better or for worse, we are part of Canada for all time. But I appeal to the house tp see that we have our place in confederation and share in the prosperity and happiness of the rest of Canada, and that Nova Scotia is consulted before any changes are made in the act under wdiieh we entered confederation.

Redistribution
My deskmate, the member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), pointed out in his able speech that there is no room for expansion geographically in the maritime provinces. There is none in Nova Scotia. That is not true of the other provinces. They have all expanded. There are many constituencies-I will not enumerate them-that were hot in existence at the time of confederation, some of them indeed not in existence at the beginning of this century, and they now have large populations which go to make up the total population of Canada.
Representation in Nova Scotia, since shortly after confederation, has gradually diminished. In 1867 Nova Scotia had nineteen members to 181 for all Canada, or one for Nova Scotia to 9-53 for all Canada. In 1882 Nova Scotia had twenty-one to 210, or one to ten for all Canada. In 1904 Nova Scotia had eighteen to 214, or one to 11-88. In 1925 Nova Scotia had fourteen out of 241, or one in 17-21. In 1945, the present time, Nova Scotia has twelve members out of 245, or one to 20-42 for all Canada. Under the British North America Act as it now stands, if it were not amended, Nova Scotia is entitled to twelve out of 238 or one in 19-83. It is unfortunate, and we lament it in Nova Scotia, that there was a reduction in our membership, but we accepted it census after census; but this is the first time that any of the western provinces have had to suffer, and they will not accept it as it was accepted in the maritime provinces.
According to the Canada Year Book, the population of Nova Scotia bore the following percentages to the population of the rest of Canada. In 1871, 10-51; in 1881, 10-19; in 1891, 9-32; in 1901, 8-56; in 1911, 6-83; in 1921, 5-96; and in 1931, 4-94 per cent. In 1941 we went up a little bit to 5-02 per cent. If that percentage were measured in the area that constituted original Canada I do not believe that our loss of percentage of population would have been one-half of what it is. It would show a far more favourable percentage if only the population of the original parts of Canada were taken into consideration.
Under this resolution Nova Scotia is offered an increase of one member. The membership will be increased from twelve to thirteen, but that is a fleeting concession. Personally I prefer not to accept it. Why? Because there is no permanency to it. Under the British North America Act, which Nova Scotia by sovereign right approved, it was possible to increase the membership as it was increased after different censuses in the prairie provinces and British Columbia, so that we did not suffer. But under this resolution introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) we have a fixed membership of 255. If Manitoba, or Quebec, or Ontario, or Saskatchewan, or Alberta, or British Columbia gets an increased number in the future, where is it to come from? It must come from the remaining provinces; and just as certain as we are discussing this resolution to-night it is going to come from Nova Scotia. If the trend of the past years continues not only will one come from Nova Scotia but two and three, and then we shall be down to the minimum of ten members out of 255, which violates, I believe, the legal rights of Nova Scotia; it violates the spirit of confederation. That is why I personally am not disposed to accept this increase of one member. There is no permanency to it under this resolution, because in the future the representation of all Canada will never be above 255. It must remain at that figure, and when there is an adjustment some of the provinces will suffer. I warn Saskatchewan and Manitoba that with their mass production machine age which appears to be taking place in the prairie provinces and with the days of the homestead being a thing of the past, they too may suffer as Nova Scotia has suffered in the past. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would suffer and we would likely go below ten members in the house if it were not for the amendment to the British North America Act which was put into effect under the government of Sir Robert Borden by which we could not have fewer members than that amendment provides for, which is ten for Nova Scotia, ten for New Brunswick and four for Prince Edward Island, although the population of Nova Scotia has always been and probably always will be larger than that of New Brunswick, we shall have the same minimum.
Poor old Nova Scotia down by the sea has suffered in some respects ever since confederation. I was reading some of the debates of previous years but I am not going to quote them to-night. In those debates I found that Mr. E. M. Macdonald, a prominent Liberal, said that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would never have entered confederation unless they were assured that they would be able to retain the membership which they had when they entered confederation.
This increase in membership to 255 is not going to be fair to Nova Scotia. I do not believe there is any justification for it in the British North America Act. I believe it violates sections 51 and 52 of that act, but it also imposes increased expenditures for the government of this country. I have been opposed to that. When I first entered the
Redistribution

Nova Scotia legislature twenty-one years ago we had a membership of forty-three, which we considered too large. We reduced it to thirty-seven; later we reduced it to thirty, and I believe they have got along just as well ever since. According to the last census in Nova Scotia, they are entitled to a redistribution of seats. If the basis of representation that we proposed at that time is followed I believe that there would be an addition of seven seats in that legislature. Anyway the electors of Nova Scotia felt that we were overgoverned and we reduced the membership. But that policy is not being followed here if this resolution becomes effective.
Under this resolution neither the electorate of Nova Scotia, nor the legislature, nor the government, nor the premier of that province is being consulted. There may be communications with the governments of the provinces, but, if so, they should be tabled in the house.
What was the basis of confederation? What did the fathers of confederation have in mind when the basis of representation was established? What would they say to-day? What stand would they expect me to take as a representative from Nova Scotia? I am just as sure as they enacted confederation that they would require that I speak for them, and no one	has	more right to speak	for	thefathers of confederation than I have. Four of them came from my native town of Amherst; one of them, a Liberal, is in my family tree. What would they say? They would say that this government has no right to attempt to put	into	effect an amendment	to	theBritish North America Act without consulting Nova Scotia. The government should stand not by	the	letter of the law but	by	thespirit of	what	was intended. Surely, over	the
years, from the time of confederation down to this day, Nova Scotia has earned the right to sympathetic consideration from public men from all over Canada and not the kind of treatment which appears to be attempted here.
What has been the attitude of the public men from Nova Scotia? I shall not quote them all, but I do not believe there is a single public man from Nova Scotia at any time, irrespective of his party, who in this parliament or on the floor of the legislature of Nova Scotia, would ever approve any changes in the British North America Act without the sovereign province of Nova Scotia being consulted. I am sure that Sir Robert Borden did not. What he said has been

quoted here by previous speakers, and it would not be out of place for me to quote him again. This was on February 10, 1914:
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.
What did the Hon. Layton Ralston say, the hero of two wars, the man we saw walk the plank here because he stood for duty? He supported the stand taken by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, that the provinces should be consulted. I need not quote what he said. What did Viscount Bennett say when he was Prime Minister of this country? What were his actions? What stand did he take in 1931, when legislation affecting the merchant shipping legislation was being enacted in Great Britain? Here is a record of the stand taken by Mr. Bennett and his associates. On February 23, 1931, Mr. Bennett issued an invitation to the provincial governments to meet the federal representatives at a dominion-provincial conference to consider the statute of Westminster in 1929, which was the outgrowth of the imperial conference of 1926. This was a conference on the operation of dominion legislation and merchant shipping legislation. The meeting was held in Ottawa on April 7 and 8, 1931, and the delegates agreed that the following sections should be inserted in the statute of Westminster :
1.	Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Act of 1867 to 1930 or any order, rule or regulation thereunder.
That is specific. Other recommendations were:
2.	The powers conferred by this act upon the parliament of Canada or upon the legislatures of the provinces shall be restricted to the enactment of laws in relation to matters within the competence of the parliament of Canada or of any of the legislatures of the provinces respectively.
3.	The provision of the section (relating to the Colonial Laws Validity Act) of this act shall extend to the laws made by any of the provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such provinces.
I continue reading the report of that conference:
Once more the provinces weTe attempting to safeguard their rights. Mr. Bennett promised the delegates that at a near future date he would summon a conference on constitutional issues with the purpose of considering any further amendments to the British North America Act.
Actions speak louder than words, and those were the actions of Mr. Bennett and his associates. But those are not the actions of

Redistribution
the present able Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) or the government and party which are going to support him and make this a political issue. This never should become a political issue. As I said earlier, confederation came about through the combined efforts of the leading men of all parties; but, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) said, this is being treated in the light of "political expediency". I have one more quotation to offer; it is a statement by the late Hon. Norman McL. Rogers.


John Thomas Hackett: Who was he?


Percy Chapman Black: He was private secretary-and an able one-to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Later he was Minister of Labour and, still later, Minister of National Defence, which position he occupied when he met his untimely death. I do not know whether he was in the Prime Minister's office at the time he made this statement, but he was arguing against the theory that it wras necessary in law to consult the provinces. This is what he said:
It would appear that federal practice and political expediency call for a limited measure of provincial consultation and consent in the future amendment to the Canadian constitution, and for definite guarantees with respect to the rights of certain minorities.
I could also quote Hon. E. M. Macdonald, who at different times went on record as stating that the provinces should be consulted with respect to any amendment of the British North America Act.


John Thomas Hackett: Who was he?


Percy Chapman Black: He was Minister of National Defence at one time. I am going to repeat what I said earlier, that there is not a single instance on record of any public man in Nova Scotia, irrespective of politics, admitting that the British North America Act, under which that province entered confederation, can be amended without consulting the province; and, if I can speak for Nova Scotia, I say that such amendment should not be adopted and put into effect unless that province is at least consulted and, I believe, until it has approved. I have quoted certain public men. What do the leading newspapers of that province say? Without exception they are opposed to this form of redistribution at the present time. I quote from the Halifax Herald 'of June 8, which said:
This redistribution will be carried out on the basis of the decennial census of 1941-but, if the 1941 census was undesirable as a basis for redistribution in 1943, how can it be made desirable and fair and satisfactory and efficient by any plan that may be brought forward now? That aspect of the matter may rest for the moment.
What really counts is this: if government and parliament are to go ahead with the present plan, then they will not be getting down -to the roots of the situation at all.
The present plan may be criticized on the grounds of basic census figures ... it may be criticized because the provinces may not be consulted respecting the necessary constitutional amendment ... it may be criticized because it is unfair to one province and unduly "fair" to another . . .
Then it goes on to quote the Prime Minister of this country, supporting what he advocated some years ago. The Herald continues:
What Canada needs, of course, is a modern and efficient measure of electoral reform to replace an archaic system producing undemocratic and impossible results . . . The present prime minister made this positive declaration more than ten years ago: "I am in favour of the alternative vote and am also in favour of proportional representation."
I need not quote more of that editorial, and there are several others along the same lines. I would refer to the editorial in the Halifax Chronicle of June 3. I am not going to read it all; it is too long, but it says:
There has been very little demand for redistribution at this time ... it takes second place now -to more pressing problems. Most Canadians are waiting with anxiety for a budget already long overdue. We have a fuel crisis on our hands, and the prospects for next winter demand that greater attention be given immediately to the formulation of a national policy for native coal.
. . . the need for additional housing is still acute . . . We need, too, a far more serious consideration of industrial reconstruction and the upsurge of labour unrest -that is shackling efficiency . . . Taxes, housing and strikes are the things that need the .first attention at the moment ... If we must have a redistribution bill, why must it be one -that increases the membership of the house?
. . . Yet an increase in house representation means an increase in taxation. If the proposed bill goes through as presented, it will cost the country a minimum of an additional $60,000 a year in salaries and allowances for the new members.
If on the other hand we were to allow one member for each 50,000 people, reducing -the number of seats to 233, there would be an annual saving of $72,000, or of $132,000 if the proposed bill bringing total representation up to 255 is passed.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) elaborated on that point in his excellent address the other evening. The Chronicle goes on:
Such economies may sound small business in a country where we have a government accustomed to talk in billions. Yet economy must begin somewhere, and before this bill is debated opinion might well be canvassed as to whether its provisions look in the right direction.
Redistribution

I could quote from the Sydney Record-Post and other Nova Scotia newspapers, but I shall not delay the house by so doing. I may add, that many newspapers all across Canada are expressing the same view.
The Minister of Justice, in his able speech when presenting this resolution, made the following statement:
Another question, which has arisen each time there has been any move to ask for an amendment of the British North America Act, has been whether or not the provinces had been consulted and had agreed to it, I think that when the question is put in that form it is ambiguous. The provinces, that is to sav 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.
I am a representative from Nova Scotia. Four of the fathers of confederation came from my home township. I have not been consulted. None of my colleagues has been called into consultation. The Minister of Justice has not called me into consultation, and I do not believe that members from Nova Scotia, as a body, have been consulted. Some of them, more subservient than the hon. member for New Westminster, may support the government because of "political expediency." But on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia I am not going to support this, for political expediency, or for any other reason.
I shall now quote from the remarks of the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell). He said that he does not think we should be consulted in Nova Scotia. Speaking on June 6, as reported at page 2235 of Hansard, he said:
Therefore X 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.
I question that statement; I disagree with it. If I have a voice to represent the feelings of the people of Nova Scotia, a voice which comes down from 1864, when confederation had its very beginning in Nova Scotia, then I say he does not represent the views of that province.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. With
the unanimous consent of the house the hon. member may proceed.


Percy Chapman Black: I shall quote briefly from the remarks of the leader of the C.C.F. party, as they are reported at page 2238 of Hansard:
The whole history of this country since confederation surely points to the fact that this parliament has the right to deal with representation in this parliament.
I do not agree with that, and the people of Nova Scotia do not agree with it. They have no right to change t'he basis under which Nova Scotia entered confederation, without first consulting that province. I could quote the words of his predecessor in office as leader of the C.C.F. party, the late Mr. J. S. Woods-worth, whose words have already been recorded at page 2233 of Hansard.
I note that the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), at page 2254 quoted the words of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) the leader of the Social Credit party. I shall not repeat the quotation, but shall point out that he argued that representation of all the maritime provinces in the senate should be reduced to the rightful level, while we are at it. To be fair to the hon. member, I must point out that afterwards he modified that statement, when at page 2255 he said:
I did say before that no material amendments of the British North America Act should be sought without consultation with the provinces.
So far as the hon. member for Peace River and his party are concerned, there is no menace to representation in the maritime provinces being reduced below the number of senators they now have.
The Minister of Justice has said that we have no right to be consulted in Nova Scotia, and that is the view of the leader of the C.C.F., and that of his predecessor.


Major James William Coldwell: Within the spirit of the constitution.


Percy Chapman Black: The spirit of the constitution does require that we should be consulted.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What about it if you are consulted, and do not agree.


Percy Chapman Black: I shall leave that to the people of Nova Scotia, and abide by their decision.
There is also the question that if this is passed it will be taken as a precedent for all future time. This point is touched upon by the hon. member for Peace River. He warned members of the house that if this were passed without consultation with the provinces it would be taken as a precedent, and the same was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the leader of the C.C.F. party.

Redistribution


William Ross Macdonald: The hon.
member was permitted to continue his speech only with the unanimous consent of the house. If he has not unanimous consent I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.


Percy Chapman Black: I do not
impose upon this house very often, but on this occasion I am endeavouring to express the viewpoint of the people of Nova Scotia.
I appreciate the unanimous consent given by hon. members.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: Time.


Percy Chapman Black: I am sorry some do not agree with my arguments, but I am expressing the viewpoints of the people for whom I am speaking.


William Ross Macdonald: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


James Sinclair: No, he has not.


John Horne Blackmore: And a member from British Columbia cuts him off.


James Sinclair: Because he is quoting what other members have said. He could have said in five minutes what he has said.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to discuss the constitutional question which has been raised by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, for the very good reason . that no'doubt, as the debate proceeds, the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) will deal with that question in his usual competent manner.
I do, however, wish to answer on the basis of the position taken by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), namely, that one in the house should speak for his constituency or for his province, and feel free to do so without arguing any notions he may have with regard to the necessity for unity in Canada. I can speak to-night with the unanimous consent of all political parties represented in the legislature of Saskatchewan, when I say that they are not interested in having the government of that province consulted on this particular matter.
I state that advisedly, because I was just reading the Regina Leader before I came to the chamber, and noticed that in interviews given the press by the premier of Saskatchewan and by the leader of His Majesty's opposition in that province, both had agreed with the principle of the resolution introduced
by the Minister of Justice, and both had suggested that it would not be necessary for an appeal to be made to that province. It is not necessary for me, coming from Saskatchewan, to discuss the constitutional question as it is related to this issue, that is, that the provinces ought to be consulted when an amendment of this kind is being asked for.
The suggestion was made a few moments ago that this question has been raised because of political expediency. I do not know just what was meant by that suggestion, but I would say that the question has been raised on this occasion for a very different reason from that which caused the raising of a similar question in days gone by. If one goes back to the days preceding confederation and reads the history of that time he will agree that there was a great deal of discontent, lack of unity and discussion of questions largely from the point of view of local community interest, with the result that, after conferences had been held and discussions had taken place, the act of confederation, or the British North America Act, was passed with the object of bringing about a condition of unity as among the provinces, or as among the colonies which then constituted the maritime provinces and what we sometimes speak of now as the central part of Canada, namely, Ontario and Quebec.
It was only natural that at that time very little discussion should take place related in any way to what we know to-day as the prairie provinces or very little discussion, in the initial stages at least, in so far as British Columbia was concerned. The discussion largely had to do with the differences of opinion that had existed among the colonies in the eastern part of Canada, and so the provisions of the British North America Act in relation to this matter, as well as to other matters, had to do largely with the discussions which had taken place in what is to-day Ontario, Quebec and the three maritime provinces.
Therefore, I was not at all surprised when the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), who has just taken his seat, made the statement that the discussions as to redistribution that had gone on were carried on by members from the maritime provinces and from the two central provinces, but that very little had been heard from the western provinces until such time as it became necessary to reduce the seats in western Canada under the system of redistribution which is provided for in the act. I do not agree with the hon. member when he says that the maritime provinces always took without any protest, the decisions which were brought about by the terms of confederation. As a matter of fact, the chief reason for the
Redistribution

discussions which are now taking place in the house is the fact that an amendment was made to the constitution in 1915 to provide against the representation in the maritime provinces dropping below the numbers which represented them in the senate. For that reason Prince Edward Island at the present time has four members instead of two; New Brunswick is protected with its membership of ten, the act providing that it cannot go below that number, and Nova Scotia, with a present membership of twelve, is protected by the act against that membership dropping below ten.
If there were any provinces in the Dominion of Canada that have a right to protest against that amendment it is the western provinces, beginning with Manitoba and extending to British Columbia. Why? The only protection we have under that clause is the protection which says that, no matter if our population be twice the population of Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick, we shall have six members for each province. Your population as compared with that of Canada drops to those proportions. All we are entitled to under the constitution is twenty-four senators from the four western provinces, which gives us a membership of six in each. If there are any protests that should be made about the provisions which were placed in the statute because of the protests made by the maritime provinces, they ought to come from the western provinces. But up to the present time we have not made any protest. The hon. member for Cumberland has invited protests along that line when he intimates that in the past the maritime provinces have taken the constitution as it is, but that immediately the membership of the western provinces comes under consideration -we want the constitution amended. Well, the constitution has been amended before and the protection given which I have indicated.
There is one other feature of the discussion to which I should like to call attention. We have been in the habit in this country of discussing everything from the point of view of its effect upon Ontario and Quebec. That is natural because, as we go back and read Hansard, we find that it was in connection w'ith the representation of those two provinces that most of the discussion took place. When we quoted matters with regard to redistribution we were led naturally into a discussion of representation in the province of Quebec or representation in the province of Ontario. Perhaps that has been given undue emphasis on this occasion, not only in this house but outside the house.

This is not a proposal coming from the province of Quebec. It so happens that the Minister of Justice, in his most capable manner, introduced the resolution because he is the Minister of Justice, but the fact that he comes from the province of Quebec does not indicate that this was a suggestion by the province of Quebec. No one is hurrying redistribution at the present time. Under our constitution redistribution should have taken place in 1943, prior to the last election. We amended our constitution to provide that it should not take place then. It was stated at that time that redistribution would take place in- the earliest possible session after the war. I venture to say that if that had not been provided in 1943 the proposal to postpone redistribution would not have passed this house. It was insisted that redistribution should be brought into this house in the first possible session after the war was over, so that now in 1946 we are discussing redistribution, in the first full session after the end of the war.
That being the case, may I say that two important matters are involved. The first is the fact that in the early constitution it was provided that a province had to vary its population by one-twentieth before its membership could be reduced. As a result of that, Ontario is entitled to possibly eight more members than it would be under a simple basis of representation by population. What was the issue raised in 1943 by those who came from the province of Quebec? It was not based on the proposal which is being made at this session. The contention was that Quebec had been used from the time of confederation down to the present time as the province in which the basis of constituency representation would be figured. In other words, you take the population of the province of Quebec and divide it by sixty-five, and you get the representation for each constituency in that province, and then you divide the population of the other provinces by that unit in order to get the representation in the other provinces.
The constitution sets sixty-five members for the province of Quebec, and the province of Quebec said in effect in 1943, "We have had that condition now since the time of confederation. We would like to suggest that Ontario be taken as the province where the unit is determined; that our population be divided by whatever that unit is, and that we proceed from now on with that as the basis of our redistribution in Canada." That has stood in my mind from that time down to the present as the proposal which was made by those who represented Quebec in the

Redistribution
house at that particular time. But that is not the proposal which is contained in this resolution. If anyone is looking for the reason for the suggestion that the old provision be removed one does not have to think in terms of political expediency; one should think in terms of what the constitution was really intended to bring about in the first place, namely unity among the people of this country. It seems to me that if we want to have unity in Canada one of the first things to be done is to remove the necessity of any discussion whatsoever as to any different relationship at between Ontario and Quebec, or as to the relationship existing between any other province in Canada and Quebec, or between any other province in Canada and Ontario. So that it has been thought wise in bringing down this resolution to remove all reference to any of the provinces in so far as that particular point is concerned and to make it possible for us to figure out a unit for representation which is based upon the population of Canada. If we were going to submit to the condition which was raised a few moments ago by the hon. member for Cumberland; if we had intended to create the condition which he has outlined as existing, then of course we would not have done what is contained in this resolution. He has suggested that by some means or other Nova Scotia can be reduced below ten members under this resolution, and that New Brunswick can be reduced below ten members. Well, he has not read the resolution carefully, or he would know that Nova Scotia can never at any time under this resolution be reduced below ten, and that New Brunswick can never be reduced below its present ten.


Percy Chapman Black: If the minister will allow me, I did not make that statement. I said that this would be taken as a precedent; that further amendments may be made, without consulting the maritime provinces, which would result in a further reduction of our membership.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, of course, if we are to take under consideration all the possibilities of what any house of commons or any parliament in Canada might do, and make them as ridiculous as some people think they might be, we would be warranted in following an argument of that kind. But the fact of the matter is that the only reason that this question could not be stated in the resolution in the simplest possible form is for the purpose of retaining the protection which Nova Scotia has and retaining the protection which New Brunswick has. If it had not been for that consideration, all that it
w'ould have been necessary to say in order to make plain to the people of Canada what is intended would be this: "We are going to deduct the population of the province of Prince Edward Island and of the Yukon Territory and of the Northwest Territories from the whole population of Canada; then divide the remaining number by 250, and so get your unit; then divide the populations of each province by that unit of population, and we will get the membership for each province, and the total membership in these provinces will be 250, and then we will add back on the five that we have already taken off from Prince Edward Island and the Yukon, and you will have 255." There w'ould have been no necessity of saying anything more than that, had it not been for the fact that some day Nova Scotia may drop below a figure which would entitle it to ten members. If it ever does, then instead of subtracting five members we will subtract fifteen, and we will also subtract the population of Nova Scotia and of Prince Edward Island and of the Yukon Territory from the population of Canada and divide by the number which is left, which in that case would be 240, and you get your unit. When the seven provinces are provided with 240 members, the fifteen are added back in to make the total of 255. In other words, the resolution absolutely provides that the membership of this house can never be more than 255 so long as the meaning of this resolution is put into a bill and passed first by this parliament and then by the British parliament. That is what is being asked for.
Someone suggested this evening that if we went on the same basis as they have in the United States we would have a very much smaller house than we have here at present. I would ask my hon. friend to let his mind go back to the time when the United States had a population of only twenty-five million, and take his figures, based upon the membership of the houses then, and divide them into the population and see what he would have got. This resolution provides for an amendment to the constitution which retains the membership of the House of Commons at exactly the same figure when we have forty million people as it provides for at the present time when we have less than twelve million people. In other words, the membership of the house would not under this resolution ever increase beyond 255. It would remain at that throughout all time until someone undertook to amend the constitution further in order to provide for something else. But we in this parliament cannot take into consideration all the things which people may
Redistribution

do fifty years hence, or all the things they may do even twenty years hence. We can only act in the light of the information and the knowledge we have and do the thing which we think advisable. Under this resolution what we are proposing as advisable is to have the House of Commons composed of 255 members, and we are providing the means under which it will not increase beyond that figure but will remain at it.
I wanted to make that plain. But there is another thing I wanted to say in relation to this. The hon. member for New Westminster seems to base his opposition to the resolution upon the suggestion that Saskatchewan and perhaps some of the other prairie provinces are going to benefit by this being done now, and that probably British Columbia is going to lose something by this being done now. If he intended to argue from that that the prairies had something to do with proposing the plan I will agree. I can not understand his computations on the figures which are available. If we are going to follow what he has suggested, namely do nothing until after 1951, when the next census will be taken, British Columbia would remain with two members less than are provided for under this resolution and Saskatchewan would remain with one member more than is provided for under this resolution. In other words, Saskatchewan would remain at twenty-one until 1951, and British Columbia, with what he says is a greater population than Saskatchewan-and I do not admit that-would have a representation of only sixteen, not eighteen. So that if we want to do something at the present time in favour of British Columbia in order to give it a representation which is more comparable with the representation which Saskatchewan has, I would suggest that this resolution does it to much better advantage than the suggestion made by the hon. member for New Westminster. He would still maintain in his province a representation of eighteen until the next census, and we would retain in Saskatchewan only twenty until the next census is taken. I find it a little difficult to follow his reasoning to the effect that it would be twenty-five years longer before the C.C.F. would get into power in Canada under this scheme than under some other. I do not believe they will ever get into power under any scheme, though that is a matter of opinion. That, I think, has little bearing on the question which is under discussion.
I do not believe that the hon. member for New Westminster has justified the position which he says he is to take. If he is thinking in such terms as he indicated, in terms first of the welfare of his constituency and then

of British Columbia, under this proposal his constituency might be smaller than it is now, but I do not know whether that would help him. But under this proposal British Columbia would certainly have two members more than under his proposal until the next redis-tiibution, in which case that province, I think, would be more fully represented here than otherwise it would be.
I am inclined to agree when he suggests that British Columbia is on the up-grade in the matter of increased population. I am not sure that Saskatchewan is on the down-grade in matters of population. We have been on the down-grade for some time in other respects but not necessarily in population. Probably the fact that we were on the down-grade in matters of population for two or three years had something to do with some other things that have happened in Saskatchewan during that period of time, but I do not believe that we are always going to have that government, and I do not think we shall always have the reasons for population being down that we have had during those two or three years. Looking at the western provinces, I have always felt that Saskatchewan had a great deal to be proud of, and one fact that she has had a great deal to be proud of is that she has always had a greater population ever since people began to go there and to learn of conditions in Saskatchewan. She has always had a greater population than the other western provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh. she still has, just by about the margin of two members that are being allowed under this resolution. We may have to wait until 1951 to be able to prove it, but in the meantime we are taking it for granted that the condition which is shown by every past census taken is still the position, that Saskatchewan has a greater population than any of the other western provinces, and one of the reasons why that has been the case in the past is this. People tell me, "Look at the undeveloped natural resources they have in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains".
I agree with people who call attention to that fact. But in the next breath they say that Saskatchewan has nothing like the resources they have in the foothills of the Rockies. Let me say this. More real wealth has come out of any similar extent of territory in Saskatchewan. without any foothills; more real wealth has come out of any similar number of square miles in that province, than will ever come our of areas in mining districts where mining is the main reason for the development of any such area

Redistribution
We have an agricultural province. We depend upon the top six inches of soil; and if anyone takes a pencil and figures out the wealth that is coming out of that top six inches-the wealth that has come out ever since the province was first developed up to the present time-he will find it difficult to discover any other part of the world where a similar amount has been taken out of the natural resources of the country in order to provide for a similar number of people to live therein. That is the chief reason we have always had a higher population up to date.


An hon. MEMBER:: Up to date.


James Garfield Gardiner: Up to date, yes. My friends over the mountains think they will have a greatly increased population and I wish them ruck, because if they get a greatly increased population in British Columbia and Alberta and a greatly increased population along the foothills of the Rockies on the east side, then I may tell them that three-fifths of the cultivated farm lands in Canada arc located between the foothills and the city of Winnipeg. If any area is going to benefit by the fact that there are more people living in British Columbia, more people living in the foothills in Alberta, that area rvill be an agricultural area, and the greatest and best agricultural areas in western Canada are in Saskatchewan. I believe that as their population goes up ours will go up, and I hope their goes up very fast, because the faster it goes up, the sooner we shall be able to overtake anything that they are entitled to in the way of representation in this house.
I wanted to say these few words with regard to the situation as it exists, in order to emphasize the fact that this is not a Quebec proposal but a western proposal. I wish to make this appeal to members of the house and to those outside. This is not a question which concerns the maritimes alone. This is not a question which concerns the province of Quebec alone. This is not a question w'hich concerns Ontario alone, nor does it concern the province of British Columbia alone; and to make this statement-in spite of what the hon. member for New Westminster says-that a member in this house should discuss public questions from the point of view of his own constituency and his own province, is to say that we shall never have unity in this country so long as we have a membership here that speaks only from that point of view.
What we want in connection with redistribution is a constitution which thinks the necessity for considering Ontario as against Quebec, Quebec as against Ontario, the maritimes as
against western Canada, and western Canada as against some other part of the country, is entirely out of the picture. In order to take these questions entirely out of it there are two things to be done. One is to remove from the constitution any provisions that deprive us of the opportunity to have representation in this house according to population, with one exception, that exception being the provision which protects the maritime provinces against a reduction of membership until industry with population returns.
I am not so pessimistic about the maritimes as the hon. member for Cumberland. I do not agree that there cannot be a greater population in the maritimes. I believe that there is no part of Canada that has been dealt with more harshly by a policy which has built up central Canada at the expense of other parts of the dominion than the maritime provinces, and one .of the reasons for that is illustrated right in the city from which my hon. friend comes.
I have gone to his city. The first time I drove through Amherst I wondered what I was looking at-one of the finest little cities in the dominion, a city which a few years ago was one of the most prosperous industrial places in Canada A gentleman,-my hon. friend knows him Very well,-a good Irishman with the Irishman's usual wit, was driving me around the city, and I said to him, "How does it happen that I can see right through that building? I can see the windows on the other side." He answered, "Because everything has been taken out of it." I asked him who had taken it out and he said, "Those fellows in central Canada. They came to the conclusion that they could make something cheaper there than we could make it in Amherst; so somebody came here, bought the plant and closed it up, and now in central Canada they are making what we want to utilize here." He took me to one plant after another that was closed, and then finally said, "Here is one that is still operating." I said, "AVhat are they making in there?" He said, "Coffins." Well, there is something in an illustration of that kind. What we want in Canada in order to protect us against that kind of thing is not a different kind of redistribution bill, but something entirely different. That thing which would be entirely different could put the maritime provinces back on the map industrially. I wish to say to my hon. friends from the maritime provinces that I do not know of any way of bringing it about quicker than to 'have those provinces think more in terms of the development of western Canada than they have been doing,
Redistribution

and in thinking in those terms to believe that there are the possibilities of entering western Canada by more than one route.
Over a considerable part of the year, western Canada can be entered by water through Churchill. As we get the improvements to navigation which have come about during the war applied, western Canada will be entered for a greater number of months of the year than at the present time. The maritimes can operate into Hudson bay with boats and put their products the same distance from every prairie farmer at Churchill as they are putting them to-day at Fort William.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) agree with that, because only a short time ago he told us that two and a half months was the limit for the port of Churchill.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is an engineer. He built the elevators at Churchill; he had something to do with building some of the other equipment. He knows more about that question than I do; but in addition to that, being an engineer, he is going to be on the safe side. Being an optimist, and one who looks to the future, I do not need to look at it that way. I believe that with the improved facilities in navigation which we have, if we could navigate into Churchill for two and a half months at the time the elevators were built and at the time these investigations were made, then unless everything that we have heard about atomic energy and everything new is wrong, we ought to be able to operate into that port for at least a month longer, and I would hope for even more than a month longer. Whether we can or can not, in two or two and a half months the maritime provinces, manufacturing as they ought to be manufacturing, sitting right on the edge of the seas as they are, with ports unmatched in any part of Canada, ports open all the year round into which they could take the commodities of the world and manufacture them into the things that Canadians in the central part of Canada need, if they have the kind of vision as to what this country can become, they will have plants running twelve months of the year, and they can ship all the products that are required in western Canada in a year, in the months that the port of Churchill is open. If they cannot get it in through Churchill I am sure they can still navigate boats up the St. Lawrence and through the great lakes, and have just as much more come up by that route.

They do not need to be always saying that the central part of Canada has ruined the maritime provinces. I am going to say to them that I do not understand why this war did not bring more industries to the maritime provinces than it did. I do not understand why the war did not bring more industry to Alberta than it did. It brougth a lot more industry to British Columbia than they had before, and that is why they are optimistic. But I do want to say that I believe the people themselves had more to do with getting that industry into British Columbia than anyone else. I do not know of any place in Canada where the people right on the spot did less to get industry into it than did some sections of the maritimes and Alberta. Let me repeat, there are no sections of Canada which have a greater future industrially, if brains and capital, if you like, are applied to their possibilities, than the two extreme ends of this country, the maritime provinces and British Columbia, and the foothills of Alberta. They are the gates of the country. By developing the possibilities of these routes I have been speaking about, and the possibilities of the natural resources located in their areas, they can make it possible for greater and greater populations to live in those areas.
Why, we talk of this country as though it consisted only of the St. Lawrence river basin and only the half of it on the north side. This country consists of an area which is driving farther north all the time. It was that area which made possible the production of equipment during war time, and which makes possible the production of equipment now. These cities along the St. Lawrence could not exist at all with their present populations were it not for the enormous wealth contained in the back areas of the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and on into the prairies. Let me repeat, give us the industrial population to which we are entitled, first in the maritimes, because they are older, and then in Alberta and British Columbia, and we of Saskatchewan and the other prairie provinces will show you a prosperity which will match anything that has taken place in Canada down to the present time.
Tell us that there is no future for this country, that we can never have a population of more than twenty million and that we are going to have only a few millions in 1990, and proceed from that basis and this country will die on its feet. What we want in Canada today is vision. If the people who live in those areas feel that they are not getting what is coming to them, applying that vision will put those areas over, and by putting them over-

Labour Conditions


Mr. McCUAIG:: The C.C.F.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will get rid of the C.C.F. and all these other isms.


Percy Chapman Black: May I ask the minister why the department and the government will not agree to the request of the provincial governments to reclaim the marshlands? They have deteriorated to a greater extent than the industries of that part of Canada, and the maritime provinces and some hon. members in this house have been demanding that these marshlands be reclaimed.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his question has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.


Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to be good enough to call it eleven o'clock and permit me to adjourn the debate.
On motion of Mr. Jaenicke the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent the house adjourned at 10.53 p.m.
Friday, June 14, 1946.