1952-06-12

NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer certificate of the election and return of the following member:
Of Paul Henri Spence, Esquire, for the electoral district of Roberval.



NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Joseph Leon Deslieres, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Brome-Missisquoi, introduced by Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent and Hon. Alcide Cote.
N. C. Schneider, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Waterloo North, introduced by Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent and Hon. W. E. Harris.
Gage Workman Montgomery, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Victoria-Carleton, introduced by Mr. George A. Drew and Mr. A. J. Brooks.
Albany M. Robichaud, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Gloucester, introduced by Mr. George A. Drew and Mr. A. J. Brooks.
Michael Starr, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Ontario, introduced by Mr. George A. Drew and Mr. Gordon Graydon.
Paul Henri Spence, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Roberval, introduced by Mr. George A. Drew and Mr. Leon Balcer.

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National
Defence): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the training of officers:
The expanded defence program has created an urgent requirement for a steady flow of officers for all three services. The number of officers in the active forces has increased from over 7,000 to over 13,500 since the
aggression in Korea. The present arrangements for training officers at R.M.C. and Royal Roads and in the universities are satisfactory in themselves. But there will be a continuing need for larger numbers of officers than the existing arrangements will provide.
To meet this need it is proposed to supplement the present four-year course at R.M.C. and the universities for candidates for commissions which require technical qualifications with a two-year course at R.M.C., Royal Roads and the universities for candidates for commissions which do not require technical qualifications.
Candidates having the required qualifications who engage to serve in the forces for three years after being qualified for a commission will be enrolled in the armed forces as cadets and will be offered assisted education in the same way as men being promoted from the ranks and as is done in officer training establishments in other countries.
Students attending the universities under these arrangements will be members of the university naval training divisions, the Canadian officers' training corps or the reserve university flights and will have full-time training each summer.
Cadets now at the services colleges or already participating in the university training plans who have the necessary qualifications may, on the same conditions, that is, that they engage to serve for at least three years, take advantage of this opportunity and at the end of the second year of summer work take a commission requiring non-technical qualifications or receive assistance for a commission requiring technical qualifications.
Entrance requirements will continue to be senior matriculation or the equivalent.
These arrangements will be in effect at the universities and colleges having suitable courses and university training plans. Thirty-two universities and colleges have one or more of such plans in effect today.
These arrangements have been under discussion with representatives of the universities for some time and were finally considered this week with a representative group of presidents and other members of universities in Quebec during the conference of Canadian universities.
I am glad to say that without exception they offered their wholehearted co-operation.
[Stage Direction]
Armed Forces-Training of Officers
I have also to announce that a new service cadet college is to be established at St. Johns, in the province of Quebec, twenty-five miles from Montreal.
At the outset the college will give a one-year course for students who have the equivalent of a junior matriculation. The new college is primarily designed to meet the special circumstances of French-speaking candidates, but will be open to students from all over Canada.
If the numbers available justify it, the course will be extended to second and third year. The position of this college will be under constant review to ensure that it meets the situation. Cadets completing the course at this college will go to the universities or R.M.C. as appropriate.
The new college will, it is expected, have very close relations with Laval university and the university of Montreal as the authorities of both universities have generously offered to co-operate in every way possible.
The new college will be on precisely the same footing as R.M.C. and Royal Roads, with the same uniform and conditions of service.
Cadets at all three services colleges who engage to serve three years after qualifying for a commission will actually be members of the armed forces with expenses paid. Others may enter all three colleges on the same terms as heretofore.
The new features in the proposed arrangements are: acceptance of two-year qualifications for non-technical branches; assistance for candidates who engage to serve at least three years in the regular forces; and the inauguration of a new services college at St. Johns, Quebec.
Mr. Cruickshank:: May I ask the minister a question? Do I understand that a soldier in Korea or elsewhere, unless he is a Rhodes scholar or a university graduate, cannot qualify as an officer?


Mr. Claxion:: That is not correct, no.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, the statement was that you must be a university man if you want to be an officer. Utter nonsense!


Brooke Claxton: That is not the statement. Arrangements are in effect for candidates to obtain commissions without being university graduates.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Has any provision been made for training at the historic naval college at Halifax?


Brooke Claxton: No; no arrangements are contemplated there.
fMr. Claxton.]



QUESTIONS


Mr. Coyle:: 1.	Have any repairs been made on the east pier at Port Bruce, Ontario, since March 1, 1952?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the repairs?
3.	If not, will any repairs be made on the pier
this year?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to answer this question orally. The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative; to the second part, the same as in the first, it is in the negative; and the answer to the third part is that this matter will be considered.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many applications were received by the unemployment insurance commission from employees of the service for the position of superintendent of the prairie region?
2.	What persons formed the examining board for this position, and what government departments did they represent?
3.	How are promotional competitions for positions in the unemployment insurance commission held?
4.	Has the civil service commission representation on all such examining boards?
5.	Who was the successful candidate for the position of superintendent of the prairie region? From which part of Canada does he come?
6.	Was this position of regional superintendent offered the present incumbent by any officer or officers of the unemployment insurance commission before the competition was held?
7.	Why was this position not filled by someone already employed in the prairie region?
8.	At what centres in Canada were applicants foi this position interviewed? If there were no personal interviews, by what standards of efficiency did the members of the examining board arrive at their decision?
9.	How many appeals against promotional competition results were received by the civil service commission from employees of the unemployment insurance commission in 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?
10.	In how many cases did unemployment insurance commis~ion employees win their cases against promotions in promotional competitions in 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?
11.	How many employees left the service of the unemployment insurance commission in the years 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?
CONTRACTS FOR NECKTIES Mr. Green:
1.	Have any contracts been let during the year 1952 for neckties?
2.	If so, how many neckties were contracted for in each case, what was the purchase price in each contract, and to what firm or firms were the respective contracts awarded?



TRUCE TALKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he make a statement regarding the disturbing report that the United Nations negotiators may withdraw from the truce talks in Korea and, if so, has any consideration been given to removing these talks from the military to the civil authorities of the governments engaged in the action in Korea?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not able to give notice of this very important question. I shall take it under advisement and see if anything can usefully be said.



EUROPEAN DEFENCE COMMUNITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would ask him whether, in view of the two recent speeches he made during the course of the last week, which were interpreted as indicating that the danger of the worsening of the cold war was becoming more apparent, he is in a position to say what the present situation is in Berlin, and as to the present hopes of his department regarding conditions there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member was good enough to give notice of his question regarding reports of certain remarks I made over the week end on this matter. I am very glad to be able to make a short statement at this time.
The signing of the agreement on contractual relations at Bonn on May 26 and the signing of the European Defence Community treaty at Paris on May 27 were, as hon. members know, greeted by the Soviet authorities and the communist regime of East Germany with violent and threatening protests, and with communist demonstrations in cities throughout Germany. These signs of communist displeasure were, not unexpectedly, most numerous and most menacing in Berlin, since the position of the three western occupying powers and the West Berliners there is so exposed and vulnerable. They have included interferences with western military patrols on the Berlin-Helmstedt autobahn and 55704-199
Inquiries of the Ministry the attempted incorporation into the east zone of small communities on the edge of the American and British sectors of the city. The British authorities swiftly responded to these provocations by blockading the Soviet-controlled radio station in the British sector until concessions had been made on the Soviet side. These Soviet and East German moves have been aptly referred to as "a creeping blockade". It is clear, I think, that their primary intention is to prevent, by intimidation, the German Federal Republic from ratifying the agreements which will bring it into the western defensive alliance.
Indeed, this has now become the first objective of Soviet policy. The U.S.S.R. has, of course, used the carrot as well as the stick technique in its pursuit. I think that we may expect, therefore, an intensification of the cold war in one form or another during the months ahead until ratification is achieved. As I ventured to say the other night in Quebec, this will call for strong nerves and steady judgment. There will undoubtedly be fireworks, but there is no reason for panic over the giant crackers or for relief over the rockets that burst in the form of a dove.


John George Diefenbaker: When is it expected that ratification will come officially before the West German parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question. There are however some indications that the West German government is anxious to bring the matter before their parliament at as early a date as possible. But I cannot give any more specific information than that.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether it is true that the income tax branch is refusing to permit deductions for tax purposes by professional engineers engaged in the public service in respect of fees they pay to professional associations.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had notice of the question, and shall give an answer at a later date.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 331, to amend the British North

British North America Act America Acts, 1867 to 1951, with respect to the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the British North America Act. I am sure that the house realizes that this is a historic moment for Canada and this parliament. The opportunity to amend the British North America Act and our constitution by an act of this parliament arose in 1949 by the presentation and passing of an address requesting the insertion in the British North America Act of a clause which would permit the amendment of the constitution by an act of this parliament. That action was the result of the skill, good judgment and leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of this country.
As all members of the house who took part in the debate at that time pointed out, there seemed to be almost unanimous agreement in the country that we should have the privilege of amending our constitution in Canada, but up to that time no one had succeeded in bringing it about or, for that matter, had seemed to take any positive steps to bring it about. The action of 1949 resulted in the first positive step vesting in this parliament authority to amend the constitution in so far as the privileges of the federal government went; and in so far as they went there were certain exceptions set out.
All other commonwealth countries have the right, and have been exercising that right for many years, to amend their constitutions. For many years New Zealand has had that privilege and right; South Africa has had it since the union act of 1909, and Australia since 1900. As has been pointed out on many occasions, we have lagged behind other commonwealth countries solely because we were the first to have a written constitution given to us and it was given to us at a time when the thought of amendment by other means than an act of the United Kingdom parliament apparently had not arisen. We as the senior country acted as a pilot for the others. As the other commonwealth countries obtained their several constitutions it was found necessary and desirable to insert clauses giving the right to amend although, as I have said, we did not have that right. The amendment of the constitution of Canada in 1949 was suggested in these words, and I am quoting now from the address which went through the house at that time as follows:
The amendment from time to time of the constitution of Canada, except as regards matters

coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature or the government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language or as regards the requirements that there shall be a session of the parliament of Canada at least once each year, and that no House of Commons shall continue for more than five years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the house; provided, however, that a House of Commons may in time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection be continued by the parliament of Canada if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of such house.
In the amendment which I have just read there is a striking resemblance to a section which has been in the British North America Act since it was passed relating to provincial legislatures. Subsection 1 of section 92 reads:
The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything in this act, of the constitution of the province, except as regards the office of lieutenant governor.
As hon. members know, that is the section setting out the subjects over which the provincial legislatures have jurisdiction. Under that right there have been many amendments to provincial constitutions. All the provinces with the exception of Quebec have abolished their legislative councils, a very serious step when you consider the constitution as it was originally set up. But in no case was it necessary for a province to come to this parliament for action or to go to the parliament of the United Kingdom. That power was vested in the legislature which exercised it accordingly.
The amendment of 1949, as I have read it, contains a number of exceptions. It says that this parliament shall have no power to pass an amendment to the constitution with regard to matters coming within the classes of subjects assigned by the British North America Act exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; as regards the rights and privileges conferred by the British North America Act or by any other constitutional act on the legislature or on the government of the province, and with regard to certain other matters.
The situation at the moment is that this parliament can amend the constitution of Canada in matters of a purely national character and the provincial legislatures can amend their constitutions in matters of purely provincial character.
The representation in the House of Commons of the several provinces has been the subject of more amendments to the British North America Act in the past than is the case with any other subject. I think there have been seven amendments since 1867. In

1871 there was an amendment passed by the United Kingdom parliament which gave the parliament of Canada the authority to create provinces and to provide for their representation in the House of Commons. I think that particular amendment validated an act with respect to Manitoba. In 1886 there was a further amendment giving this parliament authority to create representation in parliament for the territories even when they had not been created provinces. I think that act confirmed representation which had already been granted to some of the territories. In 1915 there was an amendment increasing the number of senators and providing that no province should have its membership in this house reduced below the number of senators to which it was entitled.
In 1943 there was another amendment to postpone the redistribution which should have followed upon the census of 1941 until the first session after the cessation of hostilities. Then in 1946 there was another amendment setting up new rules to be followed in computing the membership in this house. Finally in 1949 there was an amendment, as part of the terms of union with Newfoundland, whereby certain representation from that province was established. In addition, there were two imperial orders in council which created representation from the provinces of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. Just to make the record clear, there was one other amendment with respect to parliament in 1916 providing for the extension of parliament. In these six or seven cases in which there were amendments the amendments were sought by joint addresses of parliament except in the first case in 1871 which was sought by the government of the day headed by Sir John A. Macdonald by action of the executive without any action by parliament.
When the question of representation arose consequent upon the census taken in 1951, it appeared to be the rather general opinion of the house that some consideration should be given to the effects of applying the rules which had been established in 1946, and several members of the house during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne urged the government to consider whether those rules might be amended having particular regard to the fact that one of our provinces would lose one-quarter of its representation in the house. I need not cite the comments of members. Members from all groups presented that as an argument to the government and they also suggested that, however desirable the rule of representation by population may be and however desirable it may be that we should strive to achieve that ideal, it must be recognized in this country of vast distances 55704-1994
British North Avierica Act that other considerations than a strict counting of heads will have to enter into the representation in this house. The result was that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) introduced a motion to set up a special committee to consider whether some additional rule might be used in order to avoid the drastic consequences which would occur if we applied the existing rules strictly. I have not seen many debates in which there appeared to be such agreement as there was on the motion to set up that committee.
The committee reported to the house earlier this week and suggested two things: first, that the proposal in the motion itself setting up the committee should be adopted; and second, that a certain procedure should be followed to carry out that suggestion. Therefore we have before the house a bill for the purpose of amending the British North America Act in order to place within it a further rule which would apply at the present readjustment of representation and would apply to future ones as well.
In addition, the bill increases the membership of the House of Commons by one member so that representation can be given to the Mackenzie district separate and distinct from the Yukon. I might add that there seemed to be no disagreement in the house originally, nor was there any disagreement in the committee, that the extra member should be provided. The rule which has been suggested was explained in detail by the Prime Minister when he presented the motion. Very briefly I might sum it up in this form, that after using the existing rules to compute the membership of the House of Commons from the several provinces there shall be established a so-called floor whereby the representation of any province shall not fall by any more than 15 per cent at any one readjustment, subject, however, to the qualification that the rule shall not work out in such a manner that the representation of a province with a smaller population shall be greater than that of a province with a larger population.
This is not precisely unusual in representation in the House of Commons. There have been other occasions when other rules applied to establish floors of representation. As all members know, there was the so-called one-twentieth rule which existed up to 1946. At the time it was established, as was pointed out by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it was intended apparently to provide a floor for the maritime provinces, and Sir Wilfrid, speaking in the house in 1915, had this to say:
It has been explained, and it is the true explanation, that at the time of the formation of confedera-, tion no one anticipated the extraordinary developments which were to take place west of lake

British North America Act
Superior and in consequence of which the representation of the maritime provinces in the House of Commons has decreased from decade to decade. We had to deal with the matter in 1902 . . .
The problem today is not the maritimes. The problem consists of the great difference in representation from the prairie provinces which would take place. This house will have to decide whether it is desirable to follow the strict rules or whether it is desirable to import the additional floor I have mentioned into section 51 of the British North America Act. I think it should be recognized by most members that in the various provinces we have a great disparity of representation. There are constituencies with a large population and constituencies with quite a small population, and apparently that condition will continue from census to census because of the peculiar situations and because of the desire to adhere to other rules which would give representation of the kind that the House of Commons feels should be given.
One of the generally accepted rules is that representation from rural areas should be greater than the strict counting of heads would indicate, although it is fair to say that there has been no agreement as to precisely how much greater it should be. It is for that reason and for others that a case has been made that in the province of Saskatchewan in particular at the moment, although it applies to the province of Manitoba, perhaps to the province of Alberta as well and to other provinces where there are no great centres of population, some consideration in representation should be given having in mind the general approach that we have with respect to rural and urban representation.
The committee apparently had this in mind and also had in mind the desire not to have violent fluctuations in membership from one census to the other. It presented a report to the house which was unanimous in so far as the adoption of the 15 per cent rule is concerned. For that reason I presented this bill to the house. I might remind hon. members that in introducing the motion to set up the committee the Prime Minister indicated that if the committee were of the opinion that such a course were desirable and advisable he would be disposed to support it, and I am authorized to say that he is going to vote for the bill. There are several ways in which we could carry out the change in the representation in the house. We could adopt the method which is suggested here, what is known as the direct method of repealing a section of the British North

America Act, and substituting something for it. We could adopt the method which has been used by provincial governments in amending their constitutions, that is merely passing another statute without reference to the British North America Act and without seeking to repeal any section of that act, but merely substituting something else. This occurred in the province of Ontario where, according to the British North America Act as originally constituted, there were so many members and certain constituencies set out in the act. Because the province had authority to amend its constitution, the provincial legislature passed an act of redistribution increasing the membership in the house and setting other limits on the constituencies. This was done without referring in any way to the British North America Act, either repealing it or reciting it as the authority for the act of the legislature.
We could have suggested to the house a representation bill setting out the representation of the provinces according to the rules, without any reference to the British North America Act. It seemed best to recommend that there be two bills, one to amend the British North America Act, substituting in section 51 the floor which had been decided upon, and then by a separate representation act carry out the rules which would then apply to representation in the house. That is the course recommended here.
The bill provides for the existing rules, in so far as they go, but it also provides the additional floor for any province which qualifies according to the definition in rule 5 of section 1. The immediate result, after the representation bill is passed and in accordance with these rules if adopted, will be that instead of fifteen members the province of Saskatchewan will have seventeen members. We hope that that will be the only result, and that as time goes on the western provinces will increase again and that they will have a greater proportion of the people of Canada, so that their representation here will be even greater. We must recognize the great contribution the west has made to parliament, and to Canadian national life. It would be unfortunate if the representation here were to fluctuate so that at one census it would change greatly, and have to be restored at the next. There ought to be better continuity than that. For that reason, sir, I move the second reading of this bill. I hope that it meets with as much approval as possible in the house, having in mind the fact that while it is a new principle it nevertheless bears a great deal of resemblance to the floors which have appeared in the past in the representation in the house.

British North America Act


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, a bill in relation to the representation in the House of Commons is an important bill on any occasion, but the present bill, I think it may be fairly said, surpasses in importance all bills hitherto submitted to the house in relation to the subject of redistribution. In his remarks this afternoon the minister has referred to this as an historic occasion. It may be so in certain respects, sir, but that is not to say that every departure from recognized constitutional procedure is a departure that ought to be welcomed.
May I say at the outset that so far as the purposes of the particular provisions in reference to redistribution are concerned, there were no differences among those who sat on the redistribution committee of this house. In other words, the proposal that the drop in the representation of the province of Saskatchewan should not be permitted to reduce it below seventeen members was supported by all parties in that committee. The proposal to give separate representation to the Northwest Territories by constituting them under a new electoral district named Mackenzie River was likewise supported by all parties. We of the official opposition went further and gave our support to an amendment which was not carried in the committee, but which would have held the reduced representation of Saskatchewan at eighteen instead of seventeen. Therefore, I clear the air at once, sir, by indicating that as to that portion of the present bill which relates to the direct changes in the representation in the house, there is no issue.
There is, sir, however, a very much larger question raised by the present bill than any mere or passing change in the rule respecting representation in the house. The house must be made well aware of the significance of the implications of the larger question involved in the motion now submitted to the house by the government. As the minister has said, this is the first occasion upon which the Canadian parliament has been invited, by direct action, to amend the constitution of Canada, the British North America Act. Hitherto, when amendments were sought, application was made to Westminster on an address passed by both houses.
The minister has referred to the change that was wrought in the British North America Act by the amendment to section 91 which was passed in the fall session of 1949, when a new class of subject matter described in a new clause 1 of section 91 was added to those subject matters which lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of parliament. I wish to review briefly what occurred in this house
in connection with that amendment. The minister has treated the 1949 amendment as disposing of the constitutional questions in relation to the propriety of parliament proceeding to legislate directly to change the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act. So far as the official opposition is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it abundantly clear that the matter does not end there. Simply because of this amendment in the fall session of 1949, which was subsequently confirmed by legislative action at Westminster, it is not to be considered, so far as we are concerned, that parliament has the right to proceed to exercise the jurisdiction purported to be conferred upon it by this amendment, without any necessary consultation with the provinces, for which we contended at that time.
Sir, our position was made abundantly clear in the historic debate in the fall session of 1949 on the proposal of the government that a change be sought in the British North America Act to confer jurisdiction upon parliament to amend the constitution in what were called federal matters. Indeed on that occasion, on October 17, 1949, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) immediately moved the following amendment on behalf of the official opposition, as reported at page 841 of Hansard of that year:
That the said proposed resolution be amended by striking out all the words alter the first word "that" and substituting therefor the following:
"That His Excellency the Governor General in Council be requested to convoke as soon as may be possible a constitutional convention of representatives of the dominion and provincial governments to devise a method of amending within Canada the constitution of Canada, and of safeguarding minority rights; so that such method may become the subject later of an humble address, when adopted, to His Majesty the King praying an amendment of the British North America Act, 1867, accordingly."
Sir, that amendment was designed to set out in the clearest terms the position taken by the official opposition. We concurred enthusiastically-indeed we had so declared on previous occasions-in the idea that Canada should possess within its own borders the means and the right of amending the constitution embodied in the British North America Act. We did say that parliament had no right to proceed in that direction without consultation with the provinces. We said further, sir, that any formula for carrying out within Canada in the future amendments of the British North America Act was a formula that first had to be submitted to the provinces. Indeed in a matter so important as that of devising a procedure, a method or a formula for amendments to the British North America Act, we said that it was not only important but essential that the provinces should be consulted and that the provinces

British North America Act should consent to that formula. That amendment, sir, was ruled out of order; but that did not end the matter because it fell to my lot subsequently to introduce, on behalf of the official opposition, on October 27 this amendment, to be found at page 1210 of Hansard:
That the said proposed resolution he amended by striking out all the words after the first word "that" and substituting therefor:
"This house is of the opinion:
1.	That an humble address should be presented to His Majesty the King praying that His Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom providing for an amendment to the British North America Act. 1867, relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada by the parliament of Canada.
2.	That as a condition precedent to the presentation of such address the scope and form of the amendment prayed for should be made the subject matter of a conference of the dominion and provincial governments and the subsequent approval of the parliament of Canada."
That amendment was in order and it was voted on. It was defeated in this house on October 27 by a vote of 137 to 38, all parties in the house, with the exception of the official opposition, voting against it.
So far as we of the official opposition are concerned, our position was clearly set out in those two amendments. That position was sound. It is: the position of the Progressive Conservative party and of the official opposition in reference to this question today, and it will continue to be the position until there is enough wisdom in government to call the kind of conference between the dominion and the provinces that we proposed and urged then, for the purpose of working out a comprehensive method1 of amending the constitution according to a formula that will be acceptable to all parties, namely the dominion and the provinces.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I know he is desirous of making the differences of opinion between the parties as clear as possible on this occasion. I noted that he said that there should be consultation with the provinces and consent of the provinces: to the formula to be adopted. Does that mean that the position of the official opposition is, when they speak of the requirement of consultation with the provinces, that it should be consultation that would result, before action, in the consent of every one of the provinces?


Donald Methuen Fleming: As to the formula for amending within Canada the constitution of Canada, yes. In other words, sir, while the formula which would be adopted according to our

suggestion would not necessarily call for unanimous consent as a condition precedent to all amendments which might follow, nevertheless we said that the formula to be worked out was something which was so basic and so fundamental that it should be acceptable to all.


Mr. St. Laurent:: And that until there is such a formula, whenever there is to be an amendment to the constitution the consent of all the provinces should be previously obtained?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That does not necessarily follow, Mr. Speaker. What we said was that we should proceed at once to call that kind of conference to work out that formula and that we were confident that, with good will on both sides, such a formula could be worked out. We are still confident that with determination to arrive at such a formula, it could be arrived at.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not want to press the hon. gentleman any further than he wants to go.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite right.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As yet there is not any formula that has been accepted by all the provinces; and each time an amendment is proposed there have been suggestions that there should be consultation with the provinces. When -that suggestion is made, does it mean, in the intent of the official opposition, that there should not be any amendment until the consent of all the provinces is obtained? I am just inquiring, if the hon. member is in a position to make the situation clear on that point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sir, I think the position can be made perfectly clear. We have said that amendment of the British North America Act should not be sought in the way that parliament previously had been seeking it, namely by simply passing an address and going to Westminster, without consultation with the provinces.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Does that mean without consultation resulting in the consent of the provinces to the amendment suggested in the address?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think that we would have to view the situation in the light of the particular circumstances. But we did consider it to be so important that there be a formula for amending the constitution within Canada, within Canadian borders, that there should be no time lost in seeking, with general consent, a formula satisfactory to all for the making of these amendments within Canada, and putting an end for the future, for all time to come, to this situation which arises every time an amendment is sought.

I think I have made the position perfectly clear. In every situation that arises, apart from the general formula under which the whole basis of providing amendments would be devised, it would have to be determined in the light of consultation with the provinces and in the light of all the circumstances obtaining whether it would be possible to proceed with an amendment failing the consent, we will say, of one or two provinces. It would depend on the subject matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But there might be cases where the consent of all the provinces would not be felt essential to proceeding with the request for an amendment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not prepared to be dogmatic about it. I am not prepared to be tied down to any particular formula. I have said that will depend. In every such situation, if it were not possible to arrive after consultation at complete agreement or unanimous agreement, it would have to be decided in the light of the situation whether there was any justification for proceeding. Because that situation apparently is not one that has arisen in the mind of the government, I underline what I said before as to the vital and urgent importance of seeking within Canada a method or formula for amending the British North America Act so that we are not encountering in the future these questions which the Prime Minister has raised now which may be, in many circumstances, simply academic, but which, as long as questions such as those raised by the Prime Minister may be raised emphasize and underline the necessity for grappling with this problem, and doing it on a comprehensive basis.
Now, sir, our position on that occasion, I have indicated, was made clear in the two amendments we proposed, of which the first was ruled out of order and the second defeated. And so it became possible, under the amendment sought and obtained by the majority in both houses of this parliament from Westminster, to proceed to amend, in the language of the new clause 1 of section 91 of the act, the constitution of Canada in federal matters, with certain express exceptions.
I point out, sir, that the dangers inherent in an amendment of that kind are clearly illustrated in the situation we have before us, and might conceivably be illustrated in circumstances even more direct than those before the house today. Parliament acts by a majority; each house of parliament acts by a majority. A majority of one in each house of parliament would be a sufficient expression of the will of parliament in a matter of this kind, and therefore under
British North America Act this amendment of 1949 it becomes possible, within what is called the scope of federal matters, with certain exceptions, for parliament, by a majority of one in each house, to proceed by direct legislative action to change the British North America Act.
Sir, we of the official opposition consider that to reduce the constitution to a statute which can be changed so lightly, in so light a way as that, ' creates a dangerous situation. We believe that the constitution of this country, embodied principally in the British North America Act, is so fundamental in its character and in its importance that it should not lie within the power of parliament, without any consultation with any province, to proceed to change this constitution in so-called "federal matters" simply by a majority of one in each house.
We see flowing from this enactment of the fall of 1949 certain results, inevitable results. The minister in his speech this afternoon referred to the fact that the committee on redistribution, when considering what course it should take with reference to the alteration proposed in the present section 51 of the British North America Act, had three courses open to it. Those three courses were outlined to the committee by the law clerk of the house in the following words which are found on page 29 of the proceedings of the committee of May 2. He said:
The B.N.A. (No. 2) Act, 1949, introduced an amendment to section 91 of the B.N.A. Act, 1867, which relates to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. By that amendment, it was made lawful for the parliament of Canada to amend the Canadian constitution with certain exceptions which are enumerated in the amendment. Sections 51, 51A and 52 do not fall within these exceptions and can, therefore, be amended by the federal parliament.
The next question is: How can this be done? In other words, what procedure should be followed to change the fundamental law? The answer is that legally it can be done either directly or indirectly. It can be done indirectly by simply bringing in a bill which would be contradictory to section 51 of the B.N.A. Act as it now stands.
On the other hand, it might be done directly by introducing a measure to amend the constitution. In this case, the act would be entitled:	"An act
to amend the British North America Act, 1867," and its short title would be:	"The British North
America Act, 1952.V
A third way of proceeding would be by an act along the lines of Mr. Knowles' bill of the current session respecting the quorum of the House of Commons.
Sir, the committee has not followed the first of these suggestions. It would, I think, have been unfortunate had it done so; but the effect of the matter is clearly indicated by that statement from the law clerk of this house, that the position of the constitution of Canada now is such that within the scope of what are called federal matters parliament does not even need to pass a bill formally to
3158	HOUSE OF
British North Avierica Act change or amend the British North America Act. All it does need to do is just to go ahead and legislate without making the slightest reference to the British North America Act.
I said the committee has not followed that method. Some of us in the committee argued very strongly against it because it would have the effect of reducing the fundamental law of this country simply to the status of any other act of parliament. But, sir, let it not be overlooked that that can legally be done; that the legal and constitutional position of this country today is such that within the scope of what are called federal matters, it lies now within the power of parliament simply to go ahead and legislate in a manner at variance with the effect of the British North America Act and without the slightest reference to that act, without even going through the form of amending expressly the terms of the British North America Act. And, sir, I say that legislation such as this legislation of 1949, which has reduced the British North America Act over this vast field of legislative jurisdiction simply to the status of any other act of this parliament, has created a situation fraught with the greatest constitutional danger for this country.
Now, sir, this subject relates to section 51 of the British North America Act. This is not the first time that parliament has been confronted with an amendment to the British North America Act, or with an attempt to obtain an amendment to the British North America Act for the purpose of altering section 51. Those hon. members who were members of the twentieth parliament will recall the leading debate which occurred in June, 1946, on a resolution then presented to the house by the government that an address be presented to His Majesty seeking the enactment by the parliament at Westminster of certain amendments to section 51, and the stands taken by the parties in the house on that occasion were, I take it, not different in any particular from the position they take today.
The government put forward the doctrine that it lay within the power of parliament to seek and obtain an amendment at Westminster, because there is no question about their obtaining whatever was sought by the address, for it had long ago been established that the parliament at Westminster would not question any address presented to it by the parliament of Canada. Therefore, so far as the effect of the adoption of an address in this house was concerned, in the light of that position it was as good as passed at Westminster once the address was passed by both houses of the Canadian parliament.


The government then proposed that that address be presented to Westminster without any consultation with the provinces. We of the official opposition said that there should be no such attempt to obtain an amendment which would have had the effect of recasting section 51, indeed completely changing section 51, of the British North America Act, without previous consultation with the provinces. We pressed our position to the point of amendment. In those amendments we placed on record the position of this party, and exposed also the position taken by other parties in this house. The government contended that parliament was at perfect liberty to proceed to obtain this amendment of section 51 without the slightest consultation in any degree or form with the provinces. We of the official opposition contended firmly that there was no right, legal or constitutional, in the government to proceed to obtain an amendment to section 51 of the British North America Act without previous consultation with the provinces. And in that important debate some statements of very great significance were made in this house.
Sir, so far as we of the official opposition are concerned, the amendment of 1949 has in no degree changed our position or changed the constitutional position as we set it forth in speeches made in the house on our behalf in 1946. Our position is consistent. Our position today is identical with what it was then. We still demand consultation with the provinces before there shall be any change in the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act.
And, sir, we do say this, that if any particular proposal for changing the basis of representation in this house, as defined by section 51 of the British North America Act, has merit in the national interest, we need not have any doubt about the willingness of the provinces to give it intelligent and fair-minded consideration.
Why, on the merits, should there be this invincible unwillingness on the part of the government to consult the provinces? The government says that it is not necessary, that they can go ahead without consultation, even if it were-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member would permit an interruption: In our view, if we consulted the provinces, that implies that we would not go ahead unless we got the consent of every one of them; and we are not prepared to take that risk.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I say that there is no such implication whatever in consultation with the provinces; and I cannot-


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Then, what is the purpose of consultation? Is it just a smoke screen or camouflage, or a political dodge? If it does not mean that we recognize their right of veto, it is purposeless to call them together.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I trust the Prime Minister will make his speech in due course. I am very glad of course to answer any questions; but I think the kind of question the Prime Minister has just asked is not the kind of question which is normally asked in the House of Commons during another member's speech.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I thought, with respect, that I was answering the hon. member's question as to why we did not want to consult the provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Prime Minister will have ample opportunity before this debate has run its course to answer any questions raised during the course of the debate that he may wish to answer.
But, to go on: The Prime Minister has chosen to suggest that consultation with the provinces would be nothing more than a smoke screen. Let me say to him and to all who support him that, in the view of the official opposition, consultation with the provinces is something very much more important than any smoke screen. And if that is the conception the government has of the effect of consultation with the provinces, then let me make it abundantly clear to him that the conception of the official opposition in that respect is a very different conception, indeed.
We conceive of this consultation with the provinces as something very important and very serious from a constitutional point of view, having regard to the legal and constitutional position of this country, and also to the history of this country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he advocate the same kind of consultation with the federal government on the part of a province if that province wishes to change its electoral representation provincially?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, because there is no parallel there. I will have something more to say, by the way, in developing this subject, as to the significance of section 51.


Walter Edward Harris: May I ask the
hon. member a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand we are in the house, and not in committee. But I do not mind taking on all the questions they ask.


Walter Edward Harris: In the course of the hon. member's remarks I hope he will comment upon whether he thinks representation in this House of Commons is a matter
British North America Act within the jurisdiction of this parliament and, if that is so, wherein the procedure should vary from that of provincial representation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will be happy indeed to do it. I have made my position clear. I can promise him that he shall have his answer before I take my seat.
Now, when this question of changing section 51 came before the house at the present session the position taken by the official opposition was as it had been in 1946 and in 1949, and indeed at all times. It will be recalled that when the matter came before the house on April 21 the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) introduced an amendment to be found at page 1437 of Hansard, to this effect:
Whereas there is presently before parliament a bill to provide for representation of the House of Commons which inter alia allots to the several provinces of the dominion the number of members they may elect to the said house;
And whereas it has been represented to the government and parliament of Canada that provision should be made for minimum representation of individual provinces;
And whereas provision for such minimum representation cannot be made without first amending the British North America Act;
And whereas the British North America Act interpreted in statutory form the agreement made by the four original provinces and subscribed to by all the other provinces on entering confederation,
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this house appropriate steps should be taken for dominion-provincial consultation so that the views of the several provinces may be made known to this house before consideration is given to changing their electoral representation as presently provided by the British North America Act.
Mr. Speaker ruled that amendment out of order, because it was an amendment to a motion to set up a committee of the house. But there was opportunity in the committee, when a similar question came before it, for those of us in the official opposition to reassert the same position. Accordingly, when the question arose for discussion in committee it fell to my lot to move an amendment, as appears at page 6 in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee, on May 2. On that occasion I moved:
That the said debate-
That is to say, the debate on the question of whether there should be floors applied to the drop in representation of any province, as a result of decreased population.
That the said debate be adjourned until the views of the several provinces be ascertained with respect to their electoral representation in the House of Commons and the proposed amendment to the British North America Act in regard thereto.
That amendment was defeated in the committee.
Sir, our position is perfectly consistent and, in my submission, perfectly clear.

British North America Act
Now, we have been told in times past by those who wish to gather into the federal sphere without consultation with the provinces the right to change this constitution of Canada that there is no need to consult the provinces because the members in the House of Commons are quite capable of interpreting the views of the provinces. With that position I am in strong disagreement. If that were the case there would never be occasion to consult the provinces on anything. We know as a matter of fact that the provinces are frequently consulted on many matters. This parliament does not speak for the provinces as such. The federal government does not speak for the governments of the provinces.
Whatever may have been in 1946 the position of the provinces with respect to their right to be consulted before amendments are made to section 51, because for lack of consultation at that time there was no opportunity of obtaining a direct expression of opinion on the part of the provinces in regard to that proposal, we do know today what is the position of the provinces with respect to any proposal to change the terms of section 51 of the British North America Act, without consulting them. In the meantime there have been dominion-provincial conferences and dominion-provincial consultations regardless of the fact that the Prime Minister has declared in this house this afternoon that he cannot see any point in consulting the provinces over this matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member must not misconstrue my words, and I am sure that he does not mean to. I say that there is no point in consulting the provinces about a specific amendment unless the intention is not to proceed with it without the consent of all the provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If that is the position of the Prime Minister, I submit that the government has followed a very inconsistent course. We do not have to go back beyond the last three years to detect some glaring inconsistencies in the course taken by the government if the view expressed by the Prime Minister is the view the government holds firmly.
In 1950 the dominion did consult the provinces. It is unfortunate that they did not undertake to consult them before the attempt was made in 1949 to amend section 91 of the British North America Act by the introduction of clause 1. The government would not listen to the pleas from this quarter of the house in the fall of 1949; they were determined to proceed and obtain that amendment to the British North America Act before this consultation with the provinces occurred.
Consultation did occur in 1950 and the matter then under discussion was very important.

The conference between the dominion and the provinces was called to arrive at a formula which would be a complete and workable method of making amendments to the British North America Act within Canada, without going outside of Canada for any amendments whatever. In the course of those deliberations the provinces were invited to express their views as to how the various sections of the act should be amended. It has always been perfectly clear that there are some sections of more far-reaching national effect and extent than others and so there was a proposal made for classifying the various provisions of the British North America Act into some half dozen categories with the possibility of differing methods of amendment applied to each category. In some cases a certain proportion of the provinces would be required to give their consent; in other cases the consent of the provinces would have to be unanimous; in other cases it would not be necessary for the provinces to give consent, and so on.
In the course of that review the provinces made their positions clear on practically all the sections of the act, in particular section 51. I think it is important at this stage of the debate to recall the position taken by the provinces in regard to the amending of section 51 of the British North America Act. When the conference met on January 10, 11 and 12 of 1950 we find on page 53 of the report of proceedings that the distinguished Liberal premier of Nova Scotia said this on behalf of his province:
Under clause (c)-
Then he enumerates a number of sections, including section 51.
-those are sections relating to matters of mutual concern to the dominion and all the provinces.
I offer that to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) when he is asking this afternoon about any obligation to consult with the provinces in this matter. I come now to the other side of his question. There is a clear statement by Premier Macdonald as to the position of the province of Nova Scotia, and I continue to quote:
We say they could be amended by act of the parliament of Canada, passed by an absolute majority of each house of the parliament of Canada upon the request or with the subsequent confirmation of seven provincial legislatures.
That was the position taken on behalf of the province of Nova Scotia by the Liberal premier of that province. Later in the year the submissions of the provinces with regard to dividing the sections of the British North America Act into these various suggested categories were received. They clearly set forth the way in which the provinces classified section 51 in this regard. I am reading now from the proceedings of the

constitutional conference of federal and provincial governments held at Quebec, September 25, 26 and 28, 1950. At page 88 we find the dominion government taking the position that section 51 should fall within group 1, being the provisions which concern parliament only. But what about the provinces? At page 95 we find the province of Ontario asserting that section 51 falls within head 4 as being one of the provisions which concerns parliament and all the provincial legislatures.
Then turning to page 100 we find the position taken by the Quebec government. While they do not comment specifically on section 51, they went even further, and listed certain subject matters which fall within the scope of the federal authority, and in which you will not find changes in the representation in this House of Commons as defined by the British North America Act. Then we find this significant statement made on page 100:
The immediate repeal of the recent amendments to the Canadian constitution, namely, the British North America Act (No. 2) 1949, is, in our view, appropriate and desirable.
Then if you turn to page 102 you will find the province of Nova Scotia taking a position consistent with that taken by its premier in January of the same year at the earlier part of the same conference. They classify section 51 as being among those provisions which are of concern to parliament and the provinces and which would require action on the part of the dominion and the provinces for repeal.
Then at page 108 we find the position taken by New Brunswick that section 51 should come under the fifth group as being one of those provisions concerning fundamental rights, as for instance but without restriction, education, language, solemnization of marriage, administration of justice, provincial property in lands, mines and other natural resources, and the amendment of the amending procedure. That is very clear and far-reaching.
The position of British Columbia is to be found at pages 112 and 116. At page 112 we find the heading of the fifth class of provisions concerning fundamental rights such as education, language, marriage, etc. Then at page 116 we find the province of British Columbia classifying section 51 as being among those subject matters which fall within the fifth classification, which contains the provisions concerning fundamental rights in this country.
The position of Prince Edward Island is set forth on page 117. That province in its submission classified section 51 as being
British North America Act in the group of subject matters which come within group 4, containing the provisions which concern parliament and all the provincial legislatures.
We have at times been told in this house that Saskatchewan is favourable to the centralization of legislative jurisdiction here at Ottawa. Nevertheless, we find in the submission of that province at page 122 that it classifies section 51 as being within the fifth group containing provisions concerning fundamental rights in Canada which can not be changed apart from joint action on the part of the dominion and the provinces.
Then at page 127 we find that the province of Alberta has classified section 51 as being in the fifth group involving provisions concerning fundamental rights. Therefore, in their view section 51 cannot be amended without joint action on the part of the dominion and the provinces.
Here you have eight of the ten provinces of Canada clearly and unequivocally asserting their position that section 51 of the British North America Act cannot be changed apart from consultation with the provinces and, indeed, joint action on the part of the dominion and the provinces. Sir, is that not a clear enough statement of the position of the provinces in this respect? Is it not a position that is entitled to some respect on the part of the federal authorities? Nevertheless the present federal government remains unmoved. The present federal government, notwithstanding this strong and overwhelming expression of opinion on the part of the governments of eight of the provinces, insists on pushing ahead and amending this section of the act without the slightest consultation with the provinces.
The position of the other two provinces may be of interest to hon. members. The province of Manitoba at page 109 classifies section 51 under the first heading, and the province of Newfoundland at page 127 prefaces its classification of the sections of the British North America Act in these words:
The province of Newfoundland has not been part of the dominion for a sufficiently long time to be able to determine, in the light of experience, the proper distribution of all of the provisions of the British North America Acts. We have, however, endeavoured to tabulate the various sections as suggested in the report of the attorneys general, but in many cases we would be prepared, after discussion, to agree to such reclassification as the other provinces, as a result of their longer experience, might recommend.
In the classifications proposed by the government of Newfoundland section 51 is assigned to the first group, but in my submission that assignment to the first group must be read subject to these qualifying comments

British North America Act which preceded that classification in the submission of the province of Newfoundland.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) asks me if the federal authorities should be consulted before the provinces undertake any change in the method or basis of representation within their respective provincial legislatures. I say categorically no. There is no occasion for that at all because in section 92 of the British North America Act express provision is made for amendment of the constitutions of the provinces by their legislatures. The matter is perfectly clear there. That is laid down in the act itself. It has been the fundamental law of Canada since 1867, and that basis of confederation was satisfactory to those who were parties to it.
Therefore the point raised by the minister has no bearing whatsoever upon the question now before the house. Simply because that is the constitutional position of the provinces under the clear provisions of section 92 does not import a corresponding provision into section 91 by' any means.
Now you have a strong position taken in the clearest terms on the part of eight provinces that so far as they are concerned section 51 is a section which the parliament of Canada has no right to amend, or to obtain amendments to, without joint action on the part of the provinces. The proper course for the federal government to follow here is consultation with the provinces, and the federal government should lose no time in proceeding with the larger work of finding a formula for amending the Canadian constitution within Canada.
Sir, lest it be said that in proposing that there be consultation now with the provinces the effect of such consultation might delay the legislation which the government proposes to submit to the house if section 51 of the British North America Act is first amended for the purpose, let me say that if any delay is involved in that respect the responsibility for that delay rests upon the government. We raised this question two months ago in the house on April 21. We said then that the government ought to consult the provinces before proceeding further with this matter. The government would not hear our pleas at that time and rejected our argument as it had on similar occasions previously. Therefore they have insisted on pushing ahead with this matter without consultation although there has been time to consult the provinces in the meantime. That simply emphasizes and underlines the fact that if any delay would ensue from consultation with the provinces now the responsibility


for that delay would rest upon the shoulders of this government and upon the shoulders of no one else.
I say again, what possible harm could there be in consulting the provinces? The Prime Minister has expressed the overpowering fear that if there is any mention of consultation with the provinces the federal government will be taken as admitting that any one of the ten provinces has a veto upon any action that might ensue or be proposed. That, in my submission, is a completely idle fear, and it is a very empty excuse for not holding that kind of consultation with the provinces which is not only in line with the law and the constitution of this country but will make for smoother working of our federal institutions. It seems to me that is a very important matter in a country like ours. Sir, is there not time to consult the provinces? Is this matter so desperately urgent today that we can brook no delay for the purpose of consulting with the provinces? The enactment of any redistribution bill within the next fortnight can be urgent only if there is an election in the offing before the next session of parliament, and in the light of recent events I do not think it is very likely that the government is going to call an election before the next session of parliament.


An hon. Member:: Careful now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The introduction of four new opposition members today is just a reflection of public feeling and we do not need to dwell on what happened in Saskatchewan yesterday-


An hon. Member:: There were not very many Tories elected.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to dispose of any suggestion that the government needs to have this legislation on the statute books within the next two weeks or so.


Mr. Sinnoii:: You would do well to keep quiet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Listen to the voice of Springfield and other Liberals in the house speaking as though there was some comfort to be taken by them from the results in Saskatchewan yesterday.


An hon. Member:: You did not elect any Conservatives.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We did not lose anything and the Liberals lost plenty. Their strength in the Saskatchewan legislature was reduced by about 40 per cent. I take it that fact has not been altogether lost so far as the aching heads of the government are concerned!, if

indeed they had recovered from the head-aohes inflicted upon them by the results in the six federal by-elections two weeks ago.


An hon. Member:: You had better get back to redistribution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are confronted here with the fundamental issue of respect for the Canadian constitution, On that issue we of the official opposition take an inflexible position that there is no right in this government or in this parliament to proceed to legislate now for the purpose of amending section 51 of the British North America Act without consultation with the provinces. So far as that kind of consultation is concerned, we say that in the light of history it is abundantly clear that we would not have had a united Canada and would not have had confederation had there not been some basis of agreement on the part of the initiating parties inscribed in the Quebec resolutions and later in the British North America Act. This is the basis upon which Canada came into being, and notwithstanding all the sophistry that has been uttered in the house on the subject of the great powers of the central government I say to you, sir, that we ignore and do violence both to the letter and the spirit of confederation by seeking, in the manner proposed by the government in the present bill and on other occasions, to ride roughshod over the British North America Act.
Why should the government propose that a section of the importance of section 51 should be lightly changed, notwithstanding what the overwhelming majority of the provinces have so clearly said in their recent submissions? The course that the government proposes is creating another dangerous precedent which is fraught with peril for the constitution of this country. In my submission, what the government is doing here is once again to ignore and forget the very wise words offered to them by the great leaders of the Liberal party in days gone by. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the members of this house of the wise words spoken by Laurier and Lapointe on the question of amendments to the British North America Act.
I recall what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said in this house in 1907. I quote:
Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces but adhered to by all the nine provinces who have entered it and I submit that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had opportunity to pass judgment on the same.
British North America Act
I also recall, Mr. Speaker, the wise words the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe spoke to this house in 1924. I quote:
The British North America Act and the limitations which are imposed upon our powers, if there are any such limitations, are made of our own free will. There is no inferiority in that. It is the result of a treaty . . .
And further:
Now this treaty cannot be changed, it has been the contention of many constitutional authorities, and I think it is only fair that no change should be accepted, without the consent of all those who were parties to it. It is a sacred treaty just as is any other treaty: it is no "scrap of paper."
Those were the wise words spoken by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. The following year, in 1925, Mr. Lapointe stated in this house:
Surely, the British North America Act cannot be made a scrap of paper, as that treaty was made at that time. There is a way, perhaps, yes; but the only way is the friendly way, is the legal way, is the constitutional way. It is to approach the various parties to the agreement with a view to arriving at an understanding as to the changes which may be necessary and which may be agreed upon by all the parties to the pact. As I have said, I do not think there could be any other way; I believe that any arbitrary action in the matter would simply defeat its own purpose and would strike at the root of our national unity. I think I cite history correctly when I say that every time there has been a dispute in Canada as regards provincial rights, those who were on the side of provincial rights were victorious in the end.
I do not think there can be any attempt to change the mutual charter of both the dominion and the provinces by the arbitrary action of this parliament. I do not think it is possible to do it. To those who want changes, and I am willing to admit that there might be the necessity for changes, I would say that the one way to get them is the constitutional way, to ask the consent of the various parties to confederation.
These words of wisdom were uttered by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe on that same occasion.
Mr. Speaker, I also remember the speech delivered by the late Hon. P. J. A. Cardin, on June 20, 1946, during a debate on an amendment to the British North America Act and to section 51. In reply to our present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who was then minister of justice, and referring at the same time to an amendment moved by the official opposition to the resolution introduced by the government, Mr. Cardin very wisely said:
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 representation 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
3164	HOUSE OF
British North America Act
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 . . .


Mr. Mclvor:: Hear, hear!


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite. I also say: "Hear, hear" and applaud the wise words of the late Hon. Mr. Cardin; I wish all the Liberal members who are present today would also say: "Hear, hear" to the wise words uttered by Mr. Cardin in the course of that debate.
Resuming his speech, Mr. Cardin asserted that the proposed amendment-he was referring to the amendment presented during that debate by the official opposition-suggested:
. . . 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.
Mr. Speaker, that was the last speech the late Hon. Mr. Cardin was to deliver in the House of Commons. It was an eloquent speech and full of wisdom. It stated a doctrine which the present Liberal party has forgotten. The doctrine and policy of the Liberal party today, seen in the light of the words of wisdom spoken by Laurier, Lapointe and Cardin, are contrary to the policy of the Liberal party in its better days.
The British North America Act is not an ordinary statute of parliament. It is not an act to be lightly amended. The bill before the house is probably one of the most important parliament will ever be called upon to consider.
The policy of the official opposition is as follows: "Do not touch the constitution without previous consultation with the provinces." We affirm that parliament has neither the legal nor the constitutional right to amend or change the British North America Act, including section 51, without previous consultation with the provinces.
(Text):


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, might I say that
I just about forgot an exceedingly important mission that I was to perform. .


Walter Edward Harris: Before my hon. friend does that, will he be kind enough to answer one question he has not answered yet?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry. I did not overlook it purposely.


Walter Edward Harris: I asked him
whether it was his opinion that this parliament did not have authority to alter the representation without consulting the provinces. I do not think he covered that point. I might add this by way of elaboration. Would he care to comment as to what group he or his party feels that representation in this house falls under, having in mind the different groups he mentioned in reciting the provincial opinions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will deal with the second question first, if I may.


An hon. Member:: Be careful.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has asked how the official opposition would classify under the various groups of classifications, some half dozen, in number, section 51 of the British North America Act. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is the function of a federal party to undertake to say to the provinces at this particular stage under which category section 51 should fall. We do say, however, that it certainly does fall within one of those categories which put it within the class of matters which are of concern alike to the dominion and to the provinces, and therefore ought not to be modified without consultation with the provinces.
As to the minister's first question, may I ask him to repeat it?


Walter Edward Harris: Does my hon. friend say that this parliament has not the authority to alter the representation in this house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Regardless of the unfortunate mistake that was made in 1949, in proceeding then to obtain legislation for the purpose of vesting in this parliament power to amend the constitution in what are called federal matters, we say that section 51 is not, under any proper interpretation, an exclusively federal matter. We say that it is a matter in which the provinces have a concern; and we are not prepared to draw fine lines to try to exclude the provinces from matters of common concern to the dominion and to the provinces under the British North America Act.


Mr. Ferrie:: Sitting on the fence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We say that you are not going to make federal institutions work harmoniously in a country like Canada if you are going to take a rigid attitude and if you are going

let do as the federal government is doing and say to the provinces-regardless of the fact that eight of the ten provinces have recently stated in strong terms that section 51 is a matter of concern to them as well as to the dominion and that they should be consulted before this section is changed-"We are not going to consult you; we are going to go ahead and amend this act". We say that a proposal of that kind, which is what the government is proposing here, is fundamentally wrong. It is the sort of thing that creates infinite difficulty in achieving harmonious working of our federal institutions in this country.
Surely something of the government's rigid position ought to be sacrificed for the sake of harmony. Should there not be any concession to the provinces in the matter of consultation? Is it going to be such a great blow to the dignity and the self-respect of the government to call the provinces into consultation in a matter of this kind? We say there has been altogether too much standing on federal dignity in these important subjects pertaining to the well-being of the country, so essential to the harmonious operation of our federal institutions in this country; particularly when with it goes an assertion on the part of the government of a position which, in my submission, is opposed to the terms of the act, is at variance with sound constitutional practice in this country, and puts this government directly at odds with the position taken by great men of the Liberal party in the past such as Laurier, Lapointe, and Cardin who have said in the plainest terms that there can be no amendment of the British North America Act without consultation with the provinces.
If the Prime Minister asks again what that word "consultation" means, then I say to him that he should go back and find out what Laurier, Lapointe and Cardin meant when they said that there could be no amendment of this act without consultation with the provinces. The voices of these great men are not heard today, Mr. Speaker, in the Liberal councils. The doctrine and the policy of the Liberal party today in this regard bear no resemblance to the doctrine expounded by those great leaders of the Liberal party.


Mr. Garson:: May I ask my hon. friend from Eglinton a question as to what he meant in his remarks? He has left me not clear on one point. We have here a scheme for redistribution which all parties in this parliament support. If this scheme were submitted to the provinces and one or two provinces refused to consent, would my hon. friend think that we should drop the scheme, or proceed with it?
British North America Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not prepared to be drawn into an academic question like that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is not academic; that is concrete.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I say, Mr. Speaker, that that situation will be confronted if it should arise. It may not arise. But that does not entitle the government to ignore its responsibility to consult these provinces. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is looking for a sound exposition of the constitutional position in this matter I commend to him the words of Laurier, Lapointe, and Cardin who were not interested in hair-splitting, but who laid down in categorical, plain and emphatic terms that there is no right to obtain amendments to this constitution without consultation with the provinces. What did they mean?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is not answering the question.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: That was 50 years ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, the hon. member
apparently thinks that is too long ago; there is a new doctrine in the Liberal party. That is precisely what I have been saying, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal party today has thrown overboard the sound constitutional position taken by Laurier, Lapointe and Cardin.


Mr. Martin:: Nonsense; sheer nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no greater authority on the subject of nonsense in this house than the minister who has just spoken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has plastered the pages of Hansard with more of that particular commodity than has any other member in this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think he is still a little bit troubled in his mind. He had better put himself to work polishing up the teeth on that totem pole that appeared in his cartoon last week.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sheer nonsense.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend permit another question? If upon such consultation with the provinces two of them refused to consent, where would my hon. friend suggest this parliament should go from there?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would say that situation would have to be considered in the light of the objections taken by the two provinces at that time. What would Laurier have said?


Walter Edward Harris: What did he do?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What would Lapointe have said? Laurier said we had no right to change

British North America Act this constitution without consulting with the provinces. He said it repeatedly. Lapointe said the same thing. What did Mr. Cardin say? They all said the same thing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What does the hon. member say?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The same thing.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: For the Progressive Conservative party?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have no doubt that in what I am saying now I am in accord with the views of the Progressive Conservative party, of which I am very happy to be a member.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And which we are now very glad to have on the record for the first time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Have what on the record for the first time?


Alphonse Fournier: You are making
history.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing now said in the house in this debate in the way of position that has not been taken before. For the Prime Minister to say he is glad to have something on the record today for the first time only shows that the Prime Minister has overlooked a lot of important things, or that he is just trying to score a point for the record that has no justification or basis.


Mr. Benidickson:: It was a score just the same.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A score of zero, if not indeed an error.
I move the following amendment, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks):
That Bill No. 331 be not now read the second time but that the further consideration thereof be deferred until the principle thereof has been made the subject matter of consultation between the dominion and the provinces.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the very nature of the case is such that I shall address my remarks, in a few minutes at any rate, to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). However, I want to say without delay that we of this group are opposed to this amendment, and I shall indicate our reasons for that stand a few minutes later.
Hon. members will be glad to know that the rules of the house do not permit me unlimited time, so I shall not take too much of the time of the house just now-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: At least you are going to say something.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the hon. member for Springfield; this is a great day. Perhaps he will not be so complimentary when I say that. it will probably be necessary for me to speak again later in this debate, after this amendment has been disposed of. The reason that will be necessary is that there is another aspect of the problem of redistribution which we feel .should be brought to the attention of the house.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that we appreciate the remarks made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when he opened the debate this afternoon, particularly when he pointed out that this is a case of our making history. This bill, if it passes and becomes law, will be the first occasion the constitution of Canada has been amended by the parliament of Canada without having to go to Westminster. I confess that I had dared to hope that a bill of mine which was given first reading on April 7 might be in that position, might be the first amendment to the constitution of Canada since the right was won by this parliament to do that in respect of federal matters; but as the order paper is lined up a certain pipe-line bill is blocking consideration of all public bills, including mine with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons. It is still waiting for a chance to be read the second time, even though it was introduced over two months ago.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of great historical significance that we have arrived at this point where we are dealing with a section of our constitution and exercising the right that we have won to amend that constitution in respect of federal matters without going to the parliament at Westminster.
I now want to say a few words with respect to the substance of the amendment to the British North America Act that is before us at this time. That substance deals in the main with two matters. The second one, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration pointed out, is that there be two seats in the Yukon and the district of Mackenzie, with which we are in entire agreement. The first of the two matters dealt with in this amendment is the provision of what is known as the 15 per cent floor. I need not repeat the arguments we put forward when the Prime Minister's motion was before the house on April 21, and which were stated again in the special committee when the matter was dealt with there.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is correct in his statement that that committee was unanimous in its recommendation that we should have this 15 per cent floor. I felt, however, that he should have said, in reporting that unanimity, that

before we voted unanimously for this 15 per cent floor, there was presented to the special committee on redistribution in my name an amendment which would have provided for that floor to be fixed at 10 per cent. It is still my view that if we are going to recognize the desirability of varying the "representation by population" rule to this extent for the reasons indicated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, we should have provided a 10 per cent floor rather than a 15 per cent floor. Briefly, my main reason for suggesting that is that the rule, as it is now worded, seems to be a rule to meet a condition for just one province.
On the other hand, the 10 per cent floor would have been more general; it would have dealt with the situation not only in the province of Saskatchewan, but also in the province of Manitoba. We feel in that province that it is unfair, despite our recognition of what happens when you are dealing with figures, that with an increase during the last decade in our population of over 5 per cent we should be losing two seats in the federal parliament. If the amendment I moved in the committee for a 10 per cent floor had been accepted, the result would have been that Manitoba would have lost only one seat and Saskatchewan would have lost only two seats. I need not go into other details. Certain other changes would have followed as well. I just wanted to make clear that before the committee agreed unanimously to the 15 per cent floor a proposal was presented that the floor should be 10 per cent. That came to a vote in the committee. The vote is recorded on pages 6 and 7 of the minutes of the special committee on redistribution, where it is indicated that my amendment was lost by a vote of 18 to 10. After we had lost that vote for a 10 per cent floor we did of course agree unanimously to a 15 per cent floor which is in the bill now before us.
We feel, Mr. Speaker, in the language the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration used, that there is a justification for this floor and we shall support that part of the bill that is now before us. Indeed, we shall support the bill as a whole though there is a suggestion which I shall make at a later stage of the debate. As the minister has pointed out, we talk about the representation by population rule as though it were sacrosanct. The fact of the matter is that we have departed from it throughout the entire history of this country. There have been rules such as the one-twentieth rule which varied the representation by population rule. There is also the senatorial floor. There is the historical fact that, as certain provinces came in,
British North America Act their representation initially was more in some cases than should have been the case on a population basis. We got away from representation by population in the case of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
All these things being considered, it seems to us that there is just as much, if not more, justification for the variation in that strict rule proposed by the substance of the amending bill now before us. We are glad to support that substance, particularly with reference to the 15 per cent floor.
Now let me make it clear why we oppose the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), and why we believe it is within the power of this parliament to amend the British North America Act with respect to section 51. Underlying all this, of course, is the right that was given to this parliament to amend the constitution in respect of federal matters, by the second amendment of the British North America Act which was made in 1949.
This afternoon the hon. member for Eglinton spent a great deal of time telling us-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Amidst a great many interruptions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that the second amendment of 1949 was unwise. In other words he does challenge its wisdom. Apparently, though, he is not challenging its validity. I have not heard that there has been any appeal to the courts as to the validity of that statute. The fact of the matter is that it arose out of a joint resolution of both houses of the Canadian parliament, and that the enacting legislation was passed by the parliament at Westminster. It does seem to me clearly to be the law of the land.
The only question at issue here is whether or not redistribution is a federal matter. If it is, then I contend we have the right to deal with it in this parliament. Indeed, we have always had that right. On previous occasions we exercised in this parliament the right to deal with redistribution when we passed joint resolutions and asked Westminster to pass the necessary amendment to the British North America Act.
The only change now is that we are able to exercise that right by passing the amendment right here in this parliament. The hon. member for Eglinton does not like what he refers to as the reducing of the constitution to a mere bill. As a matter of fact it now requires more stages in this parliament to amend the British North America Act than it did formerly. Previously, all it took so far as Canada was concerned was a one stage resolution in this house and a one stage resolution in the Senate, and it did not even require

British North America Act
royal assent. Now it requires that a bill be put through all the stages in this house and all the stages of the Senate, and that it shall have royal assent. Actually, so far as Canada is concerned, we have made it a bit more difficult to amend the British North America Act. The only thing we have done away with is the perfunctory formality of going over to Westminster, and we supported that change very strongly.
What has been the history of amendments to the British North America Act with respect to redistribution? I must not spend too much time on this because, as a matter of fact, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) referred to the matter in his remarks this afternoon. In fact there have been four cases where amendments to the British North America Act were sought and obtained, which dealt precisely with representation in the House of Commons.
There was the amendment of 1886 which provided for the right to establish representation from territories or areas outside the organized provinces of this country. Dr. Olli-vier, in his book "British North America Acts and Selected Statutes," points out that when that amendment was obtained in 1886-and I quote from page 99 of his book-
The provinces were not consulted, and did not ask to be consulted, though if the British North America Act was a treaty, modification in the representation in parliament, changing the balance of sectional power, might have been contended to require the consent of the existing provinces.
The second of the four amendments to which I refer was the one in 1915 which, among other things, established the senatorial floor under the number of members the provinces should have in the House of Commons. That, too, was passed without consulting the provinces. Prince Edward Island made representations that there be such a floor, but no other provinces were consulted. I may point out that, even as the first of these two changes was in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald as prime minister of this country, the second was in the days of Sir Robert Borden. It seems those two Conservative prime ministers had no doubt about it. They accepted the fact that redistribution was a matter of concern to the federal parliament.
The other two occasions of the four to which I am now referring are within the memory of many, if not most, hon. members now in the house. There was the one in 1943, when redistribution was postponed by means of an amendment to the British North America Act, and the one in 1946 when the rules under section 51 were changed again by obtaining an amendment to the British North America Act.

On neither of those occasions were the provinces consulted. I have always been under the impression that lawyers were governed heavily by precedent. Yet here we have a lawyer today, the hon. member for Eglinton, a stare decisis lawyer at that, seemingly ignoring all these precedents and wanting us now to do it in another way.
This afternoon the hon. member had a great deal to say about the opposition of his party, not only to the amendment of 1949 that won the right for parliament to amend the constitution in federal matters, but also the opposition of his party to the amendment of 1946, when we changed the rules under section 51 of the British North America Act. But he seems to gloss over rather quickly the experience of 1943. That, too, was an occasion when we amended the British North America Act with respect to the matter covered in section 51. On that occasion we postponed redistribution because of the war situation.
I find that on that occasion the person who spoke for the Progressive Conservative party was the then leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). In his speech at that time he did not make a solitary reference to the idea that the provinces should be consulted, but simply gave the motion his support. He did get into an argument with the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) over some matters that were perhaps irrelevant to the issue before the house at that time. But, as recorded at page 4344 of Hansard, he gave the support of his party to that motion, without any question whatsoever. When one looks at the recorded vote on that occasion, as it is found at page 4367 of Hansard for July 5, 1943, we find there were only nine people in the House of Commons who registered their votes against that amendment. Those nine were all independent members from the province of Quebec who sat over here in the southeast corner. The 115 yeas included all the Progressive Conservative members who were in the house at that time. There is one case where they actually voted for an amendment to the British North America Act dealing with what is in section 51 without raising the question as to whether or not the provinces should be consulted. To complete the picture I should say that in that debate one Progressive Conservative member, Mr. King Hazen, did raise the point, but it was not raised officially by the spokesman for that party.
In addition to those four instances which dealt directly with the question of representation in this house, there were the others to which the minister referred, the case in

1871 and the case in 1916 when the life of parliament was extended, and the bill in 1949 which resulted in adding to this parliament seven members for Newfoundland.
I find the case of 1871 most interesting because of some footnotes which Dr. Ollivier has put in his book, to which I have already referred. He points out that in that instance the amendment was actually sought by the executive, by the cabinet, before the decision was made in parliament. Later the matter was the subject of discussion in parliament and parliament by a vote of 137 to 0 decided that no change in the provisions of the British North America Act should be sought by the executive of the government without the previous assent of parliament. That is the position that has been accepted and which has never since been contested. However, in the next paragraph in the footnote Dr. Ollivier states:
David Mills moved a resolution to the effect that any alteration in the principles of representation in the House of Commons without the consent of the several provinces to the original compact, would be a violation of the federal principle of the constitution, but the resolution was rejected without debate.
Mr. Mills was the member for Bothwell in that parliament. I submit that all the precedents are clear and that in the whole history of this country, so far as redistribution is concerned, it has been accepted that it is a federal matter and that whenever a change is indicated it is within the power of the federal parliament to seek that change. Previously we sought it by a joint resolution to Westminster; now the only change is that we have the right to make an amendment by a bill passed by this parliament.
Some attention, in fact, should be paid to the actual wording of section 51 of the British North America Act, which is quite clear and which states in part that on the completion of each decennial census the representation shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner and from, such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides. That is clear. The federal parliament is given the responsibility over redistribution. Indeed that is giving to the parliament of Canada the same authority over federal redistribution as section 92 gives to the provincial legislatures over redistribution within the provinces.
In my view the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has not answered the very pointed questions on that aspect of the matter which have been put to him from the other side. As I say, it seems to me that the position taken in the amendment now before us challenges the validity of section 91, subsection 1, as it was enacted by the second
British North America Act amendment to the British North America Act of 1949. It challenges all precedents in our history in respect to this matter. Furthermore, as I see it, it seems to me to do all the things which the hon. member for Eglinton claims that this bill does.
The hon. member seems to regard this bill as a threat to confederation, as a denial of all the principles of federal and constitutional government, but actually if we were to accept the position of his amendment that every time it is necessary to adjust the constitution even with respect to federal matters, we would have to go through the routine of consulting the provinces, which implies getting their consent, we are going to hog-tie our constitution and prevent the possibility of any change or progress in this country. Maybe the hon. member and his party want it that way; we do not.
I regard it as important that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton should be defeated so that we make it clear that we are not going to permit ourselves to become hog-tied in that way.
Surely it is part and parcel of the whole theory and practice of democratic government that we should not forever be tied to the past. What we may yet do in the way of sorting out the various means of amending our constitution in respect to matters provincial or matters that are of mutual concern is another question. I hope the day will come when we do get that problem sorted out and our entire constitution becomes a Canadian document. In the meantime let us not go back on such progress as we have made in respect to amending the constitution in federal matters.
It has been established across the years that this parliament is responsible for redistribution. It has now been established, even if my hon. friends to my right do not like it, that this parliament of Canada has the right to amend the constitution with respect to federal matters, of which redistribution is one. In my view it would be a mistake, it would be a retrograde step, it would be tying our hands for the future and holding Canada back if we took the position set out in the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton.
I shall leave it at that. As I have already indicated, there is another phase of the matter which we feel should be dealt with, but in the nature of the case it will be necessary to wait until this amendment has been disposed of before we can bring the other matter we have in mind before the house.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, having had the opportunity on an earlier occasion to deal with an amendment similar

British North America Act to the one moved by the hon. member for Eglinton, it is our intention to treat this matter exactly the same as we treated the former matter, that is to vote against the amendment. Without getting into any legal entanglements, because I am not a member of the legal profession, I am compelled to deal with this matter with common sense and sound judgment.
I feel that taking care of the readjustment of the membership of the House of Commons is a federal responsibility. I do not believe in calling in other people to do chores which we should do ourselves, and therefore it is our intention to vote against this amendment. Later on when other matters are before us we shall deal more fully with them.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go over the arguments that were presented on an earlier occasion when this same subject matter was under discussion and when a vote was not taken in relation to the argument then put forward. It does seem to me, however, that there has been a very strange disregard of a position that had never been challenged in this house until comparatively recent years. Going back over the debates in the house on any occasion when this subject has been under consideration, the leading spokesman of both the Conservative and the Liberal parties have always taken the position that the British North America Act is a compact and that in those matters affecting the interests of the provinces changes should not be made which could affect their interests without the provinces having an opportunity to express their opinions and to discuss the subject matter raised.
I noticed that during the time the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was speaking this afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) challenged him on more than one occasion with regard to the statement that there should be consultation with the provinces. The hon. member for Eglinton was asked if that meant consent. This question has been asked on other occasions and apparently implies the proposition that the government does not expect consent. Before a question of that kind is put forward as an implied answer to the suggestion that there should be consultation, perhaps it could be met by another question. If the government seriously contemplates some measure of success in the discussions it initiated with the provinces for the purpose of seeking a basis for amendment of the British North America Act, what does it suggest as the basis on which that agreed method of amendment is going to be arrived at? After all, this government now has the responsibility for producing any
[Mr. Fair.)

results that can be produced by it in dealing with the provinces. Do not ask the opposition at this point how they would deal with this matter as though that in itself was an answer to arguments put forward with respect to the necessity for consultation at a time when the government itself is consulting with the provinces presumably with the expectation that some satisfactory system may be worked out for the amendment of our own constitution.
Unless the government believe there is a possibility of arriving at common ground, then they have engaged in what they regard as a fruitless endeavour from the very outset. I hesitate to believe that they are parties to such a sham. I hesitate to believe that they invited the provinces to meet with them and discuss possible procedures of amendment of the British North America Act without some belief that there is a possibility of reaching common ground and a meeting of minds as to the manner in which the amendment of our constitution shall take place. Anything else would suggest such a cynical approach to this great question by the government as would be a challenge to the possibility of any satisfactory dealings between this government and the provinces at any time.
The Prime Minister, the minister who has moved the motion for second reading of the bill and other members who appear to be ready to support this procedure are well aware that men who were regarded for years as possessing a very great knowledge of our constitution, men like Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe and others, always insisted upon the proposition that there could be no question about the necessity for consulting the provinces if a new basis for allocating the number of members to each province was to be worked out. On April 21 of this year I placed on record in Hansard quotations from speeches by Sir Robert Borden, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, all agreeing in remarkably similar terms to the necessity for bringing the provinces into any discussion of such a change as is contemplated by the measure now before us.
I refer to Hansard of that date because I do not intend to read again quotations that are already on record during the course of the present session. The effect of these arguments can be summed up in the opening words of the speech I quoted of Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe on February 18, 1925, when he said:
I submit that this should be a matter for understanding between the dominion and the provinces, and it is a matter upon which, I am sure, agreement might and should be reached.

Without extending the quotation or the arguments, and in answer to the question asked by the Prime Minister, I would simply repeat what was said by Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe 27 years ago, that it is a subject upon which I am sure agreement might and should be reached. Unless agreement can be reached then we must immediately recognize that there are differences of opinion with respect to this matter which should be borne in mind at a time such a change is contemplated. I hope any argument that may be made in support of the adoption of this measure now before us will not seek to divert attention from the vitally important principle involved by arguing that no great harm is going to be produced as a result of what is now proposed.
If the original understanding which was the basis upon which confederation became possible is to be changed in this way without consultation with the provinces, then that principle may be extended right down the line. There is no doubt about the fact that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, Sir Robert Borden, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and others on both sides of the house thought this was one of those agreements embedded in the constitution which could not be changed without consultation and understanding between the dominion government and the provinces.
It is true that we must be ready to keep pace in our thinking, our conduct, our legislative enactments and administrative procedures with the rapidly changing world in which we are now living and the rapid expansion of this country. There are some things, however, which do not change and Which are not related to the changing events, except in so far as there must be adjustments related to population. When the fathers of confederation agreed to the terms of the British North America Act, which became our basic constitution in 1867, they recognized in the terms of that constitution the fact that there were going to be changes in population They recognized that there were likely to be changes in the relationship of populations and the proportionate basis between the provinces. For that very reason they adopted a method of arithmetical computation which persisted through the long years until the amendments which have been referred to in the earlier discussion this afternoon.
The fact that an unsatisfactory method was adopted by this government on an earlier ion should not be accepted as an answer to any argument as to the impropriety of the course that is now being pursued. What it does do is emphasize the danger of a precedent; and to any hon. member who believes in the sanctity of the British North
British North America Act America Act I suggest that he recognize the extent to which this government is inclined to use a precedent established on one occasion as a justification for extending that precedent on some future occasion. The procedure now followed, under which the original understanding is abandoned, is one which is being employed on this particular occasion for the purpose of meeting a situation which most hon. members think should be met in some way. This is not the first time there has been a departure from the absolute arithmetical computation originally contemplated by the British North America Act.
I would recall the words of the minister who is moving that this measure be given second reading. This afternoon he told us that this is an historic moment. He told us that this is an occasion to remember, because we are now going to amend our own constitution without reference to Westminster. I hope hon. members will recall that we have supported the principle that Canadians should interpret their own constitution. Nevertheless, we have said that as we assume the authority and responsibility for amending our own constitution in Canada, we must be very careful not to depart from those basic principles which were accepted as part of the compact at the time the provinces joined to make one nation. We cannot measure the dangers that may lie in a denial of those basic principles, and in a refusal to consult the provinces, by any argument that may take place as to the absence of any danger in the actual results that will flow from the abandonment of that practice on this particular occasion.
I suggest now, Mr. Speaker, that since this is an historic moment; since this is the first occasion upon which the parliament of Canada is assuming full responsibility for amending its constitution in a matter of this kind, we should recognize the position of the provinces and seek their opinions before such an important step is taken. I find it very difficult to understand how anyone could seriously argue that the provinces are not interested in the results of this action. The very fact that we do not simply take some figure and use that to determine the number of seats throughout the whole of Canada, but that we use a formula for arriving at the number of seats in each province, and under the formula now adopted divide the population of the province by that figure to arrive at the number of seats in that province, recognizes that there is a provincial interest in the representation in this house. It recognizes that the representation of federal members is part and parcel of our federal system,

British North America Act and that the representation of a certain number of members from each province goes hand in hand with the whole system which was adopted under the act of confederation.
We have put this argument forward with the utmost earnestness, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that as we now proceed to amend our own constitution we will, at the very outset, recognize the rights of the provinces. I would ask hon. members who are considering the amendment now before them to examine what has been said in the past; to remember that no changing events have changed that basic principle, and that in this federal system we must not be at any time beguiled into accepting the arguments that would apply to a unitary state and which are certainly not applicable to a federation such as ours. The provinces have their place, just as the dominion has its place, and this amendment now before the house is simply intended to establish a recognition of that relationship between the provinces and the dominion which was clearly recognized at all times in the past, until by a somewhat uncertain route we arrived at a procedure which is not supported by those who were closer to the event and clearly understood what had guided those who so wisely laid the foundation of Canadian unity.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before the hon. member takes his seat, will he permit a question?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Can the hon. member cite a single case in Canadian history in which an amendment to the British North America Act, for the purpose of changing the representation of the House of Commons, was ever submitted to consultation with the provinces?


George Alexander Drew: The hon, member who has just spoken already knows that I have taken objection to the course that has been previously adopted. This afternoon I indicated that I believed the very fact that these dangerous precedents are being followed today is the best evidence why, on this historic occasion, we should establish a sound precedent for the future.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need detain the house long on this amendment, nor on the principle involved in the bill which is now under consideration. This debate is largely a repetition and perhaps

some development of the debates we had in this house in 1943, in 1946 and again in 1949; but I think it has been quite useful to have it today because it has brought about some degree of clarification of the differences between the parties on this matter concerning amendments to the Canadian constitution. Nevertheless I am somewhat puzzled to know just exactly what is intended by this amendment, which provides that consideration of the bill before the house be deferred until the principle thereof has been made the subject matter of consultation between the dominion and the provinces.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) stated that there were some matters that were so fundamental to the constitution that they should not be dealt with until there had been the agreement of all the provinces but that there might be others where the situation would be different if there were one or more dissenting provinces. I do not know just how that would apply to the provisions of this bill, but I will admit that it is difficult to make in advance definite pronouncements as to what would or should be done in circumstances of which the whole atmosphere is yet unknown.
I think I should endeavour to add something by way of clarifying the position I have constantly taken on this extremely important matter; and at the outset I wish to say that it is not a position taken since I have come into politics. These are the beliefs I have always held as a lawyer. In order to substantiate or to verify that statement, one would only have to refer to a speech I made as president of the Canadian Bar Association in 1931; it is contained in the proceedings of the Canadian Bar Association, volume 16, 1931, at pages 97 and following. There it will be found that my views at that time were that the British North America Act had distributed legislative and executive power between the federal authority on the one hand and the provincial authorities on the other hand; that while the situation remained as it was in 1867-that is to say, that the powers exercised in Canada were controlled by and subject to those of the parliament at Westminster-it might well be that the parliament at Westminster could and would modify the distribution that had been made in 1867, but that since the declaration of 1926 with regard to the equality of status of the various members of the commonwealth I did not believe that the parliament at Westminster would attempt to do anything to operate in Canada except at the request of the Canadian people made through their proper representatives.

That is the position I have always taken. I have always asserted that the terms of the B.N.A. Act were not the terms of a contract between the provinces because when the conferences were held prior to confederation there was one province of Canada, comprising Upper Canada and Lower Canada, there were no provinces of Ontario and Quebec; and there were the maritime provinces. At that time there was a compact between the representatives not merely of the people segregated by provincial boundaries; there was a compact between those who spoke for the two great principal races inhabiting these territories at that time. By referring to the speeches of Mr. Meighen, hon. gentlemen will find that was also his view, namely that it was not a compact between provinces-they did not exist-but that it was a compact between a majority and a minority as to the arrangement they were going to ask the parliament at Westminster to enact as statute law in what was to be the constitution of Canada. That is the way it was dealt with.
There was a conference at Charlottetown and there was a conference at Quebec. Then there was a conference in the Westminster hotel in London. There were successive drafts of the legislation which it was desired to put before the parliament at Westminster. The final form is, in substance, in accord with what had been accepted at the conference at Quebec, but in detail it is quite different from what had been the language used in the Quebec resolutions.
My view was and is that the legislative and executive jurisdiction given to one authority could not be taken from that authority without its consent, and that anything that would take from the provincial legislatures that part of the sovereignty of the Canadian people that was assigned to them, in accord with the compact by the B.N.A. Act, could not be taken from them without their express consent. But it must not be forgotten that the people of the provinces are also the people of Canada, and that that part of their sovereignty which was not entrusted to the local legislatures was entrusted to the general legislature. It is just as important to respect and preserve the rights, privileges and autonomy of the federal legislature as it is to be respectful of the rights and privileges of the local legislatures. It so happens that it is at this time our responsibility on what I may call the treasury benches to see to it that there is no abandonment by us of the rights and privileges given, in that distribution, to the federal authority.
British North America Act
With respect to representation in this house, in the Quebec resolutions it had been provided that the adjustment of constituencies in the provinces and of their boundaries would be something dealt with by the provincial legislatures. The general principle agreed upon was that the basis of representation in the House of Commons should be by population as determined by the official census every ten years. To work that out certain rules were established, and it was provided in resolution 19 that immediately after the completion of the census of 1871 and immediately after every decennial census thereafter the representation from each section in the House of Commons should be readjusted on the basis of population.
For the purposes of readjustment Lower Canada was to be assigned 65 seats; and its population was to be divided by 65, and the quotient was to determine the unit of representation in the other provinces. But there was also as a part of the agreement that the representation was to be on the basis of population, a qualification that would avoid too sudden changes. No province was to see its representation diminished if its proportion of the population had not decreased by as much as 5 per cent. It was then further provided in resolution 24 as follows:
The local legislature of each province may from time to time alter the electoral districts for the purposes of representation in the House of Commons, and distribute the representatives to which the province is entitled in any manner such legislature may think fit.
Well, that was in the Quebec resolutions. When these resolutions came before the legislature of the united Canadas, Sir John A. Macdonald presented an address to be submitted to Her Majesty for the adoption of a bill by the parliament of Westminster and the terms of paragraph 24 were changed in the address to read as follows:
The local legislature of each province may, from time to time, alter the electoral districts for the purposes of representation in such local legislature, and distribute the representatives to which the province is entitled in such local legislature, in any manner such legislature may see fit.
That gave rise to quite a debate, and in the course of that debate-I am reading now from page 39 of the confederation debates of 1865-Sir John A. Macdonald had this to say:
A good deal of misapprehension has arisen from the accidental omission of some words from the 24th resolution. It was thought that by it the local legislatures were to have the power of arranging hereafter, and from time to time of readjusting the different constituencies and settling the size and boundaries of the various electoral districts. The meaning of the resolution is simply this, that for the first general parliament, the arrangement of constituencies shall be made by the existing local legislatures; that in Canada, for instance, the present Canadian parliament shall arrange what are

British North America Act to be the constituencies of Upper Canada, and to make such changes as may be necessary in arranging for the seventeen additional members giyen to it by the constitution; and that it may also, if it sees fit, alter the boundaries of the existing constituencies of Lower Canada. In short, this parliament shall settle what shall be the different constituencies electing members to the first federal parliament. And so the other provinces, the legislatures of which will fix the limits of their several constituencies in the session in which they adopt the new constitution. Afterwards the local legislatures may alter their own electoral limits as they please, for their own local elections. But it would evidently be unproper to leave to the local legislature the power to alter the constituencies sending members to the general legislature after the general legislature shall have been called into existence. Were this the case, a member of the general legislature might at any time find himself ousted from his seat by an alteration of his constituency by the local legislature in his section. No, after the general parliament meets, in order that it may have full control of its own legislation, and be assured of its position, it must have the full power of arranging and rearranging the electoral limits of its constituencies as it pleases, such being one of the powers essentially necessary to such a legislature.
Well, the parliament of the united Canadas passed an address in the terms which I read to the house a moment ago giving the local legislatures the right to deal with their own local constituencies for the purposes of their own local legislatures. But apparently that did not completely settle the matter, because we find that in the resolutions adopted at the Westminster hotel when the delegates went over there to have the bill prepared and introduced, this section 24 was not expressly dealt with. There it was said that after each census the representation would be readjusted, but the resolution did not say by whom or how the readjustment would be made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would be after each census?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes. I find in Pope's confederation papers that the first draft that was prepared of the bill to be submitted to the parliament of Westminster contained as the twenty-fifth section the following:
On the completion of the official census of the population of the united colony in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time, as any act of the parliament of the united colony from time to time directs, according to the following rules: (Qu. the readjustment to be made by an independent authority, as some of the judges, to be specified in the imperial act.)
That matter was then apparently considered and discussed, and in the third draft that was dropped and the provision was couched in the language which we find originally adopted in the British North America Act of 1867 which provided that the readjustment would be made by parliament

or by such authority as was designated by parliament, and the opening lines of section 51 were:
On the completion ... of each decennial . . . census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time, as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules . . .
Then followed rules to carry out the basic principle of representation by population, with the qualification against too rapid or frequent changes. Well, it was the submission of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this was a declaration that this was a matter within the jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament, and I think that is clearly the case. It is something which was placed within the jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament because, among other reasons, in the opinion of Sir John A. Macdonald it was essential that that be done and, to paraphrase his language, it would be improper to have it otherwise.
That being the case, it has always been my view that it was something-I will not say of no interest to the provinces if by "provinces" we mean the people who live within the boundaries of the provinces-but it is something which is not within the purview of those who represent that population in the provincial legislatures and in the provincial governments. It is something within the purview of those who represent that population in the federal parliament, here in this House of Commons.
It was for that reason that, in 1946 and in 1949, we on this side of the house resisted the suggestion that there should not be anything done about such matters without consulting the provinces, because in our view to consult the provinces would imply the recognition that it should not be done without their consent. If consultation does not mean that we are going to be guided and even bound by the results of consultation, then it is an empty form and something which should not be resorted to. And we here on this side of the house feel that it would be a betrayal of our duties to the people of Canada at large to abandon such responsibility to those who represent the population in the local legislatures of the respective provinces.
We think it is the right of the people of Canada generally to choose their representatives to speak for them in this general parliament on all matters which, in the distribution of legislative and executive powers, were assigned to the general parliament.
That does not mean we would not like to get agreement with the provincial governments with respect to an over-all formula to have all amendments to our constitution

within the power of the people of Canada by their elected representatives somewhere. And in order to attempt to bring that about we have a conference that is still in existence trying to work out a formula. When that conference met objections were made to the fact that we had taken, or we had asked and had obtained from the parliament at Westminster, the right to have, with respect to federal matters, the same jurisdiction the legislatures had with respect to provincial matters.
They said, "You should not have done that in advance when we were going to have this conference." Our reply was:	I think if
we can hit upon a general formula we will not object to discussing the possibility of compromise on that score, as upon everything else; and we will consider anything you may wish to suggest and about which you think the representatives in the legislatures or in the provincial governments should have something to say. We will consider it; but we do not undertake necessarily to do it, because we have as great responsibility to the general public of Canada as you have to the public of your own provinces.
There was some reference to section 51. Our position was that that was something that was not of particular concern to them. But we said, let us not break up on any of these matters until we see how far we can get general agreement, and just how much we are apart.
All these conferences, if they are to be successful, have to be ended with some degree of compromise on both sides. We were not in a position where we could give away the rights of the federal parliament; but we were in a position where we could discuss them, and where we could get to proposals that could not be binding upon the Canadian public until they had the approval of this parliament itself. We are still endeavouring to get agreement on the whole matter of the Canadian constitution. But, pending that, we think we did accomplish a useful step in the assertion of our national status in getting from the parliament at Westminster the right to do ourselves, right here in Ottawa, the things that we used to ask them to do and which they invariably did, when we asked them to do them.
We would not ask them, without the consent of the provinces, to vary or alter this distribution in legislative, administrative and executive jurisdiction. That was a fundamental basis of the compact between the two great races in 1867. But if we or some other parliament took the responsibility of doing it-well, since the Statute of Westminster I do not know just what would happen 55704-200
British North America Act there at Westminster. They have never yet refused to accede to a joint address of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada; and they certainly would be in a very embarrassing position if any address went from the Senate and House of Commons of Canada asking them to do something which did disturb this distribution.
That is a hypothetical question, because I have every confidence in my fellow Canadians, enough confidence in them to believe that long after I cease to be in this house there will always be a majority here who will be respectful of what was the real basis of that compact between the two great races in 1867.
I do not wish to cite from my own speeches, but some hon. members will recall that when the late lamented and beloved member for Calgary West asked me if, according to that doctrine of mine, the parliament at Westminster could and would be apt to act upon a joint address of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada to do away with the right of my people to speak the French language in this House of Commons, I had to reply that technically and legally I thought that that was the case. But I reminded the hon. member of the answer Felix made when he was being asked to dispose of St. Paul. He said that it was not the custom of the Romans to condemn a man without hearing him first. And it is not the custom of Canadians to go back on what they look upon as the moral undertakings of their ancestors toward each other in this confederation pact.
There is just one other point I wish to make. Thus far I have been speaking about this amendment. With respect to it I invite those who have any confidence in us to follow us and to vote it down. But as to the merits of the amendment proposed in the bill itself, I repeat what I said when I moved the resolution to refer the matter to the committee. I am going to support this bill. But it is a free vote. It is the responsibility of each and every one to decide for himself, having in mind the responsibility he feels to his constituency and to his country at large, whether or not the rules presently in section 51 should be modified or expanded.
I think it would be unfortunate to have those rules applied in all their rigour to a province which would thus see its representation cut down by 25 per cent. I think it would be a mistake to do that. Others may have other views about it. Others may feel that we all should abide by the rules of the game as they now stand. But, on the merits of the bill, and on deciding as to whether or

British North America Act not it should get second reading, I am going to vote that it should get second reading. But I state here and now that I will not regard as going back on me anyone of any party who feels that is not the right thing to do, and who votes against the second reading of the bill which would, of course, impose that rigid application of the rules of section 51 as they were adopted in 1946.
I have no doubt that my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris), who is sponsoring the bill, is going to vote for the bill he sponsored, but I have not asked any other of my colleagues what attitude he would take, nor have I asked any of those who make up the usual following of the government in this house what attitude they will take on the merits of the bill. I am not going to try to influence them in their attitude beyond letting them know what my own is going to be.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I know hon. members will realize that the only reason I abstained from voting was that it so happened that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was not in his seat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put on the main motion there is another aspect of the matter of redistribution which we feel the house should consider. I have already indicated that it was my intention on behalf of this group to move a further amendment. Indeed, the amendment is one which I sought to move in the special committee on redistribution. It was ruled out .of order in that committee on the ground that the terms of reference given to the committee did not empower it to deal with the question of whether or not redistribution should be effected by an independent redistribution commission rather than by a committee of the House of Commons.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the subject of my amendment, and I shall move it in a form which, if adopted, would give to that committee the power to consider that very question. I thought the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) tonight anticipated that I might be raising this question when in discussing the amendment then before the house he referred to the fact that as long ago as 1867 at the Westminster hotel in London the question was raised as to whether the redistribution of

seats in the federal parliament should be carried out by a committee of parliament or whether it should be referred to some independent tribunal. Apparently the fathers of confederation and those who were associated with them did not see fit to determine at that time that it should be done that way, although in the wording of section 51 they left the door open by leaving it for parliament to decide what authority should carry out redistribution.
This question as to whether or not redistribution should be effected by an independent body rather than by parliament has come in for considerable attention in the last two decades. As the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has pointed out, just at the outbreak of world war II a bill had been prepared which he, in the name of the government, would have introduced but for the outbreak of the war. In other words, but for that tragic event we might already have had redistribution effected by an independent commission instead of by a committee of parliament. The matter was discussed again at the time of the last redistribution, namely in 1947. On that occasion I had the privilege on behalf of this group of moving an amendment to second reading of the representation bill suggesting that, as an alternative, the redistribution of that year should be referred to an independent commission.
I well remember the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec South on that occasion. He indicated his support of the principle of my amendment, and he reminded us of the bill he had prepared some years before. He said, however, that it was difficult and impractical in his view to set up an independent redistribution commission when redistribution was right at our doorstep. In other words his proposal was that we should deal with this matter some years in advance. Again in this session the hon. member for Quebec South brought this matter to the attention of this house and of the country in a very forceful manner in a speech he made on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He has a bill on the order paper that would establish an independent redistribution commission; but he has counselled us-and mind you, his counsel must be taken into account-to the effect that it may be that we have to look ahead; it may be that when we are right at the problem of redistribution it is too late to change the method of that immediate redistribution. It may be that, as the hon. member for Quebec South says, we shall have to plan while we are in the very midst of one redistribution for a different method of dealing with the next and future redistributions.
55704-200J
British North America Act
In other words, the amendment I shall move carries out the spirit of that suggestion which was made earlier this session by the hon. member. May I remind hon. members that others have indicated their support for the principle of redistribution being undertaken by an independent body. I refer in particular to the view expressed by the late prime minister, Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. On February 3, 1947, when he spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, he answered a question which had been put to him by the then leader of the opposition, Mr. John Bracken. Mr. Bracken had expressed the hope that redistribution might be carried out by an independent commission. Mr. King's reply, which can be found on pages 67 and 68 of Hansard for that date, was that on several occasions he had expressed the personal view that redistribution should be carried out by an independent tribunal. He said that he still held that view, but he said, and I quote from Hansard:
I do not believe that the majority of hon. members take that view, and in that particular I am prepared to accept the will of the majority. I hope, however, that the day will come when the House of Commons of Canada will see the wisdom of allowing its redistribution to be made by some impartial tribunal and not by the members of the house themselves dealing with the matter in committee as in former years it has been dealt with.
I am not so sure that Mr. King was right that it was the view of the majority of the house that this way should not be tried, but at any rate that was the opinion expressed. Nevertheless, at the same time he expressed his personal opinion, and it was one that he had held for some time, that it should be done by an independent body.
Those of us who have spoken on this subject from time to time have quoted such authorities as Professor Norman Ward of the university of Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Quebec South quoted him when he spoke earlier this session, and so have some of the members in this group. I need not take the time to put some of the excellent quotations from Professor Ward on the record again, but I shall refer to a quotation that was put on Hansard on April 21, 1952, at page 1441, in which Professor Ward demonstrated clearly that this is an outmoded way of dealing with redistribution-that is, referring it to a committee of the House of Commons. He supports most strongly the suggestion of the hon. member for Quebec South that the time has come to refer the matter to an independent tribunal.
I remind hon. members as well of the tremendous interest there is in this question on the part of those who write the editorials in most of the newspapers of this country.

British North America Act It has been discussed this year in particular because redistribution is with us at the present time, and it is a subject of great interest. I think it is fair to say that the consensus of editorial writers in this country is that we should find a better way than by referring the question to a committee of this house; that we should set up machinery to make it possible for the problem to be handled by an independent commission. Hon. members are aware that the practice of referring the matter to an independent commission is followed in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, as well as other democratic countries. Indeed we are about the only democracy that still adheres to this outworn method of dealing with this problem.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. member allow a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I have been following very carefully, and I wanted to ask whether the press anywhere suggests a constitutional amendment in order to bring about that condition of affairs; or would it not be better to have it in the form of a statutory amendment to the election act?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I cannot say whether I have seen any editorial comments suggesting that this matter be settled by means of a constitutional amendment, but I am making that proposal, in line with what has been suggested by the hon. member for Quebec South, that we make a firm decision. What annoys me is that at redistribution time we can all agree that next time we should do it the other way, but then we let the years roll by and when the next time comes the same sentiments are expressed again, that we shall have to leave it over until the next time. It was for that reason I felt we should settle the question by writing into our constitution the necessary amendment. That it could be written in I think is borne out by the statement of the Prime Minister tonight to the effect that this was discussed at the Hotel Westminster in London back in 1867, and that is the suggestion I shall be making in the amendment I shall move in a few minutes.
May I also cite as support for our contention that redistribution should be carried out by an independent commission rather than by a committee of parliament the experience we are having right at this very time in dealing with redistribution. Professor Norman Ward, in the quotation I referred to a moment ago, said that, with the best will in the world, a group of M.P.'s drawn from many occupations, provinces and political parties would find it extremely difficult

to face objectively the various problems connected with this whole question of redistribution.
I think it is fair to say that we in this parliament think we are members with the best will in the world. Yet it is an understatement to suggest that we are having great difficulty in sorting out the problems associated with redistribution. Indeed, there are many knotty problems to be dealt with in that sphere before this session ends. In my view the experience hon. members are having right now should convince all the members of this house that the time has come to make a firm decision with regard to this matter.
The last time redistribution was up for consideration, namely in 1947, we moved an amendment to the motion for second reading of the representation bill the effect of which would have been to refer the redistribution of 1947 to an independent commission. That amendment was defeated. In my view such a move would be a valid one to make on this occasion. But there are those who might say that if one now tried to refer the present redistribution to an independent commission, that would result in delay, in fact in so much delay that the next election might have to be fought on the present boundaries. In my view that is not a sufficient argument against referring the matter to an independent commission for this very redistribution. However, I recognize the fact that if we were to move an amendment of that kind it would be beaten and no gain would be made.
Believing that it is our job to look to the future, Mr. Speaker, we are therefore going to propose instead that, in the light of our present experience, in the light of the opinions of people across this country and in the light of the advice of the hon. member for Quebec South, we now make a decision that this is the last time redistribution will be carried out by a committee of this house. We are going to propose that we now make the decision that, in the case of the redistribution to be effected after the decennial census of 1961 and every census thereafter, redistribution will be carried out by an independent commission to be established by parliament.
There will be much to do before 1961. A bill establishing such a commission will have to be prepared. That bill will have to specify the rules on the basis of which that commission will function. That bill will have to determine the composition of that commission, and to make certain of its independence. That bill would have to provide what would happen when the commission had finished its work and had reported its findings to Mr. JUNE 12, 1952
Speaker, for in the end the responsibility in connection with this matter would still rest with parliament.
The hon. member for Quebec South, in his bill, proposes a way of dealing with that problem. I am not going to comment as to whether his method is the best one or not; and he will agree with me that at this point that is not something for us to decide. The fact that he has worked it out in his bill is evidence of the fact that it can be done. My suggestion is that at this moment we should at least take the position that next time, and every time thereafter, redistribution is going to be carried out by an independent commission.
The way we propose that this matter should be dealt with, Mr. Speaker, is by referring the subject matter of the bill now before us to the special committee on redistribution which is still in existence and is still carrying on its work. In fact, procedurally we are rather fortunate that that committee is still meeting, because it makes it possible for us to deal with this matter in a manner which will not kill the effort now being made to amend the British North America Act in respect of the 15 per cent floor and in respect of two seats for Yukon and Mackenzie River. Our proposal is that the subject matter of this bill should be referred to the special committee on redistribution and that it should be given by this house power to do something which thus far it has not had the power to do, namely the power to consider whether the British North America Act should be amended to provide that the readjustment in the representation in the House of Commons to be effected following the decennial census of 1961, and following each decennial census thereafter, shall be made, subject to any rules to be prescribed by parliament, by an independent commission to be appointed by parliament for that purpose.
If the motion in those terms which I shall presently move were to pass the house tonight, that would mean that this house would express its support of the principle that we should have an independent commission after the next census, and it would also refer that matter to the committee to consider. The committee could then consider it and if it approved of the idea of amending the British North America Act in that respect it could present to the House of Commons a further report including a draft bill which would be the same as the draft bill it has already agreed upon plus the amendment that would be necessary to carry out the proposal I am presenting to the house tonight. In fact the amendment which was ruled out of order the other day, and which I moved
British North America Act in that committee, was designed to do that very thing; and I am satisfied that it would have done it. The only difficulty was that the chairman felt the committee did not have power, under its terms of reference, to deal with this phase of the matter. This house has the right to give that committee the power to deal with this phase of the matter and that is what we are asking for at this time.
I hope hon. members of the house will give serious consideration to this matter. Let us not put it off from one decade to another. Let us not, every time it comes up for consideration, agree amongst ourselves-privately, and in some instances publicly-that this is the wrong way to do it and that next time we must do it the other way, but do nothing about it. The result is that when the next time comes around and some member rises in the house and wants to refer the matter to an independent commission, there will be some other member from Quebec South here saying, "I agree with the idea but it is too late; redistribution is on our doorstep".
We have a duty to perform, particularly because of the experience we are having in dealing with this matter at the present time. I urge the house to give most serious consideration to the amendment which I shall now propose. I therefore move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis):
That Bill 331 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special committee on redistribution with instructions that they have power to consider whether the British North America Act should be amended so as to provide that the readjustment in the representation in the House of Commons to be effected following the decennial census of 1961, and each decennial census thereafter, shall be made, subject to any rules to be prescribed by parliament, by an independent commission to be established by parliament for that purpose.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is something I wish to say. Did the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) wish to speak on a point of order?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, not on a point of order.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this amendment is really designed to serve the purpose of a motion to give enlarged powers to the present select committee that is dealing with the subject matter. The subject matter has already been before the committee, and the only purpose of the motion is to enlarge the powers of that select committee. I suggest to Your Honour that this would give power to the committee to consider whether there should not be an amendment to the constitution which involves expenditure. Therefore

British North America Act that is something which, if it got into the constitution, certainly would put an obligation upon the treasury to provide the funds required to implement the provision of the constitution, I would ask Your Honour to consider whether that does not bring it within the class of legislation which cannot be proceeded with without a recommendation from His Excellency the Governor General.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to the point raised by the Prime Minister, I do not know whether I can turn it up while I am on my feet but there is a citation in Beauchesne, and I believe a Speaker's ruling, to the effect that a motion for a bill which does not itself involve expenditure of money, but may involve the enactment of further legislation that would require money, is not in itself out of order as a private member's motion. There are a number of occasions when a matter is presented in that way. For example, the very bill we are debating would increase the membership of the House of Commons, but it was not regarded as a money bill and therefore it was not felt that a resolution had to precede it, because the necessary expenditure is taken care of under another act.
As a matter of fact the bill of the hon. member for Quebec South, to which we have referred, would involve, before the commission could operate, the expenditure of money; but the mere passing of that bill, by the terms of the hon. member's bill itself, does not do that.


Walter Edward Harris: The bill is still
out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has not yet been ruled upon. I submit that if this motion passed and if the committee recommended that the British North America Act be amended in this way, that would not by itself involve the expenditure of money. No money would be required until later on the government had brought in a bill establishing a redistribution commission. That bill would have to specify how those expenses were to be met, and would of course have to be a bill introduced by the government, with a prior resolution.
I notice that Your Honour is perhaps trying to find the very citation to which I have been referring. Possibly we can locate it in a moment or two.


Mr. Power:: Perhaps I have the very citation the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is referring to, Your Honour. It did come to my ears that there was a question of raising a point of order in connection with the bill standing in my name on the order paper, the same point of order which

has been raised, and I was proposing to refer the subject matter to a standing committee. I find that the House of Commons Journals of Tuesday, March 22, 1949 at page 233, contains the following. Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will tell me if this is the citation to which he refers. I read from the Journals:
The house then resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Garson:	That Bill No.
86, an act to amend the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947, be now read the second time, and on the proposed motion of Mr. Fleming in amendment thereto:	That the said bill be not now
read the second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce with instructions that they have power to recommend a specific measure relating to rent control and other specific measures relating respectively to other matters provided for in the said bill.


Mr. Speaker:: There can be no question that,
on the second reading of a bill, an amendment may be made to the end that the second reading do not take place but that the subject matter thereof be referred to one of the standing committees which may be given certain instructions. But the house cannot, under the guise of referring the subject matter, refer also certain provisions of the bill itself.
I think in support of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I should say that the last phrase does not apply in this instance, and that he would perhaps be in order to refer the subject matter of the bill in the same way that the hon. member for Eglinton was in order to refer the subject matter of the bill, though it did deal with matters which might in the long run have involved expenses. Specific measures relating to rent control would have involved expenses to the crown. Therefore perhaps this is the citation that my hon. friend refers to. If it is, I would say that he is in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I confess that is not the citation I had in mind but I am glad the hon. member has given it, for it is even better than the one that I was trying to turn up and which I have now located. Your Honour, I am sure, will give serious consideration to the point raised by the hon. member for Quebec South because it deals precisely with the kind of situation that we have now. On that occasion there was a bill before the house for second reading, and the amendment was that the bill be not then read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to a committee. That is precisely what my amendment to this present bill would do.
But, Mr. Speaker, having referred to certain citations generally when I was on my feet before I feel I should also indicate what they were so no one will think I was just pulling them out of the air. At page 457 of Beauchesne's third edition there is this

headnote to a ruling by Mr. Speaker Sproule, dated January 16, 1912:
A bill, which does not involve a direct expenditure but merely confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public money will have to be voted by parliament, is not a money bill and no resolution is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction.
I am not bringing in a bill; but even if I were bringing in a bill in the terms of an amended British North America Act, I submit that it would be covered by the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Sproule on January 16, 1912. The bill was to amend the Inquiries Act. A point of order had been raised and, as I say, a ruling was given to that effect by the Speaker of that day.
A similar ruling appears on page 459 of Beauchesne's third edition, only this one is quite lengthy. It runs all the way from page 459 to page 467. Again the headnote reads:
A bill designed to furnish machinery, for the expenditure of a certain sum of public money to be voted subsequently by parliament, may be introduced in the house without the recommendation of the crown and without a resolution being first considered in committee.
That was what I was trying to say by way of paraphrase when I was on my feet before; that there have been these rulings in the past; these circumstances that suggest that when a bill establishes machinery for the functioning of which it may be necessary for parliament later to appropriate money, that does not make the bill itself a money bill. The same consideration would apply if a point of order were raised against the bill of the hon. member for Quebec South. Indeed, even if he did not have the subject matter thereof referred to a committee I would contend that the bill, as he has drafted it, is in order because the bill itself does not require the expenditure of money. Before it could come into operation money would have to be appropriated, but that is separate from the bill itself.
I realize it is a very important point of order that has been raised by the Prime Minister. But I feel, with the support of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), that this motion of itself certainly does not involve the expenditure of money, but is merely referring the subject matter of a certain proposal to the special committee on redistribution for consideration by that committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other members who wish to make any further representations at this time?
British North America Act
This is a rather difficult problem for me to decide without time for consideration. The amendment is as follows:
That Bill 331 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special committee on redistribution with instructions that they have power to consider whether the British North America Act should be amended so as to provide that the readjustment in the representation in the House of Commons to be effected following the decennial census of 1961, and each decennial census thereafter, shall be made, subject to any rules to be prescribed by parliament, by an independent commission to be established by parliament for that purpose.
I think it is clear that the amendment in itself referring the subject matter to the committee and to consider an amendment to the British North America Act would not involve an expenditure of money. The difficulty which faces me is to determine whether a decision of the committee would be considered a direct order to this house, or to the government, to bring in legislation which would involve the expenditure of money.
Let us suppose that the committee did consider the question and, having been empowered to consider it, decided that an independent commission should be established. What effect would that decision have on the house?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I have a further word?


An hon. Member:: Let Mr. Speaker finish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While you are thinking, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am trying to think it out as I go along. I am prepared to hear further argument on this point. Let us suppose the committee decided that the commission should be set up; under those circumstances would the House of Commons be bound by that decision and be required to set up the commission, thus involving an expenditure of money? Could I hear the views of hon. members on this matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think, Mr. Speaker, you will have to decide whether the terms of the rule apply to something done by a committee empowered by the House of Commons to do it. The rule says-
-may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
Does the word "house" in the rule include the select committees appointed by the house to represent it, and to do a certain job? If it does, then the rule should apply. But if on the other hand Your Honour does decide that the committee does not come within

British North America Act the language of the standing order, then my point of order may not be well taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out that committees frequently make reports to the house which are not acted upon. If a committee makes a report the government is ready to act upon, that action is taken by the government itself. Let us take as an example the very bill now before us. A draft bill, identical to the one we are now discussing, was submitted to the house by the special committee on redistribution. No question was raised in that committee as to whether or not we had a right to recommend that draft bill merely because it might involve an expenditure of money. In a sense it would, because it would increase the number of members. It would increase the number from Yukon and the Northwest Territories by one, and it also would increase the number of members from Saskatchewan from what would otherwise have been the case. Then there are extra expenses connected with the elections because of those additional seats.
But that did not make it a money bill. It did not make it something the committee did not have the power to recommend. The bill having been recommended in draft form by the special committee, and it having been acceptable to the government to go ahead with that draft bill, a similar bill, identical in form, was introduced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In reply to Your Honour's question as to what would happen if the special committee on redistribution dealt favourably with my proposal, I submit the result would be that that committee would report back to the house an amended draft bill. Whether or not that amended draft bill would be presented to the house would depend upon the government. If it were to come before the house the minister, in turn, would have to present it. But-and I submit this is very important-even if the committee did recommend a draft bill with a provision in it to appoint a redistribution commission later on, the government would not treat it as a money bill and precede it with a resolution, any more than was done with this bill; because any expenses resulting from the bill would have to be dealt with by other measures.
Your Honour also asked what would happen if the committee recommended back to the house the establishment of a redistribution commission. That would not be the recommendation of the committee under the terms of this motion. It would be a recommendation that the British North America Act be amended in such a way as to call 

upon parliament to do it at a later date. So I submit any steps we would take as a result of this amendment would not be a money measure at all. Any money involved in it would have to come later.


Walter Edward Harris: On the point of order, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has abandoned the position he explained in the first instance. The intimation that any action taken in committee would not have an effect upon the house does not bear consideration, and for this reason: that if the result of the deliberations of the committee was to insert in the British North America Act a provision that the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons would be undertaken by a commission, it would then be obligatory upon the government to introduce a bill to appoint a commission. Therefore to that extent the committee would bind the house to provide funds for that purpose.
If this were not a bill amending the constitution and establishing a means of readjusting representation perhaps the situation would be otherwise. But I do suggest that if, as a result of the act of the committee and of the house, a commission were set up to do a job which is now done by parliament, inevitably there would be an expenditure of public money.


Mr. Speaker:: The question which the
Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has raised is an important one. He referred to standing order 60, which reads:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
The British North America Act provides that all legislation involving the expenditure of money must be recommended for the consideration of the house by His Excellency the Governor General. In dealing with the present amendment I am faced with the problem of determining whether it would involve the expenditure of money if carried. The Prime Minister has raised the question whether the word "house" includes select committees. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) has said that if a recommendation by the committee would necessarily involve the expenditure of money it would be out of order, and with that I agree. But would a mere recommendation of a committee necessarily involve an expenditure?
Let us suppose that this amendment carries. The question would then be considered

by the committee as to whether an independent commission should be set up. If that independent commission were set up it would clearly involve the expenditure of money. However, does the committee set up the commission? Clearly the committee could not set up the commission. Could the committee do more than bring in a report recommending that such commission be set up? Supposing the committee did make that recommendation would the house or the government be required to act upon it. In other words would the committee's report be a direction to the government to bring in legislation involving the expenditure of money?
This is an important question and I would not like a ruling given today on such limited reflection to be considered as binding on future occasions. There is some doubt in my mind as to whether it would be a direct order to the government to bring in such legislation. The government and the house I believe could reject the recommendation of the committee. As there is some doubt in my mind- and' I repeat that I do not want this ruling to be considered a binding precedent-I feel that I should allow the amendment to stand.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, though I am only too glad to support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in his suggestion that his amendment is in order, that does not by any means imply that I believe the amendment to be a valid and proper one in the circumstances and on its merits. May I say at once that with respect to the bill I am by no means convinced that it should pass on its merits. I am quite satisfied with the amendment to the British North America Act which was made in 1946 and I see no great necessity for the amendment now proposed.
However, with respect to the amendment moved by my hon. friend and the complimentary references he made to my efforts to have a study made to bring about a scheme or plan whereby redistribution would be made by persons outside this House of Commons, I want to say here and now that although on two occasions I have presented a bill which would have had the effect of setting up some sort of commission to prepare a general plan of redistribution it was never my intention, and it is not my intention, that that should form part of our fundamental constitution.
I believe we have reached such a stage of confusion, are in such a practical morass, have got ourselves into such a mess with respect to redistribution by amending and modifying and changing the various principles with respect to representation by population, 55704-201
British North America Act with respect to geographic units, with respect to county boundaries that we must have a new deal. I have too much respect for the members of this house to burden them with the duty and responsibility of making that kind of new deal in connection with redistribution. However, I do not want to see us get away from the responsibility of parliament to carry out the duties which we as members have been sent here to do, the duty laid upon us by the British North America Act which says that redistribution shall be made by the parliament of Canada.
In the bill which I presented there _ is scarcely one section which would not require modification. I insist only on certain principles, namely, first, that we should start afresh; second, that parliament maintain its control and responsibility over the action it takes with respect to redistribution and, third, that we lay down some set of rules and regulations upon which we can base future redistributions.
With respect to some of the provisions of the bill it is quite clear to me, as it would be to anyone, that the position and status of the unfortunate civil servant whom I have nominated to be a sort of umpire between the upper millstone of Toryism and the lower millstone of Liberalism would be most unhappy. He would either be obliged to resign before the job was done or he would be fired by one or other of the parties when the job was completed. Therefore there should be at least some discussion on that section of the bill.
There are some sections which I think need to be carefully studied. There is above all a need for a brand new redistribution. The reason I think it should be taken out of the responsibility of members of the house is that it would place too heavy a burden on them. If the job were properly done it is extremely unlikely that any hon. member would be representing the same geographic unit after the job was over. I do not think members should be called upon to commit hara-kiri any more than they should be called upon to meet the importunities and pressures that would be brought upon them by local interests, by people attached to the traditions of the county and by people attached to party tradition. It is for that reason I suggest that for once anyway we ask people from outside the House of Commons to do the job. Where they will come from I am not prepared to say. Whether they are to be appointed, as I suggest in the bill, in a bi-partisan way or whether they are to be appointed in a non-partisan way makes no difference, but I do suggest that when they have made their report and have laid before parliament

British North America Act a plan and scheme for redistribution, parliament in the last analysis should be the judge whether that plan and scheme is or is not a proper one.
I am convinced, and it may be only a faint hope, that if some such redistribution is made then notwithstanding local objections, notwithstanding the difficulties and the obstacles which will confront individual members of parliament, a plan of that kind presented to the people of Canada would carry such force and authority that it would be very difficult to alter or modify it in any degree.
With respect to the specific amendment of my hon. friend, I do not think he would expect me to support it. I have been too outspoken in my objection to commissions, bureaux and bureaucrats receiving delegated powers to do jobs which should be done by this assembly, this House of Commons, to now be willing to enshrine in the ark of the covenant of our constitution an omnipotent bureaucracy to do the work of redistribution which is primarily our concern. I have no objection to creating non-partisan machinery to do the job in order to give us a pattern of what we should do for the future, but I do not think we should place in the constitution of this country for all time and, as my hon. friend further says, for the next census and for the censuses to come, any provision which will free us from the responsibility which has been laid upon us.
Again with respect to this particular amendment, my hon. friend does not anticipate that it will be effective immediately. He says it needs to be effective only in the census of 1961. Why does he not join with me at the next session in an endeavour to prepare some kind of bill that will pass the house or at least be referred to a committee for discussion? With our joint efforts in the ten years to come we might achieve something. As it is now all he would get from the committee- and I would be glad to get it too, but not in the form of a constitutional amendment- would be a sort of pious hope that some day we would have a commission. I suggest that the two of us get together, hammer out a bill, endeavour to overcome the obstacle of its being out of order, and eventually convince our colleagues that that is the proper thing to do for at least once.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: By very gracious leave.


Mr. Speaker:: Although I am not making a ruling, I am inclined to believe that it is not necessary to have leave. However, as I say,
I am not making a ruling. I am merely letting the house know that I do not feel myself bound by any leave the house may give at this time. Does the house wish third reading now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR General administration-
187. Departmental administration, $598,070.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the minister intend to make a statement at this time?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Chairman, I am entirely in the hands of the committee. I would hate to talk out my own estimates. Furthermore I should not like to take time which hon. members might * want to use to make suggestions and ask questions. However, I have a fairly brief statement, if it is the wish of the .committee to have it.
Hon. members will notice that the estimates for 1952-53 total just under $67,900,000. This compares with the total for last year, including supplementary votes, of almost $65 million. The total for this year represents an increase of just under $3 million. This increase is more than accounted for by increases in salary rates which were announced last December and the normal 55704-2014
Supply-Labour
increase in the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. For instance, the salary increases were $1,516,700. The increased contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, which of course is based upon the increased number of people being insured under that fund, was $1,800,000, or a total increase in the two items of $3,316,700.
In the past fiscal year the number of people employed by the Department of Labour rose from 674 to 676 and the number employed by the unemployment insurance commission fell from 7,051 to 6,885. This is an over-all reduction in staff during a period when the work load on nearly all branches continued to expand in response to public demand and in response to developments which can hardly be considered as normal. In the past year we have had to consider methods of improving both the quality and the quantity of our labour force to enable it to meet the production demands of both the present needs and the needs of an uncertain future. On the other hand it has been necessary during the past winter to deal with a fairly sizeable measure of seasonal unemployment.
I should like to mention a few of the activities which have been particularly occupying the attention of the department during this past year. Last year's expanded immigration program gave increased work to this department which co-operates closely with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the movement to Canada of groups of immigrants required to meet specific labour needs in the economy. During the past year the number of people brought to Canada in these organized group movements numbered 18,887, more than double the total of the previous fiscal year.
During the year the federal-provincial farm labour program continued to operate. Under agreements concluded with each province except Newfoundland, the work of recruiting, transporting and placing workers in agriculture and related industries went forward, with expenses shared between the federal and provincial governments. This present year promises to be a very active one for our people working on the farm labour program.
The vocational training branch of the department administers the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942. Under that act, in accordance with agreements concluded with the provinces, the federal government grants financial assistance to various types of approved training schools and programs. Last year over 230,000 persons were enrolled in the schools and programs to which the federal grants applied; and it is the hope of the government that this figure will be higher during the current fiscal year.

Supply-Labour
I do not think I can emphasize too strongly my belief that the future welfare and expansion of the Canadian economy is dependent in large measure upon the availability of more skilled workmen. If we are to maintain our recent rate of industrial development and if we are to be ready for whatever emergency may develop in the future, then we must do what we can to increase the number of training programs and apprentices in all parts of the country, particularly in the manufacturing industries.
With this thought in mind, a national conference on apprenticeship got together in Ottawa recently. Provincial and federal officials assembled with representatives of labour and management to consider the obstacles in the way of increasing apprenticeship, and to recommend methods of removing them. Those recommendations are now being considered by everybody concerned, and it is hoped that they will encourage and lead to uniform standards for apprenticeship in all provinces and a steady increase in the number of apprentices in training.
I should like to commend to the committee the increased amount set out in the main estimates for training; and I might say that I shall be asking for a further amount in the supplementary estimates. These days we are seeking skilled personnel outside of Canada, and we are spending some money bringing these skilled personnel to Canada. With that procedure I am heartily in accord. I think that under the careful control which is being exercised now it should go forward; but at the same time I think we should give to our own home born an opportunity, early in life, to learn skills and become part of our industrial life. Furthermore, for many of our people who are physically disabled we have undertaken active steps to fit them so they can work. For them and for fit workers, lack of skill is a handicap which we hope to help overcome.
Our industrial relations branch is one about which the committee and the public do not hear a great deal. But if our industrial relations branch does not get into the public news or into the headlines, I feel that is no reason why it should be thought that it is not doing its duty. It has three functions. One is to minimize the incidence and the effects of industrial disputes within the industries under federal jurisdiction. Another is to stimulate interest in the importance of increasing productivity by promoting the formation of labour-management production committees in industrial plants throughout the country. I should like tonight to pay tribute to the staff of my department charged 
with this work of conciliation and of improving industrial relations. They have an exceedingly difficult task. More and more the stress is placed upon helping to create a climate in which industrial peace may flourish rather than waiting for the dispute to break out into strife and then hoping to make some spectacular conciliation. The defence program and the means of achieving maximum production placed a very heavy burden upon this branch. In addition, of course, the sharp increase in the number of government contracts awarded as a result of the defence program has meant a heavy increase in the work of administering the fair wages policy which is part of the work of this branch, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act of 1935 and other orders related thereto.
Hon. members will recall the national conference on rehabilitating the physically handicapped which was held in the city of Toronto in February, 1952. From that conference came a request for federal assistance to help co-ordinate the activities of the various agencies which provide rehabilitation services. During the past year, in order to get this work on co-ordination under way, my colleagues the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and myself have worked very closely together. A national advisory committee was appointed and held its first meeting here just a few weeks ago. This new undertaking is a worthy one, and I sincerely hope it will provide new opportunities for work and useful living to disabled Canadians who have no rights under either veterans benefits or the workmen's compensation benefits within the provinces.
Just recently, within the last two weeks, the committee of the government that I have spoken of, the ministers of national health and welfare, of veterans affairs and of labour, acting on behalf of the government, have been fortunate in being able to procure the services of Mr. Ian Campbell as coordinator for this work, carrying out the co-ordination of voluntary agencies, supporting their effort, which I think is a very important phase of the work, along with the provincial governments, municipal governments where applicable and the federal departments that I have mentioned; and I am sure all hon. members, many of whom have spoken about this matter in relation to measures that were going through the house, will wish this effort the greatest possible success. Mr. Campbell, I might interject, had very effective experience in the organization and development of the rehabilitation work under the workmen's compensation act of Ontario.

The publication of the Labour Gazette, the provision of information for the public on such subjects as seasonal unemployment and the employment problems of older workers, the valuable research work done by the legislation branch and the economics and research branch, the administration of the annuities act and the Government Employees Compensation Act, the international work of the ILO, the excellent contributions made by advisory bodies including the national advisory council on manpower, are all matters which I shall be glad to go fully into when the items are up in my estimates.
I shall turn for a moment to the unemployment insurance commission. Since we have a bill before the house on which that will be discussed I shall try not to overlap tonight in my comment on it. The three man commission which is responsible for administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act is representative of employer and employee organizations, with a chief commissioner acting as chairman. The two operating branches of the commission's country-wide organization deal with employment and insurance respectively and in that order of importance. I do not think we should look upon the insurance feature as having a high priority. Only after all efforts toward employment have failed does insurance come into the picture.
At the close of the last fiscal year the commission was operating 262 offices in Canada. These were located at key points in every province with a view to giving efficient service to the public. Five regional offices are located at Moncton, taking care of the four Atlantic provinces; Montreal, taking care of the entire province of Quebec; Toronto, taking care of the province of Ontario, less the western end of that province, west of the twin cities; the prairie region, with headquarters at Winnipeg in charge of the prairies and running up to the north pole through the Northwest Territories and including a little slice of British Columbia in the northeast corner east of the Rockies, and at Vancouver in charge of all of the remaining part of British Columbia and the Yukon.
First, the employment field during the last fiscal year: in that period local employment offices received some 2J million applications from persons seeking employment, while employers registered 1J million vacancies. It is of course unnecessary to state that some of these 2| million applicants for jobs may have been the same person repeating in some instances. Hon. members will appreciate that suitable work is not always available for unemployed persons, nor are suitable workers
Supply-Labour
always available for jobs which employers have to offer in that particular place. Nevertheless the national employment service was successful in effecting 926,000 placements, which represented some 75 per cent of the total jobs registered. Applications for employment were up 10-4 per cent from the previous year; vacancies registered by employers were up 5-7 per cent, while placements were up 9-3 per cent.
I think it would be of interest to mention that included in the total placement figures of the employment service were some 106,400 placements of veterans; also that 37,000 placements were effected by transferring workers from one part of the country to the other for certain types of seasonal work.
The fiscal year opened with some apprehension as to the labour supply required to meet the defence program. The civilian economy was operating at a very high level. Demands for the defence program turned out to be less than had been anticipated, and except for certain highly skilled occupations no real shortages developed even during the heavy employment summer months. With the usual seasonal slackening of employment toward the winter, together with a heavy flow of immigration during the late months of 1951, a situation developed where there were considerably more workers available than there were jobs. A peak of unemployment was reached this year on April 3. It may be interesting to compare this year with the last two years. The peak in 1950 was on April 6 at 434,323. The low that year was September 28, at 133,074. The peak in 1951 was February 8 with 303,666, which was relatively low for a high point of seasonal unemployment. The low of 1951 came on August 30 with 127,136. This year the peak came on April 3, as I said a moment ago, with 385,008, and the medium on May 22, which is the last figure I have, and which might be called something of a medium period, when it stood at 242,508.
These figures will give the house some idea of the extent of the commission's operations in the employment field. In addition to what is generally regarded as the function of an employment service-that is, finding workers for employers and jobs for workers-the national employment service by the clearance system now in effect can enable an employer in one part of Canada quite often to obtain the services of rare types of workers from some distant part of the country, and with some time lag it has been possible to fill individual needs through immigration resources. Without going into detail on the matter as to how it is worked out, I can tell the committee that the system has, in my opinion, produced quite good results.

Supply-Labour
The commission has special facilities for counselling and placing handicapped persons who might otherwise be unable to obtain employment. It will be noted that under the work of the Department of Labour proper, which I mentioned a moment ago, I indicated that part of this task in connection with handicapped persons must be carried out in the field of training. Very intimately related to that is the task of placement which, of course, with us comes under the national employment service. But I can tell the committee that those efforts are very closely co-ordinated, not only in Ottawa but in the regional offices.
During the calendar year 1951 the figures disclose that 14,344 jobs were found for physically handicapped persons in Canada by local offices of the commission. This represents an increase of more than 3,300 placements over the 1950 figures. This branch also furnishes special facilities for counselling and placing young people who never worked before, as well as older workers who find it difficult to get jobs. Co-operation is being given the other interested departments in connection with the new national committee which has been established for the purpose of assisting in the rehabilitation of disabled persons.
A division of the employment branch of the commission devotes itself particularly to dealing with problems connected with women's employment. More than 265,000 women were placed in employment by the commission during the last fiscal year. This is an increase of 7-5 per cent over placements made in the previous year. The placement of women immigrants to Canada has constituted one of the responsibilities of this portion of the commission's work. Nearly 3,000 women entered Canada during the fiscal year as domestic workers.
The employment services, together with the Department of Labour, co-operate in the closest possible harmony with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the reception of immigrants at the airports, and their placement.
The government has introduced an amendment to the act. I shall not go into the phase of the matter dealing with the fund itself, because that can be discussed later. I should like however to mention that provision was made in November 1950 to enable veterans of Canada's special forces to count their service toward the payment of benefits if unemployed after honourable discharge, in very much the same way as the veterans of 1945. During 1951 this arrangement was extended to veterans of Canada's regular forces who enlisted after July 5, 1950, and

who are discharged within three years of their enlistment date.
The cost of administering the unemployment insurance program is not charged against the unemployment insurance fund. It is paid out of the general revenues of Canada. Administration costs for the fiscal year ended March 31 last totalled $23,519,567 as compared with $21,904,809 in the previous fiscal year. The increase is due almost entirely to increased salaries and wages of the staff. At the close of the last fiscal year the total regular staff of the commission stood at 6,885 in comparison with 7,051 at March 31, 1951. In addition there were 1,262 casual employees on strength. These were assisting in meeting the very heavy claims load remaining toward the end of the usual winter peak period. They were also working in connection with the annual renewal of unemployment insurance books.
I hope what I have said will give the committee some very general and perhaps patchy information about the work of the department and of the commission. I shall be glad to furnish any more detailed information that I can, as the discussion on the estimates proceeds.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the minister for his statement, although I was not able to grasp immediately the significance of all of it. I shall read it in Hansard, and perhaps I shall have comment to make at some later time. At this stage I do not propose to make any remarks about unemployment insurance or its administration because, as the minister said, an amending bill will be before the house for consideration within a few days. With the opportunity then afforded, and that offered in the discussion of the items in the estimates, I believe we will be able to ask any questions we may wish concerning the commission.
I cannot refrain from saying that the minister's statement that 265,000 women were placed during the past year supports the plea I have made in the house on former occasions that the personnel of the commission should be enlarged by the addition of a woman commissioner. I believe there is very definitely work for her to do on the commission. The fact that so many of the insured persons and so many of the applicants are women would support my contention that a woman should be on the commission, one who has had experience in the field of female labour and who will understand the problems with which women are confronted in the various types of work in which they are engaged in Canada.
For a short time this evening I would direct the attention of the committee to some general items which, I believe, can be dis-

cussed under the heading of activities of the national advisory council on manpower. I noticed that in reply to a question asked a short time ago by the hon. member for Broadview the minister said that the last meeting of the council was held on February 26. In the light of that fact it is interesting to note that in the estimates the amount requested for the activities of this council has been practically doubled, and the staff has been increased. This leads me to ask whether or not the council has a definite plan upon which to work, or whether it is merely meeting to hear reports prepared by officials of the department.
I noticed in a recent issue of the Labour Gazette that a new member, in the person of Mr. J. C. Armer, president of the Canadian industrial preparedness association, has been named to the council. I think that is all to the good. People well qualified to review the activities of the department and to inquire into conditions of labour generally in Canada from time to time should be invited to participate' in the activities of the council. I should like to say, however, that I believe we are passing up a great opportunity if we permit this council, formed I believe with the idea that it was to meet at regular intervals and make recommendations to the Department of Labour, to fall into disuse and become merely another name in the records of the department.
Many things in the labour field should be looked into, some of which the minister mentioned tonight. At this time I would make special reference, first, to the matter of vocational training. I see the vote is slightly increased. I believe the provinces should be called into closer co-operation to provide specialized training for those capable of absorbing it. Many of our people are capable of receiving training in addition to what it has been their privilege to obtain in the schools or vocational institutions in the ordinary course of events, paid for by their own families or their own efforts. One class in particular I am thinking of, and I know this from personal knowledge, is stenographic help. I think the minister knows that there is a great shortage of stenographers. When one attempts to fill a staff in an office he is confronted with the glaring inadequacy of the supply. Yet many of the young women applying for work at the employment offices are capable of taking further training to fit themselves for these positions.
I know that this cannot be done overnight because it takes a while to train for this work, but some of the young women who through circumstances have been forced to leave school and take positions in factories, as
Supply-Labour
sales clerks or at various types of clerical work which do not require any preliminary training are quite capable of assimilating this type of training. This is just one example which I mention. I urge upon the minister that schedule M of the dominion-provincial training agreement be implemented to make provision for this type of training for those who are capable of taking it.
I think the whole rehabilitation program should be based upon the needs of the labour market. Vocational training could then be employed to make available the type of worker required as disclosed by a survey of the positions which remain unfilled for any length of time. I do not know how far the department has gone in this regard, and perhaps when the minister speaks again he will tell us what plans they have under way. I think this problem is one which could well be taken under consideration by organizations such as the national advisory council, which in turn could set up a committee to inquire into the matter.
I know there are groups throughout the country engaged in welfare and social work who have studied this problem. In my own city I know the Canadian welfare council and the council of social agencies have joined together with the Canadian Congress of Labour and the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada to study this question and prepare recommendations to be presented to the Department of Labour. I commend them for the interest they have taken in the matter. I feel that when voluntary organizations are willing to spend time and effort to promote the interests of the working men and women of this country the Department of Labour should pick it up from there and accelerate this whole program.
There is another problem which causes me grave concern. I know I am not alone in this because the publications of the country are filled with articles by various individuals interested in sociology and labour conditions who express like concern over the problem of the older worker. I was interested to note that in the brief presented by the Canadian Congress of Labour to the government on March 27 this problem was dealt with. I should like to quote a couple of sentences in that brief which 1 think pretty well express the general concern which is being felt:
It is becoming more and more difficult for workers over forty years of age to obtain employment in either public service or private industry. The life expectancy of Canadian citizens is increasing, and it is becoming highly important that employment should be available for workers, at least up to the age of 65. We strongly urge the government to set an example to private industry by raising the age limits on new employees who are otherwise qualified, and that the Department of Labour continue its efforts in this regard.

Supply-Labour
I am sure I am not saying anything new to this house when I say that a popular topic Df conversation and basis for study these days is the increased life expectancy of Dur citizens. I feel sure we all agree that :redit must be given to many departments Df health and voluntary organizations for ;he work they have done on a paid and voluntary basis among their fellow human Deings. However, the impact of this fact m society in general and on the economy of ;he nation is now being felt.
I was interested to note that A. R. Mosher, i leading union man in Canada, has written :wo interesting articles which appeared in ;he Canadian Unionist which are well worth ;he perusal and study of hon. members. At ;his time I intend to quote only a few words )f what he said. Dealing with this problem md having noted the increased life expectancy of most citizens, he said:
Within the next eight years Canada will have me and one-half million persons 65 years of age md over, or one-tenth of the population.
This is a sharp increase over the figures of i few years ago, and I suppose it would be *easonable to assume that as time goes on wen this estimate may be surpassed. Speaking >n this matter a year ago, with particular [DOT]eference to unemployed employables, I said:
Then there are those who are over-and I think I would be safe in saying this-45 years of age who ire not particularly acceptable in many industries :oday, through no fault of their own. As workers hey are just as good as, if not better than, some if the younger people. But I am sure hon. mem-jers of this committee know full well why they are lot acceptable. It is true enough that some of the lifficulty is the fault of the workers themselves who have from time to time insisted upon protec-ion; and insurance companies being what they are, jeing dependent upon actuarial balances and wish-ng to establish themselves firmly, find that it is mpossible to take older men into their insurance ichemes.
I do not know where the fault lies, Mr. Chair-nan. It is a vicious circle. Certainly the men ire right in seeking to protect themselves in their ilder years. But certainly it is also true that those vho are financing these schemes and who feel that hey must establish this insurance on an actuarially ;ound basis cannot be criticized for protecting the rery contributions of the men who are paying into [DOT] he fund. That is only right and proper; but it ilaces the older man in a particularly bad position, vhen he is thrown out of one job, probably through 10 fault of his own, and is forced to seek employ-nent elsewhere. More often than not, that par-icular man finds that he is a drifter in the produc-ive world. He takes a job where he can get one vhen workers are so much in demand that em-iloyers will take anyone; then when the labour orce catches up with the demand, he is out again, lonsequently from that time on he has no continuity if employment and no hope of establishing himself or his old age.
I have purposely repeated those words vhich I spoke in this debate a year ago iecause I feel they are still very true. The ituation is probably becoming more of a >roblem as time goes on. Mr. Mosher also

comments in this same vein when he says in his article in the Canadian Unionist of May:
There is another aspect of this problem, namely, the refusal of government and industry to give employment to workers even in their forties. If anyone over 45 loses his employment, he finds it increasingly difficult to become re-employed, and ironically, this practice is partly due to the adoption of pension plans.
It will probably be clear now why I wanted to read what I said a year ago because no less a person than Mr. Mosher agrees with me, or I agree with him. In any event, we are in agreement. Mr. Mosher goes on to say:
Older workers who are taken on by a new employer are ordinarily unable to make sufficient contributions to a pension plan to provide for retirement at sixty-five. What we are faced with, therefore, is not only the failure of government and industry to make the fullest use of the available manpower in the middle age group, but a stringent requirement that no one shall be permitted to retain any gainful employment after he reaches 65.
He makes a very good point, too, when he says a little later in the same article:
It is noteworthy that, while industry and government lay down a fixed retiring age of 65, persons who are self-employed, running a corner grocery, a bookstore, or a cigar stand may continue to earn a good livelihood and manage their affairs efficiently even in their eighties. The same observation applies to farmers, who are usually quite capable of operating their farms, from an administrative standpoint, at least, until they reach an advanced age.
I am sure there is not a member of the house who has not within his personal acquaintance someone who at an advanced age is doing an excellent job of earning a living for himself. Because a person passes a certain age in life does not mean that his capabilities are necessarily impaired. True, there are many who suffer from various conditions of impairment of faculties, but on the other hand there are some who, while they may suffer from physical disabilities, retain a bright intellect to the end of their days. There are others who, while such faculties as sight and hearing may be slightly impaired, are still capable of undertaking heavy jobs of work which require great strength.
Therefore one cannot lay down a hard and fast rule for any group of workers, and I believe with Mr. Mosher that this a problem which we must face and to which we should be giving considerable study at this time. In the May issue of the Labour Gazette there is an article which tells of conditions within the United States. The heading is, "Fewer men over 45 now working in United States." The article reads:
In spite of the increased employment in the first half of 1951, the proportion of men 45 and over in the United States labour force was lower than it was in April, 1945, according to a report just issued by the bureau of labour statistics. Women 45 and

over, however, had regained by April, 1950, the high rate of participation they reached during the second world war.


An hon. Member:: There are no women over 45.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Someone at the back says that there are no women over 45. The article continues:
These recent changes continue long time trends. The percentage of men 45 and over who were in the labour force declined from 84 per cent to 75 per cent between 1900 and 1950. Of all women 45 and over, however, 22 per cent were working in 1930 as compared with 12 per cent in 1900.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, all this adds up to a major social and economic problem with two distinct phases. The first is the procurement of employment for the over 40 group who find it difficult to re-enter the labour field, and the second is the advisability of keeping workers in gainful employment even beyond the retirement age of 60 or 65 years where they are able and willing to carry on. This latter phase has its own particular and peculiar circumstances of course, not the least of which is the health of the worker and the extent to which his faculties may be impaired by age. As I said previously, these vary very widely in different occupational groups. The very fact that there is such a variation commends the problem more and more to the study of a department of government which will conduct not just cursory but very deep research into a problem which to my mind is becoming more and more pressing as time goes on.
The minister touched on the volume of unemployment that had developed this year, as I did when we were on the resolution stage of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act last week. This volume, which reached heights unheard of just a few years ago, coupled with the late date of the peak of unemployment, some two months later than usual, should in my estimation serve as a warning to us. It should serve as a warning to the Department of Labour, to the government and to the people of Canada who cannot bury their heads in the sand and continue to ignore the responsibility which rests upon them to look into the future and prepare for what undoubtedly will come at some time.
It is not for us to say when that might be because, of course, the international situation will have a bearing upon it. The other day I noticed that Mr. David A. Morse, director general of the international labour organization, had made some thought-provoking remarks in his annual report. Remarking on conditions which have resulted from rearmament and other elements, he said:
It is not too early to urge that serious and responsible thought be devoted over the next two years
Supply-Labour
to ensuring that when expenditure on rearmament is reduced the result will be not a cruel return of mass unemployment but an expansion of economic development and a raising of living standards.
I submit we might well take at least a part of that to heart and have in readiness planned programs without waiting until a shocking degree of unemployment has developed which will make it difficult to put any program into effect. We have seen that happen in the past. We have seen unemployment roll up so that it was impossible to catch up with it. We have seen panic develop which frustrated any attempt on the part of the people of this country and the government to stop its progress, and we have all suffered therefrom. We hope that will never happen again, but only by planning can we hope to avert it. I do not necessarily mean that plans which are made now should be those which are immediately to be put into effect; but I feel that the department should be making its plans well in advance, and I can think of no body which is more capable of inquiring into this matter and directing the necessary research than the advisory council.
In my estimation delay means not only a loss to the individual worker; it also means distress to the community and economic pressure on the business, particularly small business, of the nation which has too often in the past resulted in the failure and bankruptcy of those who contribute a substantial part of the tax revenue which is so urgently needed to keep this nation solvent. It is a vicious circle. When the worker is without funds the storekeeper goes broke. When the worker is without funds it is the small businessman in his community who supports him until such time as he is employed again.
To jeopardize the solvency of business generally is indeed to kill the goose which lays the golden egg. Therefore in these remarks on the estimates I urge the minister to give more work to the national advisory council and to put in their hands the necessary instructions to carry on the required research to make sure we will have an even and uninterrupted flow of employment for our workers.


Mr. Byrne:: Perhaps I am a little overconfident in following the hon. member for Hamilton West, because I have temporarily moved to the front benches. I had previously prepared a speech to be delivered on the estimates of this department in which I had hoped to cover a number of questions. The time at the disposal of the house for consideration of these matters is running out, so I have decided not to raise all these questions. However, the subject broached by the hon. member for Hamilton West concerning

Supply-Labour
retirement at the age of 65 is one which I believe should receive the serious consideration of this house. Some time ago in negotiating a contract with a large mining company I was put in the position of having to agree to a clause calling for retirement at the age of 65, regardless of whether the employee had been in a position to accumulate sufficient capital to enable him to carry on his normal life.
We find that a man who is asked to retire at 65 or within a range of five years, even if he did have a job during the hungry thirties, was unable to accumulate any capital, and in many cases he was without any employment whatever. In the majority of cases such a man was unable to establish himself with any company or in any governmental position which would provide him with a pension upon retirement. He is, therefore, in the position of being turned out in the cold, so to speak, without any regard for his financial capacity to look after himself. It is true that statistics prove that the life expectancy of both men and women is increasing from year to year. If it is established that an employee must retire at 65, then we can assume that within the next 15 or 20 years we are going to have a large number of people entirely dependent upon those who are working, and there will be a large number of people removed from the ranks of the employables. Every person who is in a position to work, and who is willing to work, adds to the total wealth of the nation, not really the wealth of the nation but the capital of the nation since wealth is not measured by the number of workmen or the number of machines.
Everyone who is put in the ranks of the unemployed means a greater burden on those who are employed, and a greater burden on those who still have family responsibilities, yet many of these people who are 65 are ready and willing to continue in employment. Who is the first offender in this regard? I think it would be fair to say that the civil service commission take the lead in this respect when they require a person to be retired at 65. Within the last several years we have had the experience of seeing the capable heads of various departments go on the retired list. Whether or not that is economic does not seem to be the concern of the government. It seems to be done to fit an actuarial pattern that has been drawn up for pension purposes. I do not think we should be drawn, too far into actuarial considerations in looking at the social requirements of the day, or we may find ourselves in the position of carrying a very heavy load. If the civil service commission, or the government which directs it, were to take a more lenient view of this question, it would be of some help. If it is necessary to pay a subsidy to bring the actuarial picture into focus, then let that be done.
The same considerations apply to industry, which complains that the various pension plans are drawn up on the basis of retirement at 65. Would it not be wiser to allow those who have not been in a position to provide for their old age-I know there are many because as a union man I have had many coming to me complaining of my signature on an agreement which said they must be stricken from the payroll at 65-to come to some agreement whereby a person could retire at 65 or earlier if he so desired and had made the necessary arrangements for that retirement? Many of these people tell me that on the day they were removed from the payroll of the company with whom they were established they were immediately in the position of having to seek other employment.
It does not seem fair to simply say that a person has reached the age of 65, is no longer of use to the organization, and must be shelved. As I say, I have been forced to agree to such a clause in an agreement because, to all intents and purposes, the remainder of the agreement has been, an excellent working arrangement. This clause was put in as part and parcel of that agreement. It was on that basis that it was necessary to conform with those requests. One of the arguments which is adduced is that, while it is true that some people can carry on over the age of 65, others are unable to do so and are a burden on industry if they continue to work.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That may be true; but on the other hand those people could be pensioned off or be given other consideration for social service.


Mr. Graydon:: Eleven o'clock. The hon. member will have to get overtime.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will consider the estimates of the following departments: labour, fisheries, mines and technical surveys.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And public works?


Alphonse Fournier: And, if we have time, public works.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
3)93
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 13, 1952