1946-06-18

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of special committee on veterans affairs-Mr. Tucker.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), having to do with the reported discussions now going on between British and Canadian officials with respect to a long-term contract for wheat. Is the minister in a position to-day to make any statement in regard to that matter?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I am not in a position to make any statement to-day with regard to the matter, other than to say the negotiations are proceeding.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
"vow OF silence"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal explanation. I have read in the press to-day that I am said to have taken a vow of parliamentary silence. It is not true. I never took such a vow, but I decided to try an . experiment. I was told so often that my speeches were delaying the progress of the session that I wanted to make an experiment, so I stopped talking a month and a half ago, expecting that prorogation day would come at once. Unfortunately I see that very little progress has been made, and I wonder if it will be necessary for me to start making long speeches again to bring the session to an early close.
To complete what I said yesterday, that General Chisholm-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.



OPERATION OF FISH CREEK MINE, ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: On June 13 the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore)
(Mr. Claxton.]
asked for information about tne quality of coal in the Fish Creek mine. The answer I have obtained is that the 1946 edition of "Coal Mines in Canada" shows that the Fish Creek mine, located in the Priddis area of Alberta, is classified as high volatile bituminous. For that reason the coal is not suitable for domestic use.



BUILDING MATERIALS

[Stage Direction]
SHORTAGE IN SUPPLY OF WINDOW GLASS On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. What is the situation in respect of the shortage of window glass, or, to be more specific, the lights used in windows of houses? One cannot buy this material in the cities, towns or villages, and as a result the building of many houses is being delayed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For some months there has been a shortage of window glass. Prospects are that the shortage will be corrected, in view of the fact that increased shipments are now coming in. Canada does not manufacture that product, and for our supply we are entirely dependent upon imports. We are doing everything possible to improve the situation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour respecting the strike in the textile industry, which affects the employees of Montreal Cottons at Valleyfield. Does the minister intend to intervene in some way in order to bring about a satisfactory settlement for the workers?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: All disputes affecting the textile industry in the province of Quebec come under the labour relations laws of that province. My department has not been asked by the Quebec government for assistance. If they should require assistance, we shall be only too glad to render it, as we always do.



STRIKE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA LUMBER INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make respecting Mr. Justice Sloan's meeting yesterday with the union?

R edistnbution


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe I shall have something to say later in the afternoon.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In Votes and Proceedings No. 51, page 1, for June 3, a question appears in my name which was partly answered yesterday. The question referred to properties bought or sold by the government in the township of West Flam-borough, Wentworth county, Ontario, during the past several years. Further to this question I asked what prices were paid for these properties by the government, and at what prices they were sold. This question was not fully answered, as these amounts were not given. I would ask that it be returned to the order paper until fully answered.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved the third reading of bill No. 165, relating to the development and control of atomic energy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 13, 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. Diefenbaker.
Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) because I believe it corrects an injustice, and I believe further that it comes the nearest to representation by population, when one considers our peculiar historical, geographical and economic position in Canada.
I shall oppose the amendment offered by the official opposition, because I believe its adoption would create a precedent which would put this parliament into a position inferior to that of provincial legislatures. The provincial legislatures have the right and power under our constitution to change their representation. Why should not the federal parliament have the same right? I believe the adoption of the amendment would be contraiy to the spirit of the British North America Act, our constitution.
I should like briefly to deal with the legal and constitutional aspects of the resolution and the amendment before us. Before proceeding to do that, however, may I commend the Minister of Justice upon the clear and lucid exposition he gave of the historical and constitutional background of the resolution. I am also forced to congratulate the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who made a convincing address. He is one of those few persons with the gift of making an eloquent argument on a weak case. After listening to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) I feel I must also include him in my commendation, because I was keenly interested in his argument and, at first blush, deeply impressed. However, I cannot now see the position of the official opposition on the resolution Their official position seems to be, as enunciated by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and as disclosed in the amendment, that they are in favour of the principle of the resolution but first want the provinces consulted.
While in the closing paragraph of his address the hon. member for Stanstead said he was going to support the amendment, still he told us we did not need any amendment at all; that all we needed to do was to change the interpretation of section 51(4) of the British North America Act, so as to have representation by population.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) took another view, that there should be some amendment to provide that the representation in any province could not be reduced below the number such province had at the time of joining confederation. So in the light of these observations, I am at a loss to know just what the official opposition wants.
Since the argument of the hon. member for Stanstead is fresh in our memories, I shall deal first with what he said. He told us that for the last seventy-nine years we have been in error in our interpretation of section 51 (4) of the British North America Act. I disagree with the hon. member on that point, and it is with great respect that I express my dis-
Redistribution

agreement. Section 51 says that we are supposed to have a census every ten years, and that after each census we shall have readjustments. We have had such readjustments after every census since confederation. The argument of the hon. member for Stanstead is that if a province does not lose any representation, or if its standing is not changed after such readjustment, then there has been no readjustment for such province. On close study of the act I must disagree with that interpretation.
Besides that, we have the judicial interpretation of section 51 (4) of the British North America Act. Both the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Stanstead quoted the closing paragraph of that decision, and it is unnecessary for me to place it on Hansard * again. This was a decision of the privy council as the result of an appeal following a dispute between the attorney general for Prince Edward Island and the attorney general for Canada. As indicated, the decision is found in 1905 Appeal Cases, 37.
The hon. member for Stanstead said, by way of a second argument-and it sounded plausible at the time-that the decision of the privy council with respect to subsection 4 of section 51 was only an obiter dictum.
I disagree with him on that point; I think it is a decision of the highest court of the empire.
I quote the hon. member, as reported on page 2425 of Hansard, as follows:
-so the statement of the bench is purely an obiter dictum which was never argued and is not a binding authority.
The hon. member then went on to quote the last paragraph of the judgment of the privy council, and then continued:
That is an obiter dictum. It has no bearing on the case then at issue. It was not argued.
Reading the case I would say that it certainly was argued before the privy council. The province of Prince Edward Island objected to a reduction in its membership, and according to the judgment of the privy council it advanced two reasons; first, that they should not be reduced below the number they were entitled to when they entered confederation, and second, that on the interpretation of subsection 4 of section 51 their representation could not be reduced. I should like to put on record the two preceding paragraphs of the judgment of the privy council, as follows:
The case put forward on behalf of Prince Edward Island was somewhat wider in its scope.
It was suggested that section 51 applies only to the distribution of representatives between the four original provinces. But the terms on which Prince Edward Island was incorporated expressly declared that its representation wras "to be readjusted from time to time under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867."
[Mr. Jaenicke.l
The hon. member for Stanstead said that it was not argued, but this is what the learned law lords said:
It was further argued that, supposing section 51 to apply to Prince Edward Island, still it *was not liable to have the number of its representatives reduced in 1903 for the following reasons: that by the terms of subsection 4 there could be no reduction on any decennial readjustment unless there was a previous readjustment to afford a comparison, so that for any province the first readjustment could not entail a reduction though it might permit of an increase, that there wrns no readjustment for any province unless its representation was altered, and that therefore, by the combined operation of section 51 and of the terms on which Prince Edward Island entered the confederation, its representation could not be reduced unless it had been previously increased.
I submit that the same argument was put forward by counsel for Prince Edward Island before the privy council as is put forward by my hon. friend. I should like to compare a sentence in that judgment with what my hon. friend said, and I quote from page 2423 of Hansard. The hon. member for Stanstead made this argument:
I submit that you must go back to the last time the members were reallocated to the province; not to the last census but to the time the twenty members were allocated-
Counsel argued that there could be "no readjustment for any province unless its representation was altered." I submit the argument in the one statement is almost the same as it is in the other. With great respect I submit that the decision of the privy council was not an obiter dictum. I submit that that is a decision which is binding upon us and it is as we have correctly interpreted subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act for the last seventy years.
I think I shall concern myself only with the legal aspects of the amendment proposed by the official opposition. The hon. member for Lake Centre quoted in support of his argument a number of opinions of statesmen and others which had been offered during the course of years. He argued that the British North America Act should be amended only with the consent of the provinces, but he did not tell us whether he meant unanimous consent or majority consent; in fact he was very vague. If it were to be unanimous consent, I would venture to say it would be practically impossible to amend the British North America Act even if the amendment concerned only the business of this parliament. If the official opposition wanted to establish a precedent, one would have thought they would have put forward some concrete proposition to show just how many provinces should consent or how many should be in favour or against a proposal of this nature.

Redistribution
As I said, the hon. member for Lake Centre quoted a number of opinions offered in parliament and outside of parliament by statesmen, politicians and other legal authorities. I have done quite a bit of reading myself on this constitutional question, and I could quote some eminent statesmen, politicians and others who took the opposite view. However, I am not concerned so much with opinions as I am with the law. Opinions are of little value so far as the law is concerned. I would point out to my hon. friends to my right that the actions of Sir John A. Macdonald and of Sir Robert Borden under like circumstances would indicate that those two former prime ministers would have used the same methods for amending the British North America Act that the government are using at this particular time.
My hon. friend stated, and I quote from page 2229 of Hansard:
I am not going to enter into a discussion today, interesting though it might be, of the question whether the British North America Act is a pact, a treaty, a statute or a contract.
It would have been illuminating if he had told us at that stage of his argument just what he thought it was. I would conclude from his remarks later on that he thought it was a pact, or a contract, or a treaty. Knowing him to be a very able lawyer I was surprised at his attitude. Looking at the British North America Act, looking at all the amendments since 1867 and how those amendments came about, I would say that our constitution is a statute and nothing else. As such, it is amendable only by the British parliament through an address presented by the parliament of Canada.
The hon. member for Lake Centre laid particular stress upon the importance of precedents. Lawyers appreciate the value of precedents which become part of our law, and it is upon the precedents of the previous amendments to the British North America Act that I am basing my argument. As reported on page 2234 of Hansard the hon. member for Lake Centre called the resolution a novel scheme. With great respect I submit that there is nothing novel about it. We have established precedents which give us the undoubted right to pass this resolution without any reference to the provinces. I endorse the statement of the hon. member for Char-levoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) who said:
It is an indisputable fact that our constitution is founded not only upon the British North America Act, but also upon precedents which have become, so to speak, a part of the constitution.
The hon. member then gave a short resume of the amendments since 1867. I would have refrained from referring again to those amendments if he had given the house a little more information as to just how they came about and why they offered such excellent precedents for the resolution now before us. I will turn first to the amendment of 1871. At that time we asked the British parliament to amend the British North America Act in order to dissipate any doubts which had arisen as to the powers of the Canadian parliament to establish provinces in territory added or to be added to the dominion. They proceeded rather peculiarly in connection with that first amendment. The government, not parliament, requested the British government to submit a bill to the British parliament for the passing of the amendment. The British parliament accordingly drafted a bill and sent it back to Canada, and for some reason or other which I have not been able to find in the records, this bill found its way into parliament, where a resolution was passed and carried unanimously in these words:
The executive government ought not to ask for amendments to the British North America Act without the assent previously obtained of the parliament.
At the time, one Mr. Mills, a member of parliament, made a further suggestion. I cannot find from the record whether he offered a separate resolution or an amendment to the resolution I have just quoted, but he said that when it came down to the representation in parliament of the provinces, the provinces ought first to be consulted. This resolution or amendment or suggestion was negatived without ever being debated, and the resolution which I have just read, that "the executive government ought not to ask for amendments to the British North America Act without the assent previously obtained of the parliament", was passed unanimously, 137 to 0, or something like that. That was the first precedent, and I think the most important precedent. I would ask the house to consider this. This was an amendment passed in 1871. At that time the Quebec conference, the Charlottetown conference, the London conference, and the British North America Act itself were fresh in the memory of the Canadian people. As a matter of fact most of our statesmen of the time whom we are pleased to call the fathers of confederation were members of parliament, sitting either in the House of Commons or in the Senate, and yet none of them except Mr. Mills rose at that time to argue that the provinces ought to be consulted on an amendment to the British North America Act. I think that that precedent established in 1871 was a most im-
Redistribution

portant and distinguished one, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that precedent has been followed ever since under similar circumstances.
Then we have the amendment of 1875, and it is curious to note that although parliament in 1871 had passed a resolution that "the executive government ought not to ask for amendments to the British North America Act without the assent previously obtained of the parliament," the 1875 amendment seems to have been passed simply upon the request of the then dominion government, although that was the first and only time this was done. That amendment concerned the privileges, powers and immunities of parliament. The provinces were not consulted.
Then we have the amendment of 1886, the third amendment to our constitution. Its object was to empower parliament to provide representation of the territories in the Senate and House of Commons. The procedure adopted was that the act was passed by the British parliament in accordance with the terms of an address of the Senate and House of Commons. The provinces were not consulted, and according to the authority of Doctor Ollivier, whose book "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty" has been quoted on different occasions in this debate, the provinces did not ask to be consulted about this amendment to the British North America Act.
In 1907 the British North America Act was further amended. The house adopted a joint resolution asking the British parliament to pass an amendment to permit the increase and regulation of federal subsidies to the provinces. It seems that this amendment was discussed by the provinces, but we have nothing on record as to any consultation by the government with the provinces. In any event we know that British Columbia objected to it. But just the same the resolution was passed and an amendment was made by the British parliament to the British North America Act as requested by this parliament. In reality there was no form of consent or consultation with the provinces.
Now I come to the most important amend-nent of 1915, which was mentioned at length ay my hon. leader when he first spoke on behalf of this group in this debate. This was a very important amendment, as was pointed out by him and by the hon. member for Stanstead. It not only fixed the representation of the senate, but led to the enactment of section 51(A) of the British North America Act by virtue of which the membership of this house is affected, because that is the section which puts a floor underneath the representation of the provinces in this parliament. The hon. member for Stanstead in his address said

that there was a consultation with the provinces in connection with this amendment. I have been looking that up, and the only authority I can find is the book of Doctor Ollivier, which I mentioned before. Doctor Ollivier states emphatically, at page 367 of his book, that there was no consultation with the provinces with respect to the 1915 amendment.
Then we have the amendment of 1916, which extended the life of parliament by one year. Parliament had been elected in 1911, and shortly afterwards we found ourselves at war and the British North America Act was amended in 1916 to extend the life of parliament for one year. There was no consultation with the provinces at that time.
In 1930 an amendment to the British North America Act was passed to give back the natural resources to the western provinces. Of course the western provinces were consulted about that. As a matter of fact they had pressed for this amendment so that they could control their own natural resources. But there was no consultation with any of the other provinces, so far as I have been able to find out.
Another amendment was made to the act in 1940, for the purpose of including the subject of unemployment insurance among the classes of subjects enumerated in section 91 of the British North America Act. In other words this amendment took away the power of the provinces to legislate on unemployment insurance and transferred that power to the dominion. This amendment clearly invaded provincial rights, and in this case I understand that the dominion first consulted with the provinces and they all consented to this amendment. It is very easy to see, of course, why they did consent. But I think it established a precedent, and, speaking for myself, I agree with the principle of this precedent, namely, that if there is to be any interference with the powers of the provinces under section 92 of the act, they ought to be consulted. But I make the statement with a certain amount of reservation, because in the course of time a certain matter assigned by section 92 to the provinces might easily become of such national importance that it would be imperative for this parliament to legislate upon it.
The next amendment was that of 1943, which extended the time for redistribution. It does not appear that the provinces were consulted, the precedent having been the same as had been established on like occasions previously. I know that a protest was made by the legislature of the province of Quebec against the adoption of this amendment, but apparently it was ignored for good and sufficient reason.

Redistribution
So far as the law is concerned I maintain, Mr. Speaker, both as to the act itself and as to the precedents which have been set, that there is no doubt that this resolution can be passed by this parliament without any reference to or consultation with the provinces.
Much has been made by opponents of the resolution that the British North America Act may be a pact, a treaty, or a contract. While these opinions have been expressed ever since the act was passed, the final opinion always seems to have been that such assumption is founded upon a false basis. In order to make a contract or a pact or a treaty, the parties thereto must have the capacity to contract, and I doubt very much whether the four provinces-or three provinces, if you will-in 1867 had the capacity to contract. They were colonies, and as such, I submit, Mr. Speaker, they lacked the capacity to enter into a valid contract. The last resolution of the Quebec conference has this to say:
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that she may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be submitted to the imperial parliament for the purpose of uniting the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia. New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island in one government.
The resolution itself proves to me that they were colonies at the time and that therefore they had no capacity to contract.
If the British North America Act were a contract or a pact as my hon. friends to my right contend, I should think that the parties thereto would have provided for some amendment or for the preservation of their rights in the pact itself, and that there would have been a provision in the British North America Act to provide for the amendment and to provide for consultation with or consent by the provinces. If it was in the minds of the framers of our constitution that it was a contract, surely some provision would have been made for the consent of the contracting parties to alter the contract; and that by the way, I believe, is the expressed opinion of the late Professor Stephen Leacock, who at one time wrote or talked about this subject matter.
Furthermore, if our constitution were such a contract at the time of confederation, 1867, the provinces would have objected long before this. I know there have been objections, objections which I mentioned when I discussed different amendments to the act, and I know there was a conference some time in the eighties, when Sir John A. Macdonald was still prime minister. This conference was called by one or two of the provinces, and concerned itself solely, or at least principally, with amendments to the British North America
Act. I understand that two of the provinces refused to attend. The dominion government was invited, but Sir John A. Macdonald declined the invitation and wrote in reply what I regard as a fairly sarcastic letter indicating that the dominion was not in the slightest degree interested in this conference.
Apart from this, Mr. Speaker, I think we must consider the effect of the statute of Westminster. According to that statute the British parliament would have no right to pass any laws affecting this country, including any amendment of the British North America Act, unless it was first requested by this parliament. The statute of Westminster does not say anything about the provinces; and on the authority of that statute, also, I maintain that an amendment to the British North America Act can be enacted only by the British parliament on an address from the parliament of Canada.
The hon. member for Royal, whom I mentioned a few moments ago, and who claimed that the representation of the provinces should never be lower than the representation they had at the time of confederation, was very much concerned about the maritime provinces. He said something which I am sorry he said. He remarked that he was not afraid of the province of Quebec, they had got along well for years. He was speaking at the time for all the maritimes. He said he was not afraid of the province of Ontario; but he said that with the western provinces it is a different proposition. He did not say that he was afraid of them, but I think by implication he meant as much. He also mentioned that a great many maritimers had gone to the west and had made their contribution to the colonization and upbuilding of the west. I think he was right in that. Speaking for the province of Saskatchewan, I think we are grateful for the migration we have received from the maritime provinces, not only with regard to agriculture and business but, especially in my province, for the contribution they have made to our law and our education; and I can assure the hon. member for Royal that the foundations so well laid by those migrants from the maritimes and Ontario have made true and good Canadians of all of us. He mentioned also that the C.C.F. have in their platform either the abolition or the reform of the senate and suggested that if this was carried out the maritimes would lose their representation. Undoubtedly the policy of the group is as he stated, but that does not mean that we are opposed to a. floor underneath the representation of any of the provinces, and I do not see why the representation in the senate should form a floor for the repre-
R edistribution

sentation of the provinces in this House of Commons. We can easily make an amendment to put a proper floor under the representation of each province in this parliament.
Before I conclude there is one appeal I should like to make to the Minister of Justice. It concerns a matter which has been mentioned in this debate by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and also by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. Townley-Smith). It concerns the representation of the northwest territories in this parliament. I do not think I need to make any further argument. The hon. member for North Battleford especially confined his remarks solely to this aspect of the debate, and I think he made out a case. The Yukon territory has a population of four thousand; the northwest territories, in round figures, more than twelve thousand. I think their conditions are entirely different. The northwest territories are vaster, and I think the minister should consider amending his resolution by adding one more member to the number he proposes in his resolution so as to provide for a member for the northwest territories.


Mr. J. W. MacNAUGHT (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, at the commencement of this debate I had not intended to take any part in it, because I am reasonably sure that the people of my province are perfectly satisfied with the terms of the resolution; but certain statements have been made which render it desirable that I should put upon the record a brief history of the causes leading up to the senate rule amendment. That amendment is contained in paragraph 3 of the present resolution.
Also requiring some comment is an editorial appearing in the May 18 issue of Toronto Saturday Night, under the caption "Equality in the Commons". The parts of it to which I take exception are the following:
The drawing of a sharp line of demarcation between the specially protected areas (Prince Edward Island and Yukon) which can never have their representation reduced, and the rest of the country where rep. by pop. is the unvarying rule, should act to put an end to the business of establishing such favourite areas. The case of Yukon is special because of its isolation, but there was never any justification for the four-member privilege for Prince Edward Island, and it would be most unfortunate if the habit of granting such privileges became general whenever political expediency should suggest.
And further down:
Adjustments during the next few decades will, it seems likely, be to the advantage of the western half of the country and perhaps at the expense mainly of the two maritime provinces which are not protected by special privilege. The special privilege of Prince Edward Island
[Mr. Jaenicked
will become more outrageous with each succeeding decade, if there is any substantial influx of population into the rest of Canada, as from henceforth it will be the size of the electoral unit that will increase and not the size of the House of Commons.
I have always had the highest regard for editorials appearing in that publication. I have usually found them fair, well-written and accurate. I am therefore forced to the conclusion that the editor is unaware of the history leading up to the adoption of the senate rule amendment. All hon. members are aware, I am sure, that the first meeting leading up to confederation was held in Charlottetown in 1864. Any hon. member who has visited the colonial building in Charlottetown must have been shown through the confederation chamber and have looked upon the very tables and the very chairs occupied by the fathers of confederation at that time. That conference was originally called for the purpose of discussing maritime union, but to the conference came delegates from Canada to discuss a broader union. The records of that conference can be found in Sir Joseph Pope's "Confederation Documents". The principle of the broader union was accepted, and the conference adjourned to meet in Quebec. On looking up the records I find that the delegates from Prince Edward Island were willing to discuss any question with regard to confederation except the question of representation. They pointed out that, unless they got six representatives, so far as they were concerned, confederation would not be considered.
The delegates from the other colonies did not see their way clear to granting this privilege, and so when confederation was consummated some three years later Prince Edward Island did not enter. The records of that conference showed that Mr. Brown moved that Upper Canada should have 82 members, Lower Canada 65, Nova Scotia, 19, New Brunswick, 15, Newfoundland 7, and Prince Edward Island, 5. That motion carried, but Prince Edward Island voted nay. Mr. Haviland, one of the delegates from Prince Edward Island, who was strongly in favour of confederation, said:
Prince Edward Island would rather be out of the confederation than consent to this motion.
Further, the suggestion was then made that the delegates from Prince Edward Island should withdraw to reconsider their decision. They accordingly withdrew from the meeting and returned the next morning to give their answer. Colonel Grey, speaking for the others, said:
I am instructed by my co-delegates to say that the provision of five members is entirely unsatisfactory.

Redistribution
When the delegates returned to Prince Edward Island they were upheld by the legislature, by the people and by the press. The people of Prince Edward Island were willing to discuss any other feature of confederation, but on the question of representation there was no compromise. Negotiations were continued by the parliament of Canada, but the delegation from Prince Edward Island were determined to obtain, and they finally did obtain, six members, although their population at that time entitled them to only five.
I think it must be clear to all hon. members of this house that the point that kept Prince Edward Island out of confederation for six years was the determination to secure six representatives. I am sure that the delegates of the day felt that the representation of six was to be a representation in perpetuity. No other conclusion is logical; no other conclusion is consistent with the long delays. Unfortunately, through some oversight or mistake, call it what you will, this safeguard was not written into the letter of the act, and in 1893 the representation of Prince Edward Island was reduced. From that time the legislature and the government of Prince Edward Island, as well as the representatives of Prince Edward Island in this House of Commons, have kept up a continuous agitation to have the representation of the province fixed at six. This continuous agitation was the cause of the senate rule amendment in 1915.
In this connection I should like to quote from Sir Wilfrid Laurier as reported in the debates of the House of Commons for the session of 1915, volume 1, page 330:
. . . henceforth no province shall have less representation in the House of Commons than it has in the Senate. That was a departure from the principle but it was after all what seemed to me to be a fair compromise. The larger western provinces-Quebec, Ontario and the young giants of the west-are too strong to have reason to begrudge the slight increase in representation which this would give to the eastern provinces. We accepted that compromise-for my part, I was glad to support the committee in that respect-and it seems to me that our friends in the maritime provinces ought to be satisfied that in so doing we endeavoured to dispose of this irritating question in a fair and just manner.
It is therefore apparent that this senate rule amendment was not a mistake but was a sincere desire of the parliament of Canada to dispose of an irritating question in a fair and just manner.
I wish now to refer to a statement made by the late J. S. Woodsworth, as reported in the debates of the House of Commons, session of 1932-33, volume 2, at page 1592:
If a mistake was made in giving a fixed number of representatives to Prince Edward Island, there is no reason why we should follow a bad precedent. The way to get away from that is to amend the British North America Act so that Prince Edward Island would have only its due number and not a number out of proportion to the rest of the country.
I am very glad that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) does not share these views. I think that is a fair deduction from his remarks as reported at page 2237 of Hansard. This is what he said:
I will take it for granted that Mr. Woodsworth said that. But what I will add is that Mr. Woodsworth may have said that, and in logic he was sound, but in the matter of representation in parliament regional representation may be as important as population representation.
In connection with the statement made by the late Mr. Woodsworth I wish to quote the answer given by the Hon. James Layton Ralston, at that time. It will be found in the debates of the House of Commons, session 1932-33, volume 2, page 1593:
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has been rather strong in his intimation that we must stick to the letter of the pact and that the calculations must be made directly in accordance with the terms of the British North America Act.
Let me remind him-and I do not do it in any spirit of criticism

that when Manitoba entered the confederation she had a representation amounting to less than the required unit for one member. Yet Manitoba was given a representation of four members. In 1881, I believe it was, a readjustment was made as had been provided in the act admitting Manitoba. At that time it was found that, under the strict arithmetical basis to which the hon. member lias referred, Manitoba was entitled to only three members. The fact is, however, that when readjustment took place she was given five.
Let me remind the house further that when British Columbia entered confederation the strict principle was not applied. I need not be tender in my remarks because hon. members must realize that I am making these statements to the house simply to show that the arithmetical basis has not been the only principle upon which we have acted when fixing representations. When British Columbia entered confederation it had a total population of about 40,000 and was given representation of six members, and an irreducible minimum of six. Ten years after British Columbia entered she had only two units of representation, that is to say, her population entitled her to only two members. Ten years later, in 1891, she had a population which entitled her to only four members, if the unit of representation applicable to the maritime and other provinces which came into confederation originally had been applied. Prince Edward Island had only five units of representation %vhen she entered confederation, but was given six members. At the present time the representation of Prince Edward Island is four, the irreducible minimum.
It is abundantly clear, therefore, I submit that representation by population has not
Redistribution

always been the rule; but that regional representation or adequate representation has been the goal always strived for.


Mr. L. E. BAKER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few
words on this redistribution measure as it alfects Nova' Scotia. I am a bluenose from away back, in spite of the somewhat reddish hue of my countenance. Being a bluenose I am also a maritimer, and being a maritimer I consider that I am a very good Canadian. I have listened with great interest to the able addresses which have been delivered on this most important matter by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), by my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. MacNaught) and the masterly address delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke), who saved me a great many words because he thinks very much as I do.
I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Cumberland, up to a certain point; that is, that the maritimes were discriminated against in years gone by, and possibly to a certain extent up to the present time. But I have noticed a great betterment in recent years, and I think if we deal with each item as it comes up, as far as it affects the maritime provinces, and take care of that item, w'e shall fare far better than if we just keep talking about maritime rights and blue ruin. I have great faith in the maritimes; I think we have a future ahead of us. We have young men of courage there. They say it takes three generations to go from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves. Many of the wealthy families of the maritimes made their money in shipping; then for a while there was a lag. Now the third and fourth generations are coming along and they have had to get right down to work. I really think they intend to stay within their provinces and make those provinces prosperous.
Last year I was pleased when I learned that the dominion-provincial conference was to be held, and I was much disappointed in its results. It was obvious to me that the dominion was trying to help the maritimes and those less fortunate financially in Canada at that time, and I hope this conference may resume in the near future. I am not digressing, Mr. Speaker; I am merely stating that the maritimes and maritime rights are being recognized now and that they will be recognized in the future if we go about the thing in the right way.

As far as this resolution is concerned, I cannot see that we are hurting the maritimes at all. As a matter of fact it will add one seat to my province of Nova Scotia; that is, we will gain one seat of the ten. Figure that out. I would be very foolish if I did not support this redistribution resolution, even if I were to take it from a purely provincial standpoint. But I. do not believe we should think just provincially; we should think as a country. In this house we must recognize certain things. One of them is that the provinces must deal with provincial matters and the federal parliament must deal with federal matters. We talk so much about passing the buck, and so on, but here is a case where we are endeavouring not to pass the buck. Obviously redistribution, since it affects the federal parliament, should be a matter to be dealt with by the federal parliament. I cannot see it in any other way. I may be asked, Well how about the original contract or pact or treaty or whatever you may call it, that was made at the time the four provinces entered into confederation in 1867? All right. Those four provinces were signatories to the contract, if you want to call it that; but how about the other five provinces and the Yukon? Are they not to be considered? If originally it was a contract, you might say that to a certain extent it is now null and void, inasmuch as others have been taken in since it was originally consummated. I think we must recognize that from time to time we must have changes. I can see nothing unconstitutional in the dominion parliament taking this up with the imperial parliament and having the British North America Act amended. It has been pointed out quite clearly that this has been done previously, so we are not establishing any precedent. I remember a few lines from when I went, to school; I hope I have them right:
The old order changeth, yielding place to new,
And God fulfils himself in many ways . . .
In a young country like Canada, Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize the truth of such statements. I say let the dominion parliament look after its business and let the provincial parliaments look after their business, and have a clear delineation between the duties of the two. In other words let us render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
As far as the maritimes are concerned I feel that minority rights are protected. I would object to this resolution if I felt that the maritimes were being unfairly discriminated against. Surely we must have representation by population, provided that minority rights are recognized. While I agree with most of

Redistribution
what was said by the hon. member for Kinders! ey, I do not think the other place should be abolished. I believe it is most important that we have the other place. If it is desired to establish a retiring age limit there, or something of the sort, that would be a different matter, but it serves a very useful purpose- increasingly so, as I think has been obvious during the last two sessions.
I am not going to deal with this matter at length, but I did want the people of my constituency to know how I felt about it. I am sure they feel the same way. They realize that if this resolution goes through and the amendment is passed by the imperial parliament, Nova Scotia will gain one seat and the membership of this house will be increased, and certainly we need that increased membership. I do not know about other hon. members, but it takes me some weeks to get around my constituency. To do it properly I have to cover a part of it by boat, and it takes a long time to get around. I feel that I am here as a representative of my people, and that I should go and see those people. I did my best last year, but I was not able to get around; and this year it looks as though I will not be getting home until September. However, if things are speeded up I may be able to get around this year, with some luck. I do not believe we should cut down our membership at all, if the poeple are to be properly represented. It is of no use to compare our membership with that of the parliament of the United Kingdom. The areas which have to be covered are small. This is a vast territory, and we should not reduce our membership; if anything we should increase it.
I have been watching the press from the maritime provinces, but in the editorials I have read I have not seen evidence of any great objection to the principle of the redistribution bill. They say chiefly that there should be some alteration in the process of voting, some having a preference for the alternative vote. But they have not objected on constitutional grounds, so far as this resolution is concerned. Therefore I do not believe they are opposed to it; on the contrary they recognize it is a proper procedure.
In the light of what I have said, and what has been said by the Minister of Agriculture and other hon. members who have spoken with reference to the maritime provinces, I hope all hon. members from that part of Canada will back the resolution. It is not only in their interests but in the interests of Canada as a whole that they do so.
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate after so many lawyers have expressed their opinions and read their speeches respecting the law in the matter, an ordinary layman must speak with extreme care. Let me say at once that I am not a lawyer or the son of a lawyer, lest, before I conclude what I have to say, some hon. members may say about me what I have heard said about some lawyers-"God forbid that that fellow should defend me in a serious case".
I take part in the debate, fully conscious of the fact, as indeed have been most hon. members, that this is one of the most important debates we shall have this session. On most occasions we deal with matters of local concern, while on this we deal with one which dates back to the birth of our nation. It is a matter of vital importance to national unity and to the future of our dominion. It is important therefore that vVe understand clearly what it means, and that we should not allow politics to warp our judgment. It is my intention to deal with the matter briefly, from the Canadian point of view; but, like most other hon. members, I shall deal particularly with my province.
Time does not permit my discussing the speeches of hon. members who have preceded me, but I feel I must refer briefly to the remarks of one able debater who spoke a few nights ago. I refer to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who in his observations made specific reference to the maritime provinces. I am sorry the minister is not in his seat, because he told a story of having travelled around the maritime provinces, and that all he found being manufactured was coffins. I do not know whether he told it as a joke or as a slur against the maritimes. However, I shall accept it as a joke and in reply tell a story about his province. It is told-no doubt the Minister of Agriculture has heard it-that there were two Scotsmen. Donald and Sandy, who met on a street in Chicago. Donald said to Sandy, "Guid morning, Sandy; why are you so depressed and sad looking?" "Ah weel," replied Sandy, "I've had great sorrow. My brother died in Lemberg"-or Limburger, or Limbo, or whatever it was-"Saskatchewan." The other Scotsman said, "That's nae worry tae what I have. My brother is still living there."
I am not going to attempt to depreciate any province of this great dominion; but if I have any bouquets to throw, I shall throw them to my own province. Introducing the resolution on Mav 28 the Minister of Justice (Mr. St.

Redistribution
Laurent) made several references to Prince Edward Island. As a representative from that province, the cradle of confederation in Canada, I believe I am right when I say that our people in general are most apprehensive of any move whatsoever which would affect, their representation in the parliament of Canada. In regard to our present representation, or even our present representatives, be they good or otherwise, the people from Prince Edward Island will say to the government, to parliament and to the Minister of Justice who introduced the resolution. Ne touchez pas.
Just because we are the smallest of the provinces in geographical area and in population, why should we be discredited, discriminated against and neglected? Since 1867 we have gained little from the confederation agreement that the four provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia made. Indeed, since we have not prospered in proportion to the larger and newer provinces in Canada, it is fair to say that we have lost much through joining this union. However we were coaxed into it. I am free to say that had the different governments of Canada since 1873 implemented the terms under which we entered the union, we would have to-day a population of more than 300,000 rather than a population which has declined since the time we entered confederation.
Why do I say we would have a population of 300,000? I say it because we have the best possible agricultural conditions of any province in Canada. Ours is the one province which has tried to hold its own without even the semblance of a square deal from the dominion. Admitting that my province is a small one, let me say that my constituents, and those of the whole province, did a splendid job during the war years through which we have just passed. We led the entire dominion in voluntary enlistments in the different armed forces, and supplied a type of soldier that had few equals, much less any superiors. Our farmers made a real contribution in the production of foodstuffs, working under great difficulties, and our fishermen likewise did their share in the work of producing food. We did not share, as did the other provinces, in the wealth brought to the working men because of war industry. We had no war-time houses, and we had no loans under the National Housing Act. Our average income was lower than that in other sections of the country.
A moment ago I said that our farmers produced foodstuffs for war; but what did our farmers and our labourers receive from this government? They did not receive even a thank you. On April 13 last they were handed a plaster of a twelve and a half per cent raise
[Mr McLure.]
in the price of farm machinery and they need to buy a good deal at this time. Furthermore, although the government said that they were going to increase the price of farm machinery they would not permit the farmers to raise the prices of their farm products and voted down a resolution to take the controls off those prices.
We in our province see in this redistribution bill a threat to our representation in parliament. The minister has given the assurance that at no time will the members in the Commons from Prince Edward Island be less than the number of senators from that province. Be that as it may be, the fact is that the minister cannot bind future governments or future parliaments any more than I can if this resolution goes through as it is. When the Minister of Justice was introducing this resolution, in the able speech he is so capable of making as one learned in the law he made this statement, as reported on page 1932 of Hansard of May 28:
The government has come to the conclusion to recommend to parliament the adoption of a petition to His Majesty to cause a bill to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to provide for the repeal of section 51 of the British North America Act as it now stands
The minister said, "The government has come to the conclusion." The cabinet, without the Prime Minister, must have arrived at that conclusion. Is it any wonder that a SOS call went out for the speedy return of the Prime Minister? During the war, one amendment- possibly two-was made to the British North America Act. That amendment was put through so swiftly that it opened the eyes of many people. They realized how precarious were the guarantees that the act provided, and it suggested also to the people the need for further consideration of this act, not as something that was rigid or unalterable but as something the alteration of which should require a greater measure of consultation with the provinces whose whole position depends upon the British North America Act.
It is true that there has been a prolonged and involved legal controversy as to just what constitutes Canadian federation. One group of lawyers hold the opinion that at confederation the original provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia actually surrendered their independence in order to create a body greater than themselves. Another group of lawyers contend that the essential basis of the confederation agreement was an intimate alliance rather than a submergence of local autonomies. I am not going to enter into the details of that legal controversy, except to say that for practical political pur-

Redistribution
poses it does seem to me that the provinces cannot be expected to regard themselves simply as creatures of the federal authority, to be made or unmade as the federal authority may decide.
If the claim of the dominion government that it can alter the British North America Act at its own discretion without consultation with the provinces is allowed, then there is established a very dangerous precedent. The present government or some subsequent government may increase its powers and decrease those of the provinces just as it wishes by a majority vote of the house. During the debate on this claim of the government most of the great political leaders from the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald down to the present day were quoted. It was shown that most of them were in favour of consultation with the provinces.
If this power of no consultation be given to the federal government, the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Quebec have the most to fear. In the case of Prince Edward Island we could have our representation reduced to one, or probably to nothing; we could be kicked out altogether and the terms of our agreement of 1875 entirely obliterated. The province of Quebec with its essentially distinct religious and racial character, must regard the integrity of the British North America Act as the only ground and protection of its position.
If the claim of the government that it may alter the British North America Act at its own discretion without consultation with the provinces is carried into practice, it will undermine the confidence and unity of the whole dominion. Putting it in the words of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), who so ably debated this resolution, it might open the door to a denial of the rights of minorities by the action of a majority in parliament.
To my mind the point is not whether any proposed amendment is drastic or slight, desirable or undesirable; the point is that the procedure in every case of change should be such as to prevent any federal government from so acting as to impair the position and rights which the provinces possess. The only connection with the British North America Act, 1867, is found in section 2 of the interprovincial agreement of 1866:
Provision being made for the admission into the confederation, on equitable terms, of Newfoundland. Prince Edward Island, the Northwest Territory and British Columbia.
Again, section 146 of the British North America Act grants the federal parliament the power to make an agreement with respect to the admission of Prince Edward
Island. In other words, it grants the federal parliament the power to carry out that portion of section 2 of the interprovincial agreement of 1866, but does not give it power or authority to violate that agreement. Well-known legal authorities who have studied the agreement have stated that- the government of Prince Edward Island, by constitutional force or court action, can compel the carrying out of the dominion-provincial agreement in letter and spirit. If this could be done and were done, it would remedy many of the disadvantages and discriminations under which our province has endeavoured to exist, and which have so greatly retarded its progress.
The greatest objection to this resolution is the arbitrary and undemocratic course that parliament is taking of entirely ignoring the provincial governments. It is for this reason that Premier Duplessis of Quebec is protesting to the federal government even to-day. It is important to note that the point of Premier Duplessis' protest is not the redistribution of seats itself, by which Quebec is certain- to gain the most. It is a protest against the right of the federal authority to alter the British North America Act when and how it sees fit', without consultation with the provinces, whose position may be greatly changed by the amendments in question. The fact that in this particular case Quebec would be the gainer by the amendment is of less importance than the possibility that on another occasion it might find its position seriously impaired.
The Minister of Justice claims he has the consent of the provinces through their federal representatives. Here is one, Mr. Speaker, whose consent he has not. Whether it amounts to anything or not in a house of this size, I will make a minority of one at least. In his reference to provincial consent the Minister of Justice stated on May 28 last, at page 1936 of Hansard:
The provinces, that is to say the people of the provinces, are all represented in this parliament, and for the purposes of such matters as are confided to the jurisdiction of this parliament, it is by those representatives here that the people of the provinces speak.
While the Minister of Justice is supposed to be the highest legal government authority in parliament, I would take the liberty, even as a layman, of disagreeing with that statement. It seems absurd to claim that the agreement arranged between the parliament of Canada and the legislature of Prince Edward Island can be changed in any manner that the majority of the commons and senate may decide upon, at any time, and without consultation with the government of Prince
Redistribution

Edward Island. In 1873 we entered into the agreement with the federal parliament, and we thought that it could not be changed at will by a vote of either or both houses at Ottawa. For instance, at the present time the feeling is that there should be reduced representation in certain of the provinces. On the other hand there is the feeling that there should be increased representation. A very good argument was brought forward to-day by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Mac-Naught) with reference to our entering into confederation in 1873 with six members. We did not go into the agreement in 1867 because they would not grant us six members; we came in under a separate agreement in 1873 granting Prince Edward Island six representatives in the House of Commons and four in the Senate, and three supreme court judges. None of these things, according to our agreement, can be taken away from us. They can be added to, but they cannot be taken away from. Let any attempt be made to change that provision for three supreme court judges or to reduce our representation in the senate. The same kind of agreement was made with regard to our representation in this house. But we lost out. Whether it was our own fault or not I do not know. Around the corridors Dame Rumour might turn the argument of the Minister of Justice to read: No province shall have a smaller number of members of the House of Commons than it has senators, and the western members then might make a drive to increase their numbers of senators in the west. That may or may not come.
The ground we take in objecting to this resolution is simply that the provinces are being ignored in not being given the right of consultation with the federal government. If a move of this kind is made easy by adopting this resolution, it might be followed by a move to upset the balance in the senate, which would be a very dangerous thing. It would really be a deliberate assault on the very ramparts of confederation. We remember well that while Prince Edward Island entered confederation with six members, that number was whittled down to five in 1891, cut to four in 1901, and was about to be reduced to three after the redistribution bill which followed the 1911 census. But in 1915 our province was consulted with regard to this, and we had our representation restored in that year from three to four members. But we should not have had it cut down from six. However, there will be an opportunity later on for us to urge that matter in this parliament, to bring in a new amendment to go back to the terms of the agreement of 1873 and give us
rMr. McLure.]
the fulfilment of the agreement in every respect and the representation of six under which we entered confederation.
I cannot see that this measure gives us any sense of security. We of the island have too often witnessed our arguments rejected, our claims dismissed, and our views snowed under by the sheer weight of overwhelming majorities.
It is my feeling that this resolution offers little protection to us. I am apprehensive of a move which might reduce Prince Edward Island's representation in the other place; this would be followed by a reduction of membership in this chamber.
The amendment seems to me to offer a substantial measure of protection to minorities. Consultation with the provinces in an established practice in our Canadian democracy. I feel that by consultation with the provinces protection can be given against the power of numbers. In measures of this kind that is the course which the government should take, and not assume to itself arbitrarily the right to dictate to the provinces.
In closing, let me say that it is not solely the matter of representation which concerns Prince Edward Island. If the claim made by the Minister of Justice and embodied in this resolution is established by the defeating of the amendment and the passage of the resolution, Prince Edward Island's agreement of 1873, by which she entered the dominion, is not worth the paper it is written on.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: I wish to deal briefly with four or five points in regard to this proposal and the amendment thereto.
The first point, which I should like to see cleared up definitely, is the effect of the passing of this resolution as regards the future. We are asking the British parliament to enact, as section 51, subsection 1, "The number of members of the House of Commons shall be two hundred and fifty-five," and so on. I take, it that, since wTe are not proposing to repeal section 52, we are not binding ourselves for all time to a membership in this house of 255, and that section 52 will still be in force, that-
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.
The only difficulty about it is, as I see it, that this is a subsequent enactment and it is in such precise and definite terms that it may be that we are binding ourselves never to increase the representation in the future. That is an important matter. It may well be that if the industrial part of Canada grows rapidly the maritimes will very shortly reach the

Redistribution
number-twenty-four-provided for as a minimum, at which time the quotient will be obtained by dividing the population of Canada, west of Quebec and including Quebec, by 230, and if in the meantime the industrial areas in Canada have increased heavily it would leave the prairies in danger of having their representation cut down drastically and without any such protection as has been, in my opinion quite properly, given to the maritimes.
Much has been said about the essential justice of representation by population. But our representative system is designed, its purpose is to give proper representation to the will of the people, so that that will shall find appropriate expression in governmental action and legislation. I submit that actually mathematical representation by population has not been accepted as the basis on which you set up your seats within the provinces, where you can take into account these other factors. Obviously it is much harder properly to represent in this house the wishes and hopes and feelings of a widely scattered agricultural population than to represent a compact urban group.
Another thing: each part of the country should have a fair representation as respects the right to have its views prevail. Urban centres have great organizations: boards of trade and the like, great newspapers, and other means of pressing their viewpoints, whereas agricultural areas have to rely almost entirely upon those whom they elect to their legislatures and to parliament. So it is not surprising that at the time of the last redistribution, when it fell to the provincial groups here in the Commons to establish constituencies within their boundaries according to what they thought right, they did not follow strictly the rule of representation by population. Take, for example, the three largest seats in Quebec. I find that their average unit of population is 89,871, whereas the three smallest seats in that province have about 23,000 each, or roughly one-quarter of the population of the three large city seats. Or take Ontario; the five largest seats have an average unit of representation of 95,614, and the five smallest seats have 21,491, so that the unit of representation in these latter is less than one-fourth of what it is in the larger seats. This indicates that when representation is placed upon a basis which is regarded as fair and just, agricultural areas are held to be entitled to smaller constituency populations than are required in the larger urban areas, so that these seats can be properly represented in this house. Every province, with the exception of the maritimes and the prairies, has large
urban centres, so that, by putting large numbers into those urban seats, they can give the rural population a reasonable representation. But we, at least in Saskatchewan, have not that safety valve, and if this particular resolution had not been introduced and we had been reduced in Saskatchewan to seventeen seats it would have meant that our rural constituencies would have been so large that it would have been difficult adequately and properly to represent them in this house. That is a problem which must receive the attention of parliament in the days ahead-how to give adequate and fair representation to a predominantly, an almost exclusively, agricultural province like Saskatchewan, in comparison with other agricultural communities in the rest of Canada.
In regard to what has been done in the maritimes, and their minimum, I do not think anything can be said against it. Theoretically, if you did not give them a minimum, you might come to the time when a province, one of the basic provinces of confederation, might be reduced to the point where it would not be represented at all in this house, which would obviously be a ridiculous state of affairs. A minimum representation must be provided in connection with such a province; the same situation must be kept in view and we must see to it that proper representation is given to an agricultural province.
Something has been said in this house, and it has been repeated more than once, to the effect that there was no justification for increasing the number of members in the House of Commons, because of the cost involved. If there is one way in which democracy can be strengthened in a country like ours, it is to see that the people are made to feel that they are adequately and properly spoken for in the parliament of their country; and if you have a unit so large that people do not feel that they know their members, or that their members are able to speak for them fully and properly, they are bound to lose faith to some extent in our representative democratic institutions. To suggest that we should allow the extra cost of a few thousand dollars to enter into the picture, and to prevail against the best interests of our representative institutions, is indeed strange.
I looked up the estimates for this year and I have found that there is provided for legislation, for the cost of running parliament and for other costs in connection with legislation, the sum of 83,486,000. I find that we are going to spend as a country, according to these estimates, the sum of $2,769,000,000. In other words, as a parliament we are going to spend, in the supervision of these expenditures and
Redistribution

in the passing of laws for this great country, a little over one-tenth of one per cent of the money that we shall spend, about one-tenth of a cent for every dollar we spend. I ask myself this question: Can those who say that we cannot afford to have proper representation of the people in this house be really serious?
What price liberty and freedom? Well, that is one way in which we can ensure liberty and freedom, to have our representative institutions functioning properly; and if it is necessary to have more than 255 members, bearing in mind that in Great Britain the representation is something under 600 members in their House of Commons, then I say it should be done and the extra small amount should not enter into our consideration, since we are doing something to promote the welfare of our country and its democratic institutions.
One other matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the house is the argument that was raised on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party. They argue, I understand, that this proposal should not be carried into effect until there has been consultation with the provinces. I have read the debate carefully and I am not clear as to just how far they intend to go in that respect. Do they mean that if we cannot get the consent of the provinces to the proposed change we should do nothing; or do they mean that we should go through the form of consulting the provinces and, if they do not agree, we should go ahead anyway? I suggest that in justice to the people they should state definitely where they stand. They are. inviting the members of this house to vote for their motion that this proposal should not be carried into effect until the provinces have been consulted. They should state what they intend to do if one of the provinces should decide to stand on its alleged constitutional rights and say, "We will not agree to it." If they intend to allow the matter to drop there, after consulting the provinces, and to go no farther if one or more of the provinces say no, then what my hon. friends are doing is this. They are saying that nothing shall be done if the provinces disagree. Is that what they mean?
Do the Progressive Conservatives in this house suggest that a conference should be held at which Mr. Drew would represent the province of Ontario and that he would give up w'hat is his by alleged constitutional right, eight members more than the province is entitled to on the basis of population in this house?


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Certainly he would. It is the only fair thing to do.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend may think he can speak for Premier Drew-


Arthur Leroy Smith: I can do it
better than you can.


Walter Adam Tucker: -but I am not sure that
he can. I do not think he expected Premier Drew to take the stand he did recently.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Now let us stay in order. We can argue that at the proper time.


Walter Adam Tucker: No one can speak for
Mr. Drew in this house except Mr. Drew.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And he is
not here.


Walter Adam Tucker: Have we the assurance of
the Progressive Conservative party that the provinces will agree to this resolution if it is referred to them? Is that what they mean? If so, their motion means nothing and it is simply window-dressing. If, on the other hand, they do not know, then they are putting themselves in the position where we may be bound to this admittedly unfair situation. That is the position of the Progressive Conservative party, and I say to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) that he owes it to the house and the country to say what the attitude of his party is. Suppose we consulted the provinces and the provinces did not agree. Would they say that Ontario should keep eight members to whom it was not entitled, Saskatchewan lose four, and Manitoba three? Let them speak out and say frankly to the people of the country what their attitude is.
The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) took a slightly different attitude. As I understood him, he took the view that under section 52 we could actually bring about the situation which we shall have after this resolution goes through the British parliament, that we could increase our membership to the numbers proposed, that subsection 4 would not apply because we are not decreasing the membership of any province except Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Subsection 4 would not protect Saskatchewan- and I presume the same is true of Manitoba -and we could bring about this situation that is proposed without an amendment of the constitution.
If it is within the power of this parliament to do this very thing, what becomes of the argument of the Progressive Conservative party that we should not ask for a constitutional amendment to make sure that we have the
[Mr. Tucker. 1

Redistribution
right to do it. The hon. member for Stan-stead, in. an able address, argued that parliament could do this very thing. Very well, if it can, why should he vote that before it is done the provinces should be consulted. If his argument is sound, the only effect of the amendment is to clear up all doubts and difficulties. If parliament proceeded along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Stanstead, and by chance he was wrong and the courts so held, we might have in existence a parliament which the courts would say was set up on a wrong basis. What kind of confusion would that bring about? That is a possibility arising out of the argument of the hon. member for Stanstead. But if we have a constitutional amendment merely making it quite clear beyond doubt that we have a right to do this, if his argument is correct we shall have taken no rights away from the provinces because, according to the hon. member, we had the right to do this in this parliament. I marvel at the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party. Here we have one of their outstanding members saying that we have a right to do this thing in this parliament; and we have other members of the party saying that before we do this, or before we make sure we have a right to do it, the provinces should be consulted and perhaps given the right to veto what the hon. member says parliament has a right to do without a constitutional amendment. To me that is a strange attitude to adopt, and I invite the leader of the opposition or someone speaking on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party to indicate exactly where they stand on this matter and why they seek to stultify this parliament by the stand for which they have argued.
Another matter I should like to deal with briefly is the importance of addressing ourselves at a very early day to the problem of setting up some means of changing our constitution within Canada without having to go to the British parliament for that purpose. We say and believe that we are an absolutely autonomous, self-governing nation, co-equal with the United Kingdom. Yet it is quite possible that certain situations may develop which may throw a doubt on that position in the minds of those who do not understand the position. We should bear that in mind, and try to act to prevent them from developing. It is possible, for example, that a party might be endorsed by the country having as one of its .planks the abolition of the senate. There you would have our self-governing nation electing a government having that as its policy and putting through this House of Commons, we will say, a resolution to abolish the other place. I take it that some of the provinces
would object. Then the British parliament would be asked to hear representations on behalf of the sovereign people of Canada, as expressed in their House of Commons, to do one thing, and they would have representations from some of the provinces not to do it. So that you would have the British parliament in the utterly impossible position of being forced to act as an arbiter between Canada as a country and parts of Canada as provinces. Again, you might have this situation develop, that this house and the other place would concur in a resolution asking for a change in the constitution, and one province might feel very strongly that this should; not be done. I take it that that province would have the right to make representations at Westminster, so that again you would have the parliament of another country being put in the position of having to act as an arbiter between one group of Canadians and another group.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If the hon. member will permit one question, does not the privy council now do exactly the same thing he is talking about?


Walter Adam Tucker: What do you mean by the privy council?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do they not act as an arbiter between the dominion and the provinces? Is that not what they do all the time?


Walter Adam Tucker: As far as I am concerned, the sooner we do not have to resort to a court outside Canada to interpret our laws, our constitution or the rights of one Canadian as against another, the better pleased I shall be.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: You mean the sooner we cease doing it?


Walter Adam Tucker: The sooner we see to it that we do not have to refer matters for decision to the judicial committee of the privy council, a court outside Canada, the sooner we shall stop misleading other nations as to the essential sovereignty of the Canadian nation. To suggest as an argument why we should have to go to Westminster to have our constitution amended and perhaps, as a sovereign people, act as a suppliant before the parliament at Westminster as against a province which might be opposed to what we wanted to do, that the Canadian government has to go and argue before the judicial committee of the privy council, with the provinces arguing on the other side as to what our constitution means, I think is trying to prove that because you have one wrong you should have two. As far as I am concerned, the sooner Canada stands on her own feet; the sooner Canada has the right to amend her
Redistribution

own constitution, the right to have her constitution and laws determined by courts within this country, the sooner the possibility of misunderstandings between Canada and other parts of the empire and between Canada and other nations will be done away with. There is no doubt in the world but that other nations looking at Canada, realizing that we have to go to Westminster to have our constitution changed and to have our laws interpreted by the judicial committee, would be almost bound to misunderstand the essential sovereignty of this nation, and the sooner that is changed, the better I think it will be for the United Kingdom' and for us.
That is all I wish to say about this redistribution measure. I compliment the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) on having brought it in, because at any rate it restores the position under which we shall at least have the same representation, on the basis of our population, as other parts of Canada, which we would not have had on the old basis. I urge, however, that the minister as well as future students of this problem give consideration to the question posed by the difficulty of providing proper representation in this house of the great agricultural area of western Canada and by the present mode of amending our constitution.
The house having reverted to the order for motions:



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
[DOT]-ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
Humphrey Mitchell: I wish to announce government action to deal with the situation in British Columbia due to stoppage of work in plants engaged in the manufacture of wooden containers for use in the harvesting and marketing of fruits and vegetables. I now table copy of an order in council passed to-day, which provides:
1.	For the appointment of Mr. Gordon Bell of the city of Vancouver as controller of such plants.
2.	That the operators of establishments engaged in the operation of a sawmill or woodworking plant and in particular those normally engaged in the manufacture of wooden containers for use in the harvesting and marketing of fruits and vegetables or of a logging camp normally engaged in the supply

of logs for any such plant shall reopen the plants for business at twelve noon on June 19, 1946, which is to-morrow.
3.	That employees formerly engaged in these plants return to work at twelve noon on June 19, 1946, at the wage rates which prevailed at the time of the work stoppage.
It has been arranged that the chief justice of British Columbia, Hon. G. McG. Sloan, shall act as an industrial disputes inquiry commissioner and negotiate with the bargaining representatives of the employees and the management of the plants with a view to settlement of the wage rates and other matters at present in dispute between them, on the understanding that whatever rates and conditions are agreed upon shall be effective from June 19, 1946. I shall not delay the house by reading the text of the order in council, but with permission of the house shall lay it on the table and ask that it be printed with my statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Humphrey Mitchell: By telegram I am urging upon the president of the union and the secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, who has been acting for the operators, that union and plant operators give full cooperation to this plan in order to get the mills started up again because of the importance of preventing further waste in food. Hon. members will understand, of course, that this action is being taken as a joint decision of the federal and British Columbia governments and therefore carries with it the authority of both governments. I sincerely hope that the action will be endorsed and accepted by those immediately concerned in the dispute.
I should like to make it plain to hon. members that there is still the major problem brought about through the stoppage of work in the lumbering and logging industry, mainly in the coastal region. Chief Justice Sloan, it will be recalled, has been acting as a commissioner and has made a recommendation for an increase of fifteen cents an hour with a revocable check-off of union dues. These proposals have been accepted by the operators. In my judgment they are fair and reasonable and should be agreed to by the men. I would urge upon them that they adopt the proposals and go back to work. It is my earnest wish that members of this house use their influence to bring about an acceptance of Commissioner Sloan's proposals and a return to work of those engaged in production that is so vital to the economy of the nation.

Labour Conditions
The order in council is as follows:



P.C. 2503

[Stage Direction]
At the Government House at Ottawa Tuesday, the 18th day of June, 1946.
Present :
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
Whereas upon a dispute arising between certain operators of several logging camps, saw mills, woodworking plants, shingle and planing mills and sash and door mills in the province ot British Columbia, and the employees in those camps, plants and mills who are members of International Woodworkers of America, the Honourable G. McG. Sloan, chief justice of British Columbia, was appointed an industrial disputes enquiry commissioner to inquire into and report on the said dispute as the same concerns wage rates and other conditions of employment;
And whereas on the fifteenth day of May, 1946, the said International Woodworkers of America, acting on behalf of the said employees, declared a strike whereupon the employees -went on strike, and since the said date have continued to be on strike;
And whereas the Honourable George S. Pearson, minister of labour for the province of British Columbia, has advised that in consequence of the continued work stoppage resulting from the said strike, wooden containers are not now available for use in harvesting and marketing the fruit and vegetable crop of that province, and, further, that unless sufficient quantities of such wooden containers are made available immediately for such use, great loss will be sustained by the fruit and vegetable growers in the province and great waste of essential food will result;
And whereas the said Honourable George S. Pearson recommends that a controller be appointed to take charge of and to operate such and as many of the said camps, mills and plants a_s he considers necessary to produce the requisite quantities of the required types and sizes of the said wooden containers for the uses aforementioned, and, further, that the controller shall have power to direct the said employees or any of them to return to work;
Therefore, his excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, and under the authority of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, is pleased to make and doth hereby make the following order:
Order
1.	Gordon Bell, esquire, of the city of Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia, financial agent, is hereby appointed controller of the business, undertaking and establishment of every person, firm or corporation in the said province, engaged in the operation of a saw mill or woodworking plant and in particular every woodworking plant normally engaged in the manufacture of wooden containers for use in the harvesting and marketing of fruit and vegetables or of a logging camp normally engaged in the supply of logs for any such plant.
2.	The said controller shall have the custody and control over the property and assets of any such person, firm or corporation as he, in his uncontrolled discretion and judgment, may deem necessary in order to manage, operate and carry
on the business of such person, firm or corporation, and he shall, for such purposes, have and exercise the powers, authorities and rights of the board of directors of any such corporation.
3.	The controller shall exercise the foregoing powers and authorities subject to such instructions and directions, if any, as may from time to time be approved by the Minister of Labour for Canada.
4.	The Minister of Labour for Canada may, for purposes of this order, from time to time appoint one or more deputy controllers who shall have and exercise any and all of the powers conferred on the controller subject to any restrictions thereof which the controller may from time to time impose and subject, in all cases, to review by the controller.
5.	The controller, any deputy controller or any person acting for or on behalf of or under the authority of the controller shall not become liable to any person for anything done or omitted in the exercise or purported exercise of any powers or authority from time to time vested in or conferred upon the said controller.
6.	The authority of the controller shall commence at 12 o'clock noon, the 19th day of June, 1946, and shall continue until the same is revoked by order in council which shall be published in the Canada Gazette.
7.	The authority of the board of directors of any corporation affected by this order is, subject to section 10 of this order and insofar as the same is abrogated by or pursuant to section 2 of this order, suspended from 12 o'clock noon, the 19th day of June. 1946. until the powers, authority and rights of the controller in respect of such corporation shall be revoked.
8.	It shall be the duty of every person who was in the employ of any such person, firm or corporation on or immediately prior to the 15th day of May, 1946, to perform the duties of his employment as and when required to do so by the controller and he shall continue to perform such duties until the authority of the controller is revoked: and every person who fails to perform liis duties as aforesaid as hereinafter required without lawful excuse, the onus of proof of which is upon him. is guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to a fine of $20 for each day or part of a day in which he fails so to perform his duties.
9.	Each and every person who was in the
employ of any person, firm or corporation affected by this order shall forthwith return to his place of employment and shall be paid wages at the rate in effect for him on the 15th dav of May, 1946.	-
10.	The Minister of Labour for Canada shall request the said commissioner, the chief justice of British Columbia. G. McG. Sloan, to commence his duties as commissioner; and the bargaining representatives oi the aforesaid employees and each person, firm or corporation concerned herewith shall enter into negotiations with a view to the settlement of the matters presently in dispute between them, and shall negotiate in good faith with one another and make every reasonable effort to conclude a settlement. If by reason of such further negotiations, the parties agree upon an amount as an increase in the wage rates for the said employees, such increase shall, subject to the approval of the regional war labour board for British Columbia, be effective as and from the date upon which the employee returns to work.
[Stage Direction]
Redistribution
[Stage Direction]
11.	Any person who (a) interferes with the exercise by the controller or any deputy controller of any of the powers, authorities and rights conferred upon him, or (b) interferes with any employee or other person seeking to comply with the terms of this order or (e) counsels or procures any person to violate this order, shall be guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding in the case of (a) $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both such fine and such imprisonment; and in the case of (b) or (c), to a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
Humphrey Mitchell: With the consent of the house I should like to make a short announcement. This afternoon I read a statement and tabled an order in council in reference to the labour dispute in British Columbia. To-night I am happy to tell the house that I have been informed through Chief Justice Sloan that both parties to the dispute have accepted the advice given them, and I understand that work will commence to-morrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the house has reverted to the order for motions, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent);
That there be an intermission in the sitting of this house this day between six o'clock and nine o'clock, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 6 in relation thereto.


John Bracken: That is acceptable to us.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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. Diefenbaker.
Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries) :: Mr. Speaker, in continuing the debate on this important resolution, and the amendment thereto, I should like first of all to say that I have been greatly impressed by the speeches delivered by many hon. members who

have spoken before me, and I say this in all sincerity. Naturally I do not agree with all that has been said in the debate, but I wish to say what has impressed me most is that so many hon. members have done so much by way of preparation and research before making their contributions to the debate. I believe the whole house will agree with me when I say that this comment applies to members of all political parties. I feel it speaks well for this parliament, and, further, that it augurs well for the future of Canada, especially when one realizes that so many who have spoken so well are new members in the house. They have set a high standard in debate, and it will be difficult for me to maintain the same high standard. I feel, however, that it is incumbent upon me to make some remarks on this occasion, not especially because I am a member of the government, but because this resolution has been attacked by two members from my own province who are members of the Progressive Conservative party.
In 1867 there was passed by the imperial parliament what is known as the British North America Act, which is really not only the constitution of Canada, but also the constitution of the various provinces which make up our country. Time will not permit, nor is the house interested at this stage, in the details respecting all the preliminaries which led up to the passing of that act. At any rate it is sufficient to say that it was the result of Canadian statesmanship-and not British-and that it was the guiding genius of Sir John A. Macdonald, ably assisted by Sir George Etienne Cartier, Messrs. Tupper, Tilley and others, who paved the way for the passing of that act. One should add that, taking all things into consideration, they did an extremely good job. However, I feel that those of us of the third and fourth generation of Canadians since that date have just a little bit of criticism to make. They did not provide any means of amending our own constitution. The omission may have been deliberate or it may have been accidental, especially as there was little interest or little enthusiasm in the imperial parliament at the time of the passing of the act. Sir John A. Macdonald compared its progress in the British House of Commons to that of a private bill uniting two or three English parishes. The record is not clear, I believe, as to just how this omission occurred.
In discussing the question before the house, I do not pretend to do so as an authority on constitutional law. There are others in the house far more capable and competent to do so than I am. I speak, however, as one who is keenly interested in Canada and in Canada's

Redistribution
future. While I am deeply conscious of the glories of tradition, as a Liberal I do not feel that I should be steeped in tradition. I therefore do not feel that our constitution should be like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, which altereth not. I regard our constitution as being like a suit or garment which was made in 1867 to fit the Canadian body politic. It has been an extremely good suit, and it has been made of extremely good cloth. It has worn well, and still has a lot of good wear in it. But time has marched on, and the Canadian body politic has grown up. Our suit is now a bit tight in spots; and, what is more important, it is no longer appropriate for the various occasions on which we have to wear it. One obviously feels that it is necessary that it should be altered. But the questions are and will be for the future, how should it be altered and who will be the tailor who is to make those alterations? As a Canadian I feel that we should be our own tailors.
Other members of the British commonwealth have the right to amend their own constitutions, and we should have the same right. If Australia and South Africa can amend their constitutions, why should not we? However, as yet we have not yet that privilege; and it will no doubt take much study on the part of many good Canadians before some suitable machinery can be adopted to enable us to amend our constitution. As I said before, the British North America Act is the constitution not only of Canada, but also of the provinces; and in order to arrive at a conclusion as to just what the machinery should be to amend all sections of the British North America Act, it would of course, be necessary that the provinces, or the people in those provinces should be consulted. At the present time all we in this parliament can do is to pass a resolution asking the imperial parliament to amend the act. That is just what the government of the day is proposing to do in connection with this redistribution bill.
That brings us to the question as to whether or not the provinces should be consulted before we pass this particular resolution. That question has come up before, and no doubt will come up again, as long as the present system of amendment exists. I am going to repeat what our able Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) said on May 28, when moving the resolution, since it is a statement with which I am in complete accord:
The provinces, that is to say, the people of the provinces, are all represented in this parliament, and for the purposes of such matters as are confined to the jurisdiction of this parliament it is by those representatives here that
63260-165J
the people of the provinces speak. There are other matters given by the act to the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures and the provincial governments: with respect to any of those it is my view that it would not be possible to deal with them without the consent of those to whose jurisdiction they have been confided.
With that statement of the Minister of Justice I repeat that I am in complete accord. I am sure no one in the house contends that we would be in order in passing a resolution requesting an amendment which would materially affect any of the matters which come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments or provincial legislatures without prior consultation with those provinces. Does anyone for one minute really believe that this or any other government would dare to endeavour to amend sections 92 or 93 of the British North America Act without consultation with the provinces? If we did, I am sure the imperial parliament would not accede to that request. With regard, however, to those other matters, such as the present resolution before the house, I am firmly convinced that it is not necessary that this house should consult the provinces in dealing with this question.
I believe there have been nine amendments of the British North America Act, and only on two occasions were the provinces consulted prior to the passing of those amendments. I am sure that when the Minister of Justice makes his reply he will deal quite fully with the same. Others have spoken as to what was done by Sir Robert Borden and Sir Wilfrid Laurier in other cases. But let us consider for the moment just what happened only a few years after confederation, and when the fathers of confederation were still alive. To begin with, there is not the slightest doubt but that at the time of the passing of the British North America Act Sir John A. Macdonald was most keen that this country should have a strong central government and central parliament. It should be borne in mind that our act was passed just after the awful American civil war. Sir John and the fathers of confederation knew what disastrous consequences might occur if there were not a strong central government. He was therefore desirous that this country should be called the kingdom of Canada, but in that he did not succeed. He was also desirous that all the residuary powers not specifically assigned to the provinces should be assigned to the new government and parliament of Canada, and in that he did succeed. As we all know, this characteristic of our constitution is the direct reverse of the constitution of the United States.
R edis tribulion

After dealing with the problems which arose shortly after confederation, it was proposed to extend better terms to Nova Scotia. Mark you, that was in 1869, two years after the passing of the B.N.A. Act. On this occasion, Mr. Holton, a member of this house, on the second reading of the bill moved as follows:
That in the opinion of this house any disturbance of the financial arrangements respecting the several provinces provided in the B.N.A. Act unless assented to by all the provinces, would be subversive of the system of government under which the dominion was constituted.
That resolution was the first formal enunciation of what is known as the compact theory of confederation or the doctrine that all the provinces must be consulted and must assent before any change can be made to the constitution. The resolution was rejected on that occasion by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald and by the House of Commons, which included in its members at that time many of the actual fathers of confederation such as Messrs. Macdonald, Cartier, Galt, Tilley and Tupper, who voted against the resolution. That was in 1869, two years after confederation.
Again in 1871, two years later, the question of provincial consent was revived in connection with the passing of an act by the imperial parliament for the purpose of removing doubts as to the power of the Canadian parliament to pass the Manitoba Act. At that time Mr. Mills, then a member of the House of Commons, moved several resolutions protesting against the procedure followed by the government of the day. One of those resolutions was as follows:
That the representative legislatures of the provinces now embraced by the union have agreed to the same on a federal basis which has been sanctioned by the imperial parliament. This house is of opinion that any alteration by imperial legislation of the number of representatives of the House of Commons recognized and fixed by the 51st and 52nd sections of the British North America Act without the consent of the several provinces that were parties to the compact would be a violation of the federal principle in our constitution and destruction of the independence and security of the provincial governments and legislatures.
Again, this was a definite assertion of the theory that the provinces should be consulted before any changes should be made which would affect representation as provided by sections 51 and 52 of the British North America Act. This was only four years after confederation, but again the government, under the leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald declined to approve such a principle and the motion was rejected without debate. Not only was it rejected without debate, but I believe

it was rejected without a recorded vote. The provinces were not consulted on that occasion, and there was no united protest on their part against the procedure that was followed. The fathers of confederation were still alive and were for the most part sitting in this House of Commons. They did not either suggest or approve the procedure which is being suggested to-day by the amendment to the resolution. Surely they, with the memories of the Charlottetown, Quebec and London conferences still fresh in their minds, were in a far better position to decide what the procedure should be in such cases than should the Progressive Conservative party be some seventy or eighty years later.
The main part of the amendment to the resolution before the house reads:
Now therefore be it resolved that the government be required to consult at once the several provinces and upon satisfactory conclusion of such consultations be authorized to present an humble address to His Majesty in the following terms.
We, therefore, have again in the wording of this amendment a request to consult the provinces. The gist of the amendment seems to be in the words "that upon satisfactory conclusion of such consultations." I should like to ask hon. members on the other side of the house, when they use the expression "satisfactory conclusion" to whom do they consider that these conclusions should be satisfactory? Do they mean that these consultations should be satisfactory to this parliament? Or do they mean that they should be satisfactory to each and every one of the whole nine provinces which make up Canada? Do they mean that they should be satisfactory to seven provinces and not satisfactory to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario? Or do they mean that they should be satisfactory to some provinces and not to others?
We in this house are fully aware just how difficult a matter it is to get all the provinces to agree with the dominion government or to agree among themselves. We recently had the spectacle of an interprovincial conference which dragged on and on. I am sure that no one in this house will contend that the result of those consultations was satisfactory in any sense of the word. To my mind, the amendment to the resolution is not a practical one without further explanation as to just what the word "satisfactory" means. I am going to vote against the amendment. I do not believe it is a practical suggestion, nor do I believe, according to our constitution, that we have to consult the provinces on matters of this kind.

Redistribution
To come now to the main resolution which has been debated at considerable length from many corners of this house and which I am going to support, in my own province I am not known as a "yes" man. My political reeord there speaks for itself. I want to assure the house that I arrived at the conclusion that I would support such a proposition as is contained in this resolution only after careful study and serious consideration. I feel that in all our deliberations in this house we should remember that while we sit as representatives for certain constituencies, we are first and foremost members of this House of Commons of the parliament of Canada and that in fairness to this great country of ours we should always decide what is best for Canada as a whole.
In making this statement I know that I am on sound ground. I would direct the attention of hon. members to something which I believe has been read to them already by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I would refer hon. members to Beauchesne's third edition, page 11, where our learned and genial Clerk quotes from Blackstone as follows:
Every member as soon as he is chosen becomes a representative of the whole body of the commons, without any distinction of the place from whence he is sent to parliament . . . that every member is equally a representative of the whole has been the constant notion and language of parliament. Every member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm. For the end of his coming thither is not particular, but genera], not barely to advantage his constituents, but the commonwealth.
That is taken from Blackstone, volume 1, page 159. He then goes on to quote Edmund Burke.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To the electors at Bristol.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Yes, to the electors at
Bristol. This is the quotation:
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent, and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.
I recommend to each and every member of this house the reading of these two articles, and I recommend not only that they read them but that they should read, mark, learn and inwardly digest them. These words should be our guiding principles in our deliberations in this house.
What do I like about this resolution? I like the fact that it is going to make a new unit of representation which, with some safeguards for the smaller provinces, treats us all alike. The unit will no longer be based upon the population of the province of Quebec. It will be based upon the population of the whole of Canada. In this way we shall all be considered alike, whether we be of French or English descent, whether we be of Scottish or Irish descent, whether we be of Dutch or Ukrainian descent or any other kind of descent.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Or even Canadians.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Or even Canadians, as I am myself. That is one way in which we can build up a united Canada, and I want to build up a united Canada.
What else do I like about this resolution?
I like the fact that, for the time being at least and, I think, for a long, long time to come, it sets a limit of 255 to the size to which this house can grow. If I must speak from a sectional point of view-and I do not believe I have to-in order to answer the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), who, I regret, does not happen to be in his seat at the moment, that limit of 255 is a protection and a safeguard for the maritime provinces. Under the present system there is no limit to the size to which this house can grow, and if the rest of Canada grows faster than the province of Quebec we may some day have a house of more than 255 members. It even might go as high in the distant future as 300, and if our maritime provinces did not maintain the same rate of increase we would then have a minimum of, only twenty-four members in that number of 300. One might say an increase in population of this kind could never happen, but we are, I believe, entering upon a new era in Canadian history. All one has to do is to look at the map of Canada and see how much of this country is undeveloped, and with some vision he can see that there is such a possibility.
If, in order to reply to the hon. member for Royal, I must speak from a further sectional point of view I would point out to the hon. member that under this resolution we shall have the representation in this House of Commons to which at present we are entitled by population, and by reason of this safeguard I have mentioned we shall not have fewer than ten members in a house of 255.
In my opinion, this resolution is, first of all, in the best interests of Canada, and if I must speak on the same level as the hon. member
Redistribution

for Royal and some others who have spoken from a sectional point of view, I say it is also fair to the maritime provinces. In making that statement I am fully conscious of the fact that I happen to be a member of this government and the only member of this government from New Brunswick. So far as I am concerned, I shall never turn my back on the province in which I was born and in which I have lived practically all my life. I am just as good a citizen of New Brunswick as any other member from that province. But I am also a citizen of Canada, and in addition I have the high honour to sit in this House of Commons of Canada. In my deliberations in this house I shall, I hope, always act in the best interests of Canada as a whole. I want to see a strong, virile and united Canada. We cannot, as has been said by other speakers in this house, Balkanize Canada.
I have listened to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) and the hon. member for Royal when they have outlined the woes and misfortunes in the past of the maritime provinces. I have heard the same story ever and over again in parliament and out of parliament. I am quite frank to admit that confederation has not proved as beneficial to us as we had hoped it would be. But does any member from the maritime provinces in this House of Commons say that we should get out of confederation or secede from the union? What good has the relating of all these woes of the past accomplished? We are in confederation, and, taking it by and large, the vast majority of the people, especially the younger people of the maritimes, rejoice in the fact that they are Canadians. They fought as Canadians in two wars

not as Nova Scotians, not as New Brunswickers, not as Prince Edward Islanders. The people of the maritime provinces to-day are interested in the future, and, what is more important still, they are interested in the results to come in the future. They are interested in what legislation will be best for them. They are and have been interested in old age pensions, pensions for the blind, family allowances, and social security of all kinds. These are the things in which they are interested, much more than in relating the woes of the past. They to-day know that they can count, as they have counted, on the Liberal party under the able leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) more than on any other party to bring about such reforms as are required.
There are two things in which I firmly believe. They are, first, a true spirit of Cana-
[Me. Bridges.]
dianism, and, second, national unity. One should be the corollary of the other. As a follower of our great Prime Minister, I shall ever follow those principles of Canadianism and national unity which have been so clearly and ably enunciated by him in the past.
I believe that this resolution is in the best interests of Canadianism and of national unity. I am a Canadian, a Canadian to the core. We are all Canadians. But let us develop a true spirit of Canadianism. I am proud of Canada, and I am proud too, as our leader said yesterday, that Canada is a member of the British commonwealth of nations. I rejoice in that membership. I do not want any misunderstanding about that.
Confederation was born in a spirit of compromise, and if this country is to become the great country we all want it to be, the same spirit of compromise which permeated the conferences of the fathers of confederation at Charlottetown, Quebec and London should ever be present in this House of Commons.
I am not going to ask the maritime members of this house to vote for what they regard as in the best interests of the maritime provinces, as did the hon. member for Royal. I am going to ask all members of this house, whether they come from the maritimes or anywhere else, to vote for what they regard as in the best interests of Canada as a whole. I want a united Canada. God save Canada from sectionalism.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I must compliment the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) on the early part of his speech. It reached a high place in reasoning and a very high place in rhetoric. We have not heard enough of him. If, in the later stages of his speech, when the applause grew so generous, just a tinge of the soap-box entered, I am sure he can readily be forgiven for that.
I also agree with him most heartily in complimenting members on the high tone of this debate. It only fell by the wayside slightly once, and that was when my hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) followed the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and with a shade of annoyance, for which, of course, he is forgiven, accused the hon. member for Lake Centre of reading his speech. His remarks were that he could not tell w'hen the hon. member for Lake Centre ceased quoting and when he was reading his own speech. It occurred to me at the time how greatly pleased the leader of the C.C.F. party would have been if someone could honestly say of him that he did not know when Laurier ceased speaking and the hon. member began. I am inclined to think

Redistribution
that would be a great compliment to anyone in this house, and indirectly the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar paid that compliment to the hon. member for Lake Centre.
We were asked a couple of direct questions this afternoon, and I intend to reply to them. But before doing so I am anxious to say this. Everyone agrees that representation by population is an ideal much to be desired; but, like many other things, coming to its practical application, we cannot in this as in many other things carry it through 100 per cent. We have already in Prince Edward Island a variation from that principle, and I am happy to say that I have heard no one in this debate object to the situation as it there exists. If we go to other countries we find that the same thing prevails there. In the United Kingdom there are counties; there are boroughs; there are even members for the universities, whose electors cast two votes, one for the university member and one in the place where the voter resides. Take a little trip to the south, to the United States, and what do you find there? In the house of representatives there is representation by population, but in the senate, the more powerful from a legislative point of view of the two bodies, the representation is purely regional. In other words, the state of New York, with its teeming millions, has exactly the same representation-two-as the state of Nevada with a population not nearly as large as the city of Montreal. So that while representation by population is an ideal, I agree with what has been said by hon. members from Saskatchewan, the maritimes and elsewhere, that it cannot be carried to an extreme degree. I have in mind one constituency, that of Acadia. It is tremendously large; it is a poor constituency; it is a place where they do not get very much rain. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has been looking into that for some time and he is either going to irrigate it or bring in a rainmaker as we did at one time at Medicine Hat.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We might bring in a bit of Vancouver.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We might bring them a bit of Vancouver, as the minister suggested. However, there are other things in Vancouver which we would not have at any price. The minister is not one of them. But, as I was saying, Acadia is a poor place. The roads are not good. It has railways going in two directions; but they are many, many miles apart, and the north and south railway, running between Calgary and Edmonton, is not in the constituency at all, so that if 3'ou wish to travel from one point in the hon. member's riding to another by railroad,
which you must do when it rains because you cannot drive motorcars then-they know something about mud-you must come clear around into Lacombe, to Calgavy, and from there by the Goose Lake or the Hanna line. So that in a case like that I agree with the application of what the parliamentary assistant to the minister has said. In this country, with so small a population spread over such tremendously wide areas, we must give some consideration to regional difficulties.
A few moments ago somebody sent me statistics of the population of greater Montreal and greater Toronto. I believe that, according to the last census, the population of the dominion is 11,500,007. The population of the two cities I have mentioned is over two million. So that I think the point made by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) was well made. If you want to tie in Vancouver, with 338,000, and Winnipeg, with 287,000, it is even more evident that to follow rigidly the principle of representation by population would necessarily increase the size of many rural areas, and the people who have been struggling along in those places would not have proper representation.
I now turn to the constitutional side. Modest as I am, like the Minister of Fisheries, I am far from being a constitutional lawyer. Frankly, I have learned more about the British North America Act in the last couple of weeks in this house than I knew in the last thirty or forty years. But certain things in that act are apparent, and here is where I commend and compliment the Minister of Fisheries.. The great defect of the act is that it has no provision for its amendment. That was done in the other commonwealth countries, and that, it seems to me, is the major difficulty which is confronting us now.
I come to the direct question asked by the hon. member for Rosthern. He said this: granted that you consult your provinces-and he wanted to know the meaning of certain words-and then you do not have unanimity, where do you on that side of the house go from there? I think that is, as accurately as I can put it, the question which the parliamentary assistant to the minister asked. I am not going to reply to that directly at the moment, because I say that it all comes back to what the Minister of Fisheries said:	there
is no method of doing it. As a lawyer with some regard for the constitution, even without perhaps very much knowledge of it, I am not going to accept the hon. member's view that because there is no regular means we should adopt this means of bulling the thing through. The fact that there may be a majority one way,
R edistribution

and of course a minority the other way, does not mean that we shall accept the majority view. I am sure that no one on the other side of the house, will give it as his legal opinion that if there is but one dissenter, there is power in the act to accept the view of the other eight. We come squarely back to the fact that we have no method of amendment. So it seems to me of great importance, that we should have a conference, after this bit of a measure has been dealt with, whereby we shall arrive at some scheme for amending our constitution. If we had that now we would not be in this long debate and the various difficulties which we are in.


Walter Adam Tucker: Will the hon. member, then, permit a question? I permitted one from him.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is he saying that until we can get the power to amend our own constitution we should leave this the way it is, without doing anything about it; that we should leave Ontario with eight members she is not entitled to, and cut down Saskatchewan by four and Alberta by three?


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I first say this. Quebec is entitled to increased representation. I have no doubt about that at all. I know there are some people who think that I do not mean what I say and that I am suggesting these things by way of delay. But I tell the parliamentary assistant to the minister that if there is no legal method of amendment we have no right to construct one of our own unless it be based on legal and solid grounds. I hope I make myself clear.


Walter Adam Tucker: We have acted to amend the constitution seven times in the past. Does my hon. friend say that that was illegal?


Arthur Leroy Smith: If the hon. member is asking my view, I will say that confederation is a pact. It was a pact among equals. The Dominion of Canada was born of four mothers, or perhaps two mothers and two fathers.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Three.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Well, make it as many as you like. I am getting into trouble now with these legitimacies.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: What were the four?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am wrong.
I can remember New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Upper and Lower Canada. I thought that was four.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: No. There was only the one province of Canada at that time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The act of 1841 did come in, so let us make it three. You are getting me on the 1841 act. To show you I am a great constitutional lawyer, I even remembered that there was an act of 1841, so that I will go to the head of the class now.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Does the hon. member recall that the act of 1S67 was a statute and not a pact? It was a statute of Westminster and, in my opinion, it is a statute and not a pact.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I admit
frankly that the statute of 1867 is a statute- doing what? Confirming a contract. That is exactly what it is. It is a statutory contract, an agreement made between these three people. That is what it is. Let me go farther. Someone may say that I am quite wrong, and I greatly respect the opinions of other people, certainly on any subject with respect to which they know perhaps a great deal more than I do. However, for what it is worth, that is my humble view. But leaving aside all legalizing, all legalities and everything else, what is confederation but the joining together of a number of people to create a whole for the common good? And be the act of 1867 the confirmation of a pact by statute, or a statute standing alone, it is equally the constitution for those who joined it and for the dominion, and there can be no doubt about that. That being so, it seems to me only reasonable and logical that at least consultation should take place.
Goin'g a step farther, I will ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), when he replies, if he can tell us in his judgment whether or not the earlier part of section 133 can be dealt with by a majority in this parliament; that is, the section of the act which provides for the French language in this house and in the province of Quebec. It also provides for the French language in dominion courts and in the courts of the province of Quebec. I am now the questioner and the great constitutional lawyers over there will perhaps answer me on that point. If I am right, my view is this. It is a severable section. If this parliament by a majority can change the proportion of membership in this House of Commons, that is the proportion by provinces, and if it is held that that is entirely within our jurisdiction, then I assert, with, I hope, some force and with, I hope, some reason, that on the same basis this same body can change section 133. Let us hope that is not so, because those rights granted at that time should never be left to the whim or sometimes, in heat, even to the anger of majorities.

Redistribution
We who are over here say to our friends of French extraction: We want that maintained and it will never go without your consent. That is our attitude with respect to that. But becoming lawyers once more, my view, and my considered view, is that if we can do constitutionally what we are now doing, we can certainly do that one thing.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at nine o'clock.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Through the courtesy of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, since unfortunately I was not able to be here this afternoon when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) made his announcement, I wish, on behalf of the province of British Columbia, to express my appreciation of the action he took and to assure him of all possible cooperation on the part of the farmers, I think on the part of the union, and, I hope, on the part of all other parties interested.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I join with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruiekshank) in complimenting the Minister of Labour as he has done. This is no time to say it might have been done earlier. We on this side join with the hon. member in his appreciation of the stand the Minister of Labour is taking. We express the hope that those people in British Columbia within whose power it lies to save food for Canada and for Europe will act under Gordon Bell, who incidentally is a friend of mine and who has been named to take charge of this operation.
I am going to try to conclude my remarks with a summation of what I have been trying to say. It seems to be agreed throughout this house that we are all anxious to relieve the province of Quebec of the handicaps under which it labours at the present time. I appreciate that in making this statement there may be some in this house, though I hope not, who will answer it with school-boy, smart-aleck expressions and wisecracks of one kind or another. If that sort of thing is attributed to myself I shall treat it with the silence and contempt it deserves, because in opening my remarks I put on record, lest there be any doubt about it anywhere or at any time, that this was my view, my hope and my conviction.
I should like to join with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) ill complimenting this house on the high plane and high quality of this debate. May I just add that my difference with the resolution is solely a matter of method. I am firmly convinced that we should not lightly contemplate-and I do not use that expression lightly, if I may repeat the word-changes in our constitution. To me, and I think to all who have grown up under it, the constitution is almost a sacred thing. It is that by which we have lived. It is that by which we have known our individual positions, our party positions and afl other positions in the government of this country; and, more than the government, in the economic life of this country. My criticism is as to the matter of method. I may be wrong, but my legal view is that it was a contract made between three people, in which six people later joined. The dominion government was a creature of their making, and it could come into existence only by their agreeing that it should be so made. I do not like poetry much, but a few moments ago I was sitting in my room and the only thing I could think of was something said by Aytoun in one of his poems. Hon. members may laugh; they may not think it apropos, but these words occurred to me:
Sirs! I charge you. keep it holy;
Keep it as a sacred thing,
For the stain ye see upon it
Was the life-blood of your king!
I hope no one will doubt my sincerity, though I may 'have gone far afield ; I hope no one will laugh at my idea that irrespective of what we have done in the past, when the interest may not have been taken in these matters, we are told that now we are a nation. But let us be a nation within the law. Let this parliament not concern itself for the moment with how many members there should be in this House of Commons, though repeating that Quebec still suffers. Is not the task which now commands our attention that of joining parties to find a proper method for the amendment of our constitution?
Let me say this word in closing. May we not all join in saying this. We are all seeking the same thing; we differ only as to method. We on this side fear that if this method is adopted it may open the door to certain things which many of my hon. friends on the other side would not care to see happen. I am not suggesting that the matter be deferred for any length of time, but I am suggesting that perhaps a reference as to our legal position might be worth while. In saying that-and I speak for my party-I am suggesting only a reference to the Supreme Court

Redistribution

of Canada as to what is our position. I am bound to take issue with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Tucker) in this. The hon. gentleman had a good deal to say about some other country amending our constitution, and he did not want any other person as an arbiter between the dominion and the provinces. I asked him this simple question:	are not the
privy council the arbiter now, as they have been for a long time? I am going to say this to the hon. gentleman, because he and I bplong to the same profession, though I suggest he adorns it infinitely more than I do. I am in complete agreement with the abandonment of appeals to the privy council except in matters between the provinces and the dominion. I say with the greatest respect to every individual who belongs to the Supreme Court of Canada that they live here, and nowhere else; they associate here even with humble people like myself, back-benchers in an opposition party, and there is no doubt but that those intangible things do affect people. I am only saying to my hon. friend-and I think if he gives some thought to it he will agree with me-let us be through with appeals to the privy council. But in constitutional matters only, as between provinces and the dominion, let it continue. We want an outside referee.
The Minister of Labour has been seeking an independent chairman for a long, long time. So I say this: I disagree with him only in that little particular

and I know what I am saying is unpopular with my profession. But for the good of this country, and for the preservation of provincial and dominion rights I insist that that be carried on.
I close with this one word, that I trust the Minister of Justice will answer frankly the question I put to him a minute ago. I trust that no infinitely smarter lawyer than I am- and there are many on the other side-will grasp at some phrase, word or sentence which I have used, but that this House of Commons will treat it with consideration, particularly my French compatriots'when I mention section 133. Even though you defeat the amendment, what is more important still is that you will believe that those of us over here, as we believe with respect to you over there, have only one high purpose and one high principle at heart, and that is the good of this Dominion of Canada.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice):	Mr. Speaker, I had not intended
to speak at this stage in the debate. But in view of the earnest question put to me by

the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) I think I should make an immediate reply.
However, before making that reply, I believe there are a few observations I should make upon the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker). I do not propose to discuss any more than he did the abstract question as to whether or not confederation is to be regarded as a compact, a treaty, or a contract. I think that discussion turns upon the meaning one gives to those words. There was no doubt a solemn agreement reached on some definite principles by those individuals who, in fact, purported to represent and to act for the two major groups of the population then inhabiting the lands which are now the territory of Canada, and that agreement is one we, their descendants, are in honour bound to respect; but there was no operative contract or treaty between free and autonomous states capable of making the kind of contract or treaty which would, by its own operative force, bring into effect a new federal state, as a creature of their joint agreement. That is where I differ sharply from the hon. member for Calgary West.
There was only one government at that time for Lower Canada and Upper Canada which comprised by far the larger portion of the two contending elements of the population, and that was a colonial government exercising delegated power to make laws, with the advice and consent of the legislative council and the legislative assembly, which laws, when assented to by Her Majesty or in her name, were to be valid and binding by virtue of the express enactment of the imperial parliament.
The original constitution of 1791, which was only partly repealed by the Act of Union of 1840, expressly stated that there would be set up legislative councils and legislative assemblies for Upper Canada and for Lower Canada, and that in each of the said provinces respectively-
. . . His Majesty, his heirs and successors, shall have power during the continuance of this act, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative council and. assembly of such provinces respectively, to make laws for the peace, welfare and good government thereof, such laws not being repugnant to this act; and that all such laws, being passed by the legislative council and assembly of either of the said provinces respectively, and assented to by His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or assented to in His Majesty's name . . .
And so on.
. . . shall be, and the same are hereby declared to be, by virtue of, and under this act, valid

Redistribution
and binding, to all intents and purposes whatever, within the province in which the same shall have been so passed.
The Act of Union of 1840 provided:
. . . that all such laws being passed by the said legislative council and assembly and assented by Her Majesty, or assented to in Her Majesty's name by the governor of the province of Canada, shall be valid and binding to all intents and purposes within the province of Canada.
That was the nature of the colonial legislature which had this delegated jurisdiction over Upper Canada and Lower Canada, and the two major elements of population were under that one legislature. Those who represented them respectively in the conference of Prince Edward Island, in the conference of Quebec and in the conference at London were the members of the executive council enjoying the confidence of that assembly.
The constitution of Nova Scotia, the constitution of New Brunswick and the constitution of Prince Edward Island were not even in statutory form but resulted merely from the commissions of their respective governors and the instructions to them from the sovereign.
There was an address voted in this house in 1882 requiring copies of the charters and the constitutions granted by the crown to the provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; and the Secretary of State communicated with the lieutenant governors of these provinces and received under date of December 20, 1882, from the lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia, that province to which reference has been made in this debate as a sovereign state, a letter in which the lieutenant governor said, among other things, as it is found in the sessional papers of 1883,No. 70 at page 7 of the volume:
The constitution of Nova Scotia has always been considered as derived from the terms of the royal commissions to the governors and lieutenant governors, and from the instructions which accompanied the same, moulded from time to time by dispatches from secretaries of state, conveying the will of the sovereign, and by acts of the local legislature, assented to by the crown; the whole to some extent interprete'd by uniform usage and custom in the colony.
Tire situation was the same with respect to New Brunswick' and Prince Edward Island.
I suggest, therefore, with great respect that it would be a mistake to try to transfer back to the years which preceded the British North America Act the concepts we have to-day of dominions within the British commonwealth. At that time this concept which has been expressed, in the language of Lord Balfour, as free dominions equal in status with the United Kingdom itself, and master of every aspect of their own affairs, is something which just did not exist. These were colonies exercising 63260-166J
delegated powers under the full control of the imperial parliament or the crown advised by its ministers. There is no doubt that the members of those provincial colonial governments rose above the stature of the institutions which could no longer contain them, and they succeeded in founding a Canadian nation. But they had no power to do so by contract or treaty or agreement of their own.
I should like to cite a short passage from an essay on that subject by Professor W. P. M. Kennedy of Toronto university, as follows:
It is impossible to reconstruct those days without emotion:	the sordidness of domestic
colonial life; the harrowing tragedy of civil war among a kindred people; the thinly veiled neutrality of political opponents; the scarcely restrained clash of religious and racial animosities. They were brave men, those fathers of our country, of the stuff of which nation-builders are made, who in this city, where Wolfe and Montcalm fell as foes, achieved, as Frenchmen, and Anglo-Saxons, a deeper and more fruitful victory. There is a note I fain would sound: "We are fast ceasing to be dependencies" . . .
It will be noted that that ends with the words of Sir John A. Macdonald that we would soon in fact cease to be dependencies. In spite of the vision and statesmanlike attitude of those brave men, legally they still were dependencies, but as a result of their labours the British North America Act was passed. Dependencies they were in fact, and the legal theory appears to be that stated by Lord Haldane in an Australian case in 1913 reported in 1914 Appeal Cases at page 237. Speaking of the Canadian constitution, he said:
Of the Canadian constitution the true view appears, therefore, to be that, although it was founded on the Quebec resolutions and so must be accepted as treaty of union among these provinces, yet when once enacted by the imperial parliament it constituted a fresh departure, and established anew dominion and provincial governments with defined powers and duties both derived from the act of the imperial parliament which was their legal source.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would the minister permit a question which I am asking only that I may understand? Is his argument that because the authority of the colonies was delegated from the master source, therefore it could not mean anything without affirmation of the master source of that power? Do I get him correctly?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. The argument I am trying to make is that it would be entirely wrong to believe that in 1867 there was set up by a voluntary act of autonomous preexisting states a union which derived its existence and its powers from those who made the agreement.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Your criticism is that because they did not have power of
Redistribution

their own, they all had delegated powers and therefore were not able to unite without the higher powers agreeing?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, my argument is that at that time there were not in existence autonomous states and they did not have powers which they could transfer to the central power. The central power does not derive its existence and its authority from the provinces and it does not need to go back to the provinces in order to say what Canada shall be in the future.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Surely the only limitation was that they were acting under delegated power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I did not interrupt the hon. member. I would appreciate it if he did not interrupt me so that I might develop my argument to its conclusion without taking up too much time. That conclusion will include a specific answer to the question the hon. member asked.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I apologize? I thought I was saving time but apparently I was not.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There was a treaty of union, but the Quebec resolutions did not constitute a treaty. Those resolutions were merely the occasion for the adoption of a statute by the imperial parliament which had full authority and control over its colonies. I should like to refer hon. members to Pope's "Confederation Documents." At page 121 they will find a report of what took place on December 14, 1866, when Mr. McCully spoke as follows:
Mr. McCully-We have adopted the Quebec scheme as the backbone, but I think we are here to bring our judgment and maturer reflections to bear upon it. We are tied down to nothing, but should not depart unnecessarily from the Quebec scheme. I will act with the majority of the conference, although contrary to my own opinion.
Mr. Macdonald-The Maritime delegates are differently situated from us. Our legislature passed an address to the queen praying for an act of union, on the basis of the Quebec resolutions. We replied to inquiries in our last session of parliament that we did not feel at liberty ourselves to vary those resolutions. It is quite understood in Canada, though never reduced to writing, that if any serious objection should be made by the maritime provinces, we should be prepared to listen and consider.
That was the stated attitude. There had been addresses voted by the legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada which represented the two major elements of the population, but the London conference departed in substantial

degree from the resolutions that had been adopted in Quebec, and the statute which was finally adopted departed in many specific degrees from the resolutions of the London conference. I am still using Pope's "Confederation Documents." In the Quebec resolutions, No. 23:
The legislature of each province shall divide such province into the proper number of constituencies and define the boundaries of each of them.


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is, the legislature?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is Quebec resolution No. 23.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But it is the legislature that would do it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is the same method as they have in the United' States.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. 24.
The local legislature of each province may from time to time alter the electoral districts for the purpose of representation in the House of Commons, and distribute the representatives to which the province is entitled in any manner such legislature may think fit.
No. 24 was just dropped, and instead of it there was drafted the section which is in the bill; that it is the parliament of Canada which will from time to time make the redistribution of the territories to be represented by members in this house of parliament.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What section is that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The section of the British North America Act is No. 51:
. . . shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time, as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides
What became the conditions of section 51 is to be found in resolutions 19, 20 and 21. There is clearly set out a provision, a scheme which would be a firm basis for the argument made by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). The resolutions clearly showed that whenever there was a diminution of five per cent in the proportion of the popualtion of a province there would be a reduction. But that language was dropped in the bill, and instead of it there was used the language which is now found in section 51 of the act, on which the privy council decided; and' I must differ from the hon. member from Stanstead in holding that they decided it-it was not an obiter dictum-an argument having been made by the province of Prince Edward Island that there was not a readjustment every time there

Redistribution
was a comparison on a census between the population of a province and the number of the representatives elected from that province in the House of Commons. That was the matter which had to be decided in the Prince Edward Island case, and it was so decided. The suggestion has been made that we might have a reference as to whether under section 52 we could not increase the number of members in this house and bring about a readjustment in proportion to the population.


Mr. HACKETT:: Before taking up that question, would it interfere with the minister's argument if I asked him a question?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not at all.


John Thomas Hackett: I ask him if he is aware that Mr. Neweombe, who represented the dominion in the privy council and in the supreme court, said, when he was asked by the bench to consider this argument, "I don't think that what I am about to say has anything to do with the case"?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is in the New Brunswick case, is it not?


John Thomas Hackett: No; that is in the Prince Edward Island case, and it is found at page 653. He is referring specifically to the point which I have submitted to the house was obiter dicta.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In the New Brunswick case Mr. Justice Sedgewick said, at page 548 of the same volume which my learned friend has in his hand, that this subsection 4-
... is a great protection to the representation of the decreasing provinces, because there must be a decrease of more than one-twentieth during the ten years. It may be a little smaller decrease than the one-twentieth for the ten years, and the result may be that not a single one may be left in the province after a time, and still they would be entitled to their full representation.
That was in the course of the argument. In delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice Mills said, at page 584:
If the population of a province bore to the aggregate population of Canada a less proportion by one-twentieth than it did by the previous census, its representation was to be diminished.
If hon. members will turn to page 593 they will find that that judgment was concurred in by Mr. Justice Taschereau, Mr. Justice Sedgewick and Mr. Justice Armour, and they will find that it was confirmed by the privy council.
I toyed with the idea and with the arguments which were submitted to this house in such an interesting fashion by the hon. member for Stanstead, precisely for the purpose of suggesting to the law officers of the department that it might well be worth while to have a reference to the supreme court on that score. I was turned down cold, and convinced by them that I could not get anywhere with that suggestion; and it is because of that that I agreed with my colleagues on the procedure which is now before this house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Even deputy ministers have precedents.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, the deputy minister who expressed that view left a lasting mark upon the rulings of the Department of Justice.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Agreed.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He became later Mr. Justice Neweombe. None of his successors has found it necessary to depart from the rulings which were made under the one who became later Mr. Justice Neweombe.


John Thomas Hackett: He was the very gentleman, though, who said that the argument was irrelevant to the issue.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Whether he said it or not, the privy council said otherwise, and said that it rendered its decision because of its construction of the subsection of 51; and I was convinced that we could not get around that through any other method than by an amendment. The fact that the language of this section 51 was changed in London shows that the delegates there did not regard that as a matter of treaty, because if they were bound by the treaty which was expressed in the Quebec resolutions, John A. Macdonald and George Etienne Cartier, as they then were, in London, representing the two major elements of the population, are not, from my reading of their biographies, the kind of men who would have violated the treaty or concurred in its violation by the language put into the act. There was, among other reasons which had induced them to search for a workable constitution for the nation they had envisaged, that very problem of proportionate representation. Every hon. member knows that was the very thing which started the movement for confederation-the deadlock that occurred in the parliament of the Canadas because of the equality of representation of Upper and Lower Canada, though there was substantial inequality in the populations of the two sections. If hon. gentlemen who are interested will look at Mr. O'Connor's report to the senate in 1939 on the British North America Act, in the fourth annex, at page 67, they will find a lengthy tabulation of the substantial differences between the Quebec resolutions and the London resolutions and between the London resolutions and the Brit-
Redistribution

ish North America Act. They cover several pages. I shall not take the time of hon. members to read them into 'the record, for they are in this public document which is available to anyone in the library of parliament. That is the story of how the act came to be passed. It was not an act which, as suggested this afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary West, ratified an agreement. It was an act which contained something substantially different from the resolutions which were the occasion for the legislation.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is that not an attribute of draftsmanship?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Then there is nothing more than draftsmanship in what is being proposed to this house at this time. The principle that was agreed upon was that the people of the provinces would be represented in the central parliament in proportion to their population; clauses were drawn which experience has shown do not bring that about, and we are attempting to redraft the document so that it will, in fact, carry out what was agreed upon in substance.
Let us see what occurred after the passing of the statute. I shall not take very long to deal with it. Many hon. members, among others, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges), have shown what was done in 1869 and what was done in 1871, when this very restriction than which nothing could be more foreign to the concept of John A. Macdonald was moved in the first parliament of the Canadian nation and turned down flat. Eighty years afterwards it is raised-I will not impute motives-in a form which would have the effect of destroying the concept of the Canadian nation and making the national parliament the mere creature or delegate of sovereign provincial states who would exercise their superintendence over its attempts to keep in step with the progress of Canada as a national entity.
This is something which is raising great objections, but how many times has it been done? In 1868 an act was passed for the admission of Rupert's land. In 1871 an amendment was passed to make sure that the new province could be established. In 1875 there was amendment to section 18 of the act. In 1886 there was an amendment with respect to representation. All these were done under administrations directed by the leaders of the party of which the Progressive Conservative party pretends now to be the heir, and for none of these amendments was the consent of the provinces sought.
In 1907 there was an increase in subsidies. That was discussed with the provinces, and one cf them dissented vigorously from the suggestions that were agreed to by the others, but

notwithstanding its dissent the addresses were voted by both houses of parliament and the amendment was made.
Some hon. members have said that what was done in 1915 had all been gone into and agreed to by the provinces, but I happen to have referred to the sessional papers which contained the report of what took place at the provincial conference of 1913. It was just an interprovincial conference without the federal government being represented. In sessional paper 119, of 1914, printed in volume 28 of sessional papers, at page 5, we find the following:
On the debate respecting representation of the provinces in the House of Commons, it was moved by the Hon. Mr. Fleming, seconded by the Hon. Mr. Matheson, that in the opinion of this conference the representation granted to the maritime provinces at the time they entered confederation should he restored and rendered irreducible.
This motion was withdrawn . . .
It was moved by Hon. Mr. Fleming, seconded by Hon. Mr. Matheson:
That this conference would favour and request that an amendment be sought to the British North America Act providing an irreducible minimum in the representation of the maritime provinces, and that the irreducible number of representatives be as follows: for Nova Scotia, eighteen; for New Brunswick, thirteen; and for Prince Edward Island, six.
This motion was withdrawn . . .
It was then moved by Hon. Mr. Matheson, seconded by Hon. Mr. Fleming:
That this conference having heard and considered the special claim of Prince Edward Island for the restoration to that province of its original six members m the House of Commons as a minimum, deems that it should receive the favourable consideration of the government and parliament of Canada.
A debate having arisen thereon, it was
Resolved,-That this conference expresses the opinion that, not representing the provinces for the purposes of this matter of representation, it declines to take any action in regard to it.
That was all. I tried to get the debates which had also been produced as a part of the return, sessional paper 119A, which had not been ordered to be printed, but unfortunately it was one of the papers destroyed in the fire of 1916.
That being the situation, the provinces having said, "We are not going to take any responsibility with respect to that", the government of Sir Robert Borden introduced a motion for an address which was passed by the Commons and by the Senate for an amendment to the British North America Act. It is curious to note that it came up in the last days of the session. The Senate sought to amend the address by adding a provision that the amendment would not take effect during the life of the then existing parliament. The House of Commons refused to concur in that amendment; the Senate persisted in its amendment, and the matter was not further

Redistribution
dealt with. The amendment was made, but it does not recite that it was made on a joint address of the houses of parliament. The amendment which was made contained the reservation which the senate wished to have in the address. Apparently at that time the facts were disclosed, and it was made clear to the parliament of the United Kingdom that the houses of parliament were agreed on having an amendment made which affected the representation in a manner which everyone now sees is proper, and which protected the representation of the maritime provinces. That was made, with the provinces saying that it was none of their business and they would not take responsibility with respect to it.
In 1916 the life of parliament was extended for a year, and to do that there had to be an amendment to the British North America Act. There was no suggestion that the consent of the provinces should be sought or obtained. In 1930 agreements were made with the western provinces for the return of their natural resources to them, and there was no suggestion that the other provinces should be consulted. In 1940 there was a proposal to amend the British North America Act by taking from section 92 something which was under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. For that purpose the consent of the provincial legislatures was sought and obtained and an amendment made. But in 1943 hon. members belonging to the party opposite-I do not know whether it was then the Progressive Conservative party, but the party of which they pretend to be the con-tinuators-accepted without any whimper the suggestion that redistribution should be postponed until after the war without there being any suggestion of consulting the provinces, and though it was known that there had been some objection, at least from Quebec.
I submit again that the statute apportioned the sovereignity to parliament for certain purposes and to the legislatures for other purposes, and what is assigned to the legislatures is in no wise under the jurisdiction of this parliament and cannot be touched without the consent of those who have jurisdiction over it. But what is within the powers of this parliament, this parliament can deal with without requesting the consent, or submitting to the superintendence of any provincial legislature. Here arises the question which was put to me by the hon. member for Calgary West: What about section 133?


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to
interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but he has spoken for forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


James Horace King: The right hon. gentleman having the unanimous consent of the house, he may continue.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry I have taken more than forty minutes and I did not intend to do so, but there is that question which was asked by the hon. member for Calgary West. The hon. gentleman asked, what about section 133, which provides:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
Can that be dealt with without the consent, of the provincial legislatures? Legally I say it can. The situation appears to me to be this. There are persons and nations who reach a high estate in the affairs of men, and the high estate they reach imposes upon them high obligations. There was no obligation on the Tribune Festus to say to King Agrippa that he could not deliver Paul to the Jews when they requested that he be put to death. It occurs to one, however, that they also had reached a high estate, which imposes a corresponding obligation. I copied out of the bible on the table of this house, from the Acts, the quite natural statement of Festus:
It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.
There was no statute; there was no law which required that this be done; but there was the concept in the Roman conscience that it was the proper thing to do. This country has now been under British institutions for 187 years. Only twice in that period have things been done, under the pressure of the circumstances then existing, of which we of French origin in my province could legitimately complain, and we did not have to complain long. After the treaty of Paris, a clumsy attempt was made to substitute the common law for what was the law of the French population of the lands which had come under the British crown; but immediately the law officers of the crown reported that that was something against the law of nations, and in 1774 it was corrected, and has remained corrected for all time.
Redistribution

After the troubled events of 1837, there was a suspension of the constitution and the creation of one parliament, and a clause was put in at that time providing that only the English language would be official in that parliament. But that lasted for only a very short time, and I feel-and I believe my fellow Canadians of my race and my religion can feel-that a better guarantee than anything that might be found in section 133 is to be found in that respect, for those who have been formed under the principles of British freedom and British fair play, to protect what are our essential rights.
It is not the manner of those who have themselves had, and whose ancestors have had, the formation that comes from that long history which has brought us to this point in the civilization of mankind, to do things which the conscience of humanity at large would regard as dishonourable; and the conscience of humanity at large would frown upon an assemblage in this house that attempted to take from me and from those of my race the right to speak the language I learned in my infancy as one of the official languages in which the deliberations of this house may be carried on. So it is of everything else that is not within section 92. If it is fair; if it is just; if it is proper according to the standards of human decency, it will be done, if it is unfair; if it is unjust; if it is improper, all members of this house will say, "It is not our manner to do such things."
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that at this stage of the debate it would not be proper to do more than touch on what one conceives to be the essential issue presented by the amendment before the house. I do not propose to review in detail the many matters that have been touched upon in this debate during which so much learning concerning Canadian constitutional history and Canadian constitutional law has been displayed. In passing, however, I offer the observation that I think many of the supporters of the government resolution, when their observations are reviewed with more detachment than has been evident in this debate thus far, will find that they have made some extreme statements which may prove embarrassing in times to come. Some of the supporters of the government resolution have made sweeping and general statements which I contend are not supportable in the light of constitutional practice and usage in this country.
It is unfortunate that the procedure in connection with a resolution of this kind, unlike that in connection with a bill, does not afford

an opportunity to distinguish in debate between principle on the one hand and method and detail on the other. Therefore one must treat a question like this on balance. What is the essential principle involved in the resolution presented by the government and the principle of the amendment offered by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party? On the one hand, we have the government resolution offered as an attempt to eliminate an injustice which exists at the present time in the distribution of seats and which admittedly weighs most heavily on the province of Quebec because of the operation of subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act. On the other hand, we see this principle involved: that to remedy that admitted injustice the government has resorted to a method which is fundamentally unsound and highly dangerous in its implications; that is to say, to proceed with a far-reaching amendment of the British North America Act without the slightest attempt at consultation with the provincial governments concerned.
In the beginning may I clarify one or two points to make quite clear my point of view in reference to the way in which subsection 4 of section 51 is operating at the present time. I say at once that it surprised me that many hon. members supporting the government resolution found it necessary to offer to the house laboured arguments to establish that the principle inherent in the British North America Act, with certain exceptions relating to the maritime provinces, was representation by population. Of course that is the principle. That is the foundation. When the fathers of confederation set about drafting the resolutions which eventually took legislative form in the British North America Act they were faced with two principles which had to be harmonized in some way or another. The first was the federal principle, the fact that certain states were going into confederation; and, second, that the citizens of those various states were to become common citizens of a new state or dominion. To harmonize those two principles they gave, through the Senate, certain recognition to the federal principle, by giving regional representation, a principle which is still to be found in the representation in the Senate to-day; while in the distribution of seats in the House of Commons they gave full effect to the principle of representation by population, with a qualification in the case of the maritime provinces which took fuller effect in the amendment to section 51 in 1915.



IS, 1946

[Stage Direction]
Redistribution
Let us be quite clear. It has been understood by all of us, I think, in the references that have been made to speeches in this house on earlier occasions, that no one has been quite able to understand how subsection 4 came to be introduced, except that, as Mr. Bennett said in one debate, apparently it was introduced for the purpose of protecting the rights of the maritime provinces.
There is the principle. It is representation by population, and at the present time it is not working out adequately, so that admittedly a way must be found to remedy the injustice under which the province of Quebec is suffering at the present time. We on this side of the house are just as anxious as any on the government side to see that injustice remedied at once. But we say that on balance the method by which the government in this resolution proposes to seek to remedy that injustice is unsound, and that on balance it is not such a resolution as ought to be supported until it has been first submitted to the provinces for their views.
No occasion arises in this debate for an attempt-and I saw traces of it in the remarks of one or two speakers-to try to set Ontario against Quebec or Quebec against Ontario. There is no occasion whatever for an attempt of that kind in this debate.
We on this side of the house say, in the first place, that this question is urgent, that it is important, and that it should be the subject of reference to the provinces. We have a dominion-provincial conference still pending, though not actually sitting at the moment, and that is the proper place where this matter should be raised for discussion.
There have been complaints about the necessity of going to Westminster for amendment of the British North America Act. Well, what is the use of complaining? We could have it otherwise if we wished. If there were some way in which agreement could be reached on this side of the water on a method of amending this constitution without reference to the parliament at Westminster, those who would be happiest would not be in this country; they would be the people at Westminster. They would be glad to be relieved of the necessity of passing special statutes from time to time at the request of Canada, to amend its constitution. When hon. members say, as the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) said this afternoon, that it was something in the nature of an oversight that some provision was not contained in the British North America Act for its amendment, I think they overlook the fact that this question must have been considered by the fathers of confederation. They had before them the
model of the American constitution, which had already been amended in a number of particulars. It was not because that problem was not before them that it was not dealt with in the act. They provided for the amendment of the provincial constitutions under subsection 1 of section 92, and it is perfectly obvious that the reason provision was not made in the British North America Act for the amendment of the constitution in relation to dominion rights is that the fathers of confederation could not go farther on the path of agreement. It is open to this country to have whatever other method it desires of amending its constitution, whenever it can agree on some constitutional method. That is a subject which ought to engage the attention of the dominion-provincial conference. We can have these conferences deal with financial questions; why can we not also have them deal with such important questions as have arisen during the course of this debate?
There were two arguments offered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), as to which, with respect, I should like to say a word. In the first place, the minister says that the people of the provinces are represented in this parliament. Well, in a vague sense they are. But I want to make it perfectly clear that, speaking tor myself, I do not come into this chamber representing a province. I have no mandate from the province of Ontario. I was elected to the parliament of Canada by a constituency in the province of Ontario. The number of seats in the province of Ontario happens to be fixed under the British North America Act in relation to the decennial census of 1931, but I do not claim to speak for the province of Ontario. I doubt very much if any member of this house is entitled to rise and say that he speaks for the province in which his constituency happens to be located. I say that nothing could be more completely divisive of national unity than such arguments. The man who speaks for the province of Quebec in matters affecting the affairs of that province is Premier Duplessis. The man who speaks for Ontario in matters pertaining to the affairs of that province is Premier Drew, and so on. It is not for those who sit in this chamber to usurp that role.
The other point made by the Minister of Justice was that this amendment does not concern the provinces, and that it has to do simply with that field of jurisdiction which, he says, belongs exclusively to the dominion. I take issue respectfully with the right hon. gentleman on that point. I think, if I may say so, he overlooks the fact that under section 51 representation is fixed according to
Redistribution
[Stage Direction]
provinces, and it is stated that the representation of the provinces shall, after each decennial census, be readjusted on a provincial basis.
I said that we do not sit here as representatives of the provinces, but the number of seats is determined according to provinces. I think for that reason alone the provinces have a direct concern in this matter. In any event, I affirm that the provinces have a concern in this matter, first, because of the provisions of section 51; second, because of the pact which, regardless of legalisms, nevertheless is a political fact, embodied in the British North America Act and, third, because of the effect of what we are doing here to-day creating a precedent.
Another point is that the amendment before us is not one of limited or temporary effect. It is not like the amendment of 1943, which merely postponed redistribution until the conclusion of the war. It is not like the amendment of 1916, which simply had the effect of lengthening the life of the existing parliament. The amendment we are now asked to make is intended to have permanent effect; and so I say it is one in which the provinces are entitled to be consulted.
Just a word about the British North America Act itself. It is not, as one might think after listening to the recent speech by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F., a statute like any other ordinary statute. This parliament is not above the British North America Act; it is the creature of that act. All the provincial legislatures, like this parliament, are the creatures of the British North America Act, and we had better be more careful when we are invited to put ourselves above the act from which we derive our existence as a parliament. This, I say, is a fundamental statute.
What do we mean when we talk about parliament? Let us consider that, in relation to the suggestion that, without consulting the provinces, parliament should have the right to seek amendment to the act. The fact is that parliament, so called, acts through a majority; and that can be a narrow majority. If we are content to see amendments brought about simply at the direction of parliament, leaving aside the one exception found in section 92 of the British North America Act, mentioned by the Minister of Justice, then in all other cases it will lie within the power of a very narrow majority in the house to bring about amendments to the act.
Ponder what that means- "a narrow majority." It means that it would be legally possible, on the argument of the Minister of Justice, so long as an amendment does not

affect section 92, to bring about an amendment to the British North America Act by a majority of one in the house.
In the second place, let us remember that a majority in the house does not necessarily mean a majority in the country. It does not mean such at the present time, because this government was not elected by a majority of the people in the country. Under the method referred to by the Minister of Justice an amendment which might be quite unacceptable to the majority of the people, could be made simply because it happened to have the en-dorsation of a narrow majority in this chamber.
Let us also remember that apparently hasty decisions are made by parliament from time to time. It is not always possible, on the successive readings of a bill, to have time to think the matter over carefully, and to refrain from hasty and unwise decisions, decisions taken out of caprice or whim. A resolution on the other hand, may be passed rapidly and be bn its way to Westminster before the country understands its full significance. Let us bear in mind that the Westminster parliament is not going to take the responsibility of sitting down and hearing representations from the parliament of Canada, and contrary representations from the provincial governments. That was made clear by the parliament at Westminster in 1943, when the government of Quebec made representations to Westminster urging that an amendment sought by this parliament should not be passed. On that occasion the parliament at Westminster was not prepared to take the responsibility of listening to the province, when the amendment had been sought by parliament.
That is a reason we should move slowly in parliament. That is a reason for making very sure that the rights of the provinces are fully safeguarded before any request goes forward from Canada to Westminster for an amendment to the British North America Act. As we were informed by the Minister of Justice, it took just ten days in 1943 from the time the resolution was passed in this chamber until the amendment to the British North America Act was made. Let us not be parties to hasty decisions which will result in rapid amendments to the British North America Act.
I suggest that if ever there was a time which has proven to be more dangerous than any other to embark on amendments to that act, without first fully safeguarding the rights of the provinces, it is this particular time.
There has been in session in this country since last August a dominion-provincial conference, which has been discussing financial agreements. Apparently not one word was breathed by the dominion government to that

Redistribution
conference-one session ended only a month ago-about its intention to introduce the present resolution. Not a word was breathed. Why not? Surely if the dominion-provincial conference is called into being for consultation between the dominion and the provinces on matters of mutual concern, it was reprehensible in the extreme on the part of the dominion government not to discuss this question with the premiers of the various provinces.
What conclusion may we draw to-day? The dominion government is not getting its own way in the dominion-provincial conference. It was most inflexible in its proposals. It was adament. It did some talking down to the provinces; and on the whole those provinces have indicated that they are not the children of the dominion and that they have the right to support a status of their own within the terms of the pact of confederation.
It would seem now that the dominion government is going to attempt to teach those provinces a lesson, and show them that the dominion can go to Westminster and have the British North America Act amended without consultation with the provinces. Is this intended to be a lesson to those provinces that they had better be careful in the way they talk back to the dominion government at the dominion-provincial conference, and that, after all, they have no real and abiding right to what we would call provincial status or provincial rights, if parliament is prepared to act on the dictation of the government and pass quickly a resolution requesting amendment to the British North America Act?
I say that this whole procedure is fraught with serious danger. Whether members in the house argue to the contrary or not, the fact remains that if we pass the resolution and defeat the amendment offered by this party we are creating a precedent. We create the precedent of providing for an amendment to the constitution in an essential particular without first having consultation in any form with the provinces.
It is not enough to say that in times past there was not complete consultation with the provinces. Let us keep our eyes open. If this amendment is defeated and the resolution passes in the form in which it is introduced, we are creating a precedent, a precedent which, I suggest, any dominion government whose purpose is served by it, can put to work to seek other amendments in the future.
Finally, every word that has been uttered by hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker, every word uttered by the Minister of Justice in his speech to-night and in his speech when opening the debate which referred to the
rights he contends parliament has to obtain amendments to the British North America Act, in a particular such as this, without consulting the provinces, is in the teeth of arguments in this house on more than one occasion by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. When the Minister of Justice discards completely the compact theory and discards completely the argument that the provinces are entitled to be consulted in the light of the compact to which the British North America Act gave form, he is arguing against the very principles championed in this chamber year in and year out by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe.
I am not in the least impressed with the jubilant support given to the government's resolution by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the leader of the C.C.F. He is only too anxious to see power centralized in parliament so that the rights of the provinces may be ridden over roughshod, if necessary, in order to bring about the socialist state he wishes to see created. Confederation is one of the surest guarantees we have in this country against bringing about a completely socialist state. The reason the socialist allies of the government are so vocal in support of a resolution of this kind is that it simply lends momentum to a movement which has progressed so far under the present government and which is daily progressing farther.
There has been a trend toward centralization, a trend toward amassing in the hands of the dominion government more and more power at the expense of the provinces, a trend which started during the war. The same mind that dominated the government in usurping the powers of the provinces in time of war still dominates the dominion government today. That same mind now states that they are prepared to disregard the fundamental rights of the provinces under the constitution. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has talked about Balkanizing Canada, but there is no surer way to Balkanize Canada than to ride roughshod over the constitution and the constitutional rights of the provinces.
Why has the dominion government failed to consult the provinces while the dominion-provincial conference has been pending? The only conclusion one can draw is that they wanted to find an easier way, a more direct way of achieving constitutional amendments; they wanted to achieve an easier technique for bringing about constitutional amendments when it suits their purposes. The whole method is fraught with peril for this country and for its federal system of government.
[Stage Direction]
Redistribution
(Translation):
The present resolution presents an adroit political plan on the part of the government to deal with the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons as among the provinces.
On the surface it offers the province of Quebec an increase of eight members in the House of Commons.
An hon. MEMBER:: An increase of eight Liberal members.


Mr. FLEMING:: British Columbia two
members and Ontario one member. What a tempting offer! But let us look further. By what means and at what ultimate cost is this gain to be attained? The resolution proposes an amendment of the British North America Act in a very important particular, namely section 51, which has defined the basis of representation of all provinces in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, not one province has been consulted in regard to the amendment. Not one province has been asked to say whether it approves the proposal or not.
Only one month ago the dominion-provincial conference was in session at Ottawa, attended by the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Justice, several other cabinet ministers and the premiers of all the provinces. Nevertheless, not one word was breathed at that conference by the dominion government as to its intention to present this resolution to parliament.
Now the Minister of Justice says that there is no need to consult the provinces. He contends that as long as an amendment of the constitution does not involve matters allocated in the British North America Act to the provincial jurisdiction, such as property and civil rights under section 92 of the act, the provinces have no right to be consulted by parliament. This is dangerous doctrine. Its full significance should be clearly understood. If parliament can bring about an amendment of section 51 of the constitution without consulting the provinces, it can also bring about without consulting the provinces amendments of other sections of the British North America Act. How long will the rights of minorities which are now guaranteed by the constitution be safe if this doctrine, expounded by the Minister of Justice, prevails? It would mean that a narrow majority in parliament could, if it wished, bring about an amendment of section 133 of the British North America Act, and thereby eliminate the use of the French language in parliament-all without consulting the provinces. Let us then be on our guard against creating so dangerous a precedent. The proposed increase in the number of

members of parliament would be gained at too high a cost if it is to be acquired on that basis.
The British North America Act is not an ordinary statute to be amended at the whim of parliament. It is our national constitution; it contains the pact entered into by the old provinces at the time of confederation, binding the dominion and each province; and it is the great charter of the rights of minorities, particularly of those of the French tongue and culture. Let no bold hand be lightly laid on this constitution to overturn its provisions without consultation with the provinces.
The present government has departed far from the views championed by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the late Right Hon, Ernest Lapointe in this chamber.
The Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, on January 28, 1907, said in this house, as reported in Hansard, page 2199, volume II:
Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces, but adhered to by all the nine provinces who have entered it, and I submit to the judgment of this house and to the best consideration of its members, that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on the same. My hon. friend from York, N.B. (Mr. Crocket) stated in the course of his argument that we have announced in the speech from the throne that we are going to ask parliament to alter the financial terms of confederation. That is very true; but my hon. friend should know that we did not come to that conclusion except after conference with the provinces and after all the provincial governments had united in a prayer for the same.
And, in 1924, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe said in this house, as reported on page 529 of Hansard:
The British North America Act and the limitations which are imposed upon our powers, if there are such limitations, are made of our own free will. There is no inferiority in that. It is the result of a treaty as my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) said. It is a treaty between various colonies which entered into an agreement. They fixed what the powers of the central parliament should be, and they also fixed what the powers of the various provinces which succeeded the colonies of that time would be, and this was ratified and accepted by the imperial parliament of the time. Everything we have or have not is because we wanted it so. Now this treaty cannot be changed, it has been the contention of many constitutional authorities. and I think it is only fair that no change should be accepted, without the consent of all those who were parties to it. It is a sacred treaty just as is any other treaty; it is no "scrap of paper."


Mr. MICHAUD:: Hear, hear.

Redistribution


Donald Methuen Fleming: And in 1925, page 300 of Hansard, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe is reported as follows:
Surely, the British North America Act cannot be made a scrap of paper, as that treaty was made at that time. There is a way, perhaps, yes; but the only way is the friendly way, is the legal way, is the constitutional way. It is to approach the various parties to the agreement with a view to arriving at an understanding as to the changes which may be necessary and which may be agreed upon by all the parties to the pact. As I have said, I do not think there could be any other way; I believe that any arbitrary action in the matter would simply defeat its own purpose and would strike at the root of our national unity. I think I cite history correctly when I say that every time there has been a dispute in Canada as regards provincial rights, those who were on the side of provincial rights were victorious in the end. I do not think there can be any attempt to change the mutual charter of both the dominion and the provinces by the arbitrary action of this parliament. I do not think it is possible to do it. To those who want changes, and I am willing to admit that there might be the necessity for changes. I would say that the ony way to get them is the constitutional way, to ask the consent of the various parties to confederation. Mr. Speaker, after sixty years of confederation I think we may safely say that notwithstanding the great obstacles which were in their way the fathers of confederation who gathered in 1865 did a great work; I think we may boldly say after sixty years that their work has heen a very satisfactory one. It was not perfect; there is no perfection in human devices, but certainly they did the best they could.
As I have said, I would not like to leave the impression that my own view is that no changes should be made at any time, or that no changes are possible.
And further on:
I am not one of those who are riveted to the past and who are prepared to deny to our children the liberty of the future, but those changes the necessity for which may be seen as a result of our experience of sixty years cannot be made unless you proceed in a legal and constitutional way; they cannot be made arbitrarily; they cannot be made only at the will and at the request of the dominion parliament; but those who are just as much interested as the dominion parliament in this matter must have their say, must be consulted, and must give their assent.
And finally, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, speaking on section 51 of the British North America Act made the following statement in this house during the 1932-33 session, as reported at page 1593 of Hansard-.
A suggestion was made that in order to equalize with Ontario, the number of representatives from Quebec should be increased. I do not think that would be a fair way of settling it. I believe the representation of Quebec should remain at 65, as fixed by the British North America Act, but that subsection 4 of section 51 should disappear. Then we would have a real representation by population.
The right hon. gentleman opposite has stated that before parliament meets again at the end of January there will be an interprovincial conference. There are certain changes in our constitution and with regard to taxation which seem desirable. I submit the Prime Minister should place this matter before the premiers from the various provinces. If that were done I believe they would come to the conclusion that subsection 4, which certainly works unfairly, ought to be repealed.
The voices of the great Laurier and Lapointe are stilled. Their wise words are no longer heeded by this government. The cause which they championed has been renounced by those who lead the Liberal party in this house to-day.
On the other hand, the Progressive Conservative party subscribes to these views so eloquently championed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, and takes issue with the present Minister of Justice and the government. The Progressive Conservative party declares that the provinces should be consulted before this, or any other amendment as far-reaching in its effects and implications, is sought by parliament in the constitution. In this important question the Progressive Conservative party is willing to abide by the results of consultation with the provinces.


Mr. EDOUARD RINFRET (Outremont) (Text):: We have before us a resolution the express effect of which will be a more equitable apportionment of members of parliament between the various provinces. Everyone in this house seems to be satisfied with the merits of the resolution, but some hon. members are critical of the method proposed to be adopted to achieve what seems to be a common goal. We have heard criticism to the effect that the desired result could be obtained without the necessity of applying to the imperial parliament. We have been criticized both in and outside this house because we have not consulted and we do not intend to consult and have the authorization or consent of the provinces. It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to consider and analyse these two contentions and to try to show that they are far from conclusive, as was claimed, and that they should be put aside'.
When I listened to the learned and strong expose of his case made by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) I was really and genuinely impressed by his logic and I was tempted to agree with him completely; but upon a more careful study of the question and upon a more lengthy scrutiny of the decisions of the Supreme Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island references, I have come to the conclusion that his argument could not possibly
Redistribution

be sustained and that the course followed by the present government was the only adequate one to cope with the situation.
In his expose of the decisions on the two references the hon. member for Stanstead contended that the courts had not been seized of the question covered by the third consid-erant of the resolution before us. With that part of his contention I am in accord. The two questions put to the learned judges did not directly cover the matter at issue in the present debate. I shall read them from Canadian Reports, 13 Appeal Cases, page 343:
In determining the number of representatives in the House of Commons to which Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are respectively entitled after each decennial census, should the words "aggregate population of Canada" in subparagraph 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act be construed as meaning the population of the four original provinces of Canada, or as meaning the whole population of Canada including that of provinces which had been admitted to the confederation subsequent to the passage of the British North America Act?
And the other one, at page 342:
Although the population of Prince Edward Island as ascertained at the census of 1901, if divided by the unit of representation ascertained by dividing the number of sixty-five into the population of Quebec, is not sufficient to give six members in the House of Commons of Canada to that province, is the representation of Prince Edward Island in the House of Commons liable, under the British North America Act and amendments thereto and the terms of union of 1873 under which that province entered confederation, to be reduced below six, the number granted to that province by the said terms of union of 1873?
I said that it did not directly refer to the specific question. Everyone will have noticed that in both the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island references there is an implied directive for the consideration of the whole of subsection 4 of section 51.
By reading such subsection and by comparing it with the above two orders of reference, one cannot but conclude that, in order to decide whether Prince Edward Island's representation in the House of Commons should be reduced below six, as a consequence of the operation of section 51 of the British North America Act, it is absolutely necessary to consider the terms of the whole subsection 4 thereof.
I was struck by the argument of the hon. member for Stanstead when he said that this question had not been discussed except by Mr. Newcombe, ' acting as counsel for the federal government, and then only occasionally, as a casual answer to a question put to him by one of the judges. I found, however, that all or practically all the counsels representing the central government and the

governments of the various provinces argued the question of readjustment in a more or less elaborate manner.
Mr. Irving, representing Ontario in the New Brunswick reference, touched upon it in his argument, as appears from the report of the case to be found in 33 Canada Supreme Court Reports, at page 479. Mr. Pugsley, counsel for New Brunswick, explains the workings of the "saving clause" after a question of Mr. Justice Sedgewick at pages 500 and 501 of the same report. He asserted that this saving clause was "no safeguard at all, if every ten years you can bring in a new province from the vast territories of the northwest, the whole population of which is to be counted against you." Mr. E. M. Macdonald, for Nova Scotia, just mentioned the "saving clause" at page 511. Mr. Fitzpatrick, for the Dominion of Canada, gave a lengthy illustration of its practical application to Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. His figures, which strangely resemble those of the hon. member for Stanstead, are to be found at pages 527 and 528 of the report. It is to be noted here that the comparison is established between 1891 and 1901, a ten-year period. Again, at page 543, Mr. Fitzpatrick insists that a readjustment is to take place on the completion of each census, which under section 51 is to be held every ten years. Mr. Cannon, for the province of Quebec, says, at page 560:
Now, representation by population being the accepted principle in the British North America Act, section 51 goes on to state how this representation by population will be readjusted. This readjustment is to take place under section 51 every ten years, after each decennial census, and subsections 1 and 2 fix the unit of representation under which the redistribution shall take place.
Is it any wonder, then, that Mr. Justice Girouard should, in his reasons, at page 578, conclude that:
. . . the provision (of section 51) was intended to cover the cases of all the provinces for which the previous section had provided that there should be a decennial census . . .
Is it extraordinary that Mr. Justice Mills should have expressed himself in this manner, at page 584:
It was agreed that the census should be taken every ten years, beginning with the year 1871. and the number of representatives mentioned, with which a province entered the union, was to continue to be the number by which it was entitled to be represented in the Commons of Canada until its population rvas ascertained by the taking of the census, after which a readjustment was to be effected, if this was found necessary. If the population of a province bore to the aggregate population of Canada a less proportion by one-twentieth than it did by the previous census its representation was to be diminished, but if the relative diminution was

Redistribution
less than one-twentieth it was not thought desirable to necessitate the disturbance of these electoral districts by requiring readjustment.
It is also interesting to note that the three other judges, Judges Taschereau, Sedgewick and Armour, concurred in the opinion of Mr. Justice Mills.
To turn now to the Prince Edward Island reference, Mr. Newcombe says, at page 653 of the same report:
Now if you consider a case happening at the end of each decade where the diminution is the twenty-first part or upwards of the one-twentieth part, you see that there is a check in the process every ten years, and the province starts over again, and you cannot go back to the beginning for the purpose of considering the proportion. Therefore it may be that a province will have a very much larger representation ultimately in the House of Commons than its population would entitle it to having regard to the unit of the population of the province of Quebec, because if it can barely avoid during each ten years the proportionate reduction of one-twentieth part, it gets a new proportion established . . .


John Thomas Hackett: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: With pleasure.


John Thomas Hackett: Does he agree that Mr. Newcombe, in submitting that argument, stated that it was irrelevant and could have no bearing upon the case?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes; and then he went on for a page and a half to explain what he meant by this one-twentieth proposition. He was followed by Mr. Aylesworth, for Prince Edward Island, who continued exactly the same discussion. Mr. Aylesworth said, at page 660:
From 1881 to 1891 the population of the island increased in fact but still they lose a member. Why? Because they have not increased as fast as Quebec and because their diminution is in fact more than one-twentieth part of the whole. Therefore that protective clause did not protect us in 1891, and it does not protect us to-day in 1901. It will not protect us ten years hence, for although we do increase in population we do not increase proportionately. That is the trouble and just as certainly as we lost one member in 1891 and another in 1901, we shall lose another ten years hence and another twenty years hence.
The opinion of the court was delivered by the chief justice, and it contains the following remark, at page 665:
. . . the representation of the province shall be readjusted after every decennial census, as provided for by section 51 of the British North America Act . . .
Before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, by reason of the similarity of the two questions, they were argued together and
the judgment of their lordships was delivered by Sir Arthur Wilson. His reasons are in part as follows. I have already quoted Canadian reports 13 Appeal Cases at page 360:
Their lordships think (this is more than an obiter dictum by only one judge. It is the judgment of the committee)-their lordships think this is to give too narrow a meaning to the word-[DOT]
The word being "readjustment".
In their opinion, when, as a result of a census, the representation of the provinces is reconsidered and the necessary changes, if any, made to bring it into harmony with the result of the census, that is a readjustment within the meaning of subsection 4, whether there be or be not any change in the ease of any particular province.
When my hon. friend says that this is a mere obiter dictum which is not binding upon us, I cannot follow him, because it is the unequivocal opinion of their lordships. I believe that even if we accepted my learned friend's contention that it is an obiter dictum and referred the matter to the supreme court and afterwards to the judicial committee, their lordships would certainly adhere to their former judgment and would to-day give the same interpretation as they did in 1904. Not that I like that interpretation; I think it is erroneous. I would much rather accept the opinion of the hon. member for Stanstead. But our system of justice is so organized that in case of a conflict between the advice of counsel and the ruling of a judge, it is usually the latter that overrides. Under the common law, the jurisprudence is made up of judgments from our courts and our magistrates and not of opinions from our attorneys and barristers. It is sometimes disappointing, but it is so. I know that in this case I would be much more pleased to favour the doctrine enunciated by my learned friend the hon. member for Stanstead than the principle incorporated in the privy council decision. But, alas, I have no choice.
It seems extraordinary that our constitution should have been altered in the way it was by this decision. Of course, it sometimes operates in a gradual way, and Doctor O. D. Skelton recognized that the constitution could be changed by progressive judicial interpretation. Upon his appearance before the special committee on the British North America Act in 1935 he admitted that "theoretically the courts merely decide what the law is and do not make law, but inevitably, at the end of a long period of time, it is found that the constitution is different from what it was at the beginning". As an illustration, Doctor Skelton cites the case of Canada where, under the guiding hand of Lord Watson
Redistribution

and Lord Haldane-I cite him-"a constitution which, in the mind and intent of the fathers of confederation, was to make the central government the predominant factor, the residuary legatee, has been interpreted definitely in the contrary direction." I may add that this is not only true of the privy council but also of the Supreme Court of Canada. But in all other instances changes have been gradual. Here, in this event, it was brutal, abrupt and instantaneous. The members of the judicial committee advised His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given. His Majesty in council issued an order in council, and so it was that the constitution of Canada was changed without any consultation with the parliament of Canada-not even with the government of Canada, nor with the advice or consent of the Canadian provinces.
It is well that all Canadians should remember that their constitution, being an imperial statute, may be amended by the imperial parliament alone. Students are discussing whether our constitution is a pact, a compact, a treaty, a contract, a compromise or a statute. These words have been used successively by Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, and the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, to cite only those who have left this chamber. I have stated my opinion, and I offer it with all the deference due to those great men, but strong in the support of the parliamentary counsel of the Senate in 1939, whose opinion is to be found in his report to the Honourable' the Speaker of the Senate in 1939, relating to the British North America Act. At page 17 of the fifth annex thereof he classifies the British North America Act as the-
. . . result of legislative compacts between the imperial government and the original provinces of confederation. These compacts are now at law merely part of the history of the statute. They have been executed by and they are at law merged into the statute, which statute could be totally repealed by the imperial parliament at any time without Canada's consent and despite Canada's protest, notwithstanding the history, terms, intent or purpose of the statute.
I am not alarmed over this possibility, because I feel certain that the imperial parliament would not of its own volition, without Canada's request, alter, amend or a jortiori repeal the British North America Act. But this is technically the legal situation. I wonder if those who oppose our obtaining the right to amend our own constitution have considered this possibility. I wonder if they have realized that, of all the British Commonwealth members we are the only' nation not yet capable of amending our constitution. To think that the

procedure for obtaining this right would be so simple:	"Any time we wish to amend our
constitution, or to obtain the power to have the constitution amended of our own right, independently of Westminster altogether; all we have to do is to present an address from both houses of this parliament to the parliament at Westminster and that address will be given effect to, in legislation, at Westminster." Those are the words of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the House of Commons in the debate of February 24, 1930, and can be found in Hansard of that day at page 46.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Who ever disputed that?
On motion of Mr. Rinfret the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
' Wednesday, June 19, 1946
The hbuse met at three o'clock.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on June 13, the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) on behalf of the leader of the opposition asked if I could supply copies of a report by F. P. Walsh of the New Zealand Federation of Labour. I have obtained copies, and have had one placed on the desk of each hon. member.



STANDING ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MATTHEW MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) moved that the third report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented on June 17, 1946, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. REID:: 1.	Were the fishing activities of Japan in areas outside of her territorial waters curtailed under the terms of the peace treaty?
2.	If sc, what restrictions were imposed?

Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The peace treaty with Japan has not as yet been negotiated. According to the order of August 21, 1945 from the supreme commander for the allied powers to the Japanese government, under requirements for allied entry into Japan, Japanese fishing vessels of 100 gross tons and over were to undertake no movejnent beyond voyages in progress pending instructions from the supreme commander. The supreme commander for the allied powers is authorized to regulate the fishing activities of Japan in accordance with security considerations until international agreements are negotiated.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


PULP WOOD EXPORTS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How much pulpwood is annually exported to the United States?
2.	What is the estimated value of it per annum for the last three years of record?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1 and 2. Canadian exports of pulpwood to the United States, calendar years 1943, 1944 and 1945.
Year	Cord	Value1943	
1,408,363	$18,565,2651944	
1,390,826	20,012,2851945	
1,576.821	24,881,928


VETERANS LAND ACT-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	How many veterans have been established in Saskatchewan under the Veterans Land Act as at May 31, 1946?
2.	How many veterans have been established on (a) small holdings; (b) provincial crown lands, as at May 31, 1946?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1. 1,000.
2. (a) Saskatchewan, 71; dominion, 3,959. (b) Saskatchewan, 32; dominion, 57.


HOUSING-PICTOU, N.S.
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	How many persons are employed under the Wartime Housing Act in the town of Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	How many of these employees are war veterans ?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Eight full-time employees (five men and three women) are employed by Wartime Housing Limited in Pictou, Nova Scotia.
2.	One male employee is a veteran of world war I. Three of the men were engaged in 1942 and two in 1943.


COAL IMPORTS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What amount of United States anthracite, bituminous and soft coal was imported into Canada during the last year of record? _
2.	What was the value of coal so imported?


Douglas Charles Abbott: 1 and 2.
Canadian imports from the United States of coal entered for during the calendar year 1945
Item
Briquettes of coal or coke	
Anthracite screenings or dust	
Anthracite, domestic sizes-grate, egg, stove, nut, doubles, cobbles
and trebles	
Anthracite-peas, beans and smaller sizes, n.o.p	
Coal, bituminous, and coal, n.o.p	
Coal, lignite	
Coal, ex-warehoused for ships' stores	
consumption
Ton	Value
142,435	$ 1,114,167
21,854	65,553
2,435,590	22,472,156
926,913	4.851.040
21,135,087	72,979.284
467	2,229
513,277	1,882,047


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. CHURCH:: For a list of employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at Toronto, showing (a) how long they have been residing in that city;
(b)	their prior occupation and residence; (e) length of service; (d) salaries and other emoluments?


REMEMBRANCE DAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. The statement was made at noon to-day over the air that His Majesty the King had set the first Sunday before the eleventh
Labour Conditions

of November as Remembrance day and that the cenotaph was to be marked "1939-1945" accordingly. Has any consideration been given to taking similar action in Canada and, if not, will the government consider it?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am informed that the matter has been considered within the recent past, and a definite announcement will be made later.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
seamen's STRIKE-PROGRESS OP NEGOTIATIONS
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what is the situation on the great lakes with respect to coal and shipping. Are we going to have to wait for settlement of this dispute until Santa Claus comes round at Christmas? Has there been any change in the situation?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think my hon. friend is serious about Santa Claus. In reply to the hon. member I regret to confirm the news that the large majority of owners of lake shipping have refused to agree to the government's proposals for the settlement of the seamen's strike. These proposals, which the strikers belonging to the Canadian seamen's union had approved as a basis of return to work, are as follows:
1.	That the cqmpanies and the union, as well as the companies in respect of which the union has been certified under the wartime labour relations regulations, P.C. 1003, will make joint application to the national war labour board for permission to introduce immediately the eight-hour day, three-watch system (four hours on watch, eight hours off) on all their vessels and pending decision thereon by the national war labour board the companies shall introduce the eight-hour day, three-watch system, with a minimum extra personnel of one wheelsman, one oiler, one watchman and one messman. Any further details regarding the method whereby the three-watch system can be most effectively applied shall be negotiated by the parties.
2.	That the agreement between the companies and the union dated August 1, 1945, shall continue in effect and negotiations will be immediately entered into for a new agreement covering wages, union security and other working conditions to be effective as from August 1, 1946. To assist such negotiations the union and the companies will jointly request the Minister of Labour of Canada to appoint an industrial disputes inquiry commissioner.
3.	That all crew members required by the companies during the period until a new agreement is negotiated, will be hired in accordance with the terms of the existing agreement referred to in clause 2 hereof.
4.	That the companies agree to reinstate without discrimination all members of the union who were on their ships at the time the strike comfMr. Coldwell.]
menced except those employees who have been convicted of violations of the criminal code, and the union shall, on the signing of this memorandum of agreement, declare the strike ended.
Consideration is now being given to the next step which should be taken in order to bring this unfortunate, costly and unnecessary strike to an end. As I have stated before, no thinking citizen can approve a twelve hour working day for any man. The strike started on this issue, but since then the operators of ships have made application to the national war labour board for authority to institute an eight-hour day. The other questions now at issue are keeping the parties from getting together.
I suppose the attitude of the owners of the ships is largely due to certain lawless acts along the St. Lawrence and Welland canal systems and in the upper lakes. No one can condone lawless acts committed by anyone. Violence never yet won for a just cause. An uncompromising attitude on the part of employers and employees is not in the interest of the employers and employees nor the country at large. I still hope that reason will prevail in this dispute. If that is not apparent very quickly, suitable action will be taken.


Thomas Langton Church: I cannot understand why the government does not operate the ships on the great lakes pending a settlement.


Mr. KARL HOMUTH (Waterloo South):: In view of the statement from the shipowners appearing in this morning's press that any report given out would be given out by the minister, can he tell us whether or not the shipowners have made counter-proposals?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can read the telegram from the shipowners. It is addressed to myself and reads:
This wire being sent to the Ministers of Labour, Transport and Reconstruction and Supply:
"The undersigned companies operating vessels on the great lakes and St. Lawrence waterways have considered the memoranda of proposed agreements submitted by the Department of Labour under date of June 13 and have decided that, first, they will not enter into any negotiations whatever with the individuals who are the present officers of the Canadian seamen's union. Second, they will, however, negotiate with responsible representatives of their employees on the following basis:
(a)	Provided they return to the ships immediately all former crew members will be reengaged under previous terms and conditions with the exception of those members implicated in acts of violence, the eight-hour day dealt with in (d) below to be effective immediately the national war labornr board permits the operators to institute it.
(b)	All interference with the manning and operation of ships will come to an end immediately.
(c)	The government will be requested to appoint a commissioner to deal with all questions in dispute as quickly as possible.

Privilege-Mr. Pouliot
(d)	The companies will make every effort to implement the eight-hour day by requesting an early decision from the national war labour board in accordance with application made May 21, 1946. Third, failing acceptance of paragraph two the operators request in view of the national emergency caused by the shortage of 'coal, oil and other essential commodities resulting from this totally unauthorized and illegal strike that the government authorities direct that control of. operations of all vessels on the great lakes and St. Lawrence waterways be entrusted to the Canadian shipping board as during the war or to some other properly constituted government authority and that the striking seamen be ordered back to work on the terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike on the understanding that the eight-hour day in accordance with the application made by operators on May 21, 1946, to the national war labour board will be placed in effect immediately if the national war labour board will permit the whole matter then to be adjusted according to recommendations of a commission or commissioner to be appointed by the government."
The telegram is signed by the following:
Canada Steamship Lines Limited; I'aterson Steamships Limited; Colonial Steamships Limited; Sarnia Steamships Limited; Algoma Central Steamship Line; St. Lawrence Steamships Ltd.; Powell Transports Ltd.; Northwest Steamships Ltd.; Coal Carriers Corp.; Diamond Steamships Ltd.; Hindman Transportation Co. Ltd.; Valley Camp Coal Co. of Canada Ltd.; National Sand and Material Co. Ltd.; Mohawk Navigation Co. Ltd.; Inland Lines Ltd.; Hall Corp. of Canada Ltd.; Marine Industries Ltd.; Keystone Transports Ltd.: Canada Cement Co. Ltd.; Foote Transit Co. Ltd.; Gulf and Lake Navigation Co. Ltd.:	Transit Tankers Ltd.;
Driftwood Lands and Timber Ltd.


TYPOGRAPHICAL UNIOX AND SOUTHAM NEWSPAPERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour about the dispute between the typographical union and the Southam newspapers. I have sent notice of the question to the minister. As he knows, it deals with what is recognized as the crux of the dispute, namely, the Winnipeg Tribune's objection to the provision about union laws not being subject to arbitration.


James Horace King: According to the rules the hon. member is not permitted to give information. His question should be brief and to the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is my question: Is there anything new about this provision? Are the Southam newspapers other than the Winnipeg Tribune willing to agree to this same provision, and has the Winnipeg Tribune offered to submit its company by-laws to' arbitration?


Humphrey Mitchell: In answer to the first part of the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the fact is that in the provinces where the wartime labour relations regulations, P.C. 1003, apply to printing establishments, namely in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, all the terms of the collective agreement between the employees and the employer are subject to final and binding arbitration. This is provided for in sections 17 and 18 of the regulations.
The typographical union insists that its own general rules, including local union rules, must become a part of the collective agreement with every employer with whom such agreement is negotiated. One provision of the general rules of the union is that such rules are not subject to arbitration. In view of what I have just said it will be seen that the union law in that respect is in conflict with the provisions of the wartime labour relations regulations.
With respect to the second part of the question, I am informed that the Winnipeg Tribune did not insist that its by-laws should become part of the collective agreement between itself and the union.


CLOTHING DRIVE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) or the appropriate member of the cabinet. It concerns the clothing drive now in progress to collect clothes for Europe, and it arises from a statement made byr Doctor Murdock. I should like to know if both new and used clothes can be sent to Europe.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: I do not think I am the proper minister to which that question should be addressed.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Would it be the Minister of National War Services?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National War Services):: It is intended that only used clothing should be donated in the drive.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I rise to a question of privilege. Yesterday one of my colleagues was too
Windsor District Tornado
[Stage Direction]
quick in referring to a previous statement I had made about Doctor Chisholm. I was asking a question, and referring to my statement I said that he was speaking through his hat. Is it not possible to confiscate it and burn it?
An hon. MEMBER:: What, the hat?


Mr. POULIOT:: The hat.



FINANCIAL AID TO OPERATORS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: On Monday
last the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) asked this question:
I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Will the minister make a statement to the house at an early date indicating how many Alberta coal mine operators have sought financial aid from federal government agencies in order to increase production, and whether or not such financial assistance has been refused?
The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton then asked:
Will the minister include British Columbia in the statement that he is to make?
With reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Lethbridge, I would state that the number of coal mine operators in the province of Alberta who have or who still are receiving financial aid is seventy-one, and there are nine in the province of British Columbia. No financial assistance has been refused to any coal mine operator where in the opinion of the emergency coal production board cr coal control such assistance would have aided the over-all situation.



WINDSOR DISTRICT TORNADO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Does the government intend to make any report to the house on the widespread damage caused by the recent storm in Kent and Essex counties, and is consideration being given to providing assistance, particularly to the farmers who have lost their crops and to persons who have been made homeless?


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) and

myself went to the county from which we come, to see for ourselves the extent of the damage in that area. On our way by plane we had a good opportunity of viewing the countiy from about the Chatham area into the precincts of Essex county. It was evident from the air that a tremendous amount of damage had been done to farm areas by the storm which began some time on Sunday.
With regard to the damage by the tornado in the city of Windsor and its environs, the situation there is not as serious as at first glance it was thought. That, however, does not mean that the situation is not serious. It is difficult at the moment to assess the full amount of damage both to private and to public property.
The house, I know, will regret to learn that somewhere in the neighbourhood of fifteen to twenty deaths are definite. We visited some hospitals yesterday and it was evident from the condition of some of the patients there that there may be additional fatalities.
At this juncture I simply want to thank the Minister of Reconstmction and Supply (Mr. Howe) for taking steps long before any request was even made to him to provide priorities for reconstruction purposes; the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Gibson), who because of a threatening water supply situation sent in the necessary equipment, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) for his immediate assistance and offer to assist in providing medical supplies and the like.
A number of individuals have had their homes and their possessions completely wiped out. The chairman of the Red Cross emergency fund committee, in a telephone call to me a few moments ago, stated that from many quarters in Canada offers of assistance were coming in. Until there is a full opportunity of appraising the extent of the damage I need say no more, except, on behalf of the people of Essex county, that we are all very grateful for the expression of interest from this house and from the people of Canada generally.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I suggest to the minister that he include in his thanks the authorities at Detroit?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. The people in the city of Detroit and neighbouring cities of the United States have been of great help, and I am sure that all of us from the area concerned are very grateful to them.

Library of Parliament
The house having reverted to the order for motions:



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the first report of the joint committee of both houses on the library of parliament, presented on May 30, be now concurred in.
It is non-controversial, I think.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have just a word to say. Formerly I was a member of that committee; now I am not. There are treasures in the library, and these treasures are in the cellar. There are pipes passing over a most valuable collection of newspapers. The whole history of Canada is there; the collection is unique. Very often we have urged that there be a fireproof library to house all these treasures. I remember when I first made the suggestion ten or twelve years ago the then minister of public works, under another administration, told me that the floors were so wonderful that they had to be kept waxed. They are wooden floors; they are noisy to walk on. I understand that vigilance is practised, that a constable is on duty in the library twenty-four hours of the day. But that is not enough. There might be a short circuit anyhere which would result in destruction of the library. Is it not possible to have a new library, a national library in Ottawa, where all these treasures could be kept, and where they could be utilized by students and scholars who wish to be informed on the history of Canada? Moreover, it is impossible to work in the library. I praise the staff very highly. It is composed of most efficient men, and they are always ready to serve. Members of parliament of both houses are privileged in that they can have books from the library in their rooms, which are also fireproof, but people outside, university men and others, cannot take advantage of the library. Who can work there? There is so much noise when anyone walks the floor, the light is bad, and there is no accommodation for anyone to work there.
In the first place there should be a complete classification of all the books to help all those who want to work in the library. We are here to work, and our work should be facilitated. In this matter I have only the highest praise for all members of the staff from Mr. Desrochers and Mr. Hardy down, and I make special mention also of Mr. Tarte; I should like to mention them all, one after the other. I hope, sir, that something will be done in the
supplementary estimates, not merely for the use of members of parliament, for that would be selfish, but for the use of all of those who want to learn the history of Canada. What we have there should be publicized. The catalogue we have is insignificant, because it does not tell us what we could find in the library. The matter has been studied by the separate school board of Ontario, and by my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin), who gave a very fine address on the subject; there is no better-read man than the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is most congenial. I hope they will come to an agreement to do something in this regard for the benefit of this country, and to preserve treasures which we could not replace with millions of dollars.
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am not going to delay the house, but I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) upon taking this opportunity of raising the question of the library. In my opinion Canada should have a national library. I have thought for a long time that if we were to have a national memorial the most suitable one would be a national cultural centre in this city, and I would hope that the provinces might follow the example of the capital city and establish similar centres in their own areas. When I came to Ottawa some years ago I thought that, coming to the capital city, one would be able to enjoy good opera, good drama, good pictures, a good library. Many countries with smaller populations and fewer resources than Canada have facilities of this kind which put our country to shame. Most of us are interested in what has been done over the past twenty years in welding this country into a real nation, and it seems to me that nothing would bring about a greater national consciousness than the establishment of a national library and a national cultural centre. I warmly congratulate the hon. member for Temiscouata and thank him for giving me the opportunity of rising to say these few words. I feel that no matter how beautiful we make Ottawa-and I want to see it the "city beautiful", which I know has been the dream of the Prime Minister himself-it should also be a cultural centre which would epitomize the various cultures we have imported into this country and assist in welding them into one Canadian culture distinctive of Canada herself.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I rise to make a suggestion which is very much less dignified and important than those which have been made, though I
Redistribution

fully agree with them, and that is that the library would be a very much better place to work in if it was regarded as a library and not as a congregating room for the purposes of all kinds of personal conversations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Wentworth raised the point that the answer I made to his question on Monday last was not complete. I would refer him to remarks made by myself as reported in Hansard, page 951, in regard to a similar question.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member has referred to something else. The hon. member for Wentworth asked for an answer to a certain question, and an answer given at any other time is not an answer to his question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, just the principle established; that was all.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 18, 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. Diefenbaker.
Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, last night when the house adjourned I was discussing the simplicity of the procedure for the obtention of the right to amend our own constitution. What would not be so simple would be the procedure for possible future amendments of the constitution. It is to be hoped that the endeavours of the Dominion-Provincial Conference of 1927 will be carried on and implemented as soon as possible; This would, once and for all, put an end to the dispute concerning the necessity for all provinces to be consulted when an amendment is sought.
It would not, to be sure, terminate the discussion of the true nature of the constitution, whether it is a contract or a statute, but it would, it is hoped, eliminate the occasion for such discussion.

Would you permit me, Mr. Speaker, in this connection to place on Hansard these few phrases from Keith's Constitutional Law of the British Dominions, edition of 1933:
This view-
That expressed by Mr. Ferguson when premier of Ontario, that no change of importance can be made to the British North America Act without provincial consent.
-is based on the idea that the federal bond is the result of a compact or treaty, a term which admittedly was often used in the debates in the Canadian legislature when that body in 1865 approved the agreement achieved with the maritime provinces in 1864. To this view it is objected that in fact the Quebec agreement was never accepted by the legislatures of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and that in fact in certain matters the constitution prepared in 1864 was modified under imperial auspices before enacted in 1867, while as regards the other provinces, especially those created by the dominion, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, any idea of a compact is absurd.
As I have said, I hope the question will soon be settled and the right of amending our constitution conferred, with as little delay as possible, on some authority within the confines of Canada, with all guarantees necessary to assure the full exercise of the rights by minorities. Then it is hoped it will no longer be necessary to ask the question, have the provinces to be consulted, and have they to consent to amendments to the constitution.
At the Dominion-Provincial Conference of 1927 on amendments to the British North America Act, it was proposed that:
In the event of ordinary amendments being contemplated the provincial legislatures should be consulted, and a majority consent of the provinces obtained, while in the event of vital and fundamental amendments being sought involving such questions as provincial rights, the rights of minorities, or rights generally, affecting race, language and creed, the unanimous consent of the provinces should be obtained.
This proposition was unfortunately not acted upon. What then have we got to base an opinion upon? The Canadian constitution, like the British constitution, is made up of customs. Let us see what has been the custom here in Canada.
There have been, in all, nine amendments to the constitution. All were granted without discussion by the imperial parliament. In all cases the demand was made by the central authorities-in one case, by the federal government, but this was condemned by the unanimous vote of the house upon motion of Mr. Holton seconded by Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. The vote was, yeas, 136; nays, none. All subsequent addresses were passed by parliament.

Redistribution
2C37
In two instances, when it was felt that provincial rights were affected, the legislatures were consulted; otherwise they were not. In two cases there were protests on the part of one province, once from British Columbia and once from Quebec. A single attempt was made by the provinces to alter the British North America Act without the consent of parliament at Ottawa. The incident is related by Doctor Ollivier in his "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty". He tell us how the provinces convened in October, 1887; how they adopted eighteen resolutions, of which twelve were readjustments of the constitution, with a view to extending the power of the provinces at the expense of the federal parliament ; how the central government refused to give its support to the proposed amendments; how the resolutions of the conference were forwarded through the usual channels to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who formally acknowledged receipt thereof. But he concludes with these words:
No action was taken upon the resolutions by the imperial parliament.
I have cited these various examples to show that the imperial parliament, which is the amending power, will act only upon the request of the federal authorities and notwithstanding the absence of consent or even the opposition of the provinces. That is the situation as we have it to-day, and when we are told that by voting for the resolution now before the house, we are creating a precedent, I say that if precedent there is to be created, then it was created a long time ago, less than five years after the sanction of the constitution, at a time when the fathers of confederation were still alive and in parliament at Ottawa. Yet there was no question at that time of asking the approval of the provinces.
It may be argued, I know, that in the other instances the amendments had to do with matters not strictly connected with provincial rights, but that now it is different, and that the proportionate representation of the provinces is an encroachment upon the provinces. I have often asked myself whether here, in this house, I was a representative of my constituency, whether I was a representative of my province, or whether I was a representative of Canada as a whole. Listening to some hon. members, I wonder whether they-or I-understand their duty correctly as members of parliament. Some have treated this question as one from Nova Scotia; others, as one from British Columbia; still others, as one from Saskatchewan. Few have considered the matter in.the interests of the whole of Canada. I was glad the other night to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) explain that the
government plan had not been conceived by Quebec, because sometimes I was annoyed by some people wishing to make this a Quebec problem when it is not.
There is a marked leaning on the part of certain persons towards envisaging everything as a Quebec problem. I think it is high time that such wrong tactics be abandoned, and I am glad for this reason, Mr. Speaker, to see that reference to Quebec as the pivotal province will cease to be made as soon as this resolution is passed. Quebec was unfairly treated in the last redistribution. Even members of the Progressive Conservative party are ready to admit it. Yet it was their party that affected the distribution of seats. British Columbia is entitled to higher representation; Saskatchewan and Manitoba would lose respectively four and three seats; Ontario would have to abandon seven members if we were to adopt the argument of the hon. member for Stan-stead.
Is not a member, wherever he comes from, to take note of these facts? Is he supposed to refuse to see whatever takes place in any other than his own province? Is he not supposed rather to consider his local problems in relation to the whole Canadian picture? Is he not in a much better position to be of assistance to his own people when he does take the problems of others into consideration? On the other hand, are we to forget completely where we come from? Are we to close our eyes to all local difficulties? I do not think this would be fair to our electors and our fellow citizens. Be that as it may, I consider myself-and I feel quite sure every member of this house coming from the province of Quebec considers himself-just as good a Quebec citizen as the present premier of that province. We in this house have been elected by the same electors as elected his party in Quebec and defeated his independents in the federal field; and we claim to have as much at heart, as he claims he has, the interests of the province of Quebec. We might even be in a much better position than he to weight our problems in the light of the general good.
I claim for myself and my compatriots the right to represent Quebec if need be, and I believe we can do it in a much better way than he can in his own ivory tower called Laur-entie. He had a wonderful opportunity for protecting his province as far as federal representation is concerned, and he has done all in his power to prevent the increase of eight members offered by the Liberal government. If he were serious he would not find all sorts of excuses, and faux fuyants to guarantee to his province the eight members to whom it is rightly entitled and who are long overdue.
Redistribution

How can he possibly claim that voting for the resolution would create a precedent when he knows very well that on seven previous occasions the provinces have not been consulted in connection with similar amendments to the constitution? If he were sincere he would rather say: The essence and the spirit of the constitution have on seven previous occasions been amended without the provinces being consulted; is it not time therefore that the constitution be amended in the same fashion in order to restore the essence of the act, which has been badly deformed by the judicial body?
I contend that my representation here is of the same kind as that of Sir George Etienne Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald. They both served as members of the federal government after creating confederation, and they both continued to defend the rights of their respective provinces in relation to the whole of Canada. Why'should the right that was granted Cartier and his fellow members in 1867 be refused the present members representing the province of Quebec? Why can we not claim to act for the province of Quebec when it is deemed necessary that provincial consultation be made? Why should it not be left to the federal members to decide whether the provinces should be consulted? Is it not upon this theory that, in the past, all seven amendments, not specifically identified with purely provincial rights, have been treated? There were in the House of Commons representatives of the province of Quebec having the same rights as had formerly Cartier and others, and they were consulted the same as we are to-day consulted concerning the proposed change.
I purposely have not used the word amendment because I do not think it is one at all. In my opinion it is an explanation; it is an elucidation; it is the restoration of the spirit of the constitution. It has been variously argued that the basis of our representation is population. I believe it would be more adequate to say that proportionate representation was the keynote of the British Norih America Act. Quebec was entitled to sixty-five members and the other provinces to the numbers of representatives which corresponded to the proportion which their respective populations bore to that of Quebec. Each member was to represent the same proportion of the population of Canada. "So that a man in Quebec-" to use the words of Mr. Fitzpatrick in the New Brunswick reference- "should have by reason of his vote, the same political influence in Canada as a man in any other part of the dominion. If this Act, (the British North America Act) is construed properly, then every man in the Dominion of Canada will have the same amount of political influence as a result of his vote."
The proper balance was fairly well kept, although in 1904 it was a little off keel. Each unit of representation then represented: for Quebec, 25,367; for Ontario, 23,727; for Nova Scotia, 22,978 and for New Brunswick, 23,651. From 1904 on, with the interpretation given to subsection 4 of section 51, the disproportion has been more and more noticeable, so that to-day the unit of representation in Quebec is 51,213, and that of the other provinces as follows: Nova Scotia, 48,163; Prince Edward Island, 23,761; New Brunswick, 45,740; Ontario, 46,190; Manitoba, 42,926; Saskatchewan, 42,666; Alberta, 46,833, and British Columbia, 51,116. All except British Columbia and Nova Scotia show a quotient of more than five thousand fewer than that of Quebec. This has been qualified as "an unjust and illegal consequence under section 51" by Mr. Cannon, counsel for Quebec in the New Brunswick reference.
The purpose of the resolution is to reestablish the balance as it was originally, to restore the true spirit and the keynote of the constitution. It was felt, however, that if we adhered strictly to the letter of the British North America Act, certain provinces would be harshly treated. Saskatchewan would lose four seats and Manitoba three. It was thought, moreover, that this would not correct the inequality which gradually took place as a result of section 51, as interpreted, and specially would not have reduced to seventy-four the number of seats for Ontario, which would have been equitable on a strict population basis.
The resolution attains these various results in complete fairness to all concerned. If it is creating a precedent in this country to effect fairness to all concerned, and to correct an injustice, then I am in favour of creating such a precedent, and I do hope that the precedent will be followed often, and that the present premier of Quebec will follow suit.
In voting in favour of the resolution I do not feel that I am creating any other sort of precedent, and particularly I feel convinced that I am not altering the essence of the British North America Act, but rather restoring it. I reserve for myself the right to ask that the provinces be consulted should I think that, at some future date, an amendment attacks the essence of the constitution.
May I again revert to the New Brunswick reference in this connection, and draw the attention of the house to the fact that Mr. Justice Mills, at page 584 of the report, recog-

Redistribution
nizes the principles which I tried to express, namely, that under the British North America Act the number of members of thp House of Commons might be from time to time increased by the parliament of Canada, provided that a proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by the act was not thereby disturbed. And might I suggest that according to this decision the proposed resolution comes within the orbit of the constitution, more particularly under section 62. This is the section upon which Mr. Newcombe, the former deputy minister of justice was relying to argue that the number of members of Quebec could be increased. He said in the Prince Edward Island reference at page 645-and this was away back in 1904:
The power given under section 52 has never been executed, but it may be executed and only in one %vay, that is, by increasing the number fixed for the province of Quebec. If parliament were to provide that Quebec shall have 75 members and that the representation of the other provinces shall be increased accordingly, that would be an enactment quite within the authority of the dominion parliament and referable solely to the authority conferred by section 52.
In closing I think it is fair that I should correct certain wrong impressions which have been created by certain speakers who have participated in the debate. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) mentioned that Montreal was over-represented, and made a comparison of its representation with that of Glasgow. He claimed that Glasgow had fifteen members for 1,280,000 of population, whereas Montreal had sixteen representatives for 903,000. I made an addition of the figures for Montreal which the hon. member had before him when he spoke, and he will agree with me that they came to 1,271,584, a little less than
9.000	under the Glasgow figure.
As to the assertion that Montreal is overrepresented, I think it would be fair to make a comparison with the next ranking city in the dominion. According to the last census, the island of Montreal has sixteen members, for a population of 1,116,800, or a quotient representation of over 70,000; whereas Toronto has eleven members for 667,457, or only some
60.000	per constituency. Montreal has ten counties with more than 70,000, whereas Toronto has only two.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) complained that Quebec territory had been increased by 500,000 square miles at some time or other. That is so, but it is not the area that is the basis of representation but the population. In this 500,000 square miles there are approximately 3,700 people, and for the purpose of determining the population of Que-63260-167
bee they are not included at the present time. But even if they were, does the hon. member suggest that they should not be included? What then would he suggest that we do with them-that we give them one representative over and above the representation of Quebec? They have a right to be represented just as much as the inhabitants of the Yukon.
I have mentioned Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier. I can assure my English-speaking compatriots that I have in their fair play the same faith as Cartier had in that of Macdonald, and that they may be assured of our cooperation in the same fashion as Cartier offered it to Macdonald.
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre}: The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Rinfret) denied the over-representation of Montreal, and the question arose in my mind as to how Montreal could be over-represented with representatives such as he himself. I am sure the house must agree that the greater the number of people of his calibre who come here from Montreal, or from any other place, the better off this parliament will be. In my first words I am glad to pay him a sincere and heartfelt compliment on the excellent, comprehensive and most adequate expose of the law upon this question. I think it is fitting that he should have done it at this time. It is altogether to the general benefit of parliament that such a dissertation as he has presented to us should be upon our records for future use.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), sitting beside me not long ago, remarked that this debate was very largely a lawyers' debate; and so, I realize, it must have seemed. Although a lawyer myself, I do not intend to discuss the various decisions in the courts and the various legal opinions which have been given here in the house from time to time, because I consider that has already been adequately done. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who presented the case in the beginning for the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), to mention only two or three of them from the opposite side of the house; then, the Right Honourable the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and, last, but most decidedly not least, as will be clearly understood from what I have already said, the gentleman who has just concluded his excellent discourse upon the subject-all these have discussed the matter from the legal standpoint. Eor that reason I believe the law has been sufficiently laid before the house.

Redistribution

But certain aspects of the matter have arisen in debate which commend themselves to me as subjects for comment. Perhaps I would not have spoken at all had it not been for the fact that I felt some member from each province should make a statement. So far, hon. members from my province of Manitoba have not taken part in the debate, and I felt that one should.
So far as I am concerned-and I am sure in this respect I speak for many, indeed, if not all, my colleagues-I would support the motion, because in the first place I believe it is a most reasonable proposition. Hon. members have not attacked the basic idea of this redistribution resolution. I am not sure that that is the course they would have followed had they had a little more temerity. At any rate, whether or not they had the courage to do so, the fact is that they have not attacked the fairness of this sort of redistribution. It does not seem to me that it is possible to attack it. It is, after all, an attempt to seize again the principle under which we desire to operate our political life, the principle we accepted in 1867.
In 1867, without doubt, we had representation by population; but before long we failed to have it, by reason of what has been termed the "joker" clause in the British North America Act, as a result of which undoubtedly Ontario came to have a greater representation than she would have been entitled to have under a strict representation-by-population distribution.
True, even in the beginning the principle was mitigated to a certain extent by ideas of territorial representation. But on the whole it was representation by population that the fathers of confederation sought; and that is the principle to which all Canadians have subscribed from that day onward-although it would seem to me, in the light of the voting of the Progressive Conservative party to date, that sometimes that subscription was more in the nature of lip service than it was sincere.
Before dealing with what I consider some of the practical aspects of the compact theory which has been advanced, I should like to address a few remarks to the thoughts left with us by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). He has complained- and he is about the only one-about the effects of the resolution before us, because he does not think it is quite fair to British Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is to be assigned that number of members which its population warrants, according to the latest authoritative count. British Columbia, like every other province, must receive according to its population, and according to some

definite count. The last authoritative count was in 1941, and we have to operate on that basis, or on some other. It is true that estimates of population can be made between then and now; but we cannot take estimates. We cannot proceed on the basis of any other sort of count than that which has always been the accredited manner of checking up on the number of our people.
As a matter of fact, British Columbia is better off when she is receiving two additional members, as a result of using the 1941 census, than she would be if we deferred the matter until 1951. That is to say, clearly she is going to suffer an injustice if we do not have this distribution; she has been suffering an injustice right along, and the present procedure will take care of that to a certain extent.
The complaint coming from the hon. member from New Westminster amuses me somewhat, bearing in mind as I must the number of times he has inveighed against the Japanese and Chinese. You know, out in British Columbia at the present time, under the 1941 census and by reason of this distribution, the hon. member for New Westminster and the people of that province will be accorded an additional member of parliament by reason of the fact that there are in their midst a large number of Japanese, Chinese and other orientals. These people cannot vote.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: They pay taxes, though-and those in Vancouver East are represented.


Mr. MAYBANK:: They have out there at the present time about 22,000 Japanese, 18,500 Chinese and 1,343 East Indians, a sufficient number of persons to supply any province with an additional member. They do not vote, although they are counted for purposes of representation. So British Columbia is getting some benefit from the Japanese. After they have them all shipped out of the country, and all the Chinese shipped out of the country, and all the East Indians shipped out of the country, the province still have the extra member. So that I say the hon. member from New Westminster really has not very much to complain about. True, I understand British Columbia members have complained about not having enough senators, but I believe we shall hear from the hon. member who has interrupted me, and that that will be adjusted in a short time. It will come a little later in the day, when arrangements will be made for increased representation in the senate for British Columbia, and probably for other places.


Agar Rodney Adamson: A little later in life, too.


Ralph Maybank: Yes, later in life, too.

Redistribution
I do not think it is desirable that the country should overlook the strange inconsistency of the Progressive Conservative party in this matter. I said "strange" inconsistency. Perhaps I was wrong; perhaps that was the wrong word to use; maybe I should not have emphasized the word "strange" and should only have referred to the inconsistency. Some might think it usual, while others might think it strange. At any rate I think it is just as well to emphasize the fact that there is great inconsistency between the actions of that party in connection with this redistribution, as they express themselves in speech, and the manner ' in which they have dealt with other amendments to the British North America Act, as they have expressed themselves in action. Only a few years ago-1943-a proposal came up that we should amend the British North America Act, and that we should amend it in respect of redistribution-as to whether we should have redistribution or whether we should not. When it came to voting on that, all the gentlemen who have spoken in this debate voted without any reference at all to the provinces. They never suggested that the provinces should be consulted; they all voted that the British North America Act should be amended. That was the time when they were preventing redistribution.


John Thomas Hackett: Does the hon. member think it is a fair argument to invoke what was done as a war measure, when the interest of the country was centered on winning the war, as a precedent for what is going on at the present time?


Ralph Maybank: That is a simple question to answer. If it was in the mind of any hon. member of the Tory party of that day to think that they were acting in a manner unusual, he could have said so. If he had done so, he would have been adequately explaining his action in case a similar proposition should develop in the future. It was perfectly plain from the way they all acted at that time that they had no thought whatever of consulting the provinces, either then or at any other time. If the gentleman who has just sat down had remarked, even casually at that time that the provinces should be consulted-


John Thomas Hackett: Unfortunately I was not
here.


Ralph Maybank: The hon. member was not here, and so far as I know he did not coach anybody. Whether he would have spoken so if he had been here, I do not know. He seems to be most careful and cautious, and he may have done that if he had been here. At any rate none of his col-63260-167i
leagues took that position at the time. Why? Not because it was a war measure; not because of the time at which the problem came up, but because they wanted to hold the representation as it then was. That is the real explanation of their position.


Mr. FERGUSON:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Ralph Maybank: If the hon. gentleman desires to put a question I will yield, as long as it is a question and not an argument.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Does the hon. gentleman intimate that due to the fact the Tories did not stress the fact that there was a war on, that is a forerunner to an explanation of the actions of the government during this war, due to the fact that they did not stress that there was a war on when they brought into effect some of their most unusual orders in council; and are we to take it for granted that from now on that they are going to carry on in that manner?


Mr. MAI  BANK@: That question also is very easy to answer. However, it is not worth answering, and I will deal with it in another way. It is so involved and so unclear that it becomes silly and, therefore, should not be dealt with. Let us look at this compact theory which is being supposedly seriously-advanced to-day by the Tory party. Let us get away from all question of what is written in certain records, of what is written in the law itself and deal only with the simple proposition that three or four provinces came together and as a result of their discussions an agreement was made and a law was passed, and, therefore, the law cannot be changed. That is the principle that the Tory party would import into the domestic constitutional politics of this country. I believe I know where they get their inspiration. They have observed, as we all have observed, the veto principle which has been incorporated into the proceedings of the united nations. Every person regrets the veto arrangement, although it is understandable why it should be there. These gentlemen of Canada's Tory party now desire to import that veto principle of the united nations into the domestic politics of Canada. It is a vicious principle and would be destructive of all possibility of progress.
One realizes upon examination how ridiculous it is. There were three organizations, one called the colony of Nova Scotia, another called the colony of New Brunswick and another called the colony of Canada; to-day there are nine provinces in a nation called Canada, and it is suggested that these nine must be consulted because an agreement was
Redistribution

made. In the first place the government of Alberta made no agreement; the "agreement" was made only by Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada. There are only two of the makers of this supposed agreement who could be consulted at all. If you wanted to consult the three parties, whom would you consult? Would you consult the legislature which is headed by Mr. Drew', or the legislature which is headed by Mr. Duplessis? Neither one of them to-day represents the Canada of 1866. The Canada of 1866 passed out of existence. There is no continuing body that could be consulted and the practical difficulties in the way of the compact theory are insuperable in themselves.
Then take my own province. Manitoba had no hand in making the "agreement". Manitoba is in confederation by virtue of the fact that certain money was paid to a private company for the land and for the jurisdiction and for the monopolies it held over the country. That province has no right to ask for any form of consultation at all. The same is true of the two great provinces that were called the northwest territories. The territories of that time became the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. They could not make any agreement because they did not exist. They were owned, lock, stock and barrel, by the Hudson's Bay Company. The Hudson's Bay Company had jurisdiction over them as well as owning all the land. The Hudson's Bay Company passed laws for them. They certainly made no agreement about coming in, so how could they be consulted?
If it be said that these three provinces by reason of their being brought in as provinces were granted the same rights as the other provinces, I would say that is correct. But the word "rights" imports a legal enactment, imports something written down, some record that is discoverable some place. So far as the compact theory advocates in this house have shown there is certainly no law granting a right of consultation. They say there .is no law granting this right, but there ought to be. That is virtually their position. These three provinces have come in with all the rights of the other provinces, but they get only the rights that there are in law. After hearing the dissertation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) last evening and of the hon. member who just sat down a short time ago, it would seem to be clear that there certainly are no legal rights of consultation.
I do not think any person will deny that in the years just before 1867 there was an agreement. There was an agreement between outstanding men in those various colonies. The Minister of Justice quoted from an essay by

Kennedy who said that they were men who transcended the institutions of which they were a part. Undoubtedly those men got together and made an agreement. But there is no evidence even there to suggest that they made an agreement providing for the colonies from which they came being consulted thereafter in the event of any change being desired. The true nature of the agreement they made on that particular point is made clear in a passage to be found in the life of George Brown, and another passage in the same book from the life of Sir John A. Macdonald. We will see the nature of the agreement with reference to representation by population if we take a glance at a paragraph in the life of George Brown which appears on page 83 in the Makers of Canada series. Dealing with something which the opening sentence does not adequately disclose and which does not matter at the moment for the purposes of the text, the paragraph reads:
Lower Canada complained of the injustice, and with good reason.
That was the injustice of gerrymandering, as it was called, the two parts of Canada by giving them equal representation. It goes on:
In the course of time Lord Durham's prediction was fulfilled; by immigration the population of Upper Canada overtook and passed that of Lower Canada. The census of 1852 gave Upper Canada a population of nine hundred and fifty-two thousand, and Lower Canada a population of eight hundred and ninety thousand two hundred and sixty-one. Brown began to press for representation by population. He was met by two objections. It was argued on behalf of the French Canadians that they had submitted to the injustice while they had the larger population, and that the Upper Canadians ought to follow their example. Mr. Brown admitted the force of this argument, but he met it by showing that the Lower Canadians had been underrepresented for eight years, and that by the time the new representation went into force, the Upper Canadians would have suffered injustice for about an equal term, so that a balance might be struck. A more formidable objection was raised by Mr. Hincks, who said that the union was in the nature of a compact between two nations having widely different institutions; that the basis of the compact was equal representation, and that Brown's proposition would destroy that basis. Cartier said that representation by population could not be had without repeal of the union. The French Canadians were afraid that they would be swamped, and would be obliged to accept the laws and institutions of the majority.
That was the sort of picture which these men had in front of them when they came to make an agreement and submit it to what was then called the mother parliament. And later, respecting it, Sir John A. Macdonald said:
The vexed question of representation by population was solved in a manner justly styled by Macdonald "equally ingenious and simple ' since it granted this much desired boon without joining thereto his bugbear of manhood suffrage.

Redistribution
"By adopting the representation of Lower Canada as a fixed standard," he said, "as the pivot on which the whole would turn-that province being the best suited for the purpose, on account of the comparatively permanent character of its population, and from its having neither the largest nor the least number of inhabitants, we have been enabled to overcome the difficulty I have mentioned. We have introduced the system of representation by population without the danger of an inconvenient increase in the number of representatives on the recurrence of each decennial period. The whole thing is worked by a simple Rule of Three. For instance, we have in Upper Canada 1,400,000 of a population; in Lower Canada, 1,100,000. Now, the proposition is simply this, if Lower Canada with its population of 1,100,000 has a right to sixty-five members, how many members should Upper Canada have, with its larger population of 1,400.000? The same rule applies to the other provinces, the proportion is always observed'and the principle of representation by population carried out. If an increase is made. Lower Canada is still to remain the pivot on which the whole calculation will turn."
Those two passages show the difficulties of those days, and Macdonald's clear statement afterwards shows that what they were agreeing upon was a principle, not a particular clause in a law such as the law we are now dealing with, which refers to a one-twentieth decrease in population before any change in the representation can be effected. They wanted to introduce the principle of representation by population, and they thought they had done it, and we found out in the course of time that they had not done it. All that it is desired to do now is to return to the condition in which the fathers of confederation thought they had left this country. There is no more to the proposal before us than that, to adhere to the general principle of representation by population, mitigated in respect to certain sections by certain constitutional changes we have already made granting a degree of territorial representation.
I will go so far as to say that I do not think there is any part of the constitution that requires consultation of provinces by this parliament before- it votes an address to the British parliament for a change in the British North America Act. There is no part of our constitution in my opinion where that would be legally necessary. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) gave a complete answer to the argument for the need of protection of minorities in this country when he spoke last night. I would not deny and I do not think anyone would deny the wisdom of consulting the provinces when a matter may be dealt with which affects their rights particularly. I do not think any person would deny that. It would be the part of wisdom to consult them just as they were consulted a few years back when the dominion took over
by virtue of a constitutional change the power to legislate with respect to unemployment insurance. The Prime Minister at that time carried on a lengthy series of negotiations by way of consultation with the provinces, and after a satisfactory condition of assent had been received all round, he was able to recommend the appropriate resolution to result in legislation by this house. That is an example of the wisdom of proceeding in that way, against an absolute right of consultation.
Having regarded this matter from the viewpoint of the practical difficulties in the way of consultation; practical difficulties in the way of what is called the compact theory, I conclude with this. I agree entirely with what several speakers have said, particularly the speaker just before me, in reference to amending the British North America Act in Canada. I am, you know, in fiscal matters in favour of as easy an importation policy as possible, and I think we ought to signalize our belief in almost free importation by importing the British North America Act itself into this country. I think that the sooner we do that the better. I have spoken on this subject before. I think it is most outrageous and an anachronism that this parliament should have to be sending over to the old country sasnng: "Please pass this law for us." It is not merely derogatory of our own dignity but it is definitely insulting to the ideas of dignity of the parliament at Westminster. I think it is an effrontery on the part of this country to continue to use the parliament at Westminster as a chore boy. It may very well be that this debate will have the result of bringing some relief in that respect. It may very well be that this country will see that its present way of attempting constitutional change cannot be continued. I am not in a position to say at the moment what would be the right way in which this country should proceed from now on to amend its constitution. It might begin by allowing matters to develop, just as the British methods of legislation have grown over there. That is not so important at this moment. The main thing is to take on the authority and the power to amend our own constitution, and not to keep going on these constant pilgrimages to Westminster that have been necessary whenever changes in our constitution were desired.
I have always been impressed with the suggestion made by the Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe. His view was that we might effect an amendment to our constitution by a two-thirds majority vote of the provinces. He thought that should be sufficient to carry an amendment of the constitution in anything except
Redistribution

racial and religious matters, but in. the case of an amendment trenching upon these two subjects there would have to be unanimity. Well, that seems to me to be a pretty reasonable way of proceeding, a fairly reasonable formula. However, I am not wedded to any particular formula, but I am very strongly in favour of the idea that Canadians had better begin to act as members of a nation, and not members of a colony as we were in 1867, and that we should do our own work hereafter, and not keep passing it over to Westminster after long debates of this sort.
(Translation):


Mr. PAUL EDMOND GAGNON (Chicoutimi) :: Mr. Speaker, the redistribution
proposal that is now before us seems to be something in the nature of an act of munificence and generosity toward some provinces, and especially Quebec. The latter is told: you will have eight more members. However, the constitution must first be amended and for that purpose a procedure which I deem improper and irregular is being resorted to. The British North America Act is considered by the government as an ordinary legislation which can be amended at will and according to the whim of the party in power. It is now desired to amend its provisions so as to give Quebec a few more members, but at some future time it will again be amended to her detriment. That is an unfair procedure as well as a serious blow to national unity.
The provinces, which were parties to the federal covenant, are not consulted while Westminster, which has nothing to do with our affairs except to play the part of the notary who certifies a document, in the words of the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe is called upon to give its consent to the proposal. The London government is to change our constitution and the provinces will have to abide by its decision.
It is perhaps imagined that the granting of a few more members to Quebec will silence the legitimate claims of those who, in that province, believe that confederation is more than an ordinary piece of legislation out a treaty, a covenant which cannot be altered without the consent of the contracting parties. The stand taken by the province of Quebec is clear-cut and logical. If, because she found it momentarily advantageous, she agreed to the principle implied in the act which the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) has brought to our attention, the other provinces would consider her to be making a mere show of sincerity, and her behaviour would mean that she is prepared

to allow the central government to change the constitution whenever such change is to her advantage and that she will oppose a change only when it is of benefit to others.
She would be an accomplice in sabotaging the achievement of the fathers of confederation and her attitude would bear out her belief that the British North America Act is a mere bauble in the hands of the Ottawa centralists.
Confederation has been a compact between the provinces; it has been one, especially, between the two races in this country. The fathers of confederation were the first to say so.
(Text):
Speaking in the house on February 3, 1865, Sir John A. Macdonald, in introducing the resolutions adopted at the Quebec conference, referred to what he called the "treaty of union" which had taken place. Sir John further said:
The government desire to say that they presented the scheme as a whole, and would exert all the influence they could bring to bear in the way of argument to induce the house to adopt the scheme without alteration, and for the simple reason that the scheme was not one framed by the government of Canada, or by the government of Nova Scotia, but was in the nature of a treaty settled between the different colonies, each clause of which had been fully discussed and had been agreed to by a system of mutual compromise.
On February 6, in the legislative council, Hon. Alexander Campbell referred again as follows to the scheme, which was not the work of the government alone, but that of delegates of all the other provinces. "It was the result of deliberation, accommodation and compromise," he said.
On February 6, Sir John A. Macdonald further said:
As I stated in the preliminary discussion, we must consider this scheme in the light of a treaty.
I trust this scheme will be assented to as a whole. I am sure this house will not seek to alter it in its unimportant details and, if altered in any important provisions, the result must be that the whole will be set aside and we must begin de novo. If any important changes are made, every one of the colonies will feel itself absolved from the implied obligation to deal with it as a treaty. Each province will feel itself at liberty to amend it ad libitum so as to suit its own views and interests.
On February 8, Hon. George Brown, resuming the debate on the resolutions, said:
This scheme cannot be carried and no scheme can be. that has not the support of both sections of the province, . . .(Ontario and Quebec).
It was necessarily the work of concession: not one of the thirty-three framers but had, on some points, to yield his opinions.
On February 9, Hon. D'Arcy McGee went further and said:

Redistribution
There may be no doubt about our position in regard to that document. We say, question it you may, reject it you may, or accept it you may, but alter it you may not. It is beyond your power or our power, to alter it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Beyond whose power, if I may ask?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: The power of the federal government. He continued:
There is not a sentence, aye; or even a word you can alter without desiring to throw out the document. . . .
I repeat, after all my hon. friends who have already spoken, for one party to alter a treaty is, of course, to destroy it.
All the fathers of confederation who supported the resolution in the house, namely, Langevin, Cartier, Galt, Brown, Tache and others, made similar assertions.
(Translation):
Let us now turn to the testimony of British jurists and statesmen:
Lord Carnarvon, who has been called the "draftsman of the Act of 1867" solemnly stated, on second reading of the bill in the House of Lords:
"That the British North America Act must be considered as a treaty."
In Montreal, at the occasion of a banquet in his honour, Lord Carnarvon also stated:
(Text):
I believe it would be the opinion of the highest tribunal that your federation act is not to be construed merely as a municipal act; it is to be viewed as a treaty.
(Translation):
I quote from the report on the B.N.A.A., annex 4, page 149. Mr. Adderley, British under-secretary of State said:
It is a treaty which has only been ratified by the imperial parliament.
Professor Keith also states:
The constitution is a compact which cannot be amended without the consent of the federal government and the provinces.
(Text):
In 1930, during the imperial conference held in London, England, in October, the provisions of the proposed statute of Westminster were discussed. Hon. Howard Ferguson was then premier of Ontario. In a strongly worded dispatch he expressed his opposition to the adoption of the statute of Westminster by the dominionwithout consultation with and approval by the provinces on the ground that the statute was in effect an amendment of the British North America Act, and that this act was a compact between the provinces and as such could not be amended without their consent.
Hon. Alexandre Taschereau, then premier of Quebec, seconded Mr. Ferguson in unequivocal terms.
(Translation):
On page 108 of his book entitled "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty" Mr. Maurice Ollivier comments as follows on this statement:
This decision of the imperial conference gave recognition to the fact that the constitution is founded on a pact entered into by the provinces which must be consulted when a suggested amendment to the constitution concerns them.
Let us now hear from the privy council:
In 1914, Viscount Haldane stated that the British North America Act-
. . . must be accepted as a treaty of union amongst the provinces.
When the aviation case was under study in 1932, Lord Sankey also claimed that it was a contract.
In 1935, when Lord Atkin made known the ruling of the judicial committee of the privy council concerning social legislation, he declared:
(Text):
That no one can doubt that his distribution of power between the legislatures and the federal parliament is one of the most essential conditions, probably the most essential _ condition, in the interprovincial compact to which the British North America Act gives effect.
(Translation):
Now let us examine some of the views expressed by Canadian statesmen and jurists. In 1883 Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated:
I repeat, each time that this parliament (Ottawa) succeeds in depriving a province of a right which it holds, no matter how insignificant such right may be, it is a step further along the path leading to legislative union.
On November 24, 1871, he declared:
It is an historical fact that the federal form of government was adopted solely in order that Quebec might retain the exceptional and unique position which it occupied on the American continent.
Honourable Justice Mignault said:
The British North America Act is merely the legalization of a pact entered into by the provinces.
Honourable Justice J. T. Loranger declared: The confederation of the provinces was the result of a pact and the imperial parliament merely ratified it.
On April 7, 1884, Hon. Honore Mercier declared in the legislature:
The provinces came into existence before the dominion, and it is from them that the latter received its powers. The provinces enjoyed the responsible government of 1867; they had their legislatures, their laws and the full autonomy inherent in a colony.
Redistribution

They are sovereign within the limits of their powers, and any attempt to interfere with that sovereignty is a violation of the federal pact.
(Text):
Speaking in Toronto in 1925, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen said:
The pact of confederation is undoubtedly a contract.
(Translation):
On February 24, 1930, the Hon. R. B. Bennett said in the House of Commons:
(Text):
The British North America Act is a treaty, a pact made between four provinces.
Furthermore, the royal commissioners of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations of 1937 make, in their report in 1941, frequent allusions to the confederation pact and the compromises agreed upon in 1867. They expressed their admiration for the splendid work carried on by the fathers of confederation. Let me quote what is found at page 9 of the second volume of their recommendations:
In the course of our work we have come to appreciate as never before the achievements of the fathers of confederation. Not only did they devise an instrument of government which has successfully withstood the test of seventy years of rapid and in large part quite unpredictable change, but they secured assent to the adoption of this instrument under circumstances which, in the minds of some, have given it the same sort of sanctity that the most solemn treaty might possess. By their achievements they laid the foundations of national unity and of the federal system, both of which our instructions enjoin us to respect.
(Translation):
Hon. Ernest Lapointe, said in the House of Commons, in the course of a speech on this question:
(Text):
If our constitution is to be considered as a treaty, surely we cannot alter its provisions without at least seeking the consent of the other parties to that treaty.
Now has it been considered as a treaty? I heard it suggested some time ago that this idea at confederation of a treaty is an antiquated idea. Maybe it is. But the truth does not cease to be truth when it gets old. An old truth is always true. You cannot prevent facts from being facts whether you like them or not.
(Translation):
Here is what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, in 1907:
(Text):
Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces but adhered to by all the nine provinces who have entered it and I submit that this compact should not be lightly altered.
[Mr. Gagnon.1
(Translation):
About the same time, Sir Robert Borden had this to say, on the same subject:
(Text):
Inasmuch as this (our constitution) is a federal compact which we are asked to vary, it is only right that each province should be consulted in its decision given, in the right of its separate entity.
(Translation):
In his handbook of parliamentary law, His Honour Justice Mignault, after showing that Canada is a federal union, added: "Confederation is but the fulfilment of a pact entered into by four provinces."
Have all those jurists and statesmen erred, and is their opinion unsound to-day because this government holds opposite views? I, for one, prefer to rely on the testimonials of the builders of confederation rather than upon the arguments of people who are bent on destroying it, and who, especially since the war, have done so much to undermine its essential foundations.
Reverend Father Louis Lachance, O.P., has said:
Every constitution, except in cases where the instinct of savagery must be repressed through the use of force, is necessarily a contract.
If the consent of the provinces was needed for the establishment of confederation, it follows that the constitution cannot be amended without their concurrence. May I quote for the benefit of those who claim that the constitution is just an ordinary piece of legislation, what Mr. Leo Pelland had to say in a March 1936 issue of L'Action Catholique:
What is a legislation based upon an agreement, a compromise, and retaining some of the features of such agreement and compromise, if not a legislation having a clearly contractual character ?
Mr. Maurice Ollivier has made the following statement at page 68 of his book "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty":
Those who hold that our constitution is a contract are on quite safe ground, and they can easily find, throughout our history, outstanding men who have shared their views or used the term "federal pact."
Confederation is a contract between two [DOT] races and, as was so forcibly stated by Father Richard Ares:
If there exists to-day a Canadian confederation rather than a centralized state, it is first and foremost because of the explicit will of Lower Canada.
Upper Canada preferred a legislative union.
An English-speaking Canadian, Mr. John Boyd, had this to say in his book "Sir Georges Etienne Cartier, Baronet":

Redistribution
Without Cartier, Quebec's assent to the union would certainly have been impossible to obtain, and without Quebec confederation would never have been more than a noble dream.
The provinces are deprived of a sacred right when the constitution is amended without any previous consultation with them.
At the present time Quebec is not willing to barter away her rights for eight, ten or event twenty seats in this house. Respecting as she does the rights of others, she wants the rights conferred to her by the constitution to be respected. Jealous of her prerogatives, she does not want to be frustrated by any government in this country. We ask for no privileges, we want no special favours, but we insist upon the full implementing of the provisions of the constitution.


Mr. PINARD:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Surely.


Roch Pinard: If the hon. member intends to vote against the motion, does he realize that he will probably be the only Frenchspeaking member to do so?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I shall point out to the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) that the stand I take is consistent with the principles I advocate and I shall defend my stand even were no other member of the house to support me.


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: Hear,
hear!


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I continue. We claim no special privileges, no special treatment, but we insist on the full conformance to the clauses of the constitution and, above all, we do not want the spirit in which the discussions on the confederation pact were conducted to be ignored. The end does not justify the means; encroachments do not create rights and precedents in this connection are so dangerous that we must not repeat them.
Speaking on precedents in the matter of amendments to the constitution, Hon. H. Ferguson, then prime minister of Ontario, said:
(Text):
The result of these precedents has been to undermine the constitutional right of the provinces to be consulted regarding amendments to the British North America Act. The province of Ontario holds to the view that this agreement should not be altered without the consent of the parties in it. . . .
(Translation):
It is claimed in certain quarters that it is the duty of the members of the dominion parliament to express the views and the wishes 63260-168
of the province which they represent at Ottawa, and that in the matter of constitutional legislation, their views prevail over those of the provincial governments. If such were the case, why not simply abolish the provincial legislatures and centralize all the powers in Ottawa? It would be easier then to set up a dictatorship?


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Would the hon. member permit me a question? If the hon. member succeeds in convincing us, does he realize that he will thus deprive Quebec of eight seats?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: If my hon. friend will bear with me he will find that I am not against the principle of granting eight or ten additional members to the province of Quebec; I am against the proposed method of achieving this result. Most assuredly it is the duty of the members of the dominion parliament at Ottawa to deal with federal matters, as defined by the constitution, but it is untrue to claim that they have authority to amend the constitution itself.
If the representation of the province of Quebec is to be increased, so much the better, and I am all for it; the price of this recognition of our rights should not be the destruction of the very foundation of our Canadian constitution.
I claim that the right to amend our constitution belongs jointly to the provinces and to the dominion.
The London parliament only ratifies decisions taken here. Once again I quote Mr. Lapointe on this subject:
The British North America Act, says he, is the result of lengthy and complicated deals, and finally of a compromise which the provinces approved through their officially accredited representatives. We have, therefore, a legal agreement, drawn up in due form, and freely ratified. Hence, the power to alter our national constitution is vested in the provinces whose good will made the alliance possible and whose unanimous good will is requisite to effect any desired amendment.
As for Westminster, we might say that it merely fulfilled notarial functions when the compact of 1867 was entered into and its present duties, similar to those of the past, consist in no more than authenticating the clauses of the Canadian federal agreement.
For these reasons, I shall vote in favour of the amendment.


Mr. EUGENE MARQUIS (Kamouraska):: It is indeed with a sad heart that I rise to speak after the regrettably speech just spoken by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon).


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Don't be sorry for me.

2G48
Redistribution


Eugène Marquis: The hon. member is perhaps not sufficiently aware of his responsibilities to feel sorry about it. But when he pits himself against the recognized right of fair representation in this country, he should realize that we have to feel sorry in his stead.
It had not been my intention, Mr. Speaker, to share in this discussion, for in marshalling arguments from this country's foremost constitutional and political authorities, the speeches you have heard so far made it unnecessary for me to take part in this debate. This resolution is so clearly based on justice that its discussion should have appeared unnecessary and it should have carried without comment or opposition. Until this afternoon however, the debate had remained on a plane and within bounds worthy of admiration.
The advocates and opponents of the measure have gone into the constitutional and the legal aspects of the matter, and have reviewed it from the standpoint of justice and common sense, with such skill and logic that I feel the voice of Chicoutimi should have remained silent. It is also because I am from the lower St. Lawrence region that I should not like to give the impression that . this voice, however pleasant, expresses the feelings and the thoughts of our people.
This resolution concerns not only the premier of Quebec and his followers, but every Canadian citizen. It involves constitutional law and is highly important from a national standpoint; it is in the first place a measure of fair play. I wish to pay special tribute to the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who has dealt masterfully with this question with the calm and the competence of an eminent statesman.
This resolution is based upon law and justice. I shall not enter into legal technicalities;
I shall not attempt to recall utterances of past and present statesmen or to quote the sections of the constitution. Such quotations have been numerous during this debate. However, if we examine the quotations submitted to the house, we find that, on the whole, the authorities on parliamentary law hold that the dominion, in matters coming within its purview, is not subservient to the provinces in regard to the amendments or adjustments to be made to the constitution. It is necessary to distinguish between external sovereignty and internal sovereignty, as it were. In regard to the administration of provinces, to their own

jurisdiction, undoubtedly no Canadian government would entertain the idea of amending our constitution without consulting the provinces. But as regards powers exclusively reserved to the federal government- namely our external relations-things are different. So far as the right of the hon. member for Chicoutimi to sit in this house is concerned, it is the responsibility of his constituents. Besides, I believe the hon. member for Chicoutimi is entitled to speak for himself but not on behalf of the Hon. Mr. Duplessis. After hearing all the arguments of all those who took part in this debate and especially the speech of the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret), whom I take pleasure in commending specially, I believe we may admit as a matter of principle so that in the matter of representation, the federal government has the undoubted right of amending its constitution, in order to redress a wrong resulting from a false interpretation of this document. However, if there were any kind of doubt-and to my mind there is none-I fail to see, if there were any doubt, Mr. Speaker, should it prevent us from acting on a matter of absolute justice? Is there a single member in this house who, prior to fulfilling a duty of plain justice, would say:	I shall refrain from acting due to a
technicality, to a mere doubt and I shall adopt an attitude which will prevent the interested parties from obtaining justice. Mr. Speaker, we seem to recognize unanimously that it is a matter of plain justice. This may be gathered from the statements of the hon. members for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Chicoutimi admitted that this is the case. But, Mr. Speaker, if our province has an absolute right to a representation corresponding to its population, are we authorized to resort to excuses and technicalities in order to shirk our duty and deprive our province of eight representatives? Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before the House reflects completely the wishes of all the provinces. It provides for representation of the provinces on the basis of population while protecting minority groups in Prince Edward Island and the Yukon. This resolution favours representation according to population in all parts of the country, it is in the interest of Canada for it prevents any province from gaining undue advantage

Redistribution
to the prejudice of others. It allows all parties and all groups to express their views adequately in parliament.
The arguments set forth against the present resolution seem quite specious to me. Some say:	"The measure is fair and should be
passed, but not before the provinces are consulted. If any province objects to it, it cannot be passed. Therefore we shall vote against the resolution so that the provinces might be consulted and the measure thereby defeated." Such is the logic of the opponents of the resolution. They fight for an alleged principle founded neither on law nor justice to prevent the adoption of a fair and just measure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Eugène Marquis: Who sounded the alarm?
Who are the opposition?
Perhaps from a letter written by the Quebec premier. This brings to my mind the words from Holy Writ "The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life." The letter of the Quebec premier will kill him, because it is against the rights of the province of Quebec. Unfortunately, as a result we shall soon lose the company of the young member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) who has listened to his master's voice. Hearing him a few moments ago, and looking at him, I said to myself: "The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau." And that French voice from the province of Quebec has been raised in opposition to the granting of some rights to the French element in Canada and in the province of Quebec. That is why I have deemed it my duty, on behalf of the French-speaking group, who were the first to come to this country and whom we represent in this house, in the name of those among the fathers of confederation who were Frenchspeaking, and who wanted to include in the constitution the means whereby we could obtain a fair and proportionate representation, on their behalf, Mr. Speaker, I have deemed it my duty to protest against such a treasonable act.
Some people hide behind a screen, they put on a mask, and they use the bugbear of autonomy in order to avoid facing the true situation and doing their duty. Will the autonomy of the province be better upheld if there are eight less or eight more members? Does not the value of Quebec's autonomy lie in the worth of her
sons, in the endeavours of her representatives in a fair and equitable representation in this house? Does not our duty to the autonomy of the province consist in following the example of the fathers of confederation and endeavouring to protect the spirit rather than the letter of the constitution, which latter course would entail the risk of distorting it, especially in so far as the province of Quebec is concerned? The autonomy of the province of Quebec lies solely in her right of administration, of government, of management, within the exclusive limits of her jurisdiction, especially in matters of education, language and religion.
Should sections 92 and 93 and even section 133 of the British North America Act be amended without consulting the provinces. I am sure that the honourable members both on this side of the house and opposite would rise in protest against such action; they would want to prevent the spoliation of our rights and the sabotaging of the constitution, and, finally, to ward off civil war in this country. To-day we are dealing with a right which must be granted to all citizens of Canada, of whatever race, creed or language.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, I am scandalized to find that an honourable member, heeding his master's voice, should have risen in this Canadian parliament in order to prevent French Canadian influence from becoming greater and stronger in this house.
Mr. Speaker, we have been elected by people of our language, our creed and our race.
These citizens have shown their faith in us; they have given us a mandate, for what purpose? For the purpose of representing them here and safeguarding their rights. It is our right to have a representation proportionate to our population, and it is our duty to demand that right-I regret, however, that the hon. member for Chicoutimi had to leave the house before he was convinced-it is our duty to claim that right and we shall be united in trying to obtain proportionate representation for our province and also for the other provinces, according to their population.
When the question of representation in the Canadian parliament arises, when administration and internal economy or external affairs of Canada are concerned, do we, who have been elected to the national parliament, to
03260-168J
Redistribution

represent our electors and the whole of Canada, and to legislate for and safeguard the future of our country, do we have to consult Mr. Duplessis who, for political purposes, will say that we want to sabotage the British North America Act? I feel sorry for the hon. member for Chicoutimi, who will have to answer not only to his constituency but to his province and to future generations for the step he has taken to-day. He will be responsible for the gesture which, translated into words, means that the children who are called upon to replace us will have no say in the nation's business because his leader in Quebec was not consulted, and that the hon. member does not wish them to have a fair representation in the Canadian parliament.
This may be the voice crying in the wilderness, but it is not the voice of John the Baptist, patron saint of French Canadians, since the voice of John the Baptist brought prosperity and happiness to people of good will. This other voice, however, sows the seeds of sadness and death. Under the present system, Mr. Speaker, even though the population of Quebec increased to five millions while that of Ontario would be at the four million level, the latter province would still have seventeen more representatives than the former. If the provinces are consulted, one alone need dissent to deprive us from Quebec or you from British Columbia or any of the others from representation in proportion to its population.
The hon. member for Outrermont has explicitly defined the issue from this viewpoint. Some hon. members opposite, realizing that consultation with their provincial colleagues from Ontario would defeat t'he measure, object to it on the grounds that such advice is not sought.
It gave me great pleasure to hear the sympathetic hon. member for Eglinton, but it will require more than the French section of his speech, which was very well delivered, to do justice to Quebec, as the latter is well aware. The Quebec premier simply asks that the provinces be consulted so that our lot may be settled by the premier of Ontario. If the premier of Quebec is of the opinion that the British North America Act is a treaty or a pact and that we should consult him to gain an undisputed right to eight more members, we believe that such consultation might prove dangerous and prevent t'he province of Quebec

from securing materialization of this prerogative. But let the premier of Quebec immediately declare himself willing to amend the constitution! Thus he will not give up the right to consultation which he claims as his own nor will he prevent the province of Quebec from securing adequate representation.
The hon. member for Chicoutimi said, a few moments ago, that the province of Quebec may, at some future date, be a victim to some amendment to the constitution, although it would benefit by the change now contemplated. I wonder whether the hon. member fears that a tornado will strike the province of Quebec with such force as to decimate its population or that some other cataclysm will prevent us from maintaining our proper proportion of the total population of Canada. What is certain, however, is that the population of Quebec cannot fall to the extent of determining such a spread between the relative populations of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, for at least two hundred years. Mr. Speaker, how could this amendment be even remotely detrimental to the province of Quebec? Its sole purpose is that of placing representation on a population basis. Quebec will never complain as long as it is given representation according to its population. I feel also that the other provinces will have no grounds for complaint if they have representation based on their respective populations. I have heard with my own ears a preposterous statement by a Progressive Conservative member for Prince Edward Island, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure), who complains about this measure, although, under its provisions, his province would be granted four representatives. This hon. member was opposed to the principle of representation based on population. Nevertheless, this measure takes care to safeguard the minorities of Prince Edward Island and Yukon.
May I say here that the hon. member for Chicoutimi has spoken of centralization by the Ottawa government? The fact is that we are endeavouring to decentralize, giving to Quebec the number of members to which she is entitled. We want thereby to have more members from Quebec to take part in the management of the country.
He tells us that to-day we are being generous to the province of Quebec. We are

R edistribution
not being generous, we are not rewarding Quebec. We are granting it exactly what we are giving the other provinces, nothing else. He said that the	province of
Quebec was not to be bought with eight or twenty seats.	Does the hon. member
wish to imply that we, the representatives of the province of Quebec, have been paid to obtain these additional seats? And what of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), who sits next to the hon. member for Chicoutimi, has he been paid to support the resolution under consideration?
In conclusion he said: why not abolish the provincial legislature if it has been decided, in order more securely to entrench dictatorship in Ottawa, not to consult the provinces? Well, Mr. Speaker, dictatorship, in Ottawa, is in the hands of 245 hon. members who constitute parliament; in the next house, dictatorship will be exercised by the 255 members who will have been elected to sit here. Is representation of the people by the men of their choice to be called dictatorship? However, these members must speak for themselves and their constituents and not on behalf of members from other legislatures. As for me, I speak as member for Kamouraska. The hon. member from Chicoutimi does not speak for the electors of his constituency but on behalf of the prime minister of the province of Quebec. However, that is his own business.
We have a specific mandate and special responsibilities. We have a duty to perform here and we do have to take into account any instructions given by provincial members. As a federal Liberal member, I do not have to take orders from any provincial legislature although I am always open to suggestions and advice. But, Mr. Speaker, when members of a provincial legislature attempt to invade the field of federal legislation, I think we should be sufficiently proud and dignified, we should have, to a sufficient degree, the courage of our own convictions to defend the rights of our race and our province and to ensure their triumph.
In closing, I wish to state definitely that I shall never hide behind a screen, that I shall never seek cover behind a curtain and that I shall never shirk my responsibilities.
We now have before us a measure of the utmost importance designed to establish a representation according to population, that will be fair to all provinces. In considering this measure, mindful of my country's future, mindful of the voters of my constituency, and of my family, I feel it my duty to support this resolution as a Canadian imbued with truly national feelings.
Mr. GEORGES H. HEON (Argenteuil) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, after the grandiloquent speech of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis), I was almost reluctant to address the house. However, every hon. member has a part to play under his oath of office, in accordance with the interests of his constituents. I would like as a French Canadian from the province of Quebec, to express myself briefly in French as follows on the matter now before the house.
Had it not been amply established by parliamentary debates in the last fifty years, had not that fact been brutally disclosed by several interprovincial conferences, had it not been emphasized by numerous decisions in our courts of justice, the present debate on the redistribution bill (which does away with the principle of a pivotal province which had caused so much worry to Cartier) would show luminously on what weak foundations our federal structure is built, how difficult it is to govern a country where ten sovereign parliaments are to be found in fields which have been more or less clearly allocated to them; where are to be found also racial groups of different origins and mentalities, languages and religions, with different economic problems and political creeds which cover all the ground from repulsive communism to complete centralizing socialism and even to miserly and extreme capitalism, from a broad and sincere Canadianism to an avowed imperialism, which is sometimes concealed under a more or less hypocritical internationalism, depending on whichever attitude is necessary to insure an immediate political triumph.
The numerous and excellent speches made to date on the measure now before us and which I have read with care, show conclusively the inevitable clash of these various trends of opinion. Personally-and I wish to emphasize this fact-I do not question the sincerity of all members of this house, convinced as I am that they are all eager to serve their country and their constituents well.
We must accordingly respect such divergent opinions, inasmuch as they represent the beliefs of important groups (at least, of groups which think they are important) in our country. In such a matter, it would be wise to follow the advice given by scholarly Father Simard, on page 144 of his book entitled: "Pour L'education dans un Canada souverain," which I beg to quote:
Redistribution

That fact must be taken into account in our parliamentary era. Because politics, to be effective, must enlist the cooperation of the people it follows that discussion of public questions is generalized. But weighing programs and estimating the value of social legislation are operations to be performed without injuring the respect and love which must be bestowed on men in authority, men who, in that capacity, have a right to be treated according to patriotic devotion. In that respect, our world is the saddest thing to be seen. Not only are bills and party platforms put to shreds-which is permissible- but too often are insults thrown at those who are entitled to "cult and service" as Cicero and Saint Thomas Aquinas said.


Mr. HEON:: It is therefore in this light, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to deal very briefly with the problem before this house. We are asked to ratify a measure involving two great and divergent principles. The first one, by establishing representation on the basis of population, would grant, at this time, eight new members to the province of Quebec. Although the cry of "rep by pop" was first raised in this country by someone who feared French-Canadian preponderance, and although this principle may again operate against us, we cannot deny the immediate advantage of the proposal.
Our province and our compatriots will never have too many representatives in this house, f we consider particularly the veiled, but jonstant and crafty hostility nursed against us by certain fanatical elements, _ which is apparent not only in the civil service and the various federal departments, but in the committees and boards and sometimes even in this house.
These eight new members coming from Quebec after the next federal election, if the resolution is passed, might well mediate on this thought expressed by the same Father Simard, whom I quoted a moment ago, on page 155 of his book:
Were you to ask me now what should be said and done in parliament, I would tell you: Come to Ottawa, please, not as foreigners or as children expecting a spanking. Be thoroughly versed in questions bearing on the common good of Canada. Hold to a uniform national creed and always place it above party slogans. In this respect, all vour forefathers have sinned, the Liberals in 1905 and the Conservatives in 1912. Make it understood that Canada is both French and English and that as far as you members of the French-Canadian group are concerned, you will never divide on the three following points: freedom for our faith, freedom for our culture, a happy relation between the central and provincial authorities.
I quote further:
You may discuss the means of implementing this threefold plan. In fact, you will cling to these things above all. Not by threatening to leave your house when your rival claims it for
[Mr. Heon.i
himself, but by establishing your rights of ownership and shouting back: "You shall not oust me from my home. If you want a fight, you will have it."
The second principle involved in the resolution bears on the procedure concerning amendments to the British North America Act which may be suggested from time to time.


Mr. LALONDE:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he in favour of the first measure? Did he say so in his speech? Perhaps I have misunderstood him.


Georges-Henri Héon: Nobody can deny, as I said, that the province of Quebec is gaining an immediate advantage by having eight members added to its representation.


Maurice Lalonde: You are in favour of that?


Georges-Henri Héon: I am in favour of the additional representation, and I believe that I will be able to justify my attitude with a number of reservations.


Maurice Lalonde: I beg my 'hon. friend's pardon for interrupting him. I had not grasped what he meant.


Georges-Henri Héon: My hon. friend has a right to enlighten himself. I hope that I will be allowed to express forthwith my stand on this highly contentious matter, upon which even the most prominent jurists of England and of Canada are not in, agreement. In the first place, I find it absolutely ridiculous that a country such as ours should be forced humbly to pray an imperial and foreign parliament, which knows nothing or practically nothing of our political problems, to allow us to amend our own constitution. It is the weakest and the most inexcusable denial of an autonomy which exists in fact and which only an obsolete and uncalled for sentimentalism, or a dishonest concern for an immediate political advantage, prevent from freely expressing itself.
When shall we have the gumption to express our sovereignty and our autonomy by courageous and practical actions? When shall we cease to close our eyes upon the facts? Have not those tens of thousands of Canadians who made the supreme sacrifice during two world wars, in defence of freedom and of independence for the peoples of the world, gained for Canada the right to speak for herself?


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Georges-Henri Héon: I thank my hon. friends on the government side for approving my statement. We should have the courage of our convic-

Redistribution
tions; we should take advantage of this opportunity to request the imperial parliament to waive its prerogative to approve the amendments to our constitution and to surrender to us the full and exclusive right in the matter. Let us be logical. If Canada is a free and self-governing nation, we must remove the purely artificial impediments to our freedom and autonomy.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we should face the facts; it would be much easier for our Frenchspeaking compatriots, in view of their mentality, to give their approval to an amendment to the British North America Act, emanating from the House of Commons of Canada and her provincial legislatures, where they have their own representatives, rather than from an imperial parliament where they have no representatives. I have said so on numerous occasions and. I shall repeat it again: we should not have to ask anyone's permission; we are our own masters and the sooner we assert ourselves, the sooner we shall establish in law a situation which exists in fact and which the other nations, especially those to whom we tender a helping hand, are eager to recognize, even if only to flatter our national pride and because they are desperately in need of our assistance. Everything depends, in this respect, upon our own will, since we hold the upper hand, but our claims must be submitted with intelligence, courtesy and honesty.
Therefore the house must once more request a government which is not ours to amend our constitution. Some hon. members have referred to the procedure to be followed; several have reversed the stand which they had taken in 1943. Thus we have seen certain people who, in 1943, were in favour of amending the constitution without consulting the provinces, wdthout securing their consent, and who now claim that the consent of the provinces should first be obtained.


Maurice Lalonde: Who are they?


Georges-Henri Héon: If my hon. friend will see me after I have concluded my remarks I shall give him this information freely. Others who, in 1943, claimed! that the consent of the provinces was required, no longer voice such views this year. It is therefore a problem which everyone must solve according to his own conscience and convictions. Invectives and reproaches which may be east at one another for purely political reasons and to vent one's spleen against the premier of the province of Quebec, will not help to solve it. I am one of those who believe that we must respect, without necessarily endorsing the political convictions of the provincial and party leaders.
Coming as I do from Quebec, I have made an earnest effort in the last two weeks to ascertain the views of my constituents in respect of the proposed measure, and they appear to be as follows:
It is true that Quebec would have eight more members; however, if the constitution is thus tampered with, what guarantee have we that eventually we shall not be the losers? And if we do not protest against the method of amending our magna charta, even though such an amendment would result in an immediate and apparent advantage, how shall we later on sincerely andi seriously protest against a proposed amendment which would be detrimental to our interests?
This is then a matter of the utmost importance, which deserves the most careful consideration before a definite and final stand is taken. Personally, therefore-and I now express my own convictions, as I consulted no one and need not consult anybody-I endorse the opinion expressed by Lord Watson, Lord Haldane and Lord Sankey in the aeronautics case, by Lord Atkin in the minimum wage case, by Professor Barriedale Keith, and especially by the writer I now wish to quote. In 1939, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation asked professors of constitutional law in our Canadian universities to express over the air their legal opinion of the changes that should be made to the constitution. In the course of these talks, the province of New Brunswick was called upon to express its views, and this was done by Mr. Alfred G. Bailey, professor of British North American history at the university of New Brunswick. He was asked, at the same time-and this is important-to voice the official opinion of the New Brunswick government of which, I understand, the Hon. Mr. Dysart was then leader.


An hon. MEMBER:: That's right; hear, hear.


Georges-Henri Héon: I shall merely quote excerpts, for I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the house.
(Text):
The nature of the constitution, as one based on the principles of compact and consent, was formally recognized by the parliament of Canada in 1907. The Subsidy Act of that year, by which the allowances to the provinces provided in the British North America Act were to be substantially increased, was based upon the principle of consultation with the provinces. In confirmation of this principle it was acknowledged that the act of 1867 gave effect to a treaty, and that no amendment to disturb the terms of that treaty could be effected without the consent of the parties that were bound by it. The most recent recognition of the compact principle was that given by the lords of the judicial committee of the privy council, in
Redistribution

rendering judgment on certain legislation of the parliament of Canada, on January 28th, 1937. In this judgment reference was made to "the interprovincial compact to which tile British North America Act gives effect".
Moreover, it is not irrelevant to recall that the Statute of Westminster, which gave legal effept to the national status of the dominions did not increase the legislative field of the parliament of Canada at the expense of the provinces, nor did it apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Act, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
(Translation):
And it concludes as follows:
(Text):
In addition, it is regarded as noteworthy that the compact principle of confederation has been generally recognized in connection with the rights of racial minorities within the dominion. Few persons, perhaps no one, would have had the temerity to suggest that an amendment to the constitution which would affect the rights of a racial minority should be carried through without the consent of that minority. On the basis of the facts that have been presented it is maintained here in New Brunswick, that Canada is a confederation as prpposed at the London conference, not a federation as proposed at Quebec. This status, it is held, determines the fact that the union is based on a compact, the terms of which cannot be amended without the consent of the contracting parties; or in other words, that Canada derives its being an authority from the provinces with imperial sanction, and that this authority is a matter of agreement between the provinces. Finally, it is deemed (by the government of New Brunswick) of vital interest to demand a strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the constitution as thus conceived.
(Translation):
That is not an opinion from the province of Quebec and it is not Mr. Duplessis who speaks. Here is the opinion of an Englishspeaking province which cannot be accused of political motives and which apparently thinks along the same line as some of our Quebec fellow citizens.
Other opinions which I shall not quote may be added to that of Professor Bailey, but if we read the speeches of Hon. Honore Mercier, Sir Lomer Gouin, Hon. Alexandre Taschereau, and Hon. Maurice Duplessis, the present prime minister of the province of Quebec, we find that our constitution is a contract which may not be changed without the consent of the signatories.


Maurice Lalonde: Will my hon. friend allow me a question?


Georges-Henri Héon: Yes, sir, with great pleasure.


Maurice Lalonde: Is it my hon. friend's opinion that it is impossible for parliament to propose or to accept amendments to our constitution without having previously consulted the provinces? In other words, is it

absolutely forbidden to the dominion parliament to amend the British North America Act for any reason? Are there no cases when the federal power could amend our constitution without consulting the provinces?


Georges-Henri Héon: If my hon. friend will only
allow me to finish my speech, I think I shall cover this point in my next few remarks. I now make a distinction between legal and administrative matters which may affect our racial group.
I feel quite free to express am opinion I have always held. I don't have to pipe a different tune. I am not asking the members of this house to share this view, but it is one I have always held and which I shall continue to uphold.


Maurice Lalonde: An opinion which we
respect.


Georges-Henri Héon: Thank you, sir. By referring
indeed to the principles I set out in the 1938 by-election in Argenteuil, to the speeches I made at the Conservative party convention in Ottawa in 1938, in Winnipeg before the board of trade, in Toronto on two occasions, in Montreal at the Monument National, at Victoriaville, at Carillon and on two occasions in this house in 1939, it will be seen that my views have remained unchanged. Not later than last year, during the last election, I upheld this proposition before the electors. There is logic, therefore, in my attitude toward the measure now before us, and I am not revising my opinions. Let my constituents be my judges.
The stand taken by the province of Quebec, through its present government, on the procedure for amending our constitution is also mine, and I have no hesitation in joining them on this point; I believe that in amending our constitution, we would be creating an extremely dangerous precedent, for the following reasons. And by the way, I wish to point this out to my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Lalonde), who is listening to me.


Maurice Lalonde: I am listening very
carefully.


Georges-Henri Héon: I am not one of those who
think that the province of Quebec should entrench itself within the walls of an absolute irredentism and be adamant on questions of details as on questions of legal principles.
Is it not true that we could better show the present situation in its proper perspective by reviewing the bargainings which preceded confederation? It can not be said that Quebec is a province like the others and has no more rights than those which were granted

R edits tribution
to the other provinces of Canada. At the time of confederation, Quebec was dealing as an equal with the other provinces and was representing a nationality more than a territorial entity. It was a compromise between two races rather than an exclusively legislative arrangement. To-day our compatriots seem to persist in this reasoning which might be expressed in the following words: You want to amend the constitution in a way that might or might not be advantageous to us, but the precedent you are creating will mean that there is no limitation in the constitution, and that you could always amend it without our assent.
We. are concerned and worried about the rights that have been conferred on us and for which Cartier had to fight unceasingly; as long as no *written guarantee excluding any possibility of amendment is given us that our rights shall forever be safeguarded as regards religion, language, customs and culture, and administration based on our financial, economic and cultural requirements as a race, we shall have to resist any proposed amendment to our constitution, because once we are headed along that path no one can tell when we shall stop. Could we not make the following suggestion: Consult us officially or otherwise, but consult us; you will obtain our approval upon whatever course is likely to help this country, but consult us, because we are one of the parties to the pact; we signed it honestly and generously. Be as honest and generous in requesting our consent to the amendments you are seeking.
To my mind, no political matter is involved in the proposition now before us and I dismiss the political angle altogether; it is rather a recurrence of the old problem of the right which the provinces who were parties to the pact have to concur in the constitutional amendment which is proposed.
There may be an immediate political advantage in the measure now contemplated, and this advantage will remain, provided our birth rate is maintained and provided we are not at some future time overwhelmed by a tide of immigration into our midst. However, should we countenance the precedent alas already established, that the British North America Act may be amended without the consent of the contracting parties, who knows but that some day a hostile group or government will not avail itself of the precedents which we have established, and change the compact to our detriment?
For, after all, there is no provision in the . British North America Act to protect us against this movement of hostility. The act makes no difference between purely administrative matters and others that we consider essential to our free development. Therefore let us at once take a definite stand. Let us say to our English-speaking fellow-citizens:	Give us the solemn and written
assurance that you will not prevent the expansion of French-speaking Canadians throughout the countiy; steep yourselves in the spirit which guided the fathers of confederation, and all will be well. You wish us to preserve national unity? We are ready and willing to do so; but please respect the spirit of the confederation compact. We are your loyal partners, but never forget that a partnership cannot endure or prosper unless its members preserve harmony and frankly and openly cooperate in the success of the undertaking. In conclusion, may I point out that last night in this house, the right hon. Minister of Justice, after admitting that from the legal point of view, section 133 of the British North America Act, bearing on the rights of the French language, could be settled-"dealt with" is used in the English text-without the consent of the provincial legislatures, spoke most eloquently of the intrinsic guarantees of human conscience. If we could forever be assured that the conscience of humanity would always remain as fair as that of the hon. members of this house, if we could, without fear, take it for granted that this same human conscience would always be guided by the uprightness and integrity which are the characteristics of our present leaders and particularly of the right hon. Minister of Justice, we might feel entirely secure in depending on it.
Unfortunately, the annals of history afford us too little assurance in that respect and record too many capricious and sudden changes of front in this same human conscience. To its eternal shame, the conscience of humanity, too often stirred up by agitators devoid of all sense of remorse or honour, opened the lengthy history of Christianity by crucifying Christ, martyrizing its apostles and disciples, and burning Joan of Arc at the stake; in modern times, it has begotten two world wars and may be sowing the seeds of a third.
Ask Poland, the small Balkan states, the masses of India and China, and the famished populations of Europe what they think of the conscience of humanity. And in our own country, what did it achieve under the guidance of certain leaders? It tolerated the hanging of the leaders of the rebellion of 1837 at Pied-du-Courant, in Montreal; it saw the exile of our present prime minister's grandfather who wanted to establish responsible government; it witnessed the hanging of Louis
Redistribution

Riel; the shameful trial of Honore Mercier, the violation of the spirit of confederation in the settlement of the school question in Manitoba, the infamous rule 17 of Ontario school laws, the acts of the Anderson government in Saskatchewan and the staccato of machine guns in the streets of Quebec in 1917.
Considering all these facts, and speaking strictly for myself under my responsibility as a private member, and because I belong to the French-Canadian minority, I prefer the security and the guarantee of a statute held as sacred, to the goodwill of the future generations who will come after us in this house and to the human conscience which might inspire their acts.
There is an amendment before the house, and I do not have to look for its motives; it calls for previous consultation with the provinces; it represents my opinion on this point, and I will support it.


Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunenburg) (Text):: In the few minutes remaining before six o'clock I should like to refer briefly to the remarks made on redistribution by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on Thursday, June 13, at page 2473 of Hansard. In this speech the minister replied to certain statements made by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) and dealt at some length with conditions in the maritime provinces. In many respects his statements about the maritimes were correct, and I know the minister had no intention of being derogatory. The spirit of his remarks was constructive, and, knowing him as I do, I am certain that what he said about the maritimes was meant to be in a friendly and helpful vein. However, he made several statements which gave rise to the impression that the maritimes do not stand on their own feet. The unfortunate thing is that some local maritime papers chose to interpret these remarks as being derogatory. In an editorial, dated June 17, 1946, the Halifax Herald dealt with the minister's remarks and emphasized the fact that he accused the maritime provinces of lacking vision and initiative. It classifies the minister's statement with those made a few years ago by the minister's predecessor from Saskatchewan who said:
The chief ambitions of the maritime people were birth, marriage, death and a free ride on the intercolonial railway.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Who said that?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Dunning. Most emphatically I do not wish to adopt a provincial stand on behalf of the maritime provinces. I for one have always deplored that attitude and have said so in this house. Neither is it the feeling of the majority of people in the

maritimes, that they want to be provincial. They are Canadians and they want to be regarded as Canadians in every sense of the word. On the other hand, they want equally to enjoy all the benefits of Canadian citizenship on the same basis as Canadians eleswhere in Canada.
I think this house will agree history shows that maritimers, man for man, have been able to stand on their own feet in Canada or in any other country on the same basis as their fellow-Canadians. While I do not deny that vision and initiative are required wherever success is to be achieved, our problems do not all lend themselves to solution by this simple formula.
At page 2478 of Hansard the minister said that if we in the maritimes had the kind of vision as to what this country can become, we can have plants running twelve months a year. In the field of manufacturing I have known of many instances where we have been able to compete on even terms or better with our central Canadian competitors in the production of commodities.
On motion of Mr. Winters the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 20, 1946.