1946-06-20

Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Labour with respect to the typographical dispute. The minister's reply, which is recorded on page 2633 of Hansard, reads in part as follows:
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.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman's statement of the question of privilege should be brief and to the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am stating it as briefly as I can. I am simply reading one paragraph of the minister's statement which I regard as giving me a right to raise a question of privilege. The rest of the paragraph reads:

Privilege-M. Knowles
One provision of the general rules of the union is that such rules are not subject to arbitration. In view-


James Horace King: The hon. gentleman is out of order.


Mr. COLDWELL:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had risen to a question of privilege and I did not hear Your Honour refuse to hear that question of privilege.


James Horace King: I asked the hon. gentleman to follow the rules of the house and to state his question briefly and to the point, and he started to repeat what he had previously said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question of privilege refers to the fact that the minister made a statement, which I was endeavouring to quote, in which he claimed that the union's laws are in conflict with the labour relations regulations. That is not so. My point of privilege is that ever since January 31 the proposed typographical union agreement has included these words:

except in so far as arbitration and the results thereof are compulsory under Canadian law.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. gentleman to resume his seat. That is not a question of privilege.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I would like to rise on a question of privilege and say that my hon. friend is playing low politics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. Presenting reports by standing and select committees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, I insist that the Minister of Labour withdraw the statement he made that I am playing low politics. I am just placing on the record-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I believe I have been very generous with the hon. gentleman in permitting him to make his statement.


Major James William Coldwell: I would point out that my hon. friend is drawing to the attention of the house a statement made by the Minister of Labour which he claims is a reflection upon what he himself had said.


James Horace King: I have already told the hon. gentleman that he is out of order.


Major James William Coldwell: This is another point of order entirely. The Minister of Labour accused my hon. friend of playing low politics. That is against the rules of the house, and I ask the minister to withdraw it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will withdraw it and say that my hon. friend was playing high politics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


James Horace King: I hope hon. members will help the Speaker keep decorum in the house and preserve its dignity. I have already said that the hon. member did not have a question of privilege. He has stated what he thought was a question of privilege, and I would now ask the house to resume its business.


Major James William Coldwell: The Minister of Labour said that the hon. member was playing low politics. He now says that he was playing high politics, and I ask the minister to withdraw those words.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: "High politics" is quite parliamentary.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The Minister of Labour cannot act the buffoon and get away with it. He is doing too much of it.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. McLURE:: 1.	Has the wartime prices and trade board taken regular inventories of agricultural implements manufactured by Canadian manufacturers?
2.	If so, what stocks of standard farm implements were on hand in implement company warehouses in Canada during (a) May and June, 1945; (b) May and June, 1946?
3.	What was the volume of distribution of agricultural implements to retail dealers during (a) the months of April and May, 1945; (b) April and May, 1946?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Yearly inventories of agricultural implements have not been required from Canadian manufacturers since 1944.
2 and 3. Information not available.


RADIO BROADCASTING-ADVERTISING PROGRAMMES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation banned or refused advertising programmes offered to it at any time during the past year?
2.	If so, which programmes were banned or refused?
3.	Why was each refused?
4.	By whom was the decision made in each case?


Mr. McCANN:: I understand that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has already been supplied with the informa-
265S
Questions

tion asked for in this question. If that is so, would he be good enough to withdraw his
question?


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I received a letter from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation giving me in confidence some information. I suggest that the question be allowed to remain on the order paper because, while the information I received was accepted in confidence, it is no answer to the question.
Question stands.


HOUSING-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	How many houses (a) have been constructed; (b) are under construction, in Saskatchewan under terms of the National Housing Act?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Figures are not available to show numbers of houses constructed or under construction at a given date. However, the following loans have been approved for home owners and builders for sale under the National Housing Acts in the province of Saskatchewan up to May 31, 1946;
Total
Approved Residential		Amount
Loans	Units	of Loans
National Housing		
Act, 1938 	 91	162	S 446,351
National Housing		
Act, 1944 	
205	205	875,500Total 	
296	367	81,321,851FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL-	-SPECIAL	EXCHANGE


FUND ACCOUNT
Mr. ADAMSON:: 1.	What was the sum realized from transactions in gold of the special exchange fund account of the foreign exchange control board, for the fiscal years of 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945? How is this revenue derived?
2.	What revenue accrued from the marketing charge of thirty-five cents per ounce on gold bullion received from Canadian producers for the years 1935 to 1945 inclusive?
Gold is carried on the books of the exchange fund at a price based upon the realizable value in New York which allows for shipping expense and handling charges made by the United States government. Opportunities arise from time to time to sell gold to other countries at a slightly more favourable price and these earnings arise from this source.
2.
Fiscal Year
ended March 31	Amount
1935		 $ 308,106 16
1936	
663,955	171937	
924,002	101938	
1,063,379	881939	
1,279,494	351940	
1,047,466	971941	
1,052,251	251942	
1,018,804	681943	
1,084,227	731944	
1,191,617	901945	
961,276	87


E.CA.F.-AIRCRAFT
Mr. McLURE:: 1. Does the present air strength of the R.C.A.F. include any jet planes?
2.	If so (a) how many and where are they stationed; (b) what is their maximum speed; (c) what is their armament; (d) what is the name and model of these planes?
3.	If not (a) has the R.C.A.F. any jet planes on order; (b) will they be manufactured in the United Kingdom or the United States of America?
4. Does the present air strength of the R.C.A.F. include modern high-speed fighter planes?
5.	If so (a) how many; (b) what models; (c) of what speed and armament?
6.	Does the present strength of the R.C.A.F. include any heavy bombers?
7.	If so (a) how many and where are they stationed; (b) what models, and what is their speed, armament and maximum bomb-carrying capacity?


Mr. McLURE:: Mr. Speaker, I have
received an answer privately to this question, and I therefore ask that it be dropped.


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	The following figures giving revenues from transactions in gold by the foreign exchange control board are taken from the report of the board tabled in the House of Commons on June 5, 1946:
Calendar Year	Amount
1941		 $ 8,503 42
1942	
-65,255	49*1943	
263,757	171944	
113,502	011945	
270,013	98
* This was a temporary book loss reversed in 1943.
Question dropped.


RADIO BROADCASTING-EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTS
Mr. KNIGHT:: 1.	What fraction of the cost did the province of Ontario pay to C.B.C. of putting on educational broadcasts over Ontario stations on the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday series during the years 1942-1946 inclusive?
2.	Who pays the cost of the broadcasts by C.B.C. of Radio College?
3.	If the cost is shared, what proportions are contributed by (a) the province of Quebec; (b) the dominion?
4.	What are the proportions of expense of the C.B.C. educational broadcasts over Saskatchewan stations borne by (a) the Dominion of

Questions as Orders lor Returns
Canada; (b) the province of Saskatchewan, in ' regard to the broadcasts in which they share expenses ?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I am given to understand that this question has been asked before the committee on radio broadcasting and will be answered there. If that is so, would the hon. gentleman be content to withdraw the question?
Question dropped.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAR FERRY
Mr. McLURE:: 1.	On what date will the new Prince Edward Island car ferry Abegweit be ready for service?
2.	Are the present docks at Tormentine and Borden sufficiently large and properly equipped to berth a vessel of the Abegweit's dimensions?
3.	Will the present Prince Edward Island car ferry Prince Edward, be retained on the Borden-Tormentine run for handling freight after the Abegweit is put in service?
4.	If not, what will be done with the present crew of the Prince Edwardf
5.	What is the size of the present crew of the Prince Edward t
6.	How many men will be required for the Abegweit ?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
1.	Late this fall.
2.	Yes.
The Canadian National Railways, who are the operators of the service, advise as follows,-
3.	Will depend upon the necessities of the situation from time to time. Intention is to keep the Prince Edward Island available for use if needed.
4.	Present crew of Prince- Edward Island will take service on Abegweit.
5.	Seventy-three.
6.	Cannot finally determine until completion of Abegweit is further advanced.


FUEL CONTROL-IAN MACLAREN
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	Does Mr. Ian MacLaren hold a position with the Canadian Fuel Control Board?
2.	If so (a) when was he appointed; (b) what salary is he paid; (c) what was paid him by way of expenses from date of appointment to June 15, 1946?
3.	Is he connected with any coal company? If so, what company?
Mr. MelLRAITH:
1. No. But Mr. MacLaren is associate coal controller.
2.	(a) He was appointed associate coal controller effective June 8, 1943, under authority of order in council P.C. 5283, dated July 2, 1943.
(b)	Mr. MacLaren receives no salary.
(c)	S2.705.20.
3.	Yes. Mr. MacLaren is president of the Rochester and Pittsburgh Coal Company (Canada) Limited, Toronto.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	What is the total capitalization of the Canadian National Railways system?
2.	What was its total liability when taken over by the Canadian government?
3.	What was the total amount paid to Mackenzie and Mann and all other interests?
4.	What is the (a) number of bond issues outstanding; (b) dates of issue; (c) interest rate on each issue; (d) total amount of interest paid to date; (e) total amount of principal paid to date; (f) percentage of total securities held in Canada?


R.C.A.F.-TORONTO WATERFRONT SHEDS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What was the cost of erecting sheds for the use of R.C.A.F. on the Toronto waterfront?
2.	What department of government had charge of the construction?
3.	Were workmen brought in from outside Toronto to help construct such buildings?
4.	Have any been torn down or sold? If sold, how many, to whom and at what price?
5.	Was any application received for use of these buildings to relieve the housing shortage? If so, from whom?
6.	What Use has been made of buildings (a) during war; (b) afterwards?



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that there are pools of farm machinery in western Canada and that the machinery is being held and not distributed? Is he aware that this machinery is urgently needed by veterans? Is he aware that in some cases-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member is not in order in giving information. His question should be directed to receiving information.
Redistribution


Percy Ellis Wright: In view of the fact that in some cases it is proposed to reship this machinery back to the United States, will the minister make the necessary inquiries and issue the necessary orders to see that this machinery is distributed in Canada and not sent back to the United States?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I will make inquiries and find out what the situation is. I do not know what action will be taken in regard to it because I do not know what the facts are.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for an address to His Majesty the King praying that a measure be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to effect an amendment to the British North America Act with respect to readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefen-baker.
Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the debate was adjourned I was referring to remarks made about the maritime provinces during this debate on redistribution. In particular I was attempting to rectify an erroneous impression that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was speaking in a derogatory vein when he stated the the maritimes needed vision and initiative more than a new system of redistribution in order to cure certain of their ills.
I have no quarrel with the resolution on redistribution. It would appear to be in the best interests of Canada. I cannot, however, support the amendment. Much has been said in a legal vein as to whether or not the federal government can take the action it proposes to take without consulting the provinces, but in the final analysis this house would appear to accept in general the principles set forth in the resolution.
I do not feel that we in the maritimes have any grounds to fear that the proposed plan for redistribution, if adopted, will react against us.
My last remarks before the adjournment yesterday dealt with the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), at page 2478 of Hansard, to the effect that with clearer vision as to this country's future, we in the maritimes can have plants running twelve months a year, and sell our goods to central and western Canada.

I had started before the adjournment yesterday to place before the house the fact that although in many instances we are able to compete on even terms or better with our central Canadian competitors in the production of commodities, we have lost orders because when freight rates are added, the price of our goods laid down in central or western Canada is greater than the price for the same goods manufactured closer to their destination. We most certainly do not lack the vision to recognize this problem. We have realized for years that it is working to our disadvantage, but neither vision nor initiative has altered the situation appreciably. The Minister of Agriculture knows full well that the same conditions are encountered by the western provinces, and British Columbia, in particular, faces problems that are not unlike those we face in the maritimes.
The following statement made bjr the transportation commission of the maritime board of trade crystallizes the disadvantage we are suffering in the maritimes because of our geographical location:
Inasmuch as transportation exerts a tremendous influence upon the location of economic enterprise, it appears that some recent studies on the economy of the maritimes from the postwar viewpoint have failed to give sufficient weight to the effects of the transportation factor in the locational pattern of industry.
The tendency has been for manufacturing to be located close to the markets, away from the raw materials due to the "value of service" principle in railway rate-making, which results in increased charges as fabrication progresses.
If vision is required in solving this problem generally, then I would say to the house that it is vision on a broad Canadian basis, and not vision on the part of the maritime provinces alone. However, when considering our transportation problem, maritimers should not blamd the Minister of Agriculture in any respect. In fact, it was he who was chiefly responsible for the arrangement whereby feed is shipped into the maritimes free of cost, to circumvent this problem of transportation.
The minister suggested that fuller advantage be taken of water routes in bringing our goods to central and western Canada. At page 2478 of Hansard the minister recommended that the maritimes use the water routes by way of Hudson bay and the St. Lawrence river to place their goods on the central Canadian and western markets. It is true that developments in science have brought us to the point where it may now be possible to visualize longer navigation seasons on these two routes, but if we are to take a practical view we must realize that we are still confronted with difficulties, in

Redistribution
that the St, Lawrence river and Hudson bay are inaccessible for many months of the year. I would say that vision and initiative of the magnitude required to make these water routes accessible on a year-round practical basis are not yet available to this generation. Science and other developments simply have not gone that far.
In the maritimes we feel we have the same natural endowments as Canadians elsewhere, and we are just as willing and eager to apply them; but the fact is that to achieve the same results as people in central Canada, it has been and still is necessary for us to bring to bear on the problem a disproportionate amount of vision, initiative, facilities, abilities and so on, to compensate for our geographical location. The alleviation of our disadvantages is a matter of cooperation on a federal or national scale; and it is here that we find ourselves in the ruck, because vision and initiative are not always applied to as great an extent as we in the maritimes sometimes wish. When discussing the matter of lack of vision and initiative we can accuse central Canada, and sometimes the federal government, just as easily and with as much justification as they have for any accusation they direct at us. However, it is not a matter of accusation; it is a case for cooperation. We must regard it as a Canadian and not a regional problem.
I would invite the attention of the house to the June 15 issue of the Financial Post and commend it to readers; it may be that they will get some idea from this issue that we in the maritimes attempt to show some initiative. The article is entitled:
Maritimes Streamline Trade Methods, Modernize Production to Gain Markets
It states in the first two paragraphs:
Maritimers have long ago_ come to learn that their economic well-being hinges largely on the kind of trade agreements Ottawa makes with other world countries and they are perhaps more conscious of that fact to-day than ever. But, with world trade policies still in the making, Nova Scotia. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island aren't waiting for Ottawa to put them on their post-war feet or otherwise.
They are taking direct action to stimulate trade by producing better quality goods at competitive prices, newr and more advanced techniques, a higher standard of products and greater continuity of supply.
May I quote one more paragraph, to show that somebody else thinks the problem is not purely a maritime one, but one for cooperation by Canadians everywhere:
Because of geographical disadvantages to trade with the rest of Canada, maritimers must look to the sea and to the fifteen million potential customers to the south. But they must gain access to these markets on more favourable terms than in the past if the economy is really
to develop. And this depends on national and international trade policies over which they can have no effective control. Hence the maritimers naturally hope that Ottawa will give them the appropriate tariff framework within which their export economy can properly breathe.
It is recognized that the problem is a difficult one, and I do not pretend to know all the answers, 'but I do not wish the impression to go unchallenged that we are in the predicament in which we find ourselves simply because of lack of initiative and vision. We know the difficulties and fully appreciate them. We know that we are at a disadvantage in selling to central Canadian and western markets, but on the other hand, I would emphasize that we are just as fully aware that we are favourably situated to place goods on foreign market's, by virtue of our position on the Atlantic seaboard. We have the vision to know that what we need, and want, is freer access to these markets through the medium of favourable trade agreements and tariff structures.
This is an old story, and I won't labour it further at this time. I would say, however, that we have recently made available to ravaged foreign countries vast sums in the form of loans, to make it possible for these unfortunate countries to purchase goods produced in Canada. We in the maritime provinces are more favourably situated than anybody else to deal with these foreign markets. This is one instance in which this government can apply not only vision but a fair measure of justice on its own part, and recognize that while we are at a normal disadvantage in manufacturing for the Canadian market, we have a decided natural advantage with respect to foreign markets. Those concerned with making goods available for foreign consumption through the medium of these loans should ensure that orders are placed accordingly.
In conclusion I would say that the majority of maritimers interpreted the minister's statements in the helpful spirit in which they were given. It is hoped these few remarks will help to clear up the wrong impression that has developed in the minds of some of our citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the subject before us is recognized as one of great importance, and the debate upon it has been extremely interesting, but it does seem to me that it has wandered far afield and that it has been longer than necessary in view of the clear-cut proposal which is before us. Having said that in my view the debate has gone longer than necessary, it behooves me to state my view on the matter very briefly, and I shall do so.
Redistribution

The proposition before us has just two points, and they are direct and specific. The first relates to the method of representation of the Canadian people in this parliament. The second relates to the question as to how we should go about making any changes if it is necessary to do so to achieve the best method of representation.
With reference to the first question, we all seem agreed that representation in a democratic parliament such as ours should be by population. It has been argued in a good many speeches during the course of this debate that in the past we have not had exactly proportionate representation at any time, nor have we such representation at the present time. That is quite true, bearing in mind the points which have been made. But the fact is that the resolution before us comes closer to representation by population than anything that has yet been proposed in this parliament or to the Canadian people. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the answer is simple-that we in this parliament ought to vote for the resolution.
I confess that I have found it difficult to follow all the arguments which have been made by speakers who professed their loyalty to this principle and yet have suggested other ways and other figures which should be arrived at than those which would follow from the application of this principle. But there it is. It is very simple. We believe in representation by population. The formula before us comes closer to that than anything yet proposed. Therefore we in this group are in support of the resolution.
I join with those who have expressed the view that, after the resolution has been carried and the British North America Act amended accordingly, we should pay attention more closely to that principle of representation by population. I agree that there are other considerations to be thought about, such as small provinces like Prince Edward Island and areas like the northwest territories. I agree also that there is something to be said for a smaller population per constituency in large areas such as in some of the rural parts of our country. But I suggest on the other hand that that idea has been carried too far. In a province such as my own, for example, where we have constituencies varying in population all the way from 22,000 up to 70,000. That wide discrepancy obtains not only as between rural and urban constituencies but amongst rural constituencies themselves. For example, there is one rural constituency in Manitoba with a population now of 22,000; there is another with a population of 55,000. However, the resolution

before us does not prevent adjustment of that kind of situation, and therefore, even from the position I am taking, one can have no quarrel with it. And so on the score of representation by population we in this group are in favour of the resolution.
The other question before us involved in this proposition is the method of making a change if we are agreed that change is necessary, and under that heading we have a mass of legal arguments and involved consideration of the question whether confederation is a compact, or whether Canada is a nation. I suggest that we should realize not only the force of the argument put forward the other day by my colleague the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), that what was achieved in 1867 was a nation, but also that the people of Canada to-day think of this country not as a collection of sovereign states but as a nation; and on that basis we should act in this matter.
I agree with those who contend that the amendment of our constitution should be in Canadian hands, and also that the formula for amending it should be definitely worked out and laid down. But pending that, I do not think we should act in any way that would make us less than a nation. We should not return to the status which this land held when it was a collection of individual colonies. Rather we should regard this matter as one that is of concern to all the people of Canada as Canadians, and one that should be decided in the place where the people are represented as Canadians.
The Minister of Justice made one statement which has elicited replies from various members which, I suggest, has taken the discussion a little wide of the mark. I refer to his suggestion that the provinces are represented here by the members from the various provinces. In reply to that, hon. members have made the statement that they do not feel that they represent their provinces, and so the argument has gone back and forth on that point. What we should realize is that in this house we do not represent provinces. We do not, if we appreciate our position correctly, represent our people on a provincial basis. We represent Canadians. I do not presume to represent the province of Manitoba. I represent 60,000 Canadians who happen to live within the province of Manitoba, and my concern is to represent them with respect to their Canadian interests. Their Canadian interests are decided here in this parliament, and we should think of the matter on that basis. On the score of method as well as on the score of basis of

Redistribution
representation, the resolution hits the mark and therefore the vote of this house should be in favour of it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Is the hon. member not aware that when I spoke of the provinces being represented here I particularized my remarks very carefully? I stated, as appears at page 1936 of Hansard:
Another question, which has arisen each time there has been any move to ask for an amendment of the British North America Act, has been whether or not the provinces had been consulted and had agreed to it. I think that when the question is put in that form it is ambiguous. The provinces, that is to 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.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad that the Minister of Justice has interjected into the record that quotation from his speech. I recognize that in that statement he made the point I am trying to make. But my contention is that the position he took has been misunderstood and it has been thought of by some members in the house in the terms I suggested earlier.
One other comment I wish to make is this. It is deplorable that sectionalism should have crept into the debate to the extent that it has. Sectionalism has been with us not only in the speches of some members from the different provinces who have tried to state the ease for more members for their particular provinces; it is also involved in the whole argumenj, that the matter should be referred to the several provinces. My objection to sectionalism and my desire for everything possible in the direction of Canadian unity is not just for the purpose of intellectual tidiness, but rather because I feel that nothing can more successfully retard social and economic progress in this country than the attempt to keep us divided. We have had examples of this in connection with the dominion-provincial conference, which has been referred to so often in this debate. For several months now the Canadian people have been hoping that, in consequence of the proposals made to that conference, a better old age pension scheme and a health insurance plan were just around the corner. Maybe they are still around the corner, but it becomes a very long comer because of provincial superintendence, if I may use the phrase of the Minister of Justice, over national affairs. The whole question of social security, labour legislation and other matters in these fields are of concern to all citizens of this land. These things are our concern as Canadians, right across the country, and to the extent that the forces of
reaction can keep us arguing over provincial rights, and can keep us divided on provincial, racial or any other lines we delay the possibility of dealing with these important social and economic problems. I hope that in future debates in this house we shall give serious thought to what sectionalism does to the expectations of the Canadian people for a better life, for better social and economic conditions. To keep sectionalism alive is surely, in this day and age, unthinkable. We all feel that the united nations organization will succeed only if we surrender a measure of our national sovereignty and become one world, and surely we should no longer have to argue the point that within this country we are not nine separate sovereign states, but one Canada, the main concern of which should be the best possible life for all Canadians.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Inasmuch as I have been interested for some time in one phase of the discussion on this question there are a few thoughts to which I should like to give expression, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the house, that I shall endeavour in doing so to be as brief as I possibly can, and to the point. As I have said on previous occasions, in discussing this matter I have never presumed to pose as a constitutional or legal expert. On each occasion on which I have spoken on this question I have said that I considered the issues which were involved were those with which every individual citizen of Canada should be familiar; and it is only the fundamental and basic principles that I wish to concern myself with in this discussion to-day.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) raised the essential principle which is involved in this discussion. He pointed out that in the government's endeavour to eliminate an injustice with respect to the distribution of dominion seats, a fundamental principle was involved, namely, a method of amending the British North America Act. I believe that that principle raises the whole fundamental question of how we are to proceed with amendments to the British North America Act in the future. Certainly this is not going to be the last occasion on which discussions are to arise as to ways and means of amending the British North America Act.
One question that comes to my mind-it has been raised by many hon. members who have already spoken-is this: Why does the British North America Act not contain a definite procedure which can be followed in amending the act? Why has the British North America Act no provision of that kind? Speaking on this point, the Minister of Fisheries
R p. distribution

(Mr. Bridges) suggested that it was a mere oversight on the part of the fathers of confederation. From what little reading I have done on the subject I personally cannot credit them with being guilty of an oversight upon such a fundamental question. The hon. member for Eglinton went further and suggested that it was because the fathers of confederation could not agree. He did not support his contention with any evidence, which I should like to have seen him do. From my study and reading I feel that the reason there is no provision in the British North America Act for its amendment is far more fundamental than the reasons advanced by these two hon. gentlemen.
I would suggest that the whole constitutional position of this country is on an unsound basis, and that accounts for the fact that there is no provision in the act for its amendment. There are many things with which we are dealing in these days which indicate that. On every occasion that an amendment must be made, a debate arises of the kind that we have been having for the past few weeks. We have the question of the flag, appeals to the privy council, the matter of the disallowance of dominion and provincial legislation, the matter of an appointed upper house, and so on. These are all anomalies in our constitutional position. They, and the lack of any recognized way of amending the British North America Act, are symptomatic of the fact that there is something fundamentally not right in our whole constitutional basis.
We proclaim that we are a nation, that we are sovereign, that we are politically independent of the imperial parliament. We have been proclaiming that ever since the passage of the statute of Westminster in 1931, and yet all these anomalies prevail to-day. Why are we confronted with this situation? Why is it that we are discussing the matter of adopting a distinctive national flag? Why were not these things taken care of in 1931? Why were not all these anomalies eliminated then. That is a pertinent point. It indicates that there is something fundamentally unsound in our whole constitutional set-up; otherwise we should not be confronted with these situations from time to time.
If we are to endeavour to lay down definite procedure for the amendment of the British North America Act in the future, whatever we do will have to be determined by what took place in 1867. Whatever we do to attempt to rectify the situation must be done in the light of what took place in 1867 at the passage of the British North America Act.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) made some points with which I should like to
[Mr. Kulll.l
deal. He made the statement that at the time of confederation the provinces were not recognized as autonomous units. His exact words were, as reported at page 2617 of Hansard:
These were colonies exercising 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.
Does it not logically follow from that that Canada did not become a federal union in 1867? Certainly in the consummation of a federal union and a federal arrangement, federation presupposes a condition of sovereignty, and if the condition of sovereignty must precede confederation or federation, then how does that harmonize with the position which the minister claimed prevailed prior to 1867? So I think I am arguing logically when I suggest that if the provinces were not free and independent, as the minister says they were; if they were dependencies in 1867, then that which was consummated was not a federal union but rather a united colony. I think that is completely in harmony with opinions which can be brought to bear; it is completely in harmony with the preamble of the act itself, and is also in harmony with the Interpretation Act of 1889, which says that the expression "colony" shall mean-
. . . any of Her Majesty's dominions, exclusive of the British islands and of British India; and where parts of such dominions are under both a central legislature and local legislatures, all parts under the central legislature shall for the purpose of this definition be deemed to be one colony.
So if the minister's statement is correct and in accordance with the true position at that time, the condition that has prevailed ever since has been that the united colonies have been dependencies. Since that must have been so, the question I should like to ask is in what manner and by what process has Canada become a federal union and this parliament a federal parliament. A federal union and a federal parliament could be consummated only through an agreement reached by the provinces as sovereign entities. Therefore the whole constitutional position is left in a confused state, so far as I am able to understand it. On the one hand we have an act by which we are governing ourselves, which is actually an imperial statute and not a constitution proper. On the other hand we contend that we are a nation independent of the imperial parliament; yet there is nothing in the records to indicate the manner in which a federal system has arisen.

Redistribution
The only conclusion I can draw from this situation, therefore, is that when the authority which the imperial parliament exercised over the people of Canada was surrendered in 1931 through the statute of Westminster, it was surrendered to the provinces of Canada; for it is contrary to natural law that the imperial parliament could create any federal government in Canada. A federal government can be created only by the provinces which compose the union. Consequently I feel justified in asserting that the authority previously held by the imperial parliament over the colony of Canada has now been relinquished to the provinces of Canada, and remains there until such time as they create a federal union and a federal government of their own choice. If there were an agreement or compact among the provinces of Canada, surely a certified copy of it should be in the records, with rhe signatures of the appropriate authorities; but there is none. Hence the confused situation that exists in this country. We are deemed to govern ourselves by an imperial statute, while at the same time claiming that we are a nation, independent, free and sovereign. If we are a nation proper, then surely it follows that we should have the right and there should be a specific process to amend our constitution, but that is not so. We still proceed as we are doing under this measure, to the imperial parliament, petitioning them to grant us a particular amendment.
So far as rectifying this whole situation is concerned, I do not agree that it should be undertaken by this parliament, by a combination of this parliament and the provincial premiers, or by any small representative body. I believe the issues involved in removing the anomalies which exist in our whole constitutional position, including the matter of amending our own constitution, are of such fundamental importance that the people of Canada as a whole must be consulted. As far as my reading and information go the people of Canada have never been consulted on the British North America Act as a constitution. If the British North America Act is regarded as an imperial statute, they could not have been consulted in 1867; it could not be expected that they would be consulted. If it is an imperial statute, and we are to function under a proper constitution, then surely logic dictates that such constitution should be submitted to the people of Canada for ratification; and until such time as that has been done, how can it be asserted that the people are responsible for the circumstances which prevail?
I suggest that the only democratic way to take care of methods of amending the constitution in future is by consulting all the
people of Canada. The people of Australia certainly were consulted on their constitution. They were permitted to vote by ballot; in fact they voted on their constitution twice, and it did not become legal and binding until such time as a majority voted in favour of it. We in Canada claim that the British North America Act is our constitution, yet we have never been consulted on it. I have found no record to indicate that the people of Canada were ever consulted. Therefore how can it be said that there is in Canada a constitutional arrangement agreed to by the people of Canada? I suggest, therefore, that we shall never proceed in a businesslike manner, we shall always have debates and arguments and differences of opinion on this subject of amending the British North America Act, until we as a nation lay down some formula and some technique which we can follow logically from begining to end.
On previous occasions when discussing this subject I quoted at length some of those who gave evidence before the special committee on the British North America Act in 1935. Some good advice was given before that committee, and I cannot understand why parliament, having set up the committee, having summoned those who were recognized as constitutional authorities, having had those persons suggest ways and means of taking care of this situation, has never acted. Here we are to-day still debating how we are to proceed. As I say, we have had already the benefit of the deliberations of that parliamentary committee before which outstanding constitutional authorities gave their opinions and made their recommendations, and still we are carrying on in this fashion.
As I have said on previous occasions, the most democratic and best advice given on that occasion was given by Doctor Beau-chesne, the worthy Clerk of this house. I cannot understand why the government, this parliament and the provincial legislatures have not acted on that advice. I dislike repetition in myself just as much as I dislike it in anyone else, but as .this is such a fundamental matter I feel I must place on record once more the suggestions made by Doctor Beau-chesne with respect to removing the anomaly with which we are now concerning ourselves, as well as other anomalies which exist in our constitutional position. I should like to quote from page 126 of the proceedings of the special committee on the British North America Act which sat in 1935, where Doctor Beauchesne is reported as follows:
-the Statute of Westminster has altered our status . . .
Redistribution

The time has come in my humble opinion, when the British North America Act, except as to minority rights, should be transformed and a new constitution more in conformity with present conditions should be adopted. Amendments here and there would be mere patchwork which could not last. The people of 1935 are different from those of 1867. What we want is a new constitution . . .
The new constitution must leave nobody with a grievance. A spirit of conciliation should predominate. For these reasons, the task must be entrusted to an independent body in which all the elements of the country will be represented. I therefore beg to suggest an imposing constituent assembly formed of eminent men coming from all parts of Canada. Provincial conferences, attended by a few ministers meeting behind closed doors, would hardly satisfy public opinion. The debate should be public . . .
I should like to interpolate there and say that I think that is the most commendable suggestion as to how to deal with this anomalous situation. It is in entire conformity wTith democratic principles, and is certainly worthy of the support of the people of Canada. As Doctor Beauchesne indicates, the circumstances are of such a nature that this matter should not be considered by a small body of representatives of the provinces and the dominion; it should be considered by a constituent assembly elected by all the people of Canada and charged specifically to deal with this whole problem. Doctor Beauchesne went on to say:
I want the assembly to sit in a city in the west. It would not be necessary for a delegate to be a member of parliament or of a provincial legislature . . .
Then again on page 128 Doctor Beauchesne is reported as follows:
I would suggest that the assembly do not sit in Ottawa, in order that it may not have the appearance of being dominated, or even influenced by the dominion power; and, as the western provinces are of such paramount importance in the country, I suggest the best city for the representatives to gather in would be Winnipeg.
And again on page 131:
There have been many disputes about provincial rights since 1867, and it seems certain that when a new constitution is drawn up, the distribution of federal and provincial powers will have to be modified.
And again on page 135:
I think the time is ripe for a change in the constitution. I do not think you would need much publicity in order to draw to the attention of the people of this country that the British North America Act is inadequate.
And again on page 129:
Whether our country should be changed from a dominion to a kingdom is also a subject which might be discussed. I would suggest that the country should be called "the federated states of Canada."
[Mr. Kuhl.l
I consider that a comprehensive and allinclusive suggestion as to how to rectify the present anomalies and confusing constitutional position. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and the representatives of the provinces have not considered carrying out that proposal. This parliament appointed a special committee to study this subject, and here are the recommendations that were made. Surely there could not be a more democratic way to deal with it; consequently I again suggest and urge and recommend that at the earliest opportunity the suggestions of Doctor Beauchesne be implemented.
There could not be a more logical place in which to do that than the dominion-provincial conference. On the last occasion on which I spoke on this subject I said that I would be watching carefully to see what the delegates might have to say on this particular subject, but I must confess that I have been disappointed. I still hope that we may see the day when someone will take up Doctor Beauchesne's proposals and initiate action along that line. I believe it is only by adopting such a procedure that we can democratically and in the interests of all sections of Canada rectify the present unsatisfactory constitutional position.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, although this question has been under consideration for a number of sitting days, because of its importance I feel not at all disposed to apologize for expressing my views upon it. It has been said during this debate that the question under discussion is one of the most important that we have had to deal with over a very long period of time. I perfectly agree with that view. We are not to-day proposing to amend the Confederation Act of 1867 in the same manner and for the same purposes as we have done in the past. We are dealing to-day with the very foundation of the representation of the provinces in the dominion parliament. We are in a way affecting the basis or foundation of the pact of confederation which has been for a number of years now the source of our liberties and the source of all our powers, politically speaking, socially speaking, and nationally speaking. Therefore we should not approach such a problem without very serious consideration of the consequences of our action.
Being of this view, I regret that such a question has not been, from the very beginning, declared by the government and by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) a free question upon which all members of the House of Commons would be at

Redistribution
liberty to express their own personal views and the views of the province which they represent in this house, without fear of being jeopardized in their relations with the party at present in power. This question is so important that it should be dealt with from a general, yes, from a national point of view, and not from the narrow point of view of a majority in this house or of a political party in power. It is too important a question to be left to the authority of the government in power or to a majority in this house.
As I said, by this resolution we are touching the very basis of our political, social, and national life, and nobody can say how far we are going to go along that line and what will be the consequences of our action.
It is unfortunate also, Mr. Speaker, that in relation to such an important problem as the amending of our constitution we should proceed in the same manner as if it were proposed that the house should sit on Wednesday night-by a simple resolution presented by a minister, and upon which there can be only one kind of debate, what we generally call a full-dress debate, when no questions can be asked of the minister introducing the resolution, and when no elucidation of any difficult point can be made. We are bound, when this resolution is submitted to a vote, to say yes or no without having had the opportunity of inquiring about the details of the motion and receiving definite answers from the minister, and without having had the advantage and benefit of the views of persons knowing something about constitutional law who are unable to express their views in the House of Commons because they are not members. It is unfortunate, I repeat, that an amendment to our constitution is to be made in such a manner.
It is unfortunate also that we have had propounded in this house from as high an authority as the distinguished Minister of Justice that we can do this without any regard to the views of the provinces whatever may be their interest in the matter. I know there are precedents. I have been a party man and a member of this house long enough to know the precedents that have been cited during this debate. But I contend that precedents such as those that have been referred to should not be the guiding rule when we are dealing with the very basis of the representation of the Canadian people in the House of Commons.
What we are doing now is not a repetition of the precedents that have been referred to. In those days there was no question of changing the basis of representation in the House of Commons. Exceptions were made to the
general rule in favour of minorities. And when I speak of minorities I include small provinces in the Dominion of Canada, because, after all, they are minorities. Exceptions have been made to the general rule established in the constitution of 1867, and all the precedents mentioned provided for such exceptions being made to remedy a difficult situation existing with respect to the smaller provinces. But here we are changing the very basis of the . representation in the house, and we discard the principles and ideas exposed when the act of 1867 was put into force and effect and as they have been interpreted since, on many occasions.
To say that Ottawa is the only authority to amend our constitution, even concerning matters in which the provinces may be interested, is in my humble judgment going a little bit too far. It was never in the mind of the fathers of confederation that the federal parliament would have authority, without the consent of the provinces, without even the courtesy of consulting them, to change dispositions of the act which are material to their welfare and which are essential to the preservation of their way of life, their traditions, laws and liberties.. It was never in the minds of the fathers of confederation that parliament would be vested with such wide authority.
And what is the consequence? We have heard the Minister of Justice say in reply to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr Smith) that the federal parliament would have the authority to make representations to the imperial parliament to amend the constitution by wiping out section 133 of the British North America Act which protects the French language in this country, and that without consulting the provinces. That is one consequence of the theory which has been expounded by the Minister of Justice in this house, contrary to the views expressed by his distinguished predecessor, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, and all public men in Canada since 1867.
In all the discussions which took place in regard to amending the constitution' it has always been contended by all parties that we could never touch the privileges of any province, of any race or any religion, without giving them the opportunity of being consulted and of expressing in detail their views on the proposition.
The Minister of Justice rested his case, if I understood him aright, on Professor Kennedy's work on constitutional law. Not later than an hour ago I happened to open the report of a committee which sat in 1935 to consider the constitution of Canada and the proposals
Redistribution

for amendment and the extent of the respective jurisdictions under the act -of 1867. What did Professor Kennedy contend? The minister made the argument that the federal parliament had alone the right to deal with redistribution because it was within the powers attributed to the house, but that we would have no right at all to deal with the rights reserved to the provinces by sec. tion 92. When Professor Kennedy appeared before the committee in 1935 he said clearly, in answer to questions put to him, that the federal parliament could make representations to the imperial parliament to amend the constitution even on matters covered by section 92, and defining the privileges and the authority of the provinces. So, if the federal case rests on the views of Professor Kennedy, we must conclude, from the proposal now oefore the house, that the federal authority claims in fact the right to invade provincial rights and to deprive the provinces of the jurisdiction and powers which were given to them by section 92 of the British North America Act.
If Ottawa enjoyed jurisdiction in matters of that kind, it would amount to the very thing which many Canadians were afraid of at the time of the passing of the act-legislative union. That interpretation would give the House of Commons the authority to deal with everything, including matters of education as well as matters of language and religion. I object to such an interpretation, and I do not want to see the federal authority have the power to deprive the provinces of even the least of the privileges which were given to them.
"Balkanize Canada"! This is a wrong expression which is being popularized because it is a nice-sounding term. Canada is what she is to-day because of the strength of the different provinces, because Canada is a confederation and not a country governed solely by the authority which legislates in Ottawa.
Let us see, Mr. Speaker, how the new theory is applied in the field of practical politics. The contention is that there is no necessity to consult the provinces, that the provinces have no right to dictate to the government in such a matter, that they have no authority to express their views on such a question. I say that it was not the case in 1943. In that year the federal parliament listened to the voice of two provinces, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the resolution which was then presented to the house, to postpone redistribution until after the war, was passed at the request and ait the insistence of those two provinces. It is to the credit of the min-

isters who represented Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the cabinet that such a thing was done. The government then showed that they were ready to listen to the voice of two provinces, and the ministers from these provinces indicated that they were not only representing Canada as a whole but were thinking first of their own provinces. They insisted upon obtaining the postponement of redistribution in 1943 against the will of the province of Quebec. Sometimes I envy the courage and solidarity of the representatives of the other provinces, and I wish that we in the province of Quebec had the same amount of solidarity and courage to claim what is our due and to insist on our privileges and our liberties.
"Balkanize Canada"! Is the British commonwealth of nations a Balkanized organization? The British commonwealth of nations is composed of nations who claim independence for themselves. The provinces can exert a certain amount of independence. at least in the field which is allotted to them, and to do so is not to Balkanize Canada in any way, shape or form. The opposite would be centralization. And what has centralization done to the world0 It gave Mussolini to Italy; it gave Hitler to Germany. That is the result of centralization. In the centralized organization the value of the individual disappears; he is absorbed in the great mass of the majority, and his identity and personality are lost.
It has been contended that we who come from the different provinces represent the provinces. I claim that we do not represent the provinces. We represent constituencies in the Dominion of Canada, but we do not speak for the provinces as such. We have not the authority to speak for the provinces. We can speak as members for the constituencies which have done us the honour of electing us to this house, but we are not representing the provinces. We are members of the federal parliament coming from different sections of the country, but, I repeat, we cannot speak for the provinces. It would be a little boastful on our part to say that we alone can speak for the provinces, that we alone have the proper light on the general problems affecting the provinces and the country as a whole. That is a mistaken view.
I submit that the constitution of 1867 is a document-call it a statute if you will; call it a pact or a compact-it is a document that must be taken in its entirety and cannot be torn apart so that we can say that on a particular section of the law of 1867 we are masters and can do what it pleases us to do, while on other sections of the pact of

Redistribution
1867, the provinces have the authority. That is a mistaken attitude. We have to accept the pact of 1867, or the statute of 1867, as a whole or discard it. It has been established after many conferences, and it is the result of a compromise, even if it is now in the form of a statute.
I know it has been argued by the very pleasant Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges), and by the distinguished Minister of Justice that we could deal with certain sections which are more clearly within our jurisdiction, and not touch others. May I repeat here that the doctrine upon which the Minister of Justice rested his case is the doctrine of Mr. Kennedy, who says that we can even interfere with the powers that have been given the provinces.
That opinion or view, that the act of 1867 is a statute which can be amended by the imperial parliament on the recommendation of the federal parliament, in certain cases-to accept the views of some members who have spoken-without the consent of the provinces, is a view that is new. In the past it has always been contended that at least in matters of importance the provinces should be consulted particularly on questions in which they thought they Bad an interest. Even on the question of redistribution the provinces are interested. They are as much interested as the federal parliament.
It is true that the parliament at Ottawa has the authority to divide the country into a certain number of seats, to fix the limits of those seats; but the number of representatives in any province in Canada is something that concerns and interests all the provinces. The provinces have the right to be consulted when we change the number of their representatives or when we adopt measures which are capable of modifying their representation in this House of Commons.
This has been the interpretation of all parties. It has been indicated, though not too clearly or too definitely, that certain elements in certain provinces were interested in creating difficulties for the federal authority. Reference has been made to the present government of Quebec and the present government of Ontario. Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the representatives of all sections of Canada, that what has been said by these provincial premiers reflects the opinion of all the members of their respective legislatures. What has been said by the present premier of the province of Quebec has been said by the Liberals of the province of Quebec sitting in the provincial house.
The protest I am making now is the same protest I made in 1943. That protest I made
in 1943 has been supported by as good a Liberal as the hon. Mr. Godbout, who was premier of Quebec, on June 22, 1943, when he wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada, as follows:
Dear Mr. King:
I regret to hear that you consider delaying the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons according to the 1941 census. This decennial readjustment is an essential part of the compact between the provinces out of which arose the Canadian confederation, and therefore the British North America Act cannot properly be amended, in this respect, without the assent of the provinces.
This is not the Hon. Mr. Duplessis or the Hon. Mr. Drew; it is the present leader of the Liberal forces in the province of Quebec, and the man who is followed by most of the members from the province of Quebec sitting in this house. He concludes this letter:
I have no doubt that due consideration will be given to these representations, and I sincerely hope that no attempt will be made to have the British North America Act amended against the wishes of this province.
These are the words of the then premier of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Godbout, in 1943; and what is being said by others to-day is only a repetition of what Mr. Godbout himself said in Quebec.
Later, in 1944, there was a debate on this question in the provincial legislature of Quebec and one of the brightest members of the Godbout government, Hon. Hector Perrier, a man of knowledge and experience, a talented man, said, according to the report:
(Translation):
Speaking on behalf of the government, the Hon. Hector Perrier emphasized the strong stand taken by the Prime Minister last year. He added that if the federal elections take place under a redistribution scheme contrary to the constitution, it will be our duty to protest.
(Text):
May I translate the quotation. Mr. Perrier agreed with the energetic attitude taken by the then premier of the province, Hon. Mr. Godbout, in the previous year. He added that if federal elections took place in accordance with a redistribution which is not in conformity with the constitution our duty will be to protest. That is the attitude and the language of a man of authority. It was the attitude of the Liberal party in Quebec, to which I have given the best years of my life and the strength of my health.
I am in favour of unity, but I am against unification. I am in favour of unity and union of all the contracting parties to the pact of confederation, but I want to respect the privileges, rights and liberties of all the component parts of the Dominion of Canada. This question is so important that it should
Redistribution

have been submitted to a conference of some kind, or at least to a committee, before which
all interested parties would have had the privilege of appearing and expressing their views.
It has been said that in framing the constitution of 1867 representation by population was contemplated. Yes, that was the object and the intent of the fathers of confederation. Have we that measure? We have not representation by population, having made many exceptions to the rule. At the present time we are going even a step farther. The representation of Prince Edward Island is to remain as it is. I am in favour of that, but in so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned it is not representation by population. So far as New Brunswick is concerned it is not representation by population. So far as Nova Scotia is concerned it is not representation by population. I say that the proposed amendment goes a step farther. The exceptions are not being disturbed by the present resolution, not at all. The step farther that we are taking is that we state here that if one of the provinces suffers a reduction in its population to such an extent that the number of representatives might be fewer than the number of senators, then the number of representatives in the House of Commons should be fixed at the number of representatives in the Senate, and that in any future calculation for the representation in the House of Commons the population of that or those provinces will not be taken into account. That is section 4 of the bill which it is proposed to send to the imperial parliament to amend our constitution. Therefore, if any of the maritime provinces or any other has a reduction in population and is exposed to a decrease in the number of representatives to a number fewer than the representatives in the senate, the population of those provinces will not be counted when ascertaining what population will justify electing a member to the House of Commons. We are told that this will be representation by population. It is not representation by population at all.
Some other people try to justify their attitude by saying that it is to correct an injustice. Such injustice could have been corrected otherwise. The injustice which Quebec suffered could have been corrected in 1943. Quebec agreed to the fixing of members for Prince Edward Island and the maritime provinces, but I do not want the same exception to the rule being applied to other provinces in Canada. But we are not correcting the injustice. We had only to listen to the speech delivered by the brilliant Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to learn 
that. He easily dispelled the illusion of some hon. members that this resolution had been prepared to correct an injustice. He said that was not the purpose of the resolution. Therefore he did not agree with those who try to find comfort in the proposed increase of the number of representatives from Quebec.
Yes, Quebec is being given eight more members, but we have to agree to Saskatchewan receiving three or four more than she is entitled to; to Manitoba having three more according to the B.N.A. Act as it stands. We have also to agree to Ontario having one more than she is at present electing, and to British Columbia having two more. We are to have eight additional members, but the rest of Canada are to have eleven more members. That is the consolation that is being offered and the illusion that is being created in order to get our friends to agree, and this without consulting the provinces. Parliament is presently doing what the Hon. Mr. Godbout and others opposed in 1943. We are agreeing to something which is the very opposite to what he proposed-consultation with the provinces.
I do not wish to proceed any longer. In closing, I wish to impress you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues in the House of Commons, with the fact that in expressing my views I have been unable to be different from what I have always been.
I have been unable to avoid arguing my point without a certain amount of heat. It is my nature, my temperament; and to those of my party I can only say, as a justification or excuse, that they did not complain of my temperament in the past. They had no objection in the past when I was arguing my case in the same way as I am now presenting it to the House of Commons. My campaigns in the province of Quebec on behalf of my 'party for the last thirty-five years were carried on in the same tone, with the same voice and the same element of sincerity I am exemplifying to-day. I am ageing, but I am the same man I have always been; and even if my views are not in accord with the views of those to whom I have the honour of addressing myself at the present time, I ask that they be treated as the opinion of a sincere man who tries to express himself in his own personal way; who presents his arguments as best he can in the interest of his constituents and in the interest of his fellow Canadians.
Whatever was the tone of my remarks; whatever terms I have used; whatever way I have expressed views, I have always been a Canadian to the core. Though I am attached to the privileges, rights and liberties promised

Redistribution
to my province, I do not want to be looked upon as a narrow-minded Canadian, but rather as a Canadian capable of looking upon his country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I am not an isolationist. I am a Canadian, strongly in favour of preserving the liberties, rights and privileges of all the component parts of Canada, and I want them to be respected on all occasions and in all circumstances.
I had something else to say. I imagine I am near the limit of my time and I do not want to transgress and speak any longer than I should. I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I am going to vote in favour of the amendment, because it supports the principle of consultation with the provinces. I am not scrutinizing the motives or interest that may be in the minds of some people who have been supporting the amendment, any more than I am scrutinizing the ideas and motives of other hon. members in this house. I am taking the resolution as it stands. I am taking the amendment as it is and, as it is worded. The amendment asks for consultation with the provinces and the obtaining of at least their advice before proceeding with the resolution. I am in accord with that view, and in that stand I remain in the family of the old Liberals among whom I have been brought up in my political life. I stand with Blake; I stand with Laurier; I stand with Lapointe, and on that constitutional issue I also agree with leaders of the Conservative party in the past. No, I am not alone. I am at present preaching the gospel they all have preached, the gospel I myself have been advocating in my province and in Canada as a whole for the last thirty-five years.
I was in favour of redistribution being carried out in 1943 according to the principles of the constitution of 1867, meaning that I wanted the representation in the House of Commons to be as nearly as possible according to population. I am still in favour of redistribution being carried out. If the government persists in claiming that it alone has the absolute power to deal with the question, and if the amendment suggesting consultation with the provinces is rejected, I shall then have no other alternative but to vote for the resolution.


Mr. RENE HAMEL (St. Maurice-Lafleche) (Translation):: Redistribution


Mr. MICHAUD:: Hear, hear.


Mr. LAURENDEAU:: Hear, hear.


René Hamel: Mr. Speaker, whatever may have been the intention of those who have moved it, the practical effect of this amendment would be to kill the main resolution. This debate clearly shows that it is imperative that some thought be given to the drawing up of a method for the discussion of constitutional matters, so that this country may be spared the judicial insecurity which now exists, and I need not emphasize that such a discussion should be held in close cooperation with the various provincial authorities. But, in view of the proposed amendment, and under the present circumstances, when the sole effect of the resolution will obviously be to do justice to the province of Quebec, I wonder why we, from that province, should have to assume all the expenses and accept all the risks of a dilatory procedure, to put it mildly, when in the past action taken without our consent and to our detriment, has so often deprived us of certian fundamental rights?
Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the amendment, I am quite convinced that I shall thereby be rendering a loyal service to my compatriots; and taking a stand likely to bring closer together the rightminded elements of the two racial groups. Finally, I am confident that I shall thus uphold in our province and in a practical way, the democratic system. What will happen now if the amendment is defeated? We shall revert to the main resolution which, in turn, will carry or be rejected. If it be rejected, we shall nevertheless be compelled to go on with redistribution, as provided for in the British North America Act. But how shall we go about it? We shall have to choose between the various schools of thought as to the meaning of the section dealing with the ratio of twentieth. How shall we appraise the decrease in the population of a province in relation to the total population of Canada? Shall we do so in relation to the last readjustment, as referred to by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), or on the basis of the last census, as was done in the past?

I admit, Mr. Speaker, that I have been deeply impressed by the theory so ably propounded by the hon. member for Stanstead, but I cannot fail to realize that it finds opposition in many a precedent and in a judgment of the Lords of the Privy Council. Under the circumstances, I cannot take upon myself to expose my fellow citizens to a risk I myself should be unwilling to face.
Besides, in refusing to support this resolution, may I count on the adoption of a basis of representation in the House of Commons that will be fairer, more equitable, more consistent with sound democratic principles? I quite frankly confess that I cannot. My plain duty therefore is to accept it loyally, and to share both its merits and its responsibility. I feel all the freer in supporting it that it does not modify, but on the contrary, reaffirms the principle of the confederation compact. It redresses an injustice to the province of Quebec.
Finally, if, as I hope, the resolution carries, what will happen? I do not see the necessity of reading the text of a document we have been discussing for weeks. I feel I accurately sum up its meaning when I state that it confirms the principle of representation according to population. It will remedy the glaring injustice of the present system and restore the Canadian citizen's status of equality before the House of Commons.
In order to oppose the measure now under review, certain reasons have been advanced upon which I should like to dwell briefly before resuming my seat.
The first objection was raised against the surplus expenditures entailed by an increase in representation. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the danger and futility of such an argument is self-evident, when it is recalled that the very ones who are opposing to-day an average contribution of less than three cents yearly per family for the establishment of democracy at home, were voting willingly $19 billions, or an average of $7,600 per family, for the defence of democracy in the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is true.


René Hamel: Others argue that the 1941 census cannot be considered a reliable basis, because of the extensive migrations brought about by the war. Here is my answer to that:

Redistribution
When it was decided in 1943 to postpone readjustment of representation, discussions arose about the census, but it was agreed then that redistribution would be adjourned until the first session following the termination of hostilities and not until after the next census.
Finally, opponents of the resolution point out the danger to minorities arising out of the violation of provincial autonomy. This contention would carry more weight had not most [DOT] of those who uphold it now ignore 1 or fought against it in 1943, when the proposal notwithstanding the merits of the reasons which secured the approval of a majority in this house, gave rise to an injustice against which only a few Quebec members protested. There is no inconsistency, as some have suggested, in the stand taken by those who, after having opposed the 1943 resolution, support that of 1946. In 1913, an injustice would have resulted from that resolution, while in 1946 the object of the resolution is to correct an injustice the perpetuation of which would suit some people. In either case, they have fought valiantly to ensure the triumph of justice. In either case, they have endeavoured to support what they deemed just and fair.
We have been warned against abandoning the system in which Quebec is the pivotal province. But for eighty years this system has been working against common sense and against us. Certainly if the object of the resolution were to do away with provincial boundaries in regard to the representation in the House of Commons, no one would oppose it more strongly than I. But such is not the case. On the contrary, the resolution confirms the separate identity of the provinces. After the unit of representation has been determined, the population of each of the provinces is divided by that unit. Is this not an efficient and formal recognition of the separate identity of each of the provinces?
The resolution must be considered as it is, without ascribing to it consequences which it does not imply. I would like to know how the application in the House of Commons of the principle of representation based on population can infringe upon the rights of a minority.
Further, the chief practical result of the resolution will be to give to the province of Quebec the additional eight members to which
63260-169J
it is entitled according to its population. I would like to know which rights of which minority would be interfered with.
But I know quite well the objection raised by those who contend that it is not the immediate result of the resolution which is to be feared, but the far-off consequences of what is claimed to be a dangerous precedent. If it is a precedent, let us agree upon its nature. If it is a precedent, it is a novel one. inasmuch as it will redress an injustice.
Several amendments to the constitution were passed without previous consultation with the provinces. Such was the course adopted in 1871, a second time in 1875, a third time in 1886, a fourth time in 1915, a fifth time in 1916, and a sixth time in 1943. Shall we be so naive as to refrain from resorting to a precedent-even if one were involved, which is not the case-which would serve our legitimate interests and the cause of common sense when, invariably such precedents are applied successfully against us?
Furtl r, it has been shown that the resolution j w before the house will not bring about an amendment to the federal compact, even if we change its wording. The hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie has supported this view which is confirmed by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) and, to a large extent, by the hon. member for Stanstead.
Mr. Speaker, several authorities and statements by politicians have been quoted on the nature of our constitution; shall we be taken in, however, by academic speeches and theories, since some of the very men who wrote or spoke on the subject, flatly contradicted in practice the doctrines set forth in books or speeches?
Mr. Speaker, I loyally support this motion; however, I consider as a humiliation the fact that this house has to crawl before a foreign parliament in order to settle the problem of representation in the Canadian commons. I hope that, before the next general elections, this procedure, together with the appeals to the privy council, both of which are vestiges of a colonialism incompatible with the dignity of a sovereign state, will have disappeared from our statutes.
Redistribution


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: I was paired with the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Lionel Chevrier: I was paired with the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: I was paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BLACK (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: I was paired with the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment,


Mr. POULIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MacNAUGHT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Redistribution


Mr. BROWN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Henderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. COTE (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville):: I was paired with the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GREEN:: I was paired with the hon member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LENNARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I was paired with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HACKETT:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. STOKES:: I was paired with the hon member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. JACKMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DANIEL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. McDonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Sinclair). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McMASTER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I was paired with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak at this time, I do so because the remarks I am going to make could not have been made on the amendment, and the amendment which I propose to move at the end of my remarks
could not have been offered as an amendment to the amendment. It is not so much with what the resolution proposes to do that I am concerned as with one or two omissions or deficiencies in the resolution itself. I had hoped that these omissions would be explained by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) when he made his eloquent explanation of the bill, but since that was not done I feel that I should call to the attention of the house what I regard as grave omissions from the resolution as it stands at present.
This resolution purports to put the representation of the House of Commons on the basis of representation by population. I use the word "purports" advisedly, because I do not think the resolution accomplished that aim. As far as the people of the country are concerned, the most immediate effect of the resolution is to increase the membership of this house by ten at a cost to the country of $60,000 a year in indemnities alone. At a time when there is a demand from coast to coast for rigid public economy, when people are hoping that next week the Minister of Fin, ice (Mr. Ilsley) will be able to announce subs.antial reductions in taxation, I think we should give careful scrutiny to such an increase
the cost of conducting the business of the
mse of Commons, especially in view of the f, X that last fall we increased our own indem-nr.ies, rightly I believe, by fifty per cent. There was considerable criticism of that increase in some parts of the country, though I am glad to say that in my riding there was little criticism. On the contrary, both trade unions and the boards of trade endorsed the action then taken. They said that if such compensation would allow a member to represent his riding better they were for it.
That brings me to the first point I wish to make. There are many private members in this house-and I am in the class to which I refer-who are not representing their constituencies as well as they might, not because of lack of compensation, not because of lack of ability or of any desire to represent their constitutents properly, but because of the deplorable working conditions, the absence of proper office space, the absence of proper secretarial help, the total lack of any research assistance in the library, and, so far as those unfortunate members in the far corner of the house are concerned, the lack of any method by which they can properly follow the debates in this house.
I had intended to speak on this matter when the estimates of the House of Commons came up for consideration, since that is the proper time; but since the government by this resolution proposes to aggravate the situation by
Redistribution

pumping ten more M.P.'s into already crowded offices, this is the proper time, in my opinion, to bring the matter to the attention of the house and of the government. Normally I would be wasting my time telling my audience, who are mostly private members, of these disabilities; but it is a curious thing that neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who is leading the government, nor the Minister of Justice, who sponsors the bill, nor the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who apparently drafted it, has been a private member in this House of Commons. These hon. gentlemen have been either ministers of the crown or leaders of the opposition, and so have enjoyed good office space, adequate secretarial help, research assistance and certainly excellent seating space in the centre of the house.
Therefore I am going to indicate briefly to them some of the disabilities that private members labour under. Because of attendance in the house and committees the only time a member has for correspondence and interviews is from nine to eleven o'clock in the morning, from two to three o'clock in the afternoon and from seven to eight o'clock at night. Other hours are occupied in attending committee meetings and attending in the house as hon. members should. It is impossible to dictate, or even to try to dictate, letters when your office-mate-and most of us share offices -is 4 yard away dictating to his secretary. Under such circumstances it is also impossible to concentrate on the study of a bill or the preparation of a speech. It cannot be done while your office-mate is dictating at the same time. More than that, it is embarrassing to members. It is more embarrassing to constituents who come to see their member on matters affecting them, and are forced to discuss these matters in the presence of a third person who is a stranger. Most members, of course, withdraw to the hallway when such things take place, but there is no reason why a member of parliament should spend most of his time out in the hallways.
No business firm in this country would pay an executive $6,000 a year and then not give him a proper place in which to work. The real irony of the situation, however, is that this magnificent new parliament building has adequate office space for members of parliament. Unfortunately, because of the encroachment, throughout the years members of the staff are now using large offices which should be occupied by members of parliament. The greatest encroachment takes place between parliaments when there is no Speaker, and our genial friend, Doctor Beauchesne, is supreme. I need only remind hon. members that at the end of the last parliament there were two offices 
on the top floor which were occupied at that time by the leader of the Social Credit party in this house, but he has been moved out of those offices and the offices have been taken over by the manager of the restaurant. The point is, is it better for a member of parliament to be moved out of an office to find a place for the manager of the restaurant? There is the old story of the Arab, the camel and the tent. I do not need to tell it here, but the camel got his nose in to keep warm, and in the end the camel was in the tent and the Arab was outside. If this procedure goes on, in a few years we shall be working in the pool and the stenographers and staff will be occupying all the rooms. We need only to walk around the ground floor of this building and see the offices occupied by minor officials of the House of Commons. You need only to walk along the fourth and fifth floors of this building and see office after office occupied by secretaries of committees. These are valuable men, and they deserve office space, but the space for them is over in the west block. There should be a tunnel between these two buildings, and members of parliament should be allotted the space occupied by these men. Probably that would mean the displacement of some department in the west block, but these enormous national defence buildings which were built as headquarters for our huge wartime army must now have space which could be occupied by the displaced department, despite the objections of the permanent force empire builders.
The situation has become so bad in the offices of the press gallery that some of the gentlemen of the press are forced to work in one of the corridors in this building. Such a move as I suggest of putting the staff over in that building would give decent accommodation to the gentlemen of the press.
The second disability is secretarial help. Very few private members to-day have what a business firm would consider a good secretary. Some of them have good stenographers, but the reason there are not more good secretaries is that the girls are here for only three or four months, and there is a lack of security. They come here for a session and they have not the protection of the civil service. At the end of the session they go, and some of them are fortunate enough to get a permanent job. If they get that job they stick to it. If we had even a fraction of the secretarial help which the United States Congress provides for its congressmen and senators we would be able to do a much better job.
A third thing is the absence of research assistants in the library. Anyone who has

Redistribution
gone to a university and has done research work does not find it too great a problem to dig out and assemble material. But. as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said yesterday, this is not a good library so far as ease of digging out the necessary documents is concerned. However, quite a few members of the House of Commons are not university graduates and have not done research work; they are farmers, seamen, engineers, loggers and so forth. They have not had that training, and there is no reason why they should spend hours of their time foraging around the library trying to assemble information which a competent research assistant would get for them in an hour. It would be very simple to acquire such people. In the universities of this country there are dozens and dozens of young men and women who are working for research degrees, their master's and their science degrees, and they would welcome the chance to come here and put in part of their time working in this library which, after all, is the best in Canada, and also meeting the members of the government and of the House of Commons and senior civil servants, the people who are running this country. They could be of inestimable value to all private members.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Han-sell) is, I believe, one of the most persistent in the matter of the great difficulty hon. members in the remote corners have of hearing speakers, especially speakers on the government benches who seem to look upon it as their chief function to relay information only to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). This problem has often been brought up in this house, and requests made for a public address system.
When we place another ten members in the far corner this chamber will be completely filled. These ten additional members will be new members and certainly will be entitled to hear all the debates in this house. I wish to make it quite clear that this is not a personal complaint on my part. I am very fortunate; as hon. members know, I share an office with one of the quietest and most industrious members here. I have one of the best secretaries in the House of Commons. It took me five years to acquire her, five years of changing a girl every session because they would go from here after the session and secure permanent jobs. However, I am forced to share her services with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.
As I have pointed out, university men have not the same trouble in doing research work as have members of parliament, and no member of parliament should be obliged to do work in the manner in which we attempt it, particularly when we are sent here to study policy and not be library assistants.
Lastly, thanks to the minister from British Columbia, I have a good seat in the House of Commons, but there are many members here who suffer greatly from these four disabilities.
I had hoped that the Minister of Justice would -perhaps he will when he closes the debate- indicate that the government is going to take the required action to see that the present members of parliament are given a chance to do their job in a better way by providing better working conditions.
The second omission in the minister's speech is a significant one. I have followed this long debate with the greatest of interest. I have studied science myself, and therefore I am amazed at how lawyers can start out with the same set of facts and arrive at quite different conclusions. Apparently in this resolution we are making a drastic change in our representation in this country. In other words, we are going to bring our constitution up to date to fit the needs of the country. If we are to do that, then at the same time we should change the mechanics of selecting our representatives, and bring it up to date. At the present time we elect our members by the single vote, which was good in 1867, when they had just the twro parties. It is not good now, when we have at least five national parties. How many hon. members can stand up in the house and say: "I represent the majority of the constituents of my riding?" Very few. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) is one who can do that. One member out of sixteen in British Columbia can say that, and we have five parties. The question came before parliament with the advent of the Progressive party in 1920. At that time the Prime Minister was quite inclined to try to introduce a measure of proportional representation.


Mr. MacNICOL:: That has been discarded almost everywhere throughout the world.


James Sinclair: A bill was started and dropped. I do not believe in proportional representation and I do not know much about it, except the Winnipeg elections-


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is enough.


James Sinclair: That is enough. You must have large multi-member ridings, which means in the case of Winnipeg in the provincial election ten members with five parties, fifty candidates on the ballot.
Redistribution

The first few names on the ballot are apt to receive more votes than those down below, or the members whose names are better known to the electorate. That is the worst feature of it. There is also that lack of intimate connection which should exist between the member and his constituents. On the other hand, in Manitoba they have the excellent single transferable vote in rural ridings, and certainly that is what we should have in this dominion parliament when we have four or five national parties;
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West); We also have it in Alberta.


James Sinclair: Yes. There are progressive provinces in the West.
I quite realize that such a matter would require an amendment of the Dominion Elections Act; but at a time when we are changing our whole basis of representation I think it w'ould be quite appropriate for the minister to indicate whether or not we are to have a change in the method of electing our members, so that hon. members here could rise in their places and speak with more confidence in the knowledge that they were representing a majority of their constituents. That is a feeling I do not now have. I had what was considered a fairish plurality in British Columbia, but I consider that I represent only about one-third of those who cast votes in Vancouver North in the last general election. Two-thirds of the people who voted did not vote for me; and you cannot have the same confidence between a member who knows he does not represent a majority and the constituents who know the member does not represent a majority of them.
I now come to my third point, which I think represents my major opposition to the present resolution. The purpose of the resolution is said to be to bring about real representation by population. We have got rid of what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) called one joker clause, the five per cent clause which has given Ontario an artificial membership, a greater membership than it deserves. At the same time, however, we have not got rid of the other joker clause which gives one other province, and could give other provinces, greater representation than they are entitled to on a strict representation by population basis. As far as the Yukon and the northwest territories are concerned, that can be justified because, despite the fact that they do not have the national quota, unless they are given a member for that fraction they do have they will be disfranchised. They have no provincial governments to which to turn, and few muni-

cipal governments. South of us, in the United States of America, we have the good example of a congress based entirely on representation by population, with no reservation except one, corresponding to the Yukon. When states such as Nevada and New Mexico first came into the union they did not have a population sufficient to justify a congressman, but they were given a congressman as soon as they entered the union.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And Arizona.


James Sinclair: However, when we come to the other exception, Prince Edward Island, I find it difficult to justify in my own mind, and I have not heard the Minister of Justice justify it, why this small, compact economy, which has municipal government, which has a provincial government, should be given, in fact, twice the representation given the rest of the country, by population. I agree, mind you, that Prince Edward Island is in a difficult position, but the remedy is not in creating an artificial condition in the House of Commons. The remedy is in the other chamber, where representation was set upon a regional basis. The fathers of confederation were patterning the House of Commons and the Senate, I think, quite closely on the plan followed in the country to the south.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North); Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was starting to comment upon what I thought was the weakness in this resolution in that it purports to be a resolution to introduce strict representation by population. I had justified, in my own mind at least, the granting of a seat to the Yukon and northwest territories, despite the fact that they have not a full quota under the present system. I had touched briefly upon the other safeguard of senate representation which is protecting Prince Edward Island at the moment. I pointed out that Prince Edward Island is a small compact economy, provided already with both municipal and provincial governments, and therefore had not the same reason to be protected as have the Yukon and the northwest territories.
I cannot understand why the government would consider objectionable the five per cent clause, that is section 51 (4), which gives to Ontario artificial representation and not at the same time remove section 51 (a) which gives to Prince Edward Island to-day, perhaps

Redistribution
to New Brunswick to-morrow, and to Nova Scotia some years hence a similar artificial representation. Such protection is not supplied to all the small provinces by that section, because in British Columbia at the moment we have six senators. That means that the only protection of this clause would come on the day when our population falls below 6/250ths of the population of Canada, or falls below 2-4 per cent of the population of Canada, which is obviously absurd.
Therefore it is apparent that this plan of representation by population rests on a very shaky foundation indeed. It rests upon this clause which introduces senate representation into House of Commons representation.
In this country in the last thirty or forty years there has been little criticism directed against the representation in this house. On the other hand, ever .since 1893 there have been continued outcries in this country against the other house; yet nothing has been done. To-day we are presented with this new system of redistribution for the House of Commons. We find that one of the pillars upon which this new redistribution bill rests is representation in our outmoded senate. As long ago as 1893 my own party was impressed with the inadequacy of the senate. I think it was at our first national Liberal convention held here in the city of Ottawa that the following plank was presented:
The present constitution of the senate is inconsistent with the federal principle in our system of government, and is in other respects defective, as it makes the senate independent of the people and uncontrolled by the public opinion of the country, and should be so amended as to bring it into harmony with the principles of popular government.
It was in 1893 also that the great Sir Oliver Mowat made an excellent speech in which he said:
The senate as now constituted is the weakest point of our constitution.
In the election of 1900, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was able to go to the country and say this about the resolutions of the 1893 convention:
This is the only plank that so far has not been effectively dealt with by the Liberal government, but the subject has not been lost sight of.
That was forty-six years ago. Just for fear hon. members may think that all the criticism of the senate has been confined to the Liberal party, I should like to read just one sentence of what R. B. Bennett said in 1915, as follows:
The senate is an irresponsible body which has thwarted the will of democracy as expressed by the House of Commons.
An interesting point about the criticism of the senate is that the strongest criticism has not come from the party in opposition but 63260-170
rather from the party which had got into power but found that it was in opposition in the senate. So that we have the Conservatives in 1915 protesting against the senate and we have the Liberals protesting at other periods against the same upper chamber. Perhaps the finest comment on our senate is found in the work of Viscount Bryce, entitled, "Modern Democracies". He spent a considerable time in discussing the upper chambers in various countries, and his conclusion is this:
Amongst these the French senate is the strongest and that of Canada, the weakest.
That again was in 1903. Therefore I feel that the greatest weakness in this resolution is the fact that it is amending the representation in this house about which there has been little criticism, when apparently nothing is being done about amending the representation in the other house, particularly when there has been so much criticism about that representation for forty or more years.
I believe in a senate or an upper chamber. I am going to quote what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, because he expresses so well what I think about the upper chamber. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking in the great debate on the senate in 1906 said, as reported at page 2301 of Hansard of April 30, 1906:
But one consideration which, to my mind, is absolutely conclusive and paramount, is that under our system of government, a second chamber is an absolutely needed safeguard for the smaller provinces against a possible invasion of their rights by the larger provinces. The system we have has been largely borrowed-not entirely, but largely-from the constitution of the American republic. As we know in that republic, the house of representatives is elected according to population. The people of the different states are represented in congress according to population. But in the American senate no such principle is admitted. In order to favour the minorities, the constitution has provided that every state, big or small, should be represented in the senate by two members.
He then went on to point out that the great state of New York had forty-five representatives and only two senators, and he referred to Vermont, which at that time had only one representative but had two members in the senate. To-day in the American congress there are four states which have only one representative each, because they have only .a fraction of the quota of population necessary to elect a representative, but every one of those states has two senators. New York has forty-five members in the house of representatives and two in the senate; Wyoming has one member in the house of representatives and two in the senate. Sir Wilfrid went on to say:
Here in our senate, as in the senate of the United States, we have not adopted the principle of representation by population. We have not

Redistribution

altogether adopted the system of the American republic, but if we were to have a reform I would not be adverse to adopting in that respect the system of our neighbours and have each province represented by an equal number of members, whether that province be large or small. This principle having been adopted admittedly for the protection of the smaller provinces, everyone will admit at once that if we were to remove that safeguard, there would be a natural discontent in the smaller provinces, so that I contend that we cannot seriously entertain, even for a moment, the idea of ever abolishing our senate. The arguments which we see from time to time in the press have altogether ignored that view of the constitution, which is a true one, and a paramount argument in favour of the maintenance of a second chamber.
I do not think the senate should be abolished as do some of my friends in the C.C.F., but I think if ever there was a time to reform the senate, it is now. The senate should be the protector of provincial rights, but it is not fulfilling that task. At this time we need as never before a strong senate which would serve as the protector of provincial rights. We have heard the speeches of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters) who emphasized the disadvantage which their province admittedly has suffered since confederation. The prairies can tell the same story.
We in British Columbia, although we are regarded as one of the rich provinces, have suffered more from domination by the two central provinces than any other part of Canada. Briefly, this is our position: We sell the things we produce, timber, fish, minerals, fruits, in the open markets of the world at low prices. We buy the things we need in the protected markets of Ontario and Quebec at very high prices. The only reason we have been able to continue, selling our products at low prices and paying high prices for what we buy, is by plundering our natural resources, robbing our fisheries, denuding our forests, high-grading our mines. That cannot go on. The same is true of the prairies.
Before the war there was a strong feeling in British Columbia for provincial rights; but, like the people of the maritimes, having seen what this country can do under strong government during the war, the people of British Columbia have resolved that we are going to go ahead as a nation and not as nine Balkan provinces. But they are reluctant to give up any authority to a central government if they are to continue to be dominated in both houses of parliament by the power of the central provinces, by high tariffs, by mountain differentials on freight rates, by trade policies that primarily help the industrial east. That is why we need a reformed senate to protect provincial rights. The fathers of con-

federation realized that. They set up a senate to represent the main divisions of Canada, Upper and Lower Canada, the maritime provinces; they gave them equal representation in the senate, twenty-four for each division, and they added a fourth division when the west was was developed and gave twenty-four to that division.
It is now time to recognize that there are five divisions. Our government does recognize that the economy of the maritimes, of Quebec and Ontario, of the prairie provinces and part of Alberta and British Columbia constitute something quite different from any other economy, but until the senate is reformed we shall continue to be dominated in the house and in the senate by the weight of numbers of the central provinces.
I am not suggesting for one moment that the senate should have five divisions of twenty-four senators. The people of Canada want a smaller, not a bigger senate. But if there were twelve members from each division, four each for Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick; twelve for Quebec; twelve for Ontario; twelve for the two prairie provinces which are so much alike, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and twelve for the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, that is six apiece, then we should have an upper house which would prevent the colonies of Canada, because that is what the maritimes, the prairies and British Columbia have been, from being exploited by the central provinces. We would have three divisions as against two in the upper house, and the maritimes, the prairie provinces and British Columbia, would not be dominated in both houses of parliament by the central provinces.
If such a plan were adopted we would save thirty-six times $6,000-the indemnity-or $216,000, which would be quite ample to provide good secretarial help for us and the other things I mentioned a little earlier, and also provide thirty-six more offices in this building for members of parliament.
The next point is, should the senate be elected or appointed? That point was thoroughly canvassed in the great debates in this house in 1906, 1915, 1925, and it was generally agreed that because of our irregularly spaced elections for the House of Commons it would be difficult to have an elective senate. Therefore the senate may have to be an appointed body, but most people do not believe in appointment of senators for life. If the senate is to be a body that will be a check on hasty legislation obviously the term of appointment of the senators should be for more than the life of one parliament. The United States

Redistribution
provides for a six-year term. We could do the same, with one-third retiring after the end of each two years.
The most important thing about the senate from the point of view of the west and the maritimes is not whether it should be appointed or elected, but who should appoint it. That, to my mind, is the great weakness of the present situation. Two years ago, members will remember that we had a long debate on the wage control order, P.C. 9384. In setting up our national war labour board the government proposed to name equal representation for employers and for labour. Both sides objected very much, and both the national labour congresses said that if labour was to be represented they wanted to nominate their own representatives. That principle was accepted, and this principle should also apply to the senate. If the members of the senate are the protectors of provincial rights they should be appointed by the provinces, by the lieutenant-governors in council, and not by the governor general in council. The provincial governments, I am sure, would give better provincial representation. For example, in my own province we have six senators. It is a big province; yet I find from the official record that three of them reside in Victoria- one has retired-and three in Vancouver. So that there is no representation of the Fraser valley, of the Okanagan valley, of the Kootenay valleys or Cariboo and Skeena counties which are empires in themselves. Can Ontario imagine half of their senators being appointed from Toronto, the other half from Ottawa? Also, if the provincial governments appointed senators to present their problems at Ottawa, the seats in the senate would not be left vacant. In British Columbia we have had seats vacant over much too long a time.
An objection to this proposal might be that if the provinces pick the senators, the senators will have a provincial outlook. Anybody who takes part in the deliberations of the House of Commons or the Senate soon loses any provincial outlook. If Mr. Drew and Mr. Duplessis had served terms in the House of Commons or the Senate they would have been bigger and better premiers; they would have the Canadian outlook rather than the provincial outlook.
There are groups in this house that should be interested in this proposal. In Alberta, since 1935 the people have shown in no uncertain way, both provincially and federally, that they want to be represented by people who believe in the social credit philosophy. Yet in the senate, where this provincial outlook 63260-170J
should be represented, they have not a single voice. The same is true of Saskatchewan and its new party.
I had intended to move an amendment to amend sections 21 to 32 of the British North America Act to reform the Senate as well as the House of Commons. I realize how brash that would be for a young member. More properly it should be done by the government, and more properly still it should start in the senate itself. A simpler way would be to remove all mention of this outmoded senate from the present resolution. In other words, put the membership of the House of Commons on a strict representation by population basis. That would force action to be taken by providing proper senate representation to protect those areas which need protection, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the prairie provinces and British Columbia. The effect of this would be, using the population figures of the last census, that Prince Edward Island would have two members; Nova Scotia, 13; New Brunswick, 10; Quebec, 73; Ontario, 82; Manitoba, 16; Saskatchewan, 19; Alberta, 17; British Columbia, 18. That makes 250, plus one seat for the Yukon. The 255 seats mentioned in the resolution before us is an odd figure. Obviously 250 was first tried and did not work, whatever work they had in mind for it to do. So they tried 254. A House of Commons of 250 members is a much more understandable figure for the average citizen in Canada.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) gave the impression that unless British Columbia got the twenty to twenty-one members to which we are entitled by our estimated population-according to the dominion bureau of statistics British Columbia had a population of 994.000 on December 31, 1945, as against 845.000 for Saskatchewan -we should go back to the old sixteen. I cannot agree with that. By all means we should have the two extra seats provided by the 1941 census, and if the next census gives us twenty-one members, well and good.
I hope that the Minister of Justice will comment on the four points I have mentioned. First, in increasing the membership of the house is there going to be any improvement in the conditions under which members of parliament can work? Are we to get adequate office space? Are we to get adequate secretarial help to lift the load of routine off our shoulders? Is there to be a change in the electoral system designed to suit a multiparty system such as we now have? Why is the senate not being reformed? And why is one safeguard left in this resolution which
Redistribution

makes it, not representation by population, but only slightly better than the last method of representation?
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson):
That the motion be amended:
1.	By striking out the words "two hundred and fifty-five'' in subsection 1 of the proposed section 51 of the B.N.A. Act 1867, as quoted in the resolution before the house, and substituting therefor the words "two hundred and fifty-one.
2.	By striking out the words "two hundred and fifty-four" in rules 1 and 2 of the proposed section 51 and substituting therefor the words "two hundred and fifty."
3.	By deleting rules 3 and 4 of the proposed section 51.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
have appreciated the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) who has preceded me in this debate. I share his views on the reform of the senate. 1 believe that the latter should be an elected body. Allow me, at the outset, to tender my heartiest congratulations to the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) who has delivered to-day a masterly speech. Once again he has uttered stirring words. They were the words of those who were leading the Liberal party a few years past.
When I spoke on the amendment a few days ago, I warned the government against any interference with the prerogatives of the provinces. I referred to the humiliation we felt at the thought of having humbly to petition the London government for the right to amend our constitution. I stated that this constitution is not our own, and that Canada is a country without a constitution and without a flag. However, for a number of years, without the contracting parties being consulted, with the connivance and the permission of Westminster, institutions, contracts and laws have been tampered with. The only voices which could properly be raised in protest-those of the provinces-have been silenced. An endeavour is made in this house to drown out protests under a storm of charges directed against the prime minister of Quebec. Blows are aimed at him with an ever increasing fury.
But the premier of my province rises above this useless din. He has just vindicated the jurisdiction of our legislative assemblies and upheld their cause on a plane beyond the reach of those who refuse to acknowledge a right which is theirs to exercise. He fears, as we do, a threat both immediate and remote.
Who could censure his attitude? Let us refrain from exaggeration and violence. Canada's future rests upon the cooperation of all men of good will. Even at the cost of great sacri-

flee, the Dominion government should return to the provinces the freedom to exercise their rights within the scope of their jurisdiction.
As I said before, I support this measure because I wish the influence of my province to grow in this house. I shall vote for the resolution because of its good points, provided that provincial prerogatives are respected.
Let the government cease to play with fire. Let them interfere no longer with the privileges of the provinces. Let them consult the legislatures before amending a contract which they ratified. Otherwise the government will plunge headlong into an adventure which can but lead to anarchy.
There is nothing noble or magnanimous about the attitude of the government. It reflects only a feat of strength. You will find, before long, that we are faced with new difficulties because the government neglected to consult the provinces. I object to our perpetrating an injustice for the sake of redressing a wrong. Like many others, I want to do justice to each province and trust that when the, question is put, our vote shall take into account the future and the building of a nation which can rest only on right and justice.
During the debate, I heard members emphatically declare themselves proud to take part in the amendment of the constitution. That is an illusion. We have no power to effect any change without the consent of the British House of Commons. Some members of this parliament have asserted that the British North America Act was altered several times without the provinces being consulted. They approved of such precedents. I respect their opinion but have a right to express my own. Such instances represent an abuse of power detrimental to the provinces and to minorities. If previous governments erred, why should the present authority blunder irreparably by amending the constitution without consulting the provinces?
The constitution is the guarantee of the rights of all. It is the legal consecration of the nation.
I deeply regret to find that serious-minded persons overlook the importance of protecting our rights, thinking only of the immediate advantages to be gained. It is not too late however. When the government has received from London the authority to amend the constitution, let them consult the provinces. History will emblazon the part played by the true statesmen who defend the rights of the provinces and of the minorities and will con-

Redistribution
demn those politicians who support the infringement of contracts, of the constitution and of the laws.
During the debate, the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) claimed that since 1867 French-speaking Canadians have seldom had occasion to complain of the treatment meted out to them.
I respect the minister's views, but if looking over the history of Canada I were to mention all the injustices which we have suffered, it would be an endless task. Therefore, I prefer the joint protection offered by the dominion and the provincial governments rather than entrusting solely to the central power the fate of my race, its prerogatives and its rights. Inseparable in my mind and in my heart, our constitution and the rights of minorities seem to be so closely related, that it would be heinous to entrust them to the good will of the human conscience which, alas, is so fragile and sometimes so elastic. Discussing the matter from the standpoint of plain common sense, I wish to remind the house of the seriousness of the present situation. We must keep within the bounds of moderation when dealing with such a far-reaching resolution. The nation is being led along a path which may mean the end of the Canadian constitution. Eighty years have been spent in humanizing this charter of our rights. The provinces of confederation have played their part in this work of civilization. Why not consult them?


James Horace King: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. Since the beginning of his remarks, he opposed the motion before the house on the ground that the provinces have not been consulted. Before six o'clock, the house voted on an amendment suggesting that this be done. As the matter has been settled by the house, the hon. member is not entitled to discuss it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims that the provinces should be consulted on the question of making the senate an elective body, a matter which has not been dealt with in the previous amendment.


James Horace King: Order!


Liguori Lacombe: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Order! I have listened closely to the hon. member's remarks. He has spoken to the amendment dealt with by the house before six o'clock. I urge him to avoid discussing that amendment and to speak to the motion before the house.


Liguori Lacombe: I realize that we are presently discussing a motion dealing with the
constitution. I shall confine myself, as far as possible, to this matter and if I fail to do so,
I invite Mr. Speaker to call me to order.
On the ground of some petty political grudge of one kind or other, doubts are raised concerning the courage of the upholders of constitution. As the right hon. the Minister of Justice stated himself, is not the constitution a token of civilization? Have not those who have upheld civilization by laying down their lives; those who have fallen in the name of justice, freedom and right; those who, beyond the seas and beyond life itself, from the midst of this vast cemetery, point to the sacrifice they were worthy to make; have they not, I say, the right to demand that we honour, for the sake of Canadian unity and the future of our country, those very compacts that have been torn and trampled under foot by the dictators?
Am I in order, Mr. Speaker?
I know of a document which bears the sacred name of contract. It is the constitution of Canada. Why change this Canadian bill of rights in defiance of its drafters and without the consent of the continuators of their work? Dtfamatory charges cannot outweigh eighty years of tradition and history. If so gross an injustice is to prevail, let us seal the doom of the constitution.
But a tangible fact exists, a tangible fact remains. The British North America Act has been ratified by the provinces. Irrecusable evidence of this is found in the constitution itself. The provinces and Canada at large are even now asking us to consult them regarding this resolution. Once the British house of commons has given its consent, it will still be possible and even easy to put off changing our constitution in order to consult the provinces. It is never too late to perform an act of justice.


James Horace King: (Text): Shall the amendment carry?


James Sinclair: On division.
Amendment negatived on division.


James Horace King: The question is on the main motion.


Mr. IRVINE:: Before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright):
That the motion be amended by striking out the words "two hundred and fifty-five" as they appear in lines one and two of subsection 1 of the proposed new section 51, and substituting therefor the words "two hundred and fifty-six," and by striking out subsection 2 of the said proposed section 51 and substituting therefor the following:
Redistribution

(2) The Yukon territory as constituted by chapter 41 of the Statutes of Canada, 1901, shall be entitled to one member, and the Northwest Territories shall be entitled to one member."
I should explain why I have taken the time of the house to move the amendment. There are no legal entanglements in connection with this simple alteration to the motion. May I say, sir, that I am speaking now for a number of people in Canada who are completely disfranchised, although they are just as good Canadians as any hon. member in the house. The people who live in the northwest territories have no vote and they have no representatives. They are anxious that they be granted a representative and have a voice in the government of their country. Therefore, in order that they may have that opportunity I am now speaking for them and moving this amendment, which would provide them with a representative which they desire.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many are there?


William Irvine: I shall tell my hon. friend in a moment. I know the house is now ready for voting. This has been a long debate; I am just as ready as any other hon. member to vote on this question, and therefore I shall be as brief as possible.
Hon. members will remember that the situation was put most excellently by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. Townley-Smith). I shall take just a few moments to summarize the main points which he made. For example, he pointed out that the total area of the northwest territories is forty-two per cent of the total land area of the Dominion of Canada and that at the present time there is only one member for that vast territory. Those who live in the northwest territories section of that half of Canada do not even have an opportunity to vote for the hon. gentleman who represents the Yukon. The Yukon area is 205,000 square miles by itself; but exclusive of the Yukon territory there rs an area of one and a quarter million square miles, with a population that is three or four times as great.
I need not point out, sir, that the natural wealth of that part of Canada is such that it might be taken for granted that in a short time there will be in that area a sufficient population to reach the unit of representation which is being provided for in the resolution. The country concerned is one of great wealth and of certain growth. I believe that that section is growing faster in population at the moment than any other part of Canada.
May I pause for a moment to point out that in a country such as ours we must take more into consideration than numbers of people

when we are dealing with redistribution? One thing that we must take into consideration, at least for some time to come, is the extent of country which it is possible for one person to represent. We have in the British North America Act a consideration also for people being represented not on a population basis. We also have a precedent in the special act which provides for a representative for the Yukon. We cannot speak now as if we were making an exception of some other section of Canada which has just as much right to representation as the Yukon or any other part of Canada which may have extra representation because of constitutional status.
The next point is that we pride ourselves on our democratic recognition of the rights of minorities. I am now speaking for a minority; it is not a racial minority. Presumably in the population of that section of the country there are peoples of all races which make up the population of Canada. It is not a religious minority. Presumably amongst that population there are people who practise all religions; but it is a minority nevertheless of all races and of all creeds. They are Canadians, and they are disfranchised.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question?


William Irvine: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: What does the hon. member think of giving the franchise to the Eskimos?


William Irvine: The Eskimos are Canadians, if there are any Canadians, and they should have the franchise also, most decidedly. But we may come to the Eskimos some time later. I wish to confine myself now particularly to this one point. I emphasize that the people who live in the northwest territories are disfranchised. They have no say in the government of the country in which they have been born, the country in which they live, the country in which they work, and the country for which their sons fought. I think it is better that we should take time by the forelock now and meet the legitimate needs of these people before they become rebellious as people will in any part of the world who have spirit enough to rebel when they find themselves without representation, without an opportunity to take part in the government of their country, and find themselves completely neglected. That has happened in other periods o& Canadian history, and it has happened in other countries as well.
This amendment is merely the application of the democratic principle of representative government in which we pride ourselves

Redistribution
greatly. Here is a small section of our people, living in a large and wealthy area and with no opportunity to engage in representative government. We are now amending our constitution. We are reforming our House of Commons membership and the basis of it. This is the proper opportunity for us to correct this situation in so far as the people of the northwest territories are concerned.
There is also the matter of economic interests. These should be given some consideration in a redistribution bill. I have already' emphasized that the area is indeed a wealthy one. In 1941 the small population of that territory produced $9,500,000 worth of minerals and oil, and in 1943 they produced fur to the value of $3,500,000. Then there are extensive opportunities for fishing and for navigation. In that territory are both Great Bear lake and Great Slave lake, each larger by half than lake Ontario. Indeed, the waterways provide the chief means of transportation in that section of the country at the present time Then, of course, all hon. members know that in that section of Canada we have the great uranium deposit which is of such great value in connection with the development of atomic energy. There are great promises of extensive development in that regard, and from that source alone we may anticipate that in the next two years there will probably be enough people living in that section of the country to bring the population up to about 40.000, which would be pretty close to the actual unit basis for representation in accordance with the amendments proposed in the main resolution.
I have referred to the virtual disfranchisement of these inhabitants of the northwest territories. I wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker, on this note. The public business of the territory is carried on by a commissioner, a deputy commissioner and four councillors. This governing body is not appointed by the people who live there; it is appointed from Ottawa. The people have no say in who comes to Ottawa to make the appointments. The members of the governing body are mostly absentees, too, and they do not understand the conditions of the people. But the point is that the people thus governed have no say either in the selection of the apointees to whom I have referred or in the selection of the appointers of the appointees. They have no adequate and democratic way of giving expression to their grievances. They have very poor roads, and few of those, and no means of communication. Naturally they have very little in the way of the ordinary public works we find in all other parts of Canada. In addition, their cost of living is from fifty
to three hundred per cent higher than in other parts of Canada. Finally, they are taxed without representation, a principle with which I do not believe this house in its heart agrees.
Therefore, I hope the government will give consideration to this very simple amendment I think the government will agree that in all I have said I have been true to the democratic principle to which the government adheres; that I have been in line with the principle of representative government to which the government adheres; that it is reasonable to ask that no considerable population such as the 12.000 people now living in that territory should be without some means of representation; that we are now providing a new basis for representation throughout Canada, and now is the time to make this correction. So that I urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to allow his heart to warm up and melt just a little bit, and accept the amendment I have moved.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Notwithstanding the great sympathy we all have for the people inhabiting the territories of the northwest at this time, Mr. Speaker, I have to submit that this amendment is not in order. It proposes to do a thing which has just been refused by the house. The house has just refused the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) to strike out the words "two hundred and fifty-five" and substitute other words, in the first portion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Oh, yes; the house has just rejected that. We now have an amendment to strike out "two hundred and fifty-five" and substitute some other number. If the hon. member had wished to have that considered he should have moved it as an amendment to the amendment. There was an amendment to strike out "two hundred and fifty-five" and substitute some other number. Had the hon. member not been satisfied with the suggested amendment it was open to him to move a subamendment; but since he did not do so, the house has now passed upon that part. The rule, as I find it in paragraph 399 of Beauchesne is:
After a decision has been given on an amendment to any part of a question, an earlier part cannot be amended. In like manner where an amendment of any part of a question has been proposed from the chair an earlier part cannot be amended unless the amendment so proposed be withdrawn.
There could have been an amendment to
the amendment; but since there was none, the
Redistribution

question of striking out "two hundred and fifty-five" and replacing it with something else has been decided on the amendment itself.


William Irvine: Let us assume that this amendment is out of order, which I am not granting. Would the minister not think it would be a wiser thing to accept the principle and never mind the order, to include it in his own motion without having this at all?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The matter of
substance referred to has been given consideration. The proposal before the house is that the Yukon territory and-
. . . any part of Canada not comprised within a province which may from time to time be included therein by the parliament of Canada for the purposes of representation in parliament, shall be entitled to one member.
As to that matter, the suggestions which have been made from time to time that the sectors north of the provinces be included in the existing provinces are still under consideration, and that, is something upon which no decision has yet been reached. If that were done, I do not know whether this would be north of British Columbia or north of Alberta-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It would then come within the general provision; and when a decision has been made as to what will be done with that territory, consideration will be given to a proper method of having it represented and administered. In any event, it should have representation. The population of a portion of the northwest territories is growing so rapidly that the present system of administration soon will be inadequate, and something will have to be devised as there was for the territories which are now Alberta and Saskatchewan. They were under territorial administration for a time, but when they got a larger population they had to be given democratic institutions. The growth now taking place in a certain portion of the northwest territories will have to be taken care of in an adequate manner. I submit that the amendment cannot be made. If it could, we could deal with all the digits, substituting each one for "245".	.


William Irvine: Surely whether this is in order or is not in order depends upon the fact that we are removing the digit.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It would have been an excellent reason for a subamendment to the amendment.


Major James William Coldwell: We did not think so.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: It would have been an excellent reason for amending the amendment. I submit that, the amendment having been disposed of, if the rule is to be followed it cannot be the subject of further alternative amendments.


Angus MacInnis: Before you make your
ruling, Mr Speaker, I should like to draw to your attention what I think are the important words in citation 399. I think the important words are "earlier part". That citation reads:
After a decision has been given on an amendment to any part of a question, an earlier part cannot be amended.
I submit that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cariboo is not to an earlier part. The hon. member for Vancouver North moved to reduce the number 255 to 250, and the hon. member for Cariboo moved that the 255 be increased to 256. I submit that this is a proper amendment because it does not deal with a matter that is an earlier part of the resolution now before the house.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of the hon. member for Cariboo to citation 413 on page 129 of Beauchesne's second edition which reads:
No amendment shall call in question a principle on which the house has given a decision by its vote on a former amendment.
If the hon. member will compare his amendment with the amendment which was presented by the hon. member for Vancouver North and on which the house had an opportunity to vote he will see clearly that the principles of both amendments are the same. Therefore, I really believe the amendment moved by the hon. member is out of order.


William Irvine: May I say that it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to find a shadow of resemblance between the principle of the one and the principle of the other?


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I have an amendment to move to section 5 of the resolution. This amendment is based on the municipal law of the province of Ontario. I move, seconded by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. McMaster):
Provided that such readjustment shall not take effect until after the next census in 1951 and then only after a favourable vote of those entitled to vote at the next federal election on a plebiscite or referendum and that such address to His Majesty the King be postponed until' then.
That is the principle of municipal law in Ontario in municipal elections, I read it. Let the Clerk read it.

Redistribution


James Horace King: I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member. The rules state that a motion or amendment should be presented to the Chair in such a way that it can be read by the Speaker.


Thomas Langton Church: On a point of order, section 5 deals with the time of the coming into effect of the readjustment and I am moving an amendment which is quite in order. I am moving that a rider be added to section 5 to postpone this readjustment until after the census of 1951 and then carry it out only after a referendum or plebiscite has been taken.


James Horace King: The rules are quite definite that a motion should be presented to the Chair with the name of the mover and the name of the seconder and presented in such a way that the Chair can read it to the house. Unfortunately I cannot do that in this case.


Thomas Langton Church: The British North America Act is like the law of the Medes and the Persians.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity the other day of saying something on the amendment. I advanced with as much force as I could command a proposition which seemed to me to be a reasonable one-an interpretation of section 51(4) of the British North America Act. I admit that this is not a forum in which legal arguments can achieve very much. The appraisal of arguments by majdrity is not a satisfactory way of determining their value, but I do not complain. I wish, however, that the house be made fully aware of this fact as representing the view of the party of which I am a member.
This party stands for the correction of any inequality that obtains at the present time in the representation in this house of the different provinces. May that be quite clear. The Progressive Conservative party wishes that each province be completely, fully and fairly represented in this house.
There are two questions raised by the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). One has to do with fair and equitable representation and in so far as that principle is concerned this party is with him. This party regrets sincerely that for a certain period of time there should have been inadequate and unfair representation in this house of at least one province.
The other question raised is, how is this proper, fair representation to be brought about? I suggested the other day that the
very text of section 51, subsection 4, of the B.N.A. Act placed the instrument in the hands of the government and of the house. Nobody has contradicted, strange as it may seem, the interpretation that I placed upon subsection 4 of section 51. In fact, some hon. gentlemen opposite have gone out of their way to say that it is a reasonable, fair and, indeed, the only proper interpretation to be placed upon that subsection.
What is the objection? The objection is that somebody in the Department of Justice has advised that in one case this subsection has been interpreted in a way which runs counter to the interpretation that I have given. There is the issue. This judgment I have submitted has no bearing on my interpretation of section 51, subsection 4, and somebody else of experience and whose integrity I do not doubt says it has. Is the matter to rest there? It is very easy to submit this simple question to a tribunal. The machinery is available. The supreme court will even provide a special session or a special sitting to hear the issue. I know of no valid reason why the Minister of Justice himself might not go and argue the point. Whether the decision is an obiter dictum or not, does anybody think for one moment that the question which is now before the house was ever argued in all its meanings and implications before any court? To ask that question is to answer it. It was not. I submit that that is one way of dealing with this matter which is perplexing the house and possibly the government. Submit it to the courts.
There is another way of dealing with it without amending the constitution, and that way, in my submission, is found in section 52 of the British North America Act. That section states:
The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this act is not thereby disturbed.
I had my day in court earlier in the week and I do not wish to weary the house with a further technical legal argument. But as we have sat here we have heard praised, and rightly praised, a certain Mr. Newcombe, who was deputy minister of justice for many years and later became Mr. Justice Newcombe of the Supreme Court of Canada. He in one instance apparently gave an interpretation of section 51(4) that I do not share. But this is what Mr. Newcombe says of section 52 and the use to which it may be put. Speaking in the Prince Edward Island case, as reported in volume 33 of the Supreme Court Reports at page 645, Mr. Newcombe says:
Redistribution

I submit that section 52 has no office whatever so far as the present inquiry is concerned; section 52 has never yet been invoked by parliament. The power given under that section has never been executed, but it may be executed and only in one way-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.
I shall not read farther. One of the learned judges questioned Mr. Neweombe and asked him if it was not to apply to a certain set of circumstances, if it was not to apply to the admission of the northwest territories and Mr. Neweombe replied in the negative.
I say that if it is deemed desirable to increase the representation of Quebec, if one wants to give Quebec seventy-three members in order that it may have eight more than it has now, it is not necessary for the purpose to amend the British North America Act. Nobody has ever said that it is necessary to amend the constitution to increase the membership of the house under section 52; and we have a high authority, Mr. Neweombe, later Mr. Justice Neweombe, who says that it is not necessary. I say therefore t.o the government, by all means let us give each province full and fair representation, and that immediately. But to correct one injustice do pot initiate a second one. You may refer to the court, if you think it necessary, section 51 (4) for interpretation and you can have a decision in three weeks. If you want to go to the privy council with it you may go at the autumn session. If you wish to increase the number of members from Quebec you can bring in your legislation and this parliament has the power, so long as it preserves the parity, the proportionate representation of the provinces, to enact the means that will enable you to give Quebec more members than it has at the present time. At the same time you will, of course, have to give added representation to the other provinces.
Oh, somebody may object, you are going on with Ontario on the basis of eighty-two members. Of course you are not. You can submit that to the court, if need be. Ontario does not seek any unfair representation in this house. The unit of representation is 51,213. Divide Ontario's population by that number and it will take what comes to it without complaint.
That brings me to this point. I know that in my native province I shall be called a Tory, an imperialist, somebody who is colonially minded; I shall be called many other things. All of that does not weigh very JMr. Hackett.]
heavily with me because name-calling does not always redound to the glory of him who indulges in it. But I am anxious that it be known fully and clearly that this party stands for justice, that it is not Francophobe and that it is not hostile to the majority of the population in my own province.
I believe it is a great misfortune that a whole ethnological group should find itself in one party. I think it is unfortunate for the party to whom that ethnological group has gone, to seek shelter, if you will. It places that party in a position of ascendancy over that element and causes it to treat it frequently shabbily and as a poor relation and as if it did not enjoy that which is essential to parliamentary government and to representative government; that is, the freedom to go elsewhere if it does not like the treatment it receives at the hands of those to whom it has given its allegiance. It is unfortunate for the party which has the entire support of any ethnological group, because it brings about that type of domination which is undesirable and *which is repugnant to the very essence of fair and representative government.
It is unfortunate for another reason. If an ethnological group gives its entire self to one party there is alwa3rs the danger and temptation that another ethnological group will range itself in opposition to it; and when a people begins to divide, not according to political conviction, but according to race, creed and other divisions of that kind, then trouble awaits that body politic.
Moreover, it is unfortunate for the group which gives itself to-I was going to say, which seeks sanctuary with-one party, because it believes that it can only find protection and self-expression within the party to which it gives its adherence. That is a misfortune, because it places that ethnological group in a position of subservience and forces it to take treatment which it could not and would not take were it entirely free.
But the misfortune does not stop there. It weighs heaviest on a party like mine which is deprived of the wisdom, the culture, the foresight and the tradition of those who make up that ethnological group. We in this party are poor, because in a crisis like this we are denied knowledge of how the heart of him who is most affected-the French Canadian- beats, what he wants, and how he would express himself were he free to break party bonds and do so.
I cannot hold myself out as the interpreter of any group. I have no title to speak for the French people. None of their blood courses through my veins. But I have the great honour-and I consider it a high honour

Redistribution
-of representing a constituency in which the big majority of the voters are French, and I consider that, inadequate as is my interpretation of their sentiments, faltering as my words must be, I would be untrue to my mandate if I did not say that which I feel impelled to say here to-night. I want to say that if I went back to my people and had to tell them that by my vote I had consented to make their constitution, that by which they live and thrive and hope to be perpetuated, a mere statute, a mere third-rate statute such as regulates the height of a railway crossing, I would hang my head in shame and feel that I had been unfaithful to their trust in me.
When I go back to my people, regardless of what I may be called in the press, regardless of what my opponents may say of me, I want to say to them, "I believe that the constitution gave you rights and afforded you protection compared with which eight seats in any legislature-eight seats in the parliament of Canada, if you will, much as I honour the position which goes with a seat in this house- seem very small, very meagre, very mean. In contrast to what was yielded up you got nothing."
Consider for a moment this aspect of the matter. Something was said about section 133; I have nothing more to say about that. But when hon. gentlemen opposite accept this method of amending the constitution-and let me point out that although the constitution has been amended in the past easily and lightly, but not frequently, this is the first time that the big issue as such has ever been before parliament-this time we are taking the irretrievable step. Never again will this i parliament or anybody in it be heard to say that the constitution is a pact or a treaty. Never again, once this motion has passed, may any hon. member who votes for it raise his voice and say, "My rights have been taken from me", provided that they are taken from him at the behest of the parliament of Canada. We are at the end of a debate in which that contention must vanish forever; and the constitution of Canada will stand, when we emerge from this debate, as the merest statute which can be torn to shreds whenever the exigencies of a political party or a diminishing political majority exact it.
When we have done that, what have we from Quebec surrendered? As the constitution stands to-night, whether the population of Quebec be 100, whether it be 100,000, or whether it be 10.000,000, the province of Quebec, the minority, the people who were here first, the people who were just a little island in a whole sea of peoples of different origins, different cultures, different speech,
different aspirations, the people of the province of Quebec have for all time at least sixty-five members in this house. To-night we tear up that guarantee; we throw it to the winds; we put ourselves exactly where Prince Edward Island is, and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Thomas Hackett: Somebody says "poof", but time plays strange pranks with peoples. There was a time when Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were mighty among the colonies on this continent; but times have changed and they are now small, insignificant, and two out of the three of these provinces are dependent upon the amendment which gives to those provinces that pittance of representation in this house equal to that in the senate.
I am no predictor of ill; I forecast no evil for Quebec. But the day may well come when those fertile prairies of the west, that rich hinterland of the north, will possess a proportion of our population which will reduce Quebec to sixty members, to fifty members, to forty members, to thirty members, and to the mere handful of twenty-four secured to it by section 51A of the constitution. Oh, you may say that I am drawing on my imagination. Well, I recall a page in Macaulay-I may not cite it accurately-in which he foresees the day when England will no longer be mistress of the seas, when England will no longer be ruler of the world, and he speaks of that day as one in which "a single naked fisherman shall be seen washing his nets in the river of ten thousand masts". We know what has happened to the greatness of Massachusetts, for example, and to the population in the industrial centres of that state who have gone south. We have not to go far to find considerable shifts of population such as have occurred recently in the New England states. I say, therefore, to hon. gentlemen opposite: If you wish to support this motion to-night you are yielding yourselves up to a fortune which may play you a sorry prank; and I for one, wishing to be true to the mandate that was entrusted to me and entrusted to me despite grave temptation to the contrary, because appeals were made to a majority, which I could not very well resist, I would feel, I say, unfair to those men and women; I would feel that I was unfair to their children and their children's children, if I sold them out in order that my province might for a short time have eight more members in this house than it has to-night.
There was a time when Ontario had eightyone members, another when it had 92 members. and it is universally admitted to-night-
2GS0
Redistribution

and Ontario does not- flinch from it-that if the account were properly made it is entitled only to seventy-four. All right; seventy-four from the top; that is nineteen off. Treat Quebec in the same way; take 19 from Quebec, and it does not require much imagination to appreciate the result. However, I am doing that which I deem to be my duty when I say to my hon. friends opposite: You are writing finis to the chapter; you are putting an end to your right ever to complain of any inequality, of any unfairness, of any encroachment upon your rights, because you of the province of Quebec know as well as I do that, without your support, this parliament, this government, is powerless. Without your support, without your wish, without your will, the British North America Act cannot be amended, so that your rights and privileges may be torn therefrom it any time to suit the exigencies of a parliamentary majority.
I do not like to be disagreeable to anybody. My hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) the other day said that it was not the first time the Tories and the Nationalists of Quebec had united for nefarious purposes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Thomas Hackett: "Hear, hear"! It may lie in the mouths of some people to say that, but not in the mouth of the party represented by the hon. gentlemen whence the "hear, hear" came. May I say to the hon. gentleman who made the charge that unless my memory plays me false an agreement was made between a gentleman before whose memory I bow-he was a God-fearing man-the late Mr. Woodsworth, and the right hon. gentleman who leads the government to-day, whereby the late Mr. Woodsworth dictated the policy of the Liberal party in the period between 1926 and 1930, in order that the party opposite might remain in power.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My hon. friend has made the statement that an agreement was made between Mr. Woodsworth and myself whereby this government was in some measure controlled. I say there never was at any time any such agreement.


John Thomas Hackett: I will ask the right hon. gentleman whether he received the letter in which Mr. Woodsworth accuses him of not carrying out the agreement, and which was put on Hansard on January 20, 1926, at page 560, to which the right hon. gentleman replied on January 28, 1926.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That matter has been discussed half a dozen times in this house, and if my hon. friend will look at the

volumes of Hansard where the matter is referred to he will find a complete reply. I am giving him my word at the present time that there was no such agreement made by myself with any party in this house.


Angus MacInnis: I think the hon. gentleman should read both letters. I do not think there is any accusation in the letter written to the Prime Minister. There is in it something which I am not a bit ashamed to have read, but my hon. friend, I say, should read both letters.


John Thomas Hackett: The two letters are here, and the letter from Mr. Woodsworth to the Prime Minister is this:
As representatives of labour in the House of Commons, may we ask whether it is your intention to introduce at this session legislation with regard to (a) provision for the unemployed; (b) old age pensions?
We are venturing to send a similar inquiry
to the leader of the opposition.
Then Mr. Woodsworth went on to explain that he had been informed that these undertakings would be carried out, and the Prime Minister wrote him a letter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do not read excerpts; read the text.


John Thomas Hackett: The Prime Minister wrote him a letter on January 28, as follows-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Finish the other letter.


John Thomas Hackett: I shall:
We are venturing to send a similar inquiry to the leader of the opposition.
Yours sincerely,
J. S. Woodsworth,
A. A. Heaps.
I now read the Prime Minister's letter: Dear Mr. Woodsworth:
Replying to the letter received from Mr. Heaps and yourself, dated January 7, in which you ask whether it is the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation with regard to
(a)	provision for the unemployed, and
(b)	old age pensions, I would refer you, respecting provision for the unemployed, to the answer given in the House of Commons to-day by the Hon. Ernest Lapointe on behalf of the government in reply to a question by yourself and which indicated the government's intention of carrying out with respect to emergency relief the practice adopted in cooperation with provinces and municipalities in the years immediately following the war. In answer to a question from Mr. Neill, Mr. Lapointe further intimated that it was the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation with respect to old age pensions. You will observe that the statement made by Mr. Lapointe was in accordance with the intimation which I gave to Mr. Heaps and yourself at the time of our interview, following the receipt of the communication herein referred to.

Redistribution
With respect to amendments to (a) the Immigration Act; (b) the Naturalization Act, and (c) the criminal code, which were referred to at the time of our interview, I would say that having since taken up the proposed amendments with the ministers concerned, I feel that I am in a position to assure you that legislation on these matters will also be introduced in the course of the present session.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Mr. MACKENZIE; What is wrong with that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say one word? I have been asked repeatedly by leaders of the opposition and of other parties in the house what the intention of the government was with respect to certain legislation. I have given the information as best I could; but it is quite a different thing to answer a question and give information from entering into an agreement with any party to do a certain thing. There was no agreement. I was stating the intention of the government in reply to an inquiry, just as I would expect the leader of the opposition in reply to an inquiry, to state his intention. I do not call that entering into an agreement or subjecting one's party to the control of another party.


John Thomas Hackett: I draw the attention of
.4.1-L

x . i1	*
for Rosetown-Biggar referred to combinations between the Tories and the Nationalists;
__hey were following a very bad
example which was set by the C.C.F. party and the Liberals who were then almost in a minority and who were dependent upon the good will of the party headed to-day by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar for support and for their very parliamentary existence.
The other evening the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) said that we had no reason to fear that anything would happen to the rights and prerogatives of the province of Quebec. These words are not his, but I quote them from Le Canada, the paper of his party, which gives him the following flaming headline :
La conscience universelle et le fair play britarinique protegent la langue fran<;aise.
The translation is:
The universal conscience and British fair play protect the French language.
I am going to say to the Minister of Justice that British fair play is not restricted to the British isles. I hope, I believe, I know that there is fair play not only in one but in all provinces. That being so, is there any reason why the other parties to this contract, from which the B.N.A. Act emerges, a contract the observance of which is so important and vital
to them, should not be consulted? I submit that the very essence of British fair play would impel the minister to take any amendment to this document to the provinces before going abroad with it. Is there any reason to suspect that these provinces will be unfair in considering it?
Then there is the wail that this party is in collusion with the government of the province of Quebec. So far as I am concerned I wish it were. I see no impropriety in parties finding expression both in the legislatures and in the House of Commons. I see no impropriety in closer relationship between the members of this house and the government of Quebec. Unfortunately that relationship does not exist, but in so far as I at least am concerned I would see no impropriety in such a relationship.
There is also the question which possibly I should have raised a little earlier in my remarks had I treated it in its proper place, namely, the question of cost. According to the British North America Act, 230 representatives from the various provinces of this dominion should constitute the next parliament of Canada. It will mean a reduction of twenty-five members if one considers the 255 mention pH " e motion of the minister. It is impossible iu maintain a member of parliament for less than 810,000 a year. He receives as an emolument and, for expenses, the sum of $6,000. Add to that travelling expenses; the salary of a secretary and other incidentals. I submit that the public accounts show that the cost of maintaining a member is something in excess of $10,000 a year. The sum of $10,000, multiplied by twenty-five, is $250,000, and on that basis, taking current interest rates, it entails a capital of $10,000,000, which even in these days is worth while saving.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to say to the government that they have no mandate whatsoever for this proposed legislation. They should consider the time, the place and the manner in which they are asking for this legislation. The British North America Act, at the time it was passed, was looked upon as the law of the Medes and Persians; it could not be changed. You may call it a pact, a compact, a contract, an agreement or a treaty; you can call it anything you like. There is a difference of opinion on the part of those who have taken part in this debate. Some have been for one thing and some for another.
So far as this particular resolution is concerned, we have no right, for political purposes, to make a scrap of paper out of the British North America Act. That is what we are
Redistribution

doing, making a scrap of paper of the work
of the fathers of confederation. Let us look at what the government is doing to-day. If we open the door at all we shall have what happened in the United States. The house will remember what happened over there when they tried to interfere with the written constitution. There is in Canada a written constitution, the British North America Act. There is an unwritten constitution, consisting of customs, usages, conventions, precedents and all these things, which is called the unwritten law. These things have been expounded. If you open the door at all, what is to become of section 133; what is to become of section 55 of which the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) gave a learned exposition?
I can tell you what happened in the United States. They annexed ten states; some were bought from one country and some from another. In Louisiana they had a condition somewhat similar to the condition we have in one of the provinces of Canada. They had a government under Huey Long there, and look at what they did notwithstanding written law, unwritten law, the terms of a treaty and purchase or language or anything else.
The government has no mandate for this proposed legislation. Who is asking for it? Has any provincial legislature passed a resolution in favour of this legislation? I say no. I know a great many people in the province of Ontario, and I tell you the answer of this province is going to be, "No surrender." This comes at a very unfortunate time, when we consider what we have been doing since this parliament met last March. We are to have a new flag and a new anthem, and they want to abolish appeals to the privy council. I can tell you this, that the privy council is one court where a litigant can get justice. I remember a decision in 1914 of Lord Haldane, referred to by an hon. member the other evening, in connection with public ownership of light, power and transportation in the province of Ontario. We never would have had the cheap light and power had it not been for the privy council. Injunction after injunction was issued. I insisted upon an appeal to the privy council, and a great victory was won in 1912 and 1914 for municipal institutions in this province.
I am going to ask the Minister of Justice a question, because he is always polite and courteous. I want to point out that the municipalities and the provinces have a practice of submitting election matters to the people by a referendum or plebiscite. The people should vote on this resolution. Many provinces have that municipal legislation. It is a good and wise provision, because it pro-
tects the taxpayers and the voters, by a vote of the people, from what the legislatures occasionally do. I have brought into this house on other occasions a bill providing for the holding of plebiscites or referendums on these great national questions, and I should like to ask the minister if that practice could not be adopted here. After all, as has been shown in this debate, the last census was not taken properly. That was not the fault of the census officials, but resulted from the fact that the war was in progress. There *were 70,000 soldiers from the Toronto district spread all over Canada and overseas; women and war workers moved to other parts of the country, and they were not counted when the census was taken from door to door. For that reason we should wait until after the census of 1951. Then we should have a referendum or plebiscite before we change the whole system of representation which we have followed since 1867.
We would not be doing something new in holding a referendum, because late in 1941, on motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), a referendum was held in connection with changing what had been done previously in regard to one matter, and a vote was taken in every federal constituency. Here you are going to change the whole federal law and alter the present situation, which means you are going to open the door to changes in the British North America Act and make a scrap of paper out of that part of the act. The provinces exist to-day because of a treaty or agreement or contract, a pact and a compact. The provinces have their constitution under section 92; the field of federal matters is laid out in section 91. Now, over the heads of the representatives of the people, of our own accord we are going to make an application to His Majesty the King and the parliament of the United Kingdom along certain lines. I can tell you, from what has been said in the debates on the last two or three applications of this kind, that this request will not be sanctioned by the British house without a very lively debate, and questioning as to what consultation has been had with the provinces. We have been changing many things. Through isolation and separatism we have almost closed the door on the old land. Here we have a compact of 1867 upon which the two old provinces agreed, and it cannot be changed in this way.
There is another matter I should like to mention in conclusion. The first thing this house should do is recover some of the rights, privileges and functions we have lost to outside boards. Call this a free parliament! I would not call it a free parliament at all. The

press was founded on the ruins of the old type of parliamentary representation they had in England. The press has been the only organ of public opinion. The defects in our parliamentary system brought about this. From the time of the reform bill in 1834 right down to the change in the constitution which wiped out the rotten boroughs and the pocket boroughs and all that kind of thing, the press had a part to play, and they fulfilled the functions which were later performed by the House of Commons when it had real parliamentary representation. Now, if you are going to tinker with the constitution in this way you are going to cause wide disunity in this country. The people back in the constituencies must be considered. We have no mandate from them. I have no mandate from my constituents to support an, application like this; neither has any other Ontario member sitting in this house. Shades of Wallace and McCarthy and John Ross Robertson and John R. Robinson, while all this is going on in this House of Commons over the heads of the electors back home!
In my opinion the procedure is all wrong. If you make a scrap of paper out of certain sections of the British North America Act the whole thing will be wrecked, and we shall be back where we were before confederation. You will notice that no bill has been brought in with regard to this matter. In other days, when an amendment of the British North America Act was considered, the resolution was supported by a bill which had to pass both houses of parliament. I believe that should have been the practice followed here, because you cannot move the six months' hoist under this resolution. To-night I tried to introduce an amendment under which we would adopt the municipal law, but it was not even read to the house, although seconded by the hon. member for High Park. I want to point out that a private member has certain rights, privileges and functions in this house which cannot be interfered with. I remember reminding this house the other evening that when King Charles marched into parliament and addressed his honour, Speaker Lenthal, the reply was, "I have neither eyes to see nor ears to hear but as the house gives me utterance."
Once more I am going to ask the Minister of Justice, will he not agree to postpone this matter until after the census of 1951 and a referendum to the people on it? I see the minister shaking his head; apparently he is not going to answer directly. Then will he agree to adopt the municipal law? Again I see his answer is no. Well, the minister has given only
Redistribution
two noes; once in the province of Ontario we had to vote on four noes, in connection with the temperance vote. I suppose we shall just have to swallow this and say nothing more about it. If that is what parliamentary government in Canada is amounting to, the quicker the house of parliament prorogues and we have an election, the better. We shall have one in the fall anyway over this very matter of provincial and federal rights.
As I said before, the provinces are a duplicate municipal system, and they have grave questions to deal with. The British North America Act came about because of a compromise, and there should be some compromise about this matter.
I am sorry the government have taken this stand. They have no authority; they have no mandate. If the province of Ontario, which contributes about forty-one per cent of the taxes, is to have its membership cut down, then the people of Ontario will find out about it. There is no better way to wreck confederation than to pass the proposed resolution. It will not provide a system of checks and balances, or improve parliamentary representation. It is simply an application to the mother of parliaments, and I hope before long it will be thrown out over there.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, there are just a few points about which I wish to say a few words. First of all, I shall dispose of some that I had noted prior to the continuation of the debate this afternoon, and then perhaps I shall have a little to say about some of the later speeches we have heard. There seems to be some anxiety as to whether or not the enacting of the amendment proposed in this resolution would affect the provisions of the British North America Act known as section 51 (a) and section 52. Section 51 (a) reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this act a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province.
Section 52 reads:
The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this act is not thereby disturbed.
Sections 51 (a) and 52 will not be affected in any wray. It is a principle of interpretation that has even been inserted as a text in our Interpretation Act. Section 10 reads:
The law shall be considered as always speaking, and whenever any matter or thing is expressed in the present tense, the same shall be
Redistribution

applied to the circumstances as they arise, so that effect may be given to each act and every part thereof, according to its spirit, true intent and meaning.
Section 51 as proposed in this resolution; section 51 (a) as I have read it and section 52 as I have read it will still continue to speak and may, if and when occasion arises to resort to them, provide authority for whatever may be found to be the right thing to do at the proper time. The United Kingdom interpretation act, which would probably apply to this statute in view of the fact that it is a statute passed by the imperial parliament, provides in its section 8 that every secion of an act shall have effect as a substantive enactment without introductory words. Then section 32, subsection 1, provides:
Where an act passed after the commencement of this act-
That was in 1889.
-confers a power or imposes a duty, then, unless the contrary intention appears, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed from time to time as occasion requires.
I submit that section 51 as contained in the resolution; section 51 (a) as it already is in the act and section 52 as it already is in the act, shall all three remain there as separate enactments providing powers that may be exercised whenever occasion requires them to be used.


Mr. BROOKS:: May I ask the minister a question just for my own information? With respect to New Brunswick where we have ten members out of 245, if the representation is changed to ten members out of 255 would that not change the proportionate representation of New Brunswick and would that not be a violation of section 52?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Section 52 is not a section which restrains in any way the powers of the parliament of the United Kingdom; section 52 is a section which deals with the powers of the parliament of Canada. The parliament of Canada could not, by increasing the number of members of Canada, change the proportion. According to part of the argument of the hon. member for Stan-stead (Mr Hackett), with which I will deal a little later, he would seem to contend that that would be representation by population, disregarding other restrictions. But that would not be my construction. My construction of the act would be that if section 52 were used at the present time or at any time in future the number of members of parliament for a province would have to be the proportion it had prior to the increase, and if

there were an increase from 255 to 355, New Brunswick would have to have 10/255ths of 355.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why not 10/245ths?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is not what we are asking the imperial parliament to enact at the present time. In 1915 Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick got something which they did not have before, something which gave them representation not based upon their numerical proportion of the population of Canada. On this occasion an application is being made to get a new basis of distribution which will not reduce the representation of Prince Edward Island but which will not give it the additional half member it would receive if it were an increase made by the parliament of Canada under section 52.
I should like to call the attention of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), who was so much concerned about the vote that he did say he would give after the amendment that was then before the Chair had been defeated, to the vote and proceedings of the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec of March 7, 1945. He will find there that the following resolution was moved, seconded and voted upon after debate:
Whereas, under the amendment to the constitution in 1943 our province was deprived of its proportion of representation in ratio to the other provinces;	_
Wherefore this house invite the federal government to revise the electoral map before the elections so as to render justice to the province of Quebec.	,
That motion was put and the vote was S2 yeas, no nays. Among those who voted with the yeas was the Hon. Mr. Godbout, the same gentleman of whom the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres spoke this afternoon, and the Hon. Mr. Duplessis, of whom the hon. gentleman also spoke this afternoon. They and eighty of their colleagues in the legislature voted to invite the federal government to revise the electoral map before the elections so as to render justice to the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Stanstead has said that the party to which he belongs regards the raising of the representation of the province of Quebec to seventy-three, provided the representation of Ontario is to remain at eighty-two, as an act of justice. If that is so, if that is the view that those who are opposing this resolution take, then I can say to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres that the eighty-two members of the legislature of Quebec who voted that resolution have invited us to do that act of justice.
With respect to the legal argument advanced by the hon. member for Stanstead, with the

R edistribution
first portion of his speech I was very much impressed. I thought it was helpful, something that would be of great value to the national unity of this country. But I was unable to persist in that impression of his speech as it developed. The legal argument is that under section 52, without an amendment, if it were desired to have the representation of Quebec at seventy-three, a redistribution could be made which would give Ontario eighty-three. Let us see just what that section says.
The hon. member for Stanstead and I have grown up together. We very often have the same ideas, and this is one which I put to the law officers of the department, asking them if we could not by using section 52 bring about this fair readjustment, eliminate this overrepresentation which the province of Ontario does not want, which the members of the Progressive Conservative party, speaking through the hon. member for Stanstead, come into the house and say:	We do not want it
to continue. Nevertheless in fact we see wdiat measures are being taken to prevent the overrepresentation from being adjusted. Section 52 says:
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 opinion I got from the officers of the department was that the proportionate representation prescribed by this act was 82/245ths for Ontario at the present time and 62/245ths for Quebec at the present time, and that if there were an increase in number that would bring Quebec's up to seventy-three, then Ontario's would have to go necessarily to ninety-two, Nova Scotia to thirteen and New Brunswick to eleven, each one being increased by just a little bit less than one-eighth; Manitoba, seventeen on the basis of the last census would go from fourteen to sixteen; Saskatchewan, on the basis of the last census, would go from seventeen to nineteen; Alberta from seventeen to nineteen; British Columbia from sixteen to eighteen.
The hon. member says: Well, if you want Quebec to have seventy-three, give them seventy-three. But what difference in the proportionate representation would that make? To what degree would that cure injustice if it means adding ten to the eighty-two already representing Ontario?
The hon. member says: Well, submit it to the court. I suggested submitting it to the court, and I was told that it was quite useless to attempt to get a decision that would be anything but a strict interpretation of this
section 52, which requires the increase in number to respect the proportion of representation at the time it is made.
What objection is there to doing it in this way if it is the fair thing to do? This is a way that will do it, and do it in a manner the legality of which cannot be questioned by anyone. Nobody can pretend, if this resolution carries and an amendment is made to the British North America Act in these terms, that it will not be absolutely valid, that there can be any question whatever about its legality. Is that not the right thing to do with respect to the representation in this house? If it is the fair thing to do, why not do it in a manner about which no one can raise any question? If the hon. gentlemen on the other side agree that it is the fair thing to do, why all this debate and all this opposition and all these amendments that have been brought forward ?
But it did not stop there. I shall not impute motives; I am just drawing conclusions as to what would be the effect of the attitude, taken, and contrasting it with the speeches made from the other side in opposition to this redistribution. I am not over-impressed by the dismal picture of the future of my race in Canada drawn by the hon, member for Stanstead. I do not foresee an early day when the descendants of the French who have inhabited this country for over three centuries will be reduced to the poor fisherman washing his nets on desolate banks of the St. Lawrence. I feel that my people, those of my race, can stand on their own feet and that if they get in the parliament of their nation the right to be represented by a number of elected members proportionate to their own numbers they will be very well taken care of and they will have no occasion to complain of any unfairness. This bugaboo that is brought forth to scare them away from the restoration of something that no one here dare say is not the fair thing to do impresses me very little. Your language, it is said, will be taken from you! Your rights will be taken from you!
If this thing goes through, it will be the last of the contention that the provinces have to be consulted and then there is no protection for the rights of the minorities! If it is to be the last of the contention that the constitution of this nation cannot be amended in respect of national matters unless the proposal be subjected to the veto of the great powers who sit in the provincial capitals, then I think this is a happy day for Canada. This veto business is something which is proving very difficult in the assembly of the united nations, and if in this assembly of the repre-
Redistribution

sentatives of the Canadian people we can down it forever we shall be performing a service to the Canadian nation.


Paul-Émile Côté: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen). Had I voted, I would have supported the motion.


Mr. JEAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: According to an understanding between the delegates to the B.P.A., I was paired with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). Not seeing him in his seat I declined to vote. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


William Chisholm Macdonald: I was
paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WHITMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Hark-ness). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Donald Elmer Black: I was paired with the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. BONNIER:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Bruce (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted. I would have voted for the motion.


John Watson MacNaught: I was paired with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GOUR (Russell):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CLARK:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent (Ontario) (Mr. Desmond). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I was paired with the hon. member for Lambton-Ivent (Mr. Henderson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McGREGOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. STIRLING:: I was paired with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Howard Charles Green: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Frank Exton Lennard: I was paired with the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I was paired with the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


George Henry Stokes: I was paired with the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


John Thomas Hackett: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott). Had' I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Kenneth Roy Daniel: I was paired with the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. McDonald). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Sinclair). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


William Alexander McMaster: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
Supply-Justice


Mr. LAPALME:: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 96. Departmental administration, $199,970.


Mr. FLEMING:: The Minister of Justice will recall that when the estimates of his department were before the house last December he made a statement in regard to his intention to introduce a bill with reference to judges' salaries. His words are to be found at page 3473 of Hansard and are as follows:
I hope to have a bill dealing with that matter at the next session, to come into force at a later day, not upon adoption. I hope to have it for consideration of parliament at the next session, with the proviso in it that it will come into operation on a day that would appear to be a reasonable one to fix, hoping that the ceilings on salaries would by then have been greatly loosened or removed.
May I ask the minister whether it is the intention to introduce such a measure at the present session?
Right Hon. L. S. St. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): The bill has been prepared, and I hope that a resolution providing for its introduction will soon be recommended by His Excellency for the consideration of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At the present session?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: At this session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a problem connected with the matter of judges' pensions of which the minister is fully aware, arising out of the statute of 1944 amending the Judges Act which permitted the judges then holding a judicial office to make an election so that their pensions might be shared with their widows. The effect of the legislation was to confine it to judges then holding office, without affording any opportunity in any of its terms to permit the election to be made by any person who had at the date of the enactment of the amending act been retired as a judge. The form of the legislation was certainly not broad enough to include those persons, and if such persons, namely retired judges were to be included within the scope of such a scheme it would be necessary to introduce legislation in quite a different form, I think, because of the difference between the grant by letters patent of the pension prior to 1944 and the right to pension subsisting under the amendment of 1944. It does not

require any words from me to suggest that there was a measure of injustice to those who had been retired prior to the enactment of the amendment in 1944. It may be that there were reasons pressing on the government and parliament at the time which might have made it difficult to extend the scope of the legislation. But the principle is sound. The principle of permitting judges to make within a given period-in that case I think it was ninety days-an election to share their pensions with their widows so that in the event of their death the portion assigned to the widow could pass to her for life, was sound. I would urge that it ought to be extended to those who happened to have been retired at the date of the enactment of the amendment to the Judges Act in 1944. I am sure that the Minister of Justice must take a sympathetic view of these cases. I would ask if it is not possible for the government to indicate whether it is proper to widen the scope of the principle which received effect in the 1944 amendments? This need not be made compulsory any more than section 26A of the act as enacted in 1944. It would be purely optional to give those who are retired an opportunity, within a reasonable period, say, ninety days, to make a similar election.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are two matters in that connection which have been under consideration and which, I hope, will come to be dealt with before very long. One is the position of those who had retired prior to the amendment made in 1944, and who are still with us and able to make an option. The other is with respect to widows of judges, and there are several. There are a large number of judges who died before there was any section in the act permitting them to make this kind of provision. I think both will have to be considered together. I consider they are desirable things to be done, but they are not the only desirable things before the government for consideration and study, and I did not feel it would be an opportune time, at this session, to ask parliament to deal with those judges who had retired prior to 1944 and with the widows of those who had died before the 1944 statute was adopted. There were suggestions and proposals for the establishment of a system of old age pensions on a contributory basis among the things suggested to the dominion-provincial conference. Had something definite and generally satisfactory become possible as a result of that conference, I then would have felt it much easier to bring before parliament a measure to make provision for those widows and judges. I hope there will come a time, at a not too remote period,

Sup-ply-Justice
when it will be possible to consider the position of those judges who had retired and of those widows, without having to meet the criticism that there are many others just as worthy of sympathetic consideration by this parliament who should be provided for at the .same time. For that reason I felt this was not the proper time to attempt to deal with the problem referred to.
The other was dealt with in 1944 because it was an option that was granted and with respect to that it could be felt that it did not impose any serious burden on the treasury. It did not increase the amount of pension which might be payable, through two-thirds to the judge and the other one-third to his consort. It was the same amount and there were the same chances of longevity, so that it did not appear to impose any substantial burden upon the treasury. But this other provision which I should like to be able to recommend to my colleagues just as soon as we can get to it would impose quite a substantial burden upon the treasury, and I do not think it would be the kind of measure that should be recommended to this house at this session, because there are too many other things that have also to receive consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister think it necessary to wait and couple those two measures together? As he has said, he extension of the option to those judges who had been retired prior to 1944 would not involve any additional burden upon the dominion treasury. Could it not then be dealt with without waiting to deal with the other question, namely pensions to judges' widows? There are some retired judges who feel-I know the right hon. gentleman is aware of this 

that an injustice had been done them in comparison with those who were on the bench when the amendment was passed in 1944. These are men who are on in years. Many of them are anxious that they should make provision for their widows by undertaking to share their pensions with them; and, since it does not involve any additional burden to the treasury, I wonder if it is not a matter that calls for early remedy.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should not like to do that. I prefer taking them together. To do one would increase the pressure for the other. There are quite a large number of charming ladies who have been left in circumstances which make it difficult for them to provide for their requirements according to the manner in which they had lived previously; . and I think they would consider that when anything else is done about this, it should take
them in as well. I should not like to recommend doing one thing without the other. I think it would give them the impression that their case was becoming more and more remote, so that I prefer to have the two things done together. When they are done, they will take care of everything then existing. If one of the retired judges, alive to-day, should die before this is done, leaving a widow, his widow would be in the same class as the other widows to be dealt with or whose cases would come up to be dealt with.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would be the intention of the government if it introduced the legislation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. If legislation is introduced it will apply not only to widows whose husbands died in office but also to the widows of those who had been judges and had retired before their death. So that all the cases would be covered. Of course they are all anxious to have it done just as soon as possible; and the explanation I have given to large numbers of frequent, repeated representations, often from the same persons, has had to be that I did not feel I could ask parliament to deal with these cases while there were many other things that many hon. members would consider even more urgent.


Major James William Coldwell: If I may say so, I think the Minister of Justice is taking the right attitude. While the question which has been asked regarding pensions to widows of judges appeals to one's sense of appreciation of the position of a judge and to the family that he leaves, nevertheless I think the minister is quite right that at this stage, when people are looking for something better in old age pensions and perhaps something in the way of a national health plan and so on, the masses of the people would expect that the government would do some of these things that have been pressed upon all of us and that many of us have warmly advocated, before singling out the dependents of a certain class of persons who during their earning years have been receiving relatively high remuneration.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned,
without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Privilege-Mr. Church
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 21, 1946.